Obama's emissions

[bigbadberry3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...autos

IMO, a step in the right direction.

[Rex]

Moved to the Politics sub-forum.

Please make yourself familiar with the Politics Sub-forums rules before posting.

[bigbadberry3]

Sorry, thought politics area was for topics only non car related.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Save the consumer from themselves, oh mighty government!

Makes me sick.

[bigbadberry3]

How is this the government protecting the consumer? It's an effort to advance clean technology.

[HashiriyaS14]

Save the consumer from themselves, oh mighty government!

Makes me sick.

^^I'm about to reach here, so if I goof up and misinterpret what you wrote, by all means, let me know.

Anyway, in my opinion, implicit in Charlie's statement here is the conviction that global warming may not necessarily be caused by automobiles. If you don't take that as a given, it is logical to assume that people should be able to decide for themselves whether to reduce emissions or not.

If you do enter the discussion with the viewpoint that MMGW represents an imminent and grave threat to humanity, government intervention to "save people from themselves" appears justified, in the same sense that the criminalization of heroin or bans on private ownership of hand grenades does.

Note I am NOT personally making any stand on MMGW one way or the other here, just clarifying how, depending on one's point of view, Charlie's post here either seems to make fantastic sense or seems ridiculous. I am only doing this because some user posted a "huh?" post right underneath it.

[nissan_star]

cars need to avg. 40mpg and trucks 26mpg. In this case the gov. will be making one more decision for us, we will only be able to buy slow cars. (unless those fisker guys get a quicker charging battery).

But what I see here, if i am understanding correctly, is the death of the Z, GTR, G37, Mustang, Camero, Viper, Charger, WRX, EVO, A4, S4, S5... basically THE DEATH OF SPORTS CARS.

Why did they start with 40 mpg avg? the avg now cant be more then 24mpg for cars on the road. (I don't know what new cars avg now)

This is another thing that Obama is trying to do too quickly. We need to work our way up to something like this, not just jump right in.

[HashiriyaS14]

cars need to avg. 40mpg and trucks 26mpg. In this case the gov. will be making one more decision for us, we will only be able to buy slow cars. (unless those fisker guys get a quicker charging battery).

But what I see here, if i am understanding correctly, is the death of the Z, GTR, G37, Mustang, Camero, Viper, Charger, WRX, EVO, A4, S4, S5... basically THE DEATH OF SPORTS CARS.

Why did they start with 40 mpg avg? the avg now cant be more then 24mpg for cars on the road. (I don't know what new cars avg now)

This is another thing that Obama is trying to do too quickly. We need to work our way up to something like this, not just jump right in.

^^Part of the logic behind the new CAFE, as far as I know, is that the averages will be skewed by an increasing number of ZERO emissions vehicles. if 90% of the cars that, say, Honda sells are plug-in hybrids that don't use gas for the first 120 miles or whatever (think like 5-6 yrs from now), then that allows for a LOT of room in their lineup to burn that extra CAFE. Hence, sports cars.

40mpg is a fleet average, not a floor for individual cars. If Honda sells 100,000 Insights and 1000 NSX's, the Insights being above 40mpg will compensate for the NSX's being below. CAFE already works this way, this isn't anything new.

[C-Kwik]

Why did they start with 40 mpg avg? the avg now cant be more then 24mpg for cars on the road. (I don't know what new cars avg now)

CAFE standards do not use the EPA estimates that you see on the sticker. EPA standards take the raw data obtained on the dynos and are adjusted to compensate for "real world" variables and are lower than the raw data. I don't have any time to look it up at the moment, but most of the mainstream auto manufacturers are meeting the standards. Many are surpassing it.

As for jumping into this, it is staged at a rate of about 5% increase each year. But if Environmental Scientists are correct, we will be out of easily obtainable sources of oil sometime between 50-100 years from now at current rates of consumption (which is likely to grow so it may be sooner). This type of technology forcing will lead to lower consumption (for given usage; may be offset somewhat by increased usage) but will also help promote alternative energy sources. And most of the technologies that appear broadly viable are underdeveloped. Most also have big limitations as well so one technology probably won't be enough. Many are also limited by the local environments as well. Its likely we will need to rely on several technologies to be able to provide our energy needs. And a big part of that, even outside of automobiles is to increase efficiency so less will be needed.

