Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
6875 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 5:25 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 7:34 pm) And the oceans are consuming the CO2 along with the plants on the earth. More CO2, better food for tree leaves!!! I would be much more concerned with the actions of the earth's core and the magma movement affecting the tundra mentioned earlier than the pop science culture determining that CO2 is a threat using The View quality of science comprehension. If CO2 were a real threat, Al Gore would be demanding all jets quit flying other than military aircraft TODAY. I haven't seen any move that way. Maybe The View will pick up on that idea if they really care about lowering CO2 (as if it would effect a change). The earth went through Ice Ages and warming without blaming mankind. The Hollywood types worry about whatever is pop culture science. I recall an actress deciding the alar scare foisted by Meryl Streep (another Hollywood type). From Wiki--an example of pop science scares. "On February 26, 1989, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes aired an exposé titled "A is for Apple," which became the opening salvo in a carefully-planned publicity campaign developed for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The NRDC is one of the handful of environmental groups that can afford to hire a public relations company, and it chose the firm of Fenton Communications, which developed and helped distribute public service announcements featuring actress Meryl Streep, who warned that Alar had been detected in apple juice bottled for children. An NRDC report, issued at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast, stressed that risks to children were higher than to adults, because children consume far more apple products per pound of body weight. The NRDC report focused on inconsistencies in government regulatory policies and the need for better policies to protect children. Nowhere did it suggest that eating a single apple or drinking a single glass of juice posed a significant risk. Nevertheless, the prominence of 60 Minutes and Streep's movie-star status helped produce a dramatic public reaction, as some mothers poured apple juice down sink drains and school lunchrooms removed apples from their menus. The apple industry, its back to the wall, hastily abandoned its use of Alar, and the market for apples quickly rebounded. Within five years, in fact, growers' profits were 50 percent higher than they had been at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast. Apple growers in Washington state filed a libel lawsuit against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications, claiming that the "scare" had cost them $100 million and sent orchards into bankruptcy, but their case was eventually dismissed. The judge who presided over the lawsuit pointed to failures in the federal government's food safety policies and noted that "governmental methodology fails to take into consideration the distinct hazards faced by preschoolers. The government is in grievous error when allowable exposures are calculated . . . without regard for the age at which exposure occurs." ..."Consumers Union, in its 1989 report on the Alar issue, noted that its own tests on apples showed a lower cancer risk than the EPA's estimate -- only five cancers per million, instead of fifty. Consumers Union also advised parents that even with Alar, they were still better off feeding apples to their kids than candy bars. Nevertheless, it concluded, the chemical should be banned, because a risk of even five cancers per million is unacceptable." Even the saccharine scare from Wiki exemplifies the problems with pop science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin "No study has ever shown a clear causal relationship between saccharin consumption and health risks in humans at normal doses, though some studies have shown a correlation between consumption and cancer incidence.[14] Some of the animal studies were procedurally flawed.[15] According to tradegroup-operated saccharin.org, "Concerns over saccharin's safety were first raised twenty years ago after a flawed study that administered huge quantities of the sweetener to laboratory rats produced bladder tumors in rats. New and better scientific research has decisively shown that the earlier rat studies are not at all applicable to humans." The U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences came to the same conclusion in 2000, recommending that saccharin be removed from the list of known or suspected human carcinogens.[16]" Note also Wiki on science is editable and faux tenets can be added. A good program is the one that shows the edits on a topic in Wiki. It came out when a current female candidate for president was in senate and likely to run. Many edits of topic about here were from IP addresses in offices related to her workers. I recall the alar and saccharin scares so I can filter Wiki. On the topic of global warming as though mankind were the source of methane et al, the obvious sequal to those wanting to selectively stop auto use as though that's the only source and the sole cure of alleged ill... is to suggest killing all animals on the earth because they produce methane and CO2!!! That would stop CO2 and methane from one source. Think the alleged global warming would change? Nooooooo.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 7:59 pm) Frankly I struggle to find any reference for this, but I am open to your suggestions Regarding Mr Derek Kelly's claims that man was growing crop in Greenland, I simply can't find it in the country's history. I also failed to establish his background or to find studies he did or supported. Well, here is a small essay about the GW and the media. It is an interesting read. www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pd- f and a summary for policy makers http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Those two links sum up key findings in GW /CC issues. >My take is they cannot predict the weather tomorrow. So how the heck can they predict 100 years from now? This is the classical GW-denying rhetoric. Nobody knows what will happen in detail. we just know weather is very likely to get warmer and many climate patterns are going to change drastically.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 9:34 pm) I believe in education and incentives. People need to understand what the carbon footprint means, whereas the govt must enact laws that push people to adopt less carbon intensive ways of life. Should people insist in commuting alone in their Caddy Escalade, It is their own choice, but they should learn to pay for the real price of it. Cheap gas gave very bad habits and correcting them is painful. It is like getting obese and discover how strenuous it is to exercise and loose weight. Cheap electricity is also a trap as people will be less likely to consider thermal insulation in home improvement and be less vigilant against waste. I am familiar with renewable energies and I can just tell that the technologies (especially solar) are not mature yet. It is all about R&D. Regretfully there is no real national/governmental project for the next generation solar cell. only patchy projects from private corporations or universities. > I appreciate your anxiety to see us get our problems solved. because your problems are my problems too. Pollution has global consequences. Whatever we think, US is still leading the word and what happens in the US influences many other countries. I wish it to be for the best. