Re: Global Warming Thread

[Bubs daddy]

AZ Hitman makes some good points.

Just over thirty years ago, scientists were certain that the earth was cooling and iminent catastrophe was ahead. In 1975 Newsweek and Time both had articles on how the earth was COOLING.

In 2005, many were saying all that hurricane activity was caused by global warming. So how does that explain 2006? One of the quietest years on record? It was also just as warm in the 1930's.

As far as CO2, the contributions of man in this whole thing is negligible. Nature contributes far, FAR more CO2. Like 96% of it. If man is responsible for 4%, how much are cars responsible for? About 1% with the other 3% coming from factories, planes, power plants and the like.

Of course, I'm sure Toyota is willing to stop selling their big Tundra truck.

The point is, you get to a point of diminishing returns. Spending billions of dollars to get something .01% cleaner doesn't make economic or environmental sense.

----------------------------------------

"I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves. And there's a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. . . . f there's anything that there is a consensus on, [it is that we] will do very little to affect climate..."

"And I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating."

-Richard LindzenProfessor of meteorologyMIT








Modified by Bubs daddy at 5:08 PM 2/11/2007

[marleyfan]

What you really mean is "The world would like the US to foot the bill and pay the price to go through the major changes (financially and otherwise) involved with going totally Green"

Nothing will ever get done globally until fair policy and concensus can be reached. I

Please don't tell me what I really mean. Because what I really mean is that the US should worry about cleaining its own house, not the rest of the world. What I really mean is that it is the responsibility of the US as the only real superpower left to set an example by taking steps toward reducing its own impact on the environment. We can argue all we want about cause and effect and the real impact of man on the global environment. The fact is that the environment is a delicate balancing act. It seems too many are willing to risk inaction, when the only possible negative impact of action is an economic one.

[audtatious]

Please don't tell me what I really mean. Because what I really mean is that the US should worry about cleaining its own house, not the rest of the world. What I really mean is that it is the responsibility of the US as the only real superpower left to set an example by taking steps toward reducing its own impact on the environment. We can argue all we want about cause and effect and the real impact of man on the global environment. The fact is that the environment is a delicate balancing act. It seems too many are willing to risk inaction, when the only possible negative impact of action is an economic one.

You know, you are right. I need to go right out and work at resolving a problem that is not the problem. That makes much more sense than trying to figure out what the real problem is and taking steps to stop it. I really like you and others spending my money on things that won't do a damn thing in the long run. Like these wonderfully environmentally friendly cars that pollute in other ways.

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

[AZhitman]

Lots of finger-pointing and accusations of "inaction" abound in our society, but those who demand "action" aren't sure WHAT we should do.

Know why? Because they DON'T understand / comprehend the problem. Worse still, they ASSUME there really is one.

The environment is "delicate" in some ways. It's RESILIENT in others. But the irritant to me is, the finger-pointing usually comes from people who generate JUST as much waste as I do.

BTW, Phoenix has had the longest and coldest winter this year in over a decade.... also, it hasn't hit 122 here (again) since I was in high school.

[marleyfan]

BTW, Phoenix has had the longest and coldest winter this year in over a decade.... also, it hasn't hit 122 here (again) since I was in high school.

And my grandmother smoked 2 packs a day til she was 90. Therefore smoking has nothing to do with cancer.

Despite the fact that a consortium of scientists after studying the evidence reached an overwhelming conclusion, a few here on this board know better. I cannot compete with your logic and wisdom so I will gracefully bow out of this thread. See you all in other threads where we can enjoy each others company in conversation about the Versa.

[Ever Victorious]

Matt -

Please watch your tone, you are walking on the line I established for this thread with your last post.

Question to those who say that trying to enact a solution is an economic burden - Why is it an assumption that your money is just being burned, and that it does not get recycled into the US economy at some point, somewhere that the money is used at a company or what have you, to actually perform a service that does (such and such, whatever) to correct the problem?

