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?
6844 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 8:00 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Vehicle that can have lower environmental impact for $300 worth of mods Automakers? What say thee? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Mar 06, 2007 1:24 pm) What if your car ran on bio-diesel, which would be CO2 neutral? Maybe global warming is bogus science but I personally think that equating CO2 production with quality of life is bogus economics. Is there something about getting your electricity from a coal or gas fired power plant that makes your society more prosperous than one that uses nuclear, geo-thermal, hydro, wind, solar, or any non-GHG producing source? Yes coal is cheaper than most alternatives, at least right now. In all likelihood that won't always be the case. People that believe global warming is a myth consider the other camp to be "chicken littles". I believe that also applies to those who predict economic catastrophe resulting from a transition away from fossil fuels.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Mar 07, 2007 5:57 am) For example take larsb's UCS car above. It is dependent on ethanol to cut back on CO2. How much more corn can we grow without destroying the Gulf of Mexico? The more we plant the more CO2 we produce from bigger tractors running on diesel. We can negate a bit of that with using biodiesel. We are not able to keep up with the demand for either ethanol or biodiesel currently. We use vast amounts of natural gas to produce the fertilizer required to get the bigger corn crops. Electricity is also a catch22. Environmentalists have all but stopped the cleanest of all energy sources, nuclear. Solar is still a ways off to be competitive and takes vast amounts of real estate in the sunny areas of the country. Wind has some promise. Just got my Audubon News letter and they are condemning the Altamont Wind generation project as it kills over 1000 raptors per year. Plus no one wants any of these alternative energy projects in their neighborhood. I would be interested in hearing about one country that signed onto the Kyoto Treaty and has lived up to what they signed. Tony Blair flat out said it is impossible to meet the requirements without suffering big economic losses. |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Mar 07, 2007 5:57 am) Point of fact: fossil fuels are used where they make more economic sense. If you pursue alternate forms of energy which you KNOW going in will cost more, there is an economic penalty to pay. Now, how MUCH this economic penalty would be is obviously open for debate. Just as the real EFFECTS of Global Warming are also open for debate. But just as you might question those with their head in the sand with regard to the problems of Global Warming, I would question those with their head in the sand with regard to the economic cost of EFFECTIVE alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Bush has finally become concerned about the same topic, I suspect mainly because he doesn't want to be pre-empted by the new Congress, which is clearly going to make GHG emissions legislation a priority: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070307/FREE/70305011/1024/L- - ATESTNEWS Among other things the article says the average cost of Honda vehicles would rise only $600 in 10 years, in meeting a 4% PER YEAR increase in fuel economy standards. In a decade, that is such a small amount of money, and money would be saved in gas purchases as a result of the changes. Many folks seem to have an all-or-nothing attitude about this. Why no shades of gray people? We can do a lot about this problem (I know that some contend it is NOT a problem) just by tweaking vehicles that are already out there, and insisting that carmakers use modern technology in their vehicles that ALREADY EXISTS to reduce GHG emissions. Heck, you will save on gas at the same time! In different developments today, the CA lawsuit against the Big 6 carmakers for damages caused by GHG emissions finally came to court yesterday in San Francisco. I think California will have an uphill battle here. I think it represents a bit of a double standard that the carmakers have met all of California's existing emissions regulations for car sales in California, and yet the state is still turning around today to sue them for damages caused by emissions they weren't previously regulating. But we will see what happens. The carmakers are currently asking the judge to throw the case out for lacking all merit. I bet that doesn't happen, but I bet California loses the trial. I am more hopeful that the new California GHG emissions standards will be upheld - the lawsuit on that is still deferred pending the suit against the EPA initiated by the state of Massachusetts, insisting that GHG emissions be regulated at the federal level.
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Mar 07, 2007 7:45 am) What if a good case can be made that these alternatives will eventually be cheaper? Then they would actually benefit the economy. So the question is when is the best time to make this move. Take this scenario. While the numbers are just to illustrate a point the principal has validity. The cost to produce a certain amount of energy from coal is $4. It's price will continually increase and in 10 years cost $8. The cost to produce this same amount of energy from some alternate source is $8 but will drop to $4 in 10 years. The catch is that this alternative's price drop won't start to occur until after it is adopted. So again, when do you start pursuing this alternative, now or when the costs are equivalent? From a financial perspective it all depends on the time frame you're looking at. If it's 5 years then stick with coal. If its 10 years then its a wash. If your looking past 10 years the wise move is to transition now. The point is that investing now to accelerate when this cost parity will occur has a financial payback. It's kind of the same decision an individual faces when considering whether or not to go to college. Do you sacrifice in the present for long term gain? While I don't dispute the impact of higher energy costs on the economy I believe they are overstated. If you asked people 10 years ago what would be the consequences of oil over $60 and gas prices over $2.50 a lot would have predicted economic devastation. I know that some time ago on another thread I was advocating $1/gas taxes when the price at the pump was under $1.50. The majority response was that this would cripple the economy. Again, I'm sure these current prices have been a drain on the economy but it does seem like "cripple" was a little bit of an exaggeration. |
|
|
|
|
I heard that one of the major proponents of global warming has changed his mind about humans being the cause. I was driving at the time and didn't catch all that was said. Does anyone know who this is? |
|
I know it's hard and that a topic like this tends to wander off easily, but let's stick to discussing/debating the question in the title if we can.
|
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Mar 07, 2007 1:30 pm) The title of the thread pretty much asks a "yes" or "no" question. Any DISCUSSION we have beyond simply saying "yes" or "no" will, INEVITIBLY lead to discussions of GW in general. If I stay on topic and said "no, I don't believe automobiles are a major cause of global warming" then I WILL get questioned (rightly so) on why I take that stance. There's no way to discuss this without talking about GW in general. It can't be helped. Otherwise, the only way to stay "on topic" is to turn this into simply a poll and tally the "yes" votes and the "no" votes. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Mar 07, 2007 7:46 am) |
|
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
