Will the USA green up its act?

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by mora
The only CO2 emissions from biofuels are from refining, farming and transportation, and equipment manufacturing. If you go fully biofuel the CO2 emissions might drop to 1/3. The only viable biofuel is biodiesel, which can be made out of just about anything, even from leftover MC Donalds frying oil. I've tested my car with straight rapeseed oil and it worked. The only problem is that if we want to run all our cars with biofuel we wouldn't have anything to eat.

The irony of this does not escape me.  We have far more people dying in the world from starvation, than are dying from global warming, or lack of fuel.  This causes me to question the the motives of the Greens.  Saving the planet is a noble idea.  I wish they would use the same political energy to care for the lives, or livelihoods, of the people who live on the planet.


-Rotax447

[Rotax447]

Well, I agree with you Beetle, neither one of us are stupid:aok

The second third and fourth largest economies in the world are Japan, Germany and the UK, and none of those countries has ever needed a nationwide fleet of gas guzzlers to achieve its wealth.

[/b]

Let me give you some facts.  In 1970 I drove a car with a 7 liter engine.  It weighed almost 6000 pounds and my gas mileage was in the 6-8 MPG range for city driving.  In 1970, the US GDP was $1,035,600,000,000.

In 2005 I drive a car that has half the weight.   My gas mileage is 25 MPG for city driving.  The US GDP is $11,750,000,000,000.  Let's do the math, shall we?   I have archived a four fold efficiency in my fuel consumption, and the US economy has grown by an order of magnitude!  It seems to me that as my fuel efficiency increases, my economy also increases, at better than a 2 to 1 ratio.  This makes sense, since there is more fuel to burn for construction, manufacturing, and powering the Internet.   Beetle, where, oh where, in these numbers, does it show that the US is not increasing the fuel efficiency of it's automobiles?

I ask again - if the US is not prepared to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, then how are we to avoid the ecological catastrophe that awaits the children being born in this century?

Rotax, you and I can both agree on one thing. We both know that you are not a stupid man. But I have to tell you, if you persist on not answering this one, simple, question, others on this board will begin to have their doubts.

This one is easy to answer, since it involves no engineering on my part.  There are two ways to attack the problem ... well, three, actually, but I have no intention of slowing down US economic growth as a solution.   The atmospheric CO2 levels are slowing down the re-radiation of surface heat from the earth.   So...

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!

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.

The cool thing about these solutions are that they are a net creator of jobs, which will, no doubt, give any self respecting Green a fit!

Care to give me the figures now on how much wealth you want to remove from the US economy?


-Rotax447

[storch]

Originally posted by mora
The only CO2 emissions from biofuels are from refining, farming and transportation, and equipment manufacturing. If you go fully biofuel the CO2 emissions might drop to 1/3. The only viable biofuel is biodiesel, which can be made out of just about anything, even from leftover MC Donalds frying oil. I've tested my car with straight rapeseed oil and it worked. The only problem is that if we want to run all our cars with biofuel we wouldn't have anything to eat.

as I've said before the liberals (greens) hate us, the economy, the environment, each other, themselves and their mothers.  they are best ignored and occassionally, when their numbers swell, culled.  the french had a nice program for that.

[mora]

Well the greens have the EU convinced. The EU in it's great wisdom is making 5% biofuel content compulsary on all sold motor fuels by 2008. This means that there will be 5% of ethanol added to all gasoline. As mentioned earlier, ethanol has an EROEI of 1:6 which means it takes 6 times as much energy to produce as you get. Most of it will be likely to be bought from Brasil, which is cutting down it's rain forests to make room for sugar cane. Total madness...

[lasersailor184]

The one thing that kills me is Green Building Design.

Being in touch with actual architects 24/7 I can't ever not hear about this BS.



What it is is that it takes known building methods to try to cut down on heating and cooling costs.  Add onto that the use of recycled materials.

So these buildings are expensive as hell to make in the hope that the future costs of the building will be much less.


Note the key word "Hope" in there...