If it is such a problem, then I have several further economic questions to you:

Does it bother you that your tax dollars are spent by state and federal agencies to pay farmers NOT to farm?

Does it bother you that your tax dollars are spent by the federal government to purchase "surplus" milk and warehouse it until it expires, which in turn causes an artifically higher price for milk? (This practice was used to help get us out of the depression, but has been continued even in times of prosperity).

Does it bother you, particularly if you do not fly or rarely fly, that many, MANY of your tax dollars subsizide airlines?

I just want to understand the distinction between what is an "appropriate" use of your tax money, and what isn't...

[AZhitman]

Sorry marley, I wasn't intending that as a "dispute", just as an indication of how things can be mispercieved. Please don't leave, your position is as valid as anyone's.

p.s. God bless Grandma. I sure as heck hope we all see 90.

[AZhitman]

Question to those who say that trying to enact a solution is an economic burden - Why is it an assumption that your money is just being burned, and that it does not get recycled into the US economy at some point, somewhere that the money is used at a company or what have you, to actually perform a service that does (such and such, whatever) to correct the problem?

If it is such a problem, then I have several further economic questions to you:

Does it bother you that your tax dollars are spent by state and federal agencies to pay farmers NOT to farm?

Does it bother you that your tax dollars are spent by the federal government to purchase "surplus" milk and warehouse it until it expires, which in turn causes an artifically higher price for milk? (This practice was used to help get us out of the depression, but has been continued even in times of prosperity).

Does it bother you, particularly if you do not fly or rarely fly, that many, MANY of your tax dollars subsizide airlines?

I just want to understand the distinction between what is an "appropriate" use of your tax money, and what isn't...

Geoff makes some great points, the first one being the best.

I'm not pleased with ANY of those issues, but my argumentisn't from an economic standpoint. I agree with you 100% on the economic ramifications.

Geoff's post just goes to show (perfectly) that everyone's viewpoint is simply one part of a more complex issue - I'm as guilty as anyone of stressing the parts I know the best, and staying out of the areas I don't.

[audtatious]

I didn't cross it tho, nor intend it to be as "harsh" sounding

I don't have problems with Govt money ( "MY" money ) going to resolve environmental problems. What I don't want is large portions going to resolve the wrong problems. Sure, a number of scientists have come out with "direction" they feel is correct. Other scientists do dispute it. Sure, there are a large number of programs that have been put in place to resolve pollution of rivers and land. That is great! Nobody denies that needs to be done. Same with air filters and scrubbers for factories/Industry and continued EPA changes and restrictions of automobiles. It makes sense and we are far more efficient than we were 20 years ago. Progress is being made. When it comes to CO2 and Global Warming, even Dr. James Hansen says its not the main cause, yet all you ever hear is people squealing about CO2 being the cause of Global Warming.

Let's continue on our path to lower car emissions and clean up our environment (without punishing the poor or lower class by raising car prices to the stratosphere due to some huge reactionism). Let's come to an agreement on what the major cause of Global Warming may be and work on that, assuming it is really not a natural trend.

[AZhitman]

Yeah.

And let's start purchasing food products where the food actually weighs more than the original container.

Plastic water bottles, anyone? Lunchables? A Jack-in-the-Box salad? Crazy how much plastic is discarded after a small meal.

[audtatious]

Well, that is def part of ground contaminants.

There is no concensus on Global Warming. The media and others want one side to be pressed forth as truth and claim anyone who disagrees is in the pocket of the Oil companies (again with cars and CO2). Air pollution should be worked on. No arguements. Claiming a 1 degree temperature change over the last 100 years is due to mankind and OUR fault is NOT proven.

It's probably a moot point anyway. Fanatics will end up getting nuclear bombs and will eventually blow some stuff up. THEN we will have some fun environmental problems to resolve.

[cireecnop1]

[QUOTE=Bubs daddy]

Of course, I'm sure Toyota is willing to stop selling their big Tundra truck.[QUOTE]

Thats true they do sell A large truck, but the plant that they build it in is completely green.

