It's a bit of both. I feel the car gets a disproportionate amount of abuse over this whole global warming thing.
Cars do get played WAY up - they're a big part of it, don't get me wrong, but industry and the like is, I'd wager, far bigger of a problem than vehicle emissions at this time. However, which is easier for people to relate to - Some vauge industrial process belching smoke from a smokestack among a dozen others, down on the bad side of town or out in the sticks where people don't really go, or that thing in your driveway, that everyone sees a bunch of every day? Especially considering that we already know that vehicle exhaust is a factor, and if people are going to change, they're going to do it in ways which are easily availiable to them, if they're going to do it at all - and really, vehicles are most likely not the biggest cause, but they are the place where we have a better chance for change.
You can get some information about that here. There's been a steadily rising number of cars on the roads since the 1960s, although I'm sure the big push for more efficient and clean engines has helped a good bit (just can't find information on it at the moment since I'm at work).
However, there are a ton of other carbon producers out there that aren't specifically cars. Heavy industry in China comes to mind, since I'm not too familiar with China's environmental laws and know they have a lot of manufacturing there.
It's a bit of both. I feel the car gets a disproportionate amount of abuse over this whole global warming thing.
But we had so many awful cars in the 1960s, why is it worse now? Because it's all the car's fault that the climate is changing, that's what they keep telling me.
So standards have gotten a lot better.. Lots more cars are now on the road. 1960: about 50 million cars Today: around 750 million cars today
Yeah, cars are a big part of it, don't get me wrong, but so are all the 18-wheelers, the diesel freight locomotives, and all those coal fired power plants. Cars are just one example of our serious addiction to energy consumption.
Yeah, cars are a big part of it, don't get me wrong, but so are all the 18-wheelers, the diesel freight locomotives, and all those coal fired power plants. Cars are just one example of our serious addiction to energy consumption.
Do companies still use diesel? It's less efficient, more expensive, and more dangerous. I don't see why they would, but there might be some weird reason.
"Automobile Manufacturers Association's 1970 Automobile Facts and Figures, Passenger cars, World Total, 1968: 169,994,128. Trucks and buses, World Total, 1968: 46,614,342." Yea, I posted buses, still the number is still significantly bigger. (and that is in 68 and not 60 :-p)
Well cars are a good target because small improvements can be replicated to a large number of vehicles, and thus becoming a much larger effect for a smaller cost. However, Cars, or at least how we use them, are severely inefficient and with a good effort could be minimized. Telework, public transportation, car pools, etc. Cars are much more a status symbol and an implement of convenience, rather than efficiency and necessity.
Why is this thread dug up from the grave or even relevant anymore. Everyone knows the deal, everyone knows the reasons.It could be aliens superheating the planet and still no one would find reason to bother. We treat and contend with events, disasters and so forth as they come along, no point any more debate really
Well cars are a good target because small improvements can be replicated to a large number of vehicles, and thus becoming a much larger effect for a smaller cost.
Yes, but the change is super gradual because the average life span of a car is around 20 years in the first world (they have to last forever in the third world).
Do companies still use diesel? It's less efficient, more expensive, and more dangerous. I don't see why they would, but there might be some weird reason.
Wait, wait wait, fuckin' what? Two of those things are simply completely false, and the issue of cost, I suppose, is dependent more on where you are, rather than an absolute - for example, where I'm living, diesel is cheaper than petrol, but admittedly not as much as it used to be, but then again, fuel wasn't a buck thirty seven a liter back then either. If you've any evidence to back these assertions up, I'd love to see it, since this contradicts quite a bit of what I know about diesel engines.
Why is anyone taking this report seriously? It was funded by the Koch brothers and everything they touch is tainted... right?
Hell if I know, ask one of the much, much smarter people around here than me - Village idiot, remember? However, if the science is sound and it stands up to peer review, I'm not enormously worried if it's funded by the Koch Brothers or the bloody cookie monster.
I thought the real problem was not cars, but the developing nations who are pursuing industry. Have fun telling people with nothing to lose that they have to play by the rules.
I've been reading comments on other sites about crop failures due to increased C02 levels. I thought science showed that increased C02 levels led to bumper crops? I'm also still waiting for the "this is Earth norm climate" report to come out.
So standards have gotten a lot better.. Lots more cars are now on the road. 1960: about 50 million cars Today: around 750 million cars today
It's not just cars. The laughable thing is that the state of Ohio requires me to get a feel-good emissions check each year on my 2007 Toyota Camry. It does not require emissions testing on the millions of diesel semi trucks here -- you know, the ones that belch out more carbon in one day than both of my sedans do in one day? Yeah, those.
It's not just cars. The laughable thing is that the state of Ohio requires me to get a feel-good emissions check each year on my 2007 Toyota Camry. It does not require emissions testing on the millions of diesel semi trucks here -- you know, the ones that belch out more carbon in one day than both of my sedans do in one day? Yeah, those.
Ummmmmm no. Those emissions tests are not for CO2. Aside of it's role as a global warming agent, CO2 is completely harmless to the environment. Your emissions test is make sure your vehicle is not producing anything truly awful to the environment. Things like unburnt fuel, CO, and NOx. The things that generally cause smog and cancer. The things that were a huge problem in the 60s and 70s. A modern car with it's emissions controls functioning as intended produces fewer harmful emissions than a lawn mower.
Now what you see coming out of old trucks is not CO2, but diesel soot. This is also being regulated away similar, if you notice that the much more modern trucks throw out hardly any black smoke if they produce any at all. I'm not sure why you think that diesel truck are exempt.
You know what's better for the environment than restricting automobile emissions? Don't eat meat one day a week. Seriously, the agriculture business is one of the top competitors for greenhouse emissions.
You know what's better for the environment than restricting automobile emissions? Don't eat meat one day a week. Seriously, the agriculture business is one of the top competitors for greenhouse emissions.
Or just properly portion meat over the course of your week. I'm saying this not to disagree with you, but because most people in the US are so turned off by vegetarianism that they wouldn't do that on principle.
If you could get people to just eat less meat in general (and yeah, I myself am an offender), you would achieve the same goal with far more ease. Bar of soap rule, and all of that.
You know what's better for the environment than restricting automobile emissions? Don't eat meat one day a week. Seriously, the agriculture business is one of the top competitors for greenhouse emissions.
They'll still package and produce it unless you get everybody to skip meat that day. Your sacrifice accomplishes nothing.
They'll still package and produce it unless you get everybody to skip meat that day. Your sacrifice accomplishes nothing.
By not eating meat one day you reduce the demand for meat. If we keep that up, supply will slow to sync up with demand. American's one average could stand to eat a lot less meat in general.
Comments
However, there are a ton of other carbon producers out there that aren't specifically cars. Heavy industry in China comes to mind, since I'm not too familiar with China's environmental laws and know they have a lot of manufacturing there.
1960: about 50 million cars
Today: around 750 million cars today
Passenger cars, World Total, 1968: 169,994,128.
Trucks and buses, World Total, 1968: 46,614,342."
Yea, I posted buses, still the number is still significantly bigger. (and that is in 68 and not 60 :-p)
Now what you see coming out of old trucks is not CO2, but diesel soot. This is also being regulated away similar, if you notice that the much more modern trucks throw out hardly any black smoke if they produce any at all. I'm not sure why you think that diesel truck are exempt.
If you could get people to just eat less meat in general (and yeah, I myself am an offender), you would achieve the same goal with far more ease. Bar of soap rule, and all of that.
wait that sounded wrong.