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by mora
Well the greens have the EU convinced. The EU in it's great wisdom is making 5% biofuel content compulsary on all sold motor fuels by 2008. This means that there will be 5% of ethanol added to all gasoline. As mentioned earlier, ethanol has an EROEI of 1:6 which means it takes 6 times as much energy to produce as you get. Most of it will be likely to be bought from Brasil, which is cutting down it's rain forests to make room for sugar cane. Total madness...

Total madness indeed, but wait, it gets even better...

Our flexible fuel vehicles running on a mixture of 85% ethanol 15% gasoline (E85) are achieving a remarkable 5% to 15% decrease in fuel efficiency.  This because ethanol provides less energy per combustion cycle.  It is about twice as bad for turbocharged vehicles.

Absolute, total, madness ...


-Rotax447

[lazs2]

rotax is putting it very well...  fuel efficient cars are selling in the U.S.  with no pressure from taxes or penalties.   Most U.S. cars get at least 25 mpg average.  

You can probly pull a boat with a vespa up a hill if you have enough time and don't mind killing the vespa.  I don't even own a boat tho.

And as for bio diesel?  for the most part it is madness... if you mandated it... made people grow crops for it... more harm than good would come from it.   people would starve and.. as mora points out... the rain forrest would probly be decimated causing more greenhouse gasses to exist.

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?   My guess is... somewhere below his (countries)  I think that is pretty much what most your o peans want out of this whole deal.   One world government and socialism for all...  missery for all.

In closing... I have never seen a government solve anything... only make it worse... I see no difference here with this treaty.... half baked science and conflicting interest and blundering power hungry governments all trying to increase their power with an environmental excuse.

Who would stop the south americans from burning their rain forests?  Who would stop the chinesse from driving any old heap that got em around or dumping toxic waste in the rivers and lakes of their own country?

And beet... what of limiting all travel that is not necessary?  would you go for that if it reduced co2?  How much does a jet airliner put out?

lazs

[Skilless]

Originally posted by lazs2


And beet... what of limiting all travel that is not necessary?  would you go for that if it reduced co2?  How much does a jet airliner put out?

lazs

And just what would they (your o peans) consider "necessary travel"? In Eorope a lot of people take the train to work.  Most of them cannot fathom how huge and far apart everything is here.  In a country that is 90% (guessing) rural, an efficient, effective mass transit system is not feasable (although LA's lack of one certainly points out treehugging hypocracy).

[Nashwan]

The United States is burning twenty-five percent of the worlds annual fossil fuel production. We convert the burnt fuel into $11,750,000,000,000 worth of wealth. HOW MUCH IN THE NAME OF SAVING THE PLANET DO YOU WANT TO REDUCE THAT WEALTH?

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)

[Ripsnort]

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)

As soon as our travel distances are as close as those countries you mention, I think we can accompany the request. Do you have a solution for shrinking our continent?

[straffo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
As soon as our travel distances are as close as those countries you mention, I think we can accompany the request. Do you have a solution for shrinking our continent?

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.

[storch]

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)

sure then we just have to remove all the environment controls and restrictions that we apply to our industies. that would just about put us on the same playing field as the rest of you guys.

[Skilless]

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.

The numbers quoted have nothing to do with fuel efficiency.  They are fossil fuels burned compared to GDP.  How do you get to work straffo? How far is the commute?  

I met two guys from Liverpool about 20 years ago.  They were on a summer hitch-hiking tour of the US.  Their number one amzement with the US was just how huge it is and how far apart everything is.  "Twenty miles between towns?  That's unbelievable."  

Most responsible Americans that are on a budget have fuel efficient vehicles that they use to commute to work.  Carpooling is very popular in larger cities;  all the park and ride lots are full ALL THE TIME.  The problem with rural areas is that people live so far apart that even carpooling is not feasable.  

The total area of the US is 3,718,711 square miles.  The total area of France is 260,558 sq. mi.  Most Europeans couldn't imagine a comute of 50-75 miles a day to work every day.  To try to tax Americans into submission, as the Europeans have done, would absolutely ruin our ecconomy.

[Ripsnort]

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.

Maybe you missed this fact early in the thread?

A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions. 17

[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.