Will the USA green up its act?

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by beet1e
No, I was speaking from experience. My last car was a VW Golf, as were the two before that. The first two each had a 2.8i V6 petrol engine. My average fuel consumption for those was around 27mpg overall. The last one had a 1.9 TDi engine and was an excellent allround performer.  It averaged close to 48mpg in the time I had it. I think mora is right in what he says. The TDi engine is more efficient over a wider range of uses. Any doubts I had were allayed during the test drive. Even tootling around town I'd still get ~40mpg; In the V6, that would drop to less than 20. My current car is an Audi A3. I still have the link to the online spec. Check out the following table for the level of CO2 content emitted by all models in the range. You'll see that CO2 output is in direct proportion to engine size. http://www.audi.co.uk/newcars/range.jsp?section=/models/a3/a3

That table doesn't explain what the content rating is. Is that under load? Is that in the vehicles optimal load? Or what?

Same goes for your argument relies heavily on driving style and vehicle load. A smaller engine can be less efficient under load and create higher emissions.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Skilless
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?  

217 km per day using train.
Fossil fuel used : 0
(nuclear electricy here)

[straffo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Maybe you missed this fact early in the thread?

No but I prefer acting at the scale where I have influence than putting my head in the sand expecting a miracle.

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?
 

15 000km for gazoline car
18 000km for diesel car

and 75% of our car are diesel.

[Simaril]

Lets look at one more facet of data: relationship between GDP and gas production.


USA _____32.9% of world GDP  4.65% population   25% greenhouse gases
Japan____13.4%_____________2.09%__________7%
Germany___6.0%____________1.36%__________4%
Britain_____4.6%____________0.99%__________ 2%
France_____4.2%____________0.97%
China______3.7%___________20.84%_________15%

using 2000 world GDP data, and Beet's table from the first post


Seems to me the US is not all that bad at productive efficiency -- the 25% is totally misleading when viewed alone. In fact, Germany isnt all that much better (1.5 GDP:gas ratio for germany, 1.32 for USA)

The REAL message in this comparison is not that the US is evil, but that the worst offenders and the major contributors to the problem come from low efficiency producers in the thrid world. Even a successful emerging Thrid World economy like China's can only muster a 0.15 RATIO -- so the US is almost 10x better at protecting the environment than China.

Just look at the industrialized numbers above -- roughly 65% of the world GDP coming from 31% of the population and making 55% of the gasses.

So, 69% of the world population (ie everyone not on the chart) makes 35% of the GDP while pumping out 45% of the gasses. This segment also includes many industrialised nations not on the list of 5 above -- but even so, the overall ratio 0.77, about half of the "evil" US's.




Beet, every time green stuff comes up you rant about american SUVs. Cars are a minimal part of the problem, and the SUV component (while useful to green and liberal demogogues as concrete images for unimaginative masses) are microscopically small contibutors. Most greenhouse gases come from industry and electrical production, not from vehicles.

edit -- sorry -- missed the vehicle vs industry emissions issue being addressed when i first skimmed thru the thread

[mora]

Originally posted by Vulcan
That table doesn't explain what the content rating is. Is that under load? Is that in the vehicles optimal load? Or what?

I'm pretty sure that it's calculated from the "combined euro fuel consumption cycle". Definately not under optimal load. Under optimal load the difference between Diesel and Otto would be smaller.

[straffo]

Simaril ratio mean nothing when the comparaison is about volume.
Except it's a very nice decoy.

[Skilless]

Originally posted by straffo
217 km per day using train.
Fossil fuel used : 0
(nuclear electricy here)

Exactly.  Where I live there is no train and having one would be ecconomically unfeasable; there aren't enough people to ride it.  The same goes for 90% of the continental US.  We aren't stacked on top of each other like you are; everything is very spread out.  I suppose we should all live in company towns right outside the gates of our places of employment, but that would be harder than getting us to give up our guns...

By the way straffo, what does France do with it's spent nuclear fuel?

[mora]

I don't know how the French do, but this is how we do it:

http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/
click final disposal


Another option is reprocessing, which is kinda expensive but well worth it if there's no other option.

We are about to increase our nuclear power output around 50% when the newest plant is completed, and another one of the same size is in the works to bring the total number to 6 and doubling the current output. I'm glad my goverment is doing at least something right.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Skilless

By the way straffo, what does France do with it's spent nuclear fuel?

It's stored at La Hague or Marcoule.

IMO it's a better place than the athmosphere

[Simaril]

Originally posted by straffo
Simaril ratio mean nothing when the comparaison is about volume.
Except it's a very nice decoy.

I guess i'm missing your point, or you're missing mine.

I'm thinking that energy is used in producing things, so more energy would naturally be used by the US if it produced more. The simplist way to take production into account seems to be the ratio.

I suspect that the assumptions of GreenThink almost require the US to be demonized... and having to allow for the fact that the US is the greatest contributor to the world economy may be a little threatening to common EU wisdom.....

But I might be wrong. How exactly is is decoy, though, otherwise?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Vulcan
That table doesn't explain what the content rating is. Is that under load? Is that in the vehicles optimal load? Or what?

Same goes for your argument relies heavily on driving style and vehicle load. A smaller engine can be less efficient under load and create higher emissions.

Vulcan,

In recent times, vehicles in the UK have paid a variable amount of road tax based on their pollution output. The regulatory body managing driver and vehicle registration is DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority). For the purpose of rating vehicles according the amount they pollute, every vehicle has to undergo a Type Approval Rating, in which the vehicle's pollution level is measured under a variety of different driving conditions, to arrive at the overall figure, which is the one quoted in that table. What the figure actually means is grammes of CO2 per kilometre travelled. Every car is subject to the same test, so it's a level playing field. For more information on the calculation of the Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty, see the DVLA's FAQ page: http://www.dvla.gov.uk/gved/question.htm

And... like I said, you'll see that the CO2 output value is in direct proportion to engine size.

[Skilless]

Originally posted by Simaril
I guess i'm missing your point, or you're missing mine.

I'm thinking that energy is used in producing things, so more energy would naturally be used by the US if it produced more. The simplist way to take production into account seems to be the ratio.

I suspect that the assumptions of GreenThink almost require the US to be demonized... and having to allow for the fact that the US is the greatest contributor to the world economy may be a little threatening to common EU wisdom.....

But I might be wrong. How exactly is it a decoy, though, otherwise?

To paraphrase a previous post of mine, the way the rest of the world sees it, they don't care that we produce 30% of the worlds goods and 25% of the gases.  They see us as 5% of the worlds population and therefore should produce no more than 5% of the worlds gases.  I see it as an attempt to globalize, standardize, and socialize the worlds ecconomy.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Skilless
We aren't stacked on top of each other like you are; everything is very spread out.

Sure, like these houses in the Fillmore district of San Francisco - America's most desirable and therefore most expensive place to live.

[Simaril]

Please, please tell me you consider that post a joke Beetle -- because otherwise you've showed yourself to be a mere sophist, not a debater.



Just in case, I'll state the obvious: not everyone lives on that street, and just because SOME people will pay a lot to live there doesnt mean MOST americans have any interest in that location.

[Skilless]

Originally posted by beet1e
Sure, like these houses in the Fillmore district of San Francisco - America's most desirable and therefore most expensive place to live.
 

Everyone knows there are congested areas in the US.  The reality is however, that the vast majority looks like this-


The view from my livingroom window.