[AZhitman]

With all due respect, C, I wouldn't be so certain.

What they portray to the media for "feel-good" points and the reality of what actually occurs are vastly different.

Bottom line is, you can't build something out of steel, petroleum, man-made polymers and plastics, rubber, glue, aluminum and chrome without sullying the environment - it's just a matter of which areas you choose to prioritize.

Also, Toyota's late for the "biodegradable / recyclable" interior components party. They'll catch up, but at what cost?

[cireecnop1]

Do you work in a Toyota factory? You cant just denounce what they say just because you refuse to believe that they are trying to make a difference.

[proxim2020]

Do you work in a Toyota factory? You cant just denounce what they say just because you refuse to believe that they are trying to make a difference.

Ummm....It really didn't sound like he was denouncing Toyota. You kinda left your comment open for scrutiny. You did say that the plant was green, but you didn't provide how. It sounded more like AZhitman wasn't so quick to believe a manufacturers claim without seeing some hard evidence. Just a thought.

[AZhitman]

Do you work in a Toyota factory? You cant just denounce what they say just because you refuse to believe that they are trying to make a difference.

Sure I can. Without evidentiary backup, I can dispute their claims all day long.

Kinda like I can clown GM for having "the most fuel-efficient lineup of vehicles on the planet".

Well, duh - look how many underpowered throwaway econoboxes they build.

Let's look at OVERALL environmental impact of building replacement after replacement of disposable cars that'll never see 100K miles, wind up in landfills before their time, and necessitate replacement parts, the manufacturing, packaging and transportation of which generates MORE environmentally-harmful pollutants than if they had just built a DAMN GOOD CAR in the first place.

I don't "refuse to believe" - I've not seen any evidence that supports it, other than marketing hype.

I don't think they're NOT "trying to make a difference", I'm sure they probably are (trying) - I DO, however, think they're chasing the trendiness of APPEARING "green".

p.s. My older brother was a Foreman for Toyota for 16 years.

[versabundus]

Sure I can. Without evidentiary backup, I can dispute their claims all day long.

Kinda like I can clown GM for having "the most fuel-efficient lineup of vehicles on the planet".

Well, duh - look how many underpowered throwaway econoboxes they build.

Let's look at OVERALL environmental impact of building replacement after replacement of disposable cars that'll never see 100K miles, wind up in landfills before their time, and necessitate replacement parts, the manufacturing, packaging and transportation of which generates MORE environmentally-harmful pollutants than if they had just built a DAMN GOOD CAR in the first place.

I don't "refuse to believe" - I've not seen any evidence that supports it, other than marketing hype.

I don't think they're NOT "trying to make a difference", I'm sure they probably are (trying) - I DO, however, think they're chasing the trendiness of APPEARING "green".

p.s. My older brother was a Foreman for Toyota for 16 years.

I have a '95 Saturn SW1 with 238,000 miles. Still runs well. The body is still in very good shape. (plastic) Original engine and trans. Only things replaced were struts and CV joints (of course brakes, tires, oil and wiper blades) AND IT GETS 37 MPG with an Automatic. (much better than my6 sp. Versa) I'd hardly call that a throw away econobox.

[Ever Victorious]

I have a '95 Saturn SW1 with 238,000 miles. Still runs well. The body is still in very good shape. (plastic) Original engine and trans. Only things replaced were struts and CV joints (of course brakes, tires, oil and wiper blades) AND IT GETS 37 MPG with an Automatic. (much better than my6 sp. Versa) I'd hardly call that a throw away econobox.

Saturns were great cars. They were testament to what GM COULD make if they put their minds and money to it. For whatever reason, they decided to move away from that. Part of it was economics for sure, as the technology was never applied across GM's product lines.. but part of it may have also been (and this is purely speculation) that someone in the higher echelon at say, Chevrolet, got their feathers ruffled because they weren't doing it the "old way", and Chevy was getting their "reputation" trashed by an upstart within GM itself.