[nissan_star]

I am just afraid that Mr. Obama will start taxing the crap out of gasoline to increase the number of high milage vehicles sold. This isn't europe, stuff in america is much farther apart.

btw, it is aparent that i misunderstood some of what I heard in the news, thank you for clearing it up

[HashiriyaS14]

I am just afraid that Mr. Obama will start taxing the crap out of gasoline to increase the number of high milage vehicles sold. This isn't europe, stuff in america is much farther apart.

btw, it is aparent that i misunderstood some of what I heard in the news, thank you for clearing it up

I would not much mind higher gasoline taxes if they were coupled with lower income taxes, but obviously I don't want a net tax increase.

I'd generally prefer to tax consumption rather than production however.

[seang]

Higher costs of technology are making me rely less on it, and more on myself. I do have a lust for cheap speed, but I will discard it when it f***s me, and benefits only snakes and sharks, and people who want to victimize unique and good people like me. I now understand the anti-technology movement(s).

[Urabus GodofTraction]

appears justified, in the same sense that the criminalization of heroin or bans on private ownership of hand grenades does.

Neither of those make sense.

The existence of man made global warming is a moot point compared with the government exercising undue control over the public's demand.

But yeah, you're right I'm not concerned with "MMGW."

[nissan_star]

I don't believe in GW at all, let alone that someone can say that humans are causing it. Yes the temp of earth changes, suprise, but its been doing this forever. If history tells us anything, we are about to have a mini ice age. This could be called global cooling, and there is no way to stop it. The ice caps will melt causing ocean currents to shift and cool the earth, kind of like a global thermostat, it is really quite amazing.

Politicians are using it as scare tactics to get people to listen to them, some things they are getting done because of 'GW' are good, and other things questionable, according to me and I am no saint.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

But if Environmental Scientists are correct.

Point of order: an Environmental Scientist claiming to know anything about oil deposits is talking out his a**.

[nissan_star]

are you saying it will be less then 50-100 years or more?

[HashiriyaS14]

Neither of those make sense.

The existence of man made global warming is a moot point compared with the government exercising undue control over the public's demand.

But yeah, you're right I'm not concerned with "MMGW."

Maybe my analogies sucked, I'll reboot.

I was saying that in certain situations, the government determines that something, let's call it "X" is so grave a threat that it cannot trust people to protect themselves, it decides to protect people FROM themselves.

Let's use the dumping of used motor oil down storm drains as an example. If I dump my motor oil down a storm drain, it's convenient for me and doesn't negatively impact my life in any meaningful way. Thus, I've little internal motivation not to do it. Of course, if everyone follows that logic, we're probably going to create a really bad situation.

If you view driving high-emissions cars as equivalent in "cause and effect" to pouring oil down a storm drain, it makes sense. Everyone drives no-cat polluting whips, air gets fouled up, temp rises, we're all fux3d.

That is IF you take the link between auto emissions and global temps as a given. Then you can rationalize that this is somewhere where we have to protect people from themselves.

If you don't take that link as a given, it's totally understandable that the logical position would be "let people make their own choices about auto emissions".

I REALLY don't want to get drawn into an argument here, as I'm not trying to take any position in particular. I was just trying to illustrate to "bigbadberry3" how, depending on point of view, your initial post DOES make perfect sense.

[bigbadberry3]

I REALLY don't want to get drawn into an argument here, as I'm not trying to take any position in particular. I was just trying to illustrate to "bigbadberry3" how, depending on point of view, your initial post DOES make perfect sense.

Appreciated greatly.

Historically speaking, speed at which man is able to travel has increased with technology. 1700's 3 mph on foot. 1800's 20mph by horseback. 1900's 60mph by car or hundreds with airplanes. Speed should continue to increase so don't worry about having to slow down.

I will always advocate for better technology independent of field but improving green technology will provide jobs and a competitive market where everyone wins. Might get roasted here but I do like the FCX Clarity and where I think hydrogen is headed . . .

