Will the USA green up its act?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by mora
I call BS on that report. You could easily build a car with half the fuel consumption from the same materials as the current american cars. Switching to Diesel engines, manual transmissions or more efficient automatics, and building the cars towards low weight rather than ultimate safety would easily achieve that. The current euro cars are about there, and I have no trouble commuting 50 miles per day in one.

But as mentioned the private automobiles are a small CO2 contributor overall. Also, I don't believe that many off us will be driving private cars in 15 years, unless there's some miraculous technical breakthrough. Maybe you guys in the US will, as you have some oil reserves which might delay the effect of peak oil if taken into use. I wont blame you if you do.

With all due respect, I think I'd rather trust the judgement of a person who is a Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies rather than a computer game user.

[beet1e]

Rotax

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing the fuel economy of your various vehicles with the GDP of your country, but let's move on from that. I asked you for your solution to the ecological catastrophe of global warming. Your answer came in two parts, and I will give you my considered opinion of each part.

1) Increase the biomass to absorb some of the excess CO2. In other words, plant a tree, or two, or ten. Contrast this solution to Brazil, which is burning off the largest biomass concentration on earth!

Trees and plants take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen, but the problem is that it takes too long for young saplings to grow into mature trees, given the timescale of the ecological nemesis the human race will suffer if nothing is done to reduce the burning of fossil fuels stuffing the atmosphere full of greenhouse gases. I agree, the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest is  a terrible thing, given what is known about its effects.

2) The oceans are the heat sink of the planet, so decrease the solar radiation striking the oceans. Place some large, thin, plastic sheets in geosynchronous orbit over the Pacific Ocean to attenuate the UV radiation. If it is still too hot, add more sheets. Getting too cold, remove some sheets. Works just like a set of venetian blinds on a window.

 

A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions.

but the most telling thing is that beet won't answer the real point.... How much are you willing to allow the U.S. economy to shrink? - Lazs

Let me ask you a question - if we do nothing about the global warming issue, how much are you willing to see your country shrink, what with polar ice cap meltdown and rising sea levels? (Think of the effects of hurricane Katrina as small hors d'oeuvre, eg. a small serving of crudité - and the unchecked effect of global warming as a large porterhouse steak, like half a cow. That should give you a sense of proportion) Better a poorer country than no country at all? But wait - Nashwan is here with the facts. You can always rely on Nashwan for the FACTS. As can be seen from his figures, what is needed is a US efficiency drive.

Most Europeans couldn't imagine a comute of 50-75 miles a day to work every day.

I don't agree. I used to commute 60 miles each way as recently as 2001, and many other people I knew had similar journeys.


Nashwan - do you have those carbon emission and GDP figures for Australia?

[NUKE]

mora, you should design some vehicles like you say, then market them in America.

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by straffo
Travel distance as nothing to do with fuel efficiency.

Whatever the country if you have 500 miles to do you will use less fuel using a car at 12mpg than with a car at 25mpg.

Very, very, true, but travel distance has everything to do with fuel consumption.


-Rotax447

[mora]

There's nothing to be designed. You could switch from a "compact" to any "small" euro car and there you have it. Marketing might be hard, as people don't seem to want to make any sacrifices in comfort, and your goverment tax policies favor gasoline over Diesel. Personally I would take the car with half the fuel cost and a bit less comfort even if I could afford the more expensive one.

Again, I don't have an anti US agenda, I don't mind you enjoying from your standard of living. The only problem is the way of thinking I'm sensing fromsome of you. If others are ready give up some of their standards of living why aren't you?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by mora
The current euro cars are about there, and I have no trouble commuting 50 miles per day in one.

If you lived only a few km from work you could walk or bike to work.  I do, so I am a better person, you suck as you are ruining the earth.  I am a more contentious citizen of earth than beetle too.

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Why reduce it at all? Why just not increase US efficency levels to closer to those of other first world countries?

Dollars of GDP, per ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuels:

US $7,327
Japan $14,098
Germany $12,379
UK $14,452
France $19,954

(World's 5 largest economies, gdp from world bank, carbon emissions from Oak Ridge national laboratory)

Because it has nothing to do with manufacturing, construction, or power production efficiency.  It is not because your Japanese car gets better gas mileage than my Japanese car.  It is not because your Boeing aircraft with Rolls Royce engines gets better gas mileage than my Boeing aircraft with Rolls Royce engines.  It is not because your Intel processor computer uses less power than my Intel processor computer.  This is silly.

Here is something that I am curious about.  The average car in America is driven 20,000km per year.  How does that size up with European usage?


-Rotax447

[NUKE]

mora, I don't think many are voluntarily  giving up any standard of living anywhere else. American cars are available to most places, and the consumer decides what they want to buy.