I owned a '97 SC1 coupe. The thing was a blast to drive... had the 1.9L SOHC which would get 41 MPG on the freeway cruising at 85 MPH with the air conditioning cranked on 85 octane Idaho pump gas. No bull. Around town I would average 33 MPG. Hell of an autocrosser... nimble, light... could have been even more nimble if I had upgraded to the SC2 rear suspension (SC1's had no rear anti-sway, SC2's did). In the time that I owned it, guess how many parts failed?

One. The alternator. Not exactly an expensive or hard to find item.

Polymer body panels, IMO, are so vastly superior to steel. They're lighter, almost as strong (remember, in a side impact, it's your steel door beams that protect you, not the thin sheetmetal of your door), and certainly harder to damage. I literally bounced off a Civic at 50 mph and didn't scratch my paint or dent my quarter panel.

Saturn has been moving more and more away from its original, very creative roots, and GM is turning them into Opel USA.

I have no qualms about GM using overseas products if they can't engineer better ones, or if it's economically too much of a strain... I do, however, take issue with them taking some of their best cars off the road to do it, while leaving an entire foundering division to crank out crap noone wants and make a nice tidy loss... (referring to Pontiac here)..

[7speed]

I think we've scratched the surface here with things you could do to reduce your impact. You should share some of the ideas that you've heard.

Sorry I haven't been here in a while. Too much work right now. Mid term season. There's a lot above here that I won't comment on, mostly because it would take too long, but in response to this^^ quote, here's what I have:

Firstly, the course is a class in community planning, and the term project that my group and I are working on is a Transit Oriented Development, combined with an Area Redevelopment Plan.

As you can see by my info, I live in a city the size of New York, but it contains only about 10% of the population of that US giant. Reference: http://www.dcnonl.com/article/20060608500

Urban sprawl seems to be status quo around here, and it does nothing but increase the Calgary individual's ecological footprint (roughly 9.9 ha/person).

Reference: http://www.sustainablecalgary.....html

The dependence on and love affair with automobiles is rank in this city, and due to the low density over such a large area we have a terrible level of transit service. The service is so bad that people choose to drive and sit in bumper to bumper traffic becuase it's faster than taking the bus. Even the train through town is under used (IMO). One other thing that irks me about the transit in this city is that when the train goes through downtown (on it's own dedicated street), it still is subjected to traffic lights so that people in their cars can get through downtown faster than the train. Argh.

Before I go on, I want everyone to understand that this is not an exercise in what we could do now to reduce our environmental impact, as there are many good ideas mentioned above. This course I'm taking is training future city planners, and educating the future public who will be consulted when the city tries to redevelop communities to improve the city's services and become more environmentally responsible.

So here we go. As I said, we're proposing an area redevelopment plan. It means exactly what you think it would, it means that we're taking an area of the city, and telling our professor (who works for the City in it's land use department) how it could be better used. Our proposal is a transit oriented design (TOD), that makes the area around the existing station we're looking at as more of a transit destination rather than a vehicle destination. The commercial and residential zones around the station will be denser than traditional (for this city, normal for other metropoli), so that all the services will be within a 5 to 10 minute walk (which is how long some people have to walk to get to their car at a Park-n-Ride).

That's enough of a novel for now, but it's just an idea of what the future could look like.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Thats true they do sell A large truck, but the plant that they build it in is completely green.[/quote]The plant is "green?" What makes something "green?" What is the standard for being "green?" Using some arbitrary feel good label doesn't prove anything about the environmental impact. kind of like the global warming argument. I could slap a "green" label on a product.

[audtatious]

Toyota is actually one of my customers. I have wandered pretty freely around their Georgetown plant (I was actually there during the 9/11 attacks). Chrysler is also a customer I have worked with and I see no real differences between the two manufacturing processes. Of course, I don't have a degree in environmental impact nor do I have a trained eye, so my opinion is easily dismissed. Unless you have the same degrees and insight your opinion on Toyota beeing green can be handled the same way.