[C-Kwik]

I don't believe in GW at all, let alone that someone can say that humans are causing it. Yes the temp of earth changes, suprise, but its been doing this forever. If history tells us anything, we are about to have a mini ice age. This could be called global cooling, and there is no way to stop it. The ice caps will melt causing ocean currents to shift and cool the earth, kind of like a global thermostat, it is really quite amazing.

While your logic about the cooling effects of ice melting is sound, its quite limited. Our global environment is vastly more complicated than the single variable you bring up...

Politicians are using it as scare tactics to get people to listen to them, some things they are getting done because of 'GW' are good, and other things questionable, according to me and I am no saint.

Problem is you are listening to politicians. You should be listening to the experts in the field. Consider for a moment the possibility that these experts are correct and the outlook is worst case scenario. The last thing you would need to be afraid of in such a case is scare tactics. Reality is actually scary sometimes...

Point of order: an Environmental Scientist claiming to know anything about oil deposits is talking out his a**.

While environmental scientists are not experts in the field of extracting oil, they do make it there business to know what is going on globally in regards to energy, population, food supply, wastes and our effect on the earth. I'd reckon their scientific opinions on oil supply come from experts they work with that are specialized. That is how much of science interacts.

I will clarify that I was referring to oil reserves. There are more sources of oil out there, but they become more expensive and more damaging to the environment to get at.

I will always advocate for better technology independent of field but improving green technology will provide jobs and a competitive market where everyone wins. Might get roasted here but I do like the FCX Clarity and where I think hydrogen is headed . . .

The problem I see with hydrogen, until such time that we can rely solely on renweable energy, is that it has negative net energy. We have no naturally occuring sources for hydrogen and getting pure hydrogen generally requires that we pull it out of some other chemical. Usually water. Using water, in theory, there should be no loss of energy as the energy needed to break the molecular bonds is the same as the amount of energy released when combining the atoms. The problem is no process has 100% efficiency so we lose some of this energy in both processes. Not saying hydrogen isn't a viable fuel as it represents one of the more broadly usable forms of mobile energy (can be put in a tank on board a vehicle). And its pretty "green" in that of itself. But its level of "greenness" is really dependent on the initial source of energy.

[nissan_star]

While your logic about the cooling effects of ice melting is sound, its quite limited. Our global environment is vastly more complicated than the single variable you bring up...

FYI thats not my logic, I saw it on a special on the Discovery chanel. (posibly Nat. Geo.) The ocean currents around the entire world are affected, I would find info for you, but i feel you can find it better for yourself. The general consensus amoung science is that "global warming" will start a cold spell, some say comparable to a mini ice age.

We aren't all going to melt as earths surface temp rises to 150 F. The earth has been much hotter before without humans and its been doing it for a long time. It is quite rediculous to think that after 120 years or w/e, that humans can destroy a system that has kept the earths' temp in check for billions of years

Problem is you are listening to politicians. You should be listening to the experts in the field. Consider for a moment the possibility that these experts are correct and the outlook is worst case scenario. The last thing you would need to be afraid of in such a case is scare tactics. Reality is actually scary sometimes...

The problem is not ME listening to polititcans, its the 'I can't think for myself, please tell me what to think and what to feel!' crowd.

I hear them but I am not listening, I see thru bs.

[C-Kwik]

FYI thats not my logic, I saw it on a special on the Discovery chanel. (posibly Nat. Geo.) The ocean currents around the entire world are affected, I would find info for you, but i feel you can find it better for yourself. The general consensus amoung science is that "global warming" will start a cold spell, some say comparable to a mini ice age.

The general consensus? Please cite this. I have seen articles of studies that show these types of things are possibilities. But for the most part, these studies are still far from being any kind of scientific theory in terms of what will set it off and to what extent. Such expert opinions are filled with words like can or may. Not will and does. However, if there was consensus, its likely my environmental science professor this semester would have mentioned it. The only article I found that seems positive of a positive cooling effect is due to natural changes in currents. Not those caused by global warming. That said, the article also states that beyond this 10 year period of change in the current, temperature rises will resume.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie...hange

Here's an article about the phenomenon you seem to be describing:

http://news.nationalgeographic....html

Read through it and you'll see that there is plenty of uncertainties about it. There are just too many variables to contend with. And these are the experts asserting uncertainties. How would a layman be able to make any kind of scientific conclusion?

