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?
6727 messages, Last post on Nov 05, 2009 at 2:29 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 7:12 pm) If we every get to the point that profit is the only incentive, we will be in big trouble. Someone has to look at the big picture and try to balance the needs of a society. Global warming is an issue, but, we really need to understand climate change not just any potential warming. Certain vested interest groups are doing their best to stop or limit research into climate change. On the other side we have people that are in panic mode that want immediate action when we still do not understand the issue well enough to implement a solution. The polarization of the debate between the right wing dingbats and the left wing dingbats has unfortunately set us back 20 years or more. Vehicles are certainly part of the GW equation. The question is how much. I suspect that we probably will see an increase in carbon dioxide for another decade or two. After that a lack of resources like steel and fossil fuels will start to flatten out the curve. Energy prices will increase to the point that people in general will be forced into a low carbon footprint. Look at how quickly SUV and pickup sales tanked when gas went to $4 a gallon. If the current prices continue, which I think they will, we should start to see a noticeable change in CO2 emissions in the next 5 years. |
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Jul 16, 2008 3:02 am) The per capita use in the U.S. may decline slightly, but with the population increasing energy demand will increase, though that growth may be accomodated by renewable energy increases. Also remember that the energy cost increases aren't felt as badl around the globe as they are here in the U.S. The U.S. has been hit harder because of the decline of the $ vs. other currencies. Also there are hundreds of years of coal and natural gas which will have their production increased. These of course are as carbon-based as oil. I was just talking to some people about winter-heating and whether they were using propane, oil, wood, or electric. The concensus was use more wood and electric. Wood emits carbon-products, and our electricity is mainly coal or gas-fired. If I get an electric-car in the next few years that will be powered by an electirc-plant burning more and more coal. Unless someone knows how we would practically get > 50% of our electricity from solar and wind in the next 10-20 years, you can picture that coal and natural gas use are going to climb greatly. Actually one of the 15 people or so I work with has just converted to a coal-furnace for his house. I can see that many more people will do so. I'm going to be cutting and burning as much wood as I can. Now if it were warmer we wouldn't burn so much fuel for heating.
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Jul 16, 2008 3:02 am) Most inventions over the last 150 years were profit motivated. Even the vast store of products that are a result of defense and space research were done by those looking for fame and fortune. I realize a lot of R&D money is spent without showing a profit. That is not the motivation. Giving money to universities for research is mostly a good thing. Handing it to corporations in this day and age is questionable. Too much fraud and waste in our grant system. I saw a lot of it in the Arctic. People sitting for weeks in camp on the government nickel waiting for the tundra grass to grow and make measurements. Or hoping to get a clear day to try and spot a whale from a helicopter. With all of them sipping coffee for days on end. Millions are wasted on research that will gain US nothing. Global warming is an issue, but, we really need to understand climate change not just any potential warming. I agree with your assessment of the GW/CC issue. Too much hysteria at either end to get a clear picture. If Peak oil is upon US the problem should resolve itself in the next 50 years. Of course how are you going to stop those countries that have no alternative except coal? China is building ONE coal fired generation system per week last I read.
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 15, 2008 10:57 pm) On that we totally agree. If the tropics become desert and the Arctic becomes a fertile garden the changes in civilization are going to happen. Should we go crazy trying to stop the inevitable? While I can see merit in your ideas of high speed mass transit. I do not see the will to get it done in this country. Most of US like our lives the way they are. We only make changes when forced by circumstances. That should be obvious by the recent high gas prices. People are buying higher mileage vehicles. A few at the bottom that cannot afford gas to get to work are taking the bus. Have you heard any of our politicians on the National level pushing for HST? I have not. They are looking for alternative energy to maintain the status quo. More roads and money to repair old roads and bridges. The scope of HST for the masses is too big in this country to gain a foothold.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 16, 2008 5:32 am) I think it was every month. whatever the figure, it is huge and the famous 3-gorge dam, despite its massive unit power of 26 GW, represents only 2% of the country total electricity need. Why is the electricity consumption growing so quickly ? not only because of growth but because it is too cheap. Coal is too cheap in China and government also subsidize electricity somehow. There are talks about raising tarrif for power-greedy industries, but the larger they are, the more power they yield in face of local governments, which in turn grant them with cheap electricity. Cheap electricity means a lot of waste Aircon units set to freezing temps in open rooms/with open windows, Poor SEER from climate control systems. Electrical apparatus with low efficiency (cause higher efficiency ones are more expensive), inexistant insulation, poor maintenance.... I not only support raising the price of gas but I also support raising the price of electricity. in China, we should no less than double it to create the shock that electricity is precious. This won't happen. |
|
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