As normal, we are at an impasse. People like Greg and I don't have a problem supporting and working towards solutions to resolve environmental issues. The difference is we don't simply jump on some bandwagon that is being preached by those with probable agendas. This could be said of "both sides" of course.

[7speed]

What makes something "green?" What is the standard for being "green?"

According to LEED (Leadership in Engineering and Environmental Design), in order for a building to be considered 'green', it scores points in five categories:

-sustainable sites-water efficiency-energy and atmosphere-materials and resources, and-indoor environmental quality

I don't know how buildings are scored (they have training sessions available), or how high a building must score to achieve 'green' status, but it is more than affixing a label on a product.

I'm sure the Toyota plant is considered green not because the manufacturing process contained therein is totally without environmental impact, but rather becuase efforts have been made to reduce the impact when compared to other plants.

For more info, see: http://www.cagbc.org/sitemap.php

[AZhitman]

I have a '95 Saturn SW1 with 238,000 miles. Still runs well. The body is still in very good shape. (plastic) Original engine and trans. Only things replaced were struts and CV joints (of course brakes, tires, oil and wiper blades) AND IT GETS 37 MPG with an Automatic. (much better than my6 sp. Versa) I'd hardly call that a throw away econobox.

Keeping that thing on the road is FAR better (overall) for the environment than ANYTHING else one can do.

I'd say you own the exception to the rule, and good for you for wringing every last bit of life out of it...

[audtatious]

I'm sure the Toyota plant is considered green not because the manufacturing process contained therein is totally without environmental impact, but rather becuase efforts have been made to reduce the impact when compared to other plants.

The Georgetown Toyota plant takes up a whole large section of an industrial park that is off by itself. In fact, I think there is only one other building near it. It's pretty flat, has no trees and has a huge test track in the back. I'm not sure if this particular site is considered "green" but it seems the whole landscape was leveled for it. One thing that IS different is that it is away from town and is kinda off by itself. This is completely different than the Chrysler plant in Detroit, the Ford plant in Louisville and the Corvette plant in Bowling Green which are in more populated areas.

[cireecnop1]

http://www.toyota.com/about/en...NMENT

[proxim2020]

The plant is "green?" What makes something "green?" What is the standard for being "green?" Using some arbitrary feel good label doesn't prove anything about the environmental impact. kind of like the global warming argument. I could slap a "green" label on a product.

A green certification is a start. But that's where the problems arise. There are tons of companies out there that can certify buildings, processes, even whole companies as being green. All have different definitions of what should be considered as green. Since there are so many companies and the standards are all different, it's about as good as Car and Driver or Motorweek picking best car for 2007. Until there's some type of standard, like ISO 9001, then there won't be an accurate way of determining what's actually green and what won't pass as green. The good side about these certifications are that even though everyone may have different definitions, most show that Company X has less of an environmental impacts that current companies. So even though they may not be fully green, they have less of an impact.

[audtatious]

http://www.toyota.com/about/en...NMENT

Chrysler and others have similar "thump our chest" pages too

[audtatious]

A green certification is a start. But that's where the problems arise. There are tons of companies out there that can certify buildings, processes, even whole companies as being green. All have different definitions of what should be considered as green. Since there are so many companies and the standards are all different, it's about as good as Car and Driver or Motorweek picking best car for 2007. Until there's some type of standard, like ISO 9001, then there won't be an accurate way of determining what's actually green and what won't pass as green. The good side about these certifications are that even though everyone may have different definitions, most show that Company X has less of an environmental impacts that current companies. So even though they may not be fully green, they have less of an impact.

I completely agree. They are a step in a hopefully-proper direction.

[cireecnop1]

Thats good to hear, ---> chrysler

For anyone intersested in "green" certificates here is a link for automobiles

http://www.cooldriver.org/

and for everyday houshold green certificates

http://www.nativeenergy.com/individuals.html

I have two certificates, one for my truck and one for my car.

[proxim2020]

That sounds pretty similar to the TerraPass thing. I find it funny that I could actually drive a "Green Hemi" I think I'll need to buy 2 large vehicle passes