We aren't all going to melt as earths surface temp rises to 150 F. The earth has been much hotter before without humans and its been doing it for a long time. It is quite rediculous to think that after 120 years or w/e, that humans can destroy a system that has kept the earths' temp in check for billions of years

Do you really think its that far off? We're not just talking about CO2 emissions here. We're also talking about the destruction of large areas of forests that help convert CO2 back into O2 a la photosynthesis. Much of the destruction releases carbon that was held within the plantlife as well.

The problem is not ME listening to polititcans, its the 'I can't think for myself, please tell me what to think and what to feel!' crowd.

I hear them but I am not listening, I see thru bs.

Well who do you listen to then? It doesn't sound like you are listening to the experts and I really doubt you have the knowledge and understanding of our very complicated environment to make a scientific or even well educated opinion on. And in no way would I claim that I have such knowledge at this point in my life either (and probably not ever as I am not seeking any sort of formal education in the field).

[hsckris]

Why does everything turn into a global warming discussion?

People who don't believe in it aren't going to absent a ton of solid, irrefutable evidence. People who do believe in it aren't going to stop absent a ton of solid, irrefutable evidence. Solid, irrefutable evidence about global warming does not exist. /Global warming discussion.

[HashiriyaS14]

Why does everything turn into a global warming discussion?

People who don't believe in it aren't going to absent a ton of solid, irrefutable evidence. People who do believe in it aren't going to stop absent a ton of solid, irrefutable evidence. Solid, irrefutable evidence about global warming does not exist. /Global warming discussion.

^^The funny thing is, I argued this EXACT point a few months ago, and I still think it's a silly discussion.

That said, this was never really a MMGW discussion per se, but eventually, any discussion about the need to limit emissions comes back to MMGW, as it's ultimately the justification used by the government for said emissions limiting.

You either buy into it and accept the justification or you don't and you don't.

I mean, air quality is another reason I suppose, and it matters with certain geography (i.e. Los Angeles), but in most parts of the country, there aren't enough cars and there's too much wind speed over area for it to be a factor. DC has just as much horrible traffic as LA, but our air quality is great.

[C-Kwik]

Why does everything turn into a global warming discussion?

For the record, I didn't take it there. My point was merely that our oil supplys are limited. Someone else brought up GW. I merely responded. The door was opened.

People who don't believe in it aren't going to absent a ton of solid, irrefutable evidence. People who do believe in it aren't going to stop absent a ton of solid, irrefutable evidence. Solid, irrefutable evidence about global warming does not exist.

I agree...its a contentious subject. But one of the biggest problems is not that people believe what they do. Its that they make up their minds without actually knowing anything about the issue. As I stated, I don't know if MMGW is true or not. And a large part of me doesn't want to believe it. But when the people who are most knowledgable about it say its true then its worth keeping an open mind about. Frankly, its good to question what you believe to be true. Its the best way to test the soundness of it. Hell, take any belief you hold to be true and research it as if you are trying to argue against it. Almost always, you'll redefine your position to some extent.

[nissan_star]

Why does everything turn into a global warming discussion?

i think that was partly my fault, sorry.

i think it was a good discussion though, but I could be wrong

[C-Kwik]

i think that was partly my fault, sorry.

i think it was a good discussion though, but I could be wrong

No worries. It is quite related to the original topic. And as far as I'm concerned, its a topic that is worth discussing so long as we can all keep an open mind to it. Being that its not something the general public has decided on in any majority, its going to be a big part of future policy debates. Being uninformed about the topic is about the worst thing we can do as responsible voters.

As an FYI, I wasn't trying to single anyone out either. Hsckris appeared to respond directly to me (it could have been a broad statement about the topic though) so I felt compelled to respond in case it was directed at me.

[hsckris]

I was just making a broad observation.

I'm not saying don't debate it -- I'm just saying I don't think either side will concede anything based on the evidence that is currently available.