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 7:36 pm) It looks like with this man a the helm, US experienced a very strong economic growth. Maybe this way of doing things is missing in the US now. to cover the USA that is 3000 miles by 1500 miles would cost TRILLIONS of dollars Today. I think the HST price estimate is very expensive in comparison to European systems. this is about 100 million USD per built mile whereas it is about 30 millions USD in Europe. I think that when US develop their own HST know how, the price per mile will drop. You are right to underline how expensive it is. It is the cost of starting from scratch. I think US are going to struggle with recession this year. A good way to go out of this vicious circle is to launch key engineering/infrastructure projects that will in turn, create an incredible amount of economic activity. I think this way helped US go out of the recession in the beginning of the 30s too. Only a fraction of the investment is going to go abroad, most of the engineering will have to be done locally. it is true, the current administration burned the money that would right fit into those difficult times. But priorities should be seriously revised. there are areas where money can be saved, and some where more tax (gas tax) can be raised. >Even that little 432 mile run from SF to LA would probably not be done for 10 years if it gets voted in this year One more reason to start NOW. Already 10 years lost. this is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 15, 2008 3:02 am) This is always true and this hopefully balance the natural production of CO2 emitted by any aerobic life on earth. All ther problem is about upsetting the balance. If CO2 was fixated at an accelerated pace on to vegetals, why would be the CO2 be at a 800000-year high today? The answer is in deforestation too. While cutting wood and making furniture is a good way to store carbon in a pretty stable way, not replanting after cutting is a very bad idea. I don't even need to comment forest burning, voluntarily or not. >If CO2 were a real threat, Al Gore would be demanding all jets quit flying other than military aircraft TODAY What alternative to jet flying do you propose ? I advocate HST lines in America, but it look likes those aren't for tomorrow. CO2 is a real threat but there is currently no viable alternative to oil powered air flight. >From Wiki--an example of pop science scares. Wiki is not the unique reference. I link to them for practical reasons. GW is not a science scare nor a scam, but an issue we need to tackle seriously. I am not flaming cars. I advocate people having other choices than car or other oil burning transportation modes, which is not possible in today's US. Why having more choice would be a bad thing ? |
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 15, 2008 6:24 am) So you think it is a lame argument? I do too when used by those trying to block further oil exploration. They always say it will take 10 years to see any oil from ANWR so lets not do it. I do not believe we will drill our way out of the World energy situation. I do think it is practical to keep all options on the table. I think US are going to struggle with recession this year. A good way to go out of this vicious circle is to launch key engineering/infrastructure projects that will in turn, create an incredible amount of economic activity In theory I do agree with you on this. In practice I just do not trust our Federal Government. Look at the mess they have made with the ethanol boondoggle. Look at the banking and lending problems. Every thing they touch turns to wasted money. With little to show for it. There was a time when money could be spent on R&D and we would see good results. Not much lately I am afraid. It all ends up as corporate welfare into the pockets of the executives. From there it goes offshore to some hedge fund.
|
|
Funny what happens when the "lights went out in CA" during the electrical energy debacle. SUDDENLY an electrical power plant sub station that was literally dead in the water for  LEAST 15 years, got built in less than 1.5 years!!!!!! servicing the silicon valley, located 2/3 miles from Moffitt Field, CA. Believe it or not the power was lost in three states and a foreign country. Imagine going through the city of San Francisco with literally no electronic traffic control and at night NO and I mean NO electric lights!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 15, 2008 5:23 am) Here are a few references to it. Many of the PRO GW charts will make the period look similar to the current climate. That would be hard to prove as there is proof that Greenland was much warmer than it is currently. As was most of Northern Europe. Many would like us to believe the debate is over. It is far from over and many have quit drinking the Koolaid served up by the likes of Al Gore. Google medieval warming period http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/books/21book.html?ref=science http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Don%27t-believe-it.- html
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 15, 2008 7:09 am) I oppose drilling oil from ANWR, not only for obvious environment protection reasons, but because I see in expensive oil an opportunity to wake people up and think about what burning oil really means. If money was seriously invested in clean technologies /alternative energies, this would be a long term asset. >In practice I just do not trust our Federal Government So better do nothing ? Or wait for private investors to fill in the gap? I think we can wait for some more time Did private investors advance the cash for US highways and bridges ? I speculate that if they did, it was only a small part of those. It is up to the government to build the infrastructures the country is in need of. If we just rely on private initiative for this, they will concentrate on short term financially profitable ones only. If we build rail lines, this investment can't disappear into smoke. Some rail lines are still in use 150 years after being built. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 15, 2008 7:49 am) >http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html When I scroll down and click on "conclusion" http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/conclusion.html the author endorses the IPCC assessment report and even quotes # The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m2. # Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/books/21book.html?ref=science An interesting book describing the links between historical climate change and the rise and fall of civilizations. Nothing that contradicts my views so far. On the contrary, it supports my thinking that CC wilI have a big influence on civilizations. >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html This is great, they also use IPCC data. We are in agreement. > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Don%27t-believe-it.- - html This one is challenging my views that Global warming is a serious issue. The author even consider that the IPCC chart depicting the mediaval warming was "edited". There is such a gap in the analysis that i am interested to dig it further.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