Now, most of you guys just tax fuel very high. Is it your choice to pay the higher tax? Do you enjoy paying the high price for fuel, and is that your personal decision to  sacrifice and better the world?

Like I have said before, any fuel we save with smaller vehicles, taxes or whatever, will STILL be used regardless. Fuel is finite and it will all be used and burned. There is little reason to conserve it.

[mora]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If you lived only a few km from work you could walk or bike to work.  I do, so I am a better person, you suck as you are ruining the earth.  I am a more contentious citizen of earth than beetle too.

Well, I only have to do it 3 times a week... Viva la Socialist job! Viva la Revolucion! On my free time I grow marijuana which binds CO2 from the atmosphere and is a solution to all worlds problems!(joke)

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by mora
Well, I only have to do it 3 times a week... Viva la Socialist job! Viva la Revolucion! On my free time I grow marijuana which binds CO2 from the atmosphere and is a solution to all worlds problems!(joke)

If you grow it, you probably end up unbinding that CO2, so entropy says your agricultural hobby is a net loss.  You are a horrible person for not cycling to work.

[mora]

Originally posted by NUKE
mora, I don't think many are voluntarily  giving up any standard of living anywhere else. American cars are available to most places, and the consumer decides what they want to buy.

Now, most of you guys just tax fuel very high. Is it your choice to pay the higher tax? Do you enjoy paying the high price for fuel, and is that your personal decision to  sacrifice and better the world?

I think I'd take the more efficient one even if there would be no tax on fuel. That is somewhat the case, as I'm able to deduct most of the fuel taxes I pay for commuting from my income taxes. I might be a rare example though, I've decided to use no more than 15% of my income on motoring.

I'm inclined to think that oil usage should be regulated, but I don't believe that taxation is the right way to do it, it's an unnecessary straine to economy. Private cars are a small CO2 contributor, but I'll still continue, as it's a subject I know something about. Western world allready has low standards for toxic emissions. If we all would agree that CO2 is harmful for the enviroment, then why couldn't we have same kind of standards for fuel consumption? Assuming of course that rip's research data is wrong, and that it would actually reduce net CO2 emissions.

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Why reduce it at all? Why just not increase US efficency levels to closer to those of other first world countries?

Dollars of GDP, per ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuels:

US $7,327
Japan $14,098
Germany $12,379
UK $14,452
France $19,954

(World's 5 largest economies, gdp from world bank, carbon emissions from Oak Ridge national laboratory)

For 2002 I am showing a French GPD of $1,540,000,000,000 and CO2 emmissions of 407,000,000 metric tons.  I am curious where the $19,958 comes from?


-Rotax447

[Nashwan]

According to the World Bank, French GDP in 2004 was $2,002,582,000,000 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

According to Oak Ridge, French carbon emissions from fossil fuels were 100,358,000 tons.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2002.tot

Granted GDP figures are for 2004 and carbon figures from 2002, but that's true for all the countries I listed (the World Bank publishes figures yearly), and the percentages have not changed much.

As soon as our travel distances are as close as those countries you mention, I think we can accompany the request.

A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions.

Rip, you seem to be taking two contrary positions here, that the US uses so much more fuel because of travel distances, but an increase in fuel efficiency only has a marginal effect on greenhouse gas emissions. They can't both be true.

The truth is, cars are only a small part of the problem. Liquid fuels make up about 40% of the US fossil fuel emissions. Remove them totally, and you still use more than the other economies I listed.

Most Europeans couldn't imagine a comute of 50-75 miles a day to work every day.

Oh, I think they could. I used to do a 150 mile round trip every day to and from work, and half my colleagues at the time were doing over 50 miles each way. From that job I went to another that saw me driving an average of 350 miles a day to get to various sites (and at times it went as high as over 2200 miles a week)

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Rotax447
Here is something that I am curious about.  The average car in America is driven 20,000km per year.  How does that size up with European usage?

You may find this surprising, but the British average is given at around 10,000 miles = 16,000km, although it used to be 12,000. Maybe total mileage is now spread out amongst more cars....

Like I have said before, any fuel we save with smaller vehicles, taxes or whatever, will STILL be used regardless. Fuel is finite and it will all be used and burned. There is little reason to conserve it.

The reason for conservation, NUKE, is that as yet we do not have an alternative energy source. A great deal of research will be needed on bio fuels, if they are ever to replace conventional gas or diesel. By conserving fuel, we are buying time. Time for another energy source to be developed, and time for W to put in his order for plastic sheeting down at Ace Hardware.

[NUKE]

Beetle, how much time do you think we can buy? I'm thinking that no matter how much you conserve, or that I conserve or that the world conserves, it's not going matter very much in the time when the fuel runs out .

Are we going to gain maybe a few years over a total of 350 years as the supplies start to dry up? Not going to make a difference.