Because I never believe anything that anyone who's an ideologue says, I've been reading up about pollution and enviromental damage. Not the BS spouted by Eviromentalists, nor the BS spouted by people in the oil industry's pocket. But trying to find actual, immutable, inarguable facts and figures... which seems to be frickin IMPOSSIBLE because everyone has an agenda and they word everything to subtly mean something else.
Anyway, here's some info that everyone seems to more or less agree on:
Cars, trucks, bikes and other wheeled transportation contribute about
20 to 25% of the world's pollution
Aircraft contribute 30% (And rising...)
Boats contribute a whopping 40%
My question is "Why are we focusing on cars?". If aircraft pollute more and boats pollute most, can't we do something about THAT maybe? Surely implementing enforceable pollution regulation for boats entering American or European harbors is more feasable than praying that someone solves the battery problem in electric cars before 2020? I mean how hard would it be to inspect boat engines and refuse them entry if they didn't pass emissions tests? Yes, it would raise the price of imports, but so what? Would anyone here mourn the destruction of oversea jobs?
Aircraft technically do not pollute more than cars, but they do pollute MUCH more in one lump sum. You go to Europe twice in a year and you've just spewed more carbon in the air than a Dodge Challenger R/T. Also, despite emissions of jets and cars being roughly the same (per passenger anyway) the environmental impact is more pronounced with jets because of where they pollute. Car pollution gets sucked up by trees and carried away by wind currents and brought back to earth by rain. Most of what a Jet spews stays in the air.
The major major problem though that I've noticed with all the green blogs, is that all these "environmental" people seem to live in the city and have no clue AT ALL about nature. They don't feel a part of nature whatsoever and keep it at arms lenght. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some are disgusted by it. They also are completely oblivious to the logical end of their beliefs, which is that they seem to want man to live in organic solar power homes and never travel outside of cycling distance of where they live. They want the human race to revert to timid bookworms that never actually do anything. Yet, mention this to them and they'll be shocked, appalled even. Experience has taught me not to trust people with such conflicting ideas.
I dunno. What do you think? Add your facts and figures here. I think this is valid subject of discussion. I'm still trying to sort some of this stuff out so if you know more than me I'd be happy to read it.
No one is saying that we're not focusing on airplanes and boats.
Just because it's not the biggest contributor, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to reduce the emissions.
Plus, major strides ARE being taken to reduce air/see pollution and increase consumer awareness (ie, encouraging less flying)
I'm really not concerned with "global warming". Sure, we're supposed to look forward to the future and prevent our children's children from living in a desolate place but if that's the case why do we still wage war and create bombs? I think people fail to actually think about things and just jump on a bandwagon. "Oh no, we have burned things that shouldn't have been burned! We're killing the planet!" Well, what about all the bombs you drop, guns you fire, people you kill, and tanks/Humvees you drive? The government doesn't really care as long as people aren't paying attention to other things they're doing. If they really implemented emission controls on jets/tanks/government vehicles there might be a difference in carbon emissions, but they want people/companies to obey them when they tell them to cut emissions by XX% each year and get XX miles per gallon by 20XX.
*****************************************************
*
* Student of the University of Oklahoma. Go Sooners!
*
*****************************************************
"Global warming" is just a natural cycle of the planet. Cant have an ice age without a warming before or after it.
mitdr774 wrote:"Global warming" is just a natural cycle of the planet. Cant have an ice age without a warming before or after it.
True but false. Remove the 'just', replace with 'mostly'
The reason the HMMWV does not have emission controls is multi faceted.
1. How can you ensure the crap electronics work well in -100 to 180 degrees?
2. How can they hold up to continuous fording being submerged?
3. Will it risk the mission if the damn thing wont start because the evap canister is clogged?
These and many more reasons are why our tactical vehicles do not have these restrictions.
BTW our non tactical vehicles are emissions compliant
Also our Aircraft get some of the best fuel economy in the world
Don't mean to come off as a A$$, not my intention, but I have first hand and wanted to pass it along to you for this debate.
Also Cows make more greenhouse than almost all of the cars, so nuke India and prohibit red meat Mr Gore.
Another thing to think about is that "Greenhouse Gases" and "Pollution" are two completely different thing that ecologists try to pass off as the same thing.
Water Vapor, for example, is a greenhouse gas and it accounts for (as Wikipedia says) the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields.
Thus the objection of greenies to the Hydrogen car, whose principal output is water vapor.
volcano eruptions put up more hydrocarbons in the atmosphere than what we've done.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:The reason the HMMWV does not have emission controls is multi faceted.
1. How can you ensure the crap electronics work well in -100 to 180 degrees?
2. How can they hold up to continuous fording being submerged?
3. Will it risk the mission if the damn thing wont start because the evap canister is clogged?
These and many more reasons are why our tactical vehicles do not have these restrictions.
BTW our non tactical vehicles are emissions compliant
Also our Aircraft get some of the best fuel economy in the world
Don't mean to come off as a A$$, not my intention, but I have first hand and wanted to pass it along to you for this debate.
Also Cows make more greenhouse than almost all of the cars, so nuke India and prohibit red meat Mr Gore.
I knew there were reasons behind why things are the way they are with military vehicles, I was merely pointing out that the government wants us to "love the planet" so much yet somewhere in the world there is a war going on, people dying and villages burning, yet they want us worried about our cars. People have organizations to raise money fo Darfur and other war ravaged countries, yet the government forces car companies to comply with emissions standards (or suffer).
*****************************************************
*
* Student of the University of Oklahoma. Go Sooners!
*
*****************************************************
True, the government especially now is retarded on going green, but military tech doesn't count in it too much. As far as wars going on, depending on where, cannot do anything about it.
Most villages that are burning do not make an appreciable difference.
Darfur is an african problem, they are the only ones who can fix it politically.
People will die because we have more people than resources in most of the world.
I personally do not care what people drive, I am more worried about things like the bill passed today.
James Larsen wrote:I'm really not concerned with "global warming". Sure, we're supposed to look forward to the future and prevent our children's children from living in a desolate place but if that's the case why do we still wage war and create bombs? I think people fail to actually think about things and just jump on a bandwagon. "Oh no, we have burned things that shouldn't have been burned! We're killing the planet!" Well, what about all the bombs you drop, guns you fire, people you kill, and tanks/Humvees you drive? The government doesn't really care as long as people aren't paying attention to other things they're doing. If they really implemented emission controls on jets/tanks/government vehicles there might be a difference in carbon emissions, but they want people/companies to obey them when they tell them to cut emissions by XX% each year and get XX miles per gallon by 20XX.
I agree with what people said about military vehicles. Just too much of a headache, but vehicles used for any type of work should be much more heavily restricted than publicly owned vehicles. It's ridiculous otherwise. A Corvette gets driven maybe 7,000 miles a year tops, a family car/daily driver 15,000; yet a cop car, commercial truck/van or taxi cab will have a minimum of 60,000 to 100,000 miles a year put on them. So where's the sense in not controlling
their MPG and pollution first?
It makes tons of sense to control those cars:
#1 It would be a great way to test the solidity and feasability of new technologies in real world driving without using the public as guinea pigs.
#2 People who buy cars for work purposes couldn't care less about paying a few thousand more.
#3 Commercial/Fleet buyers are the ones who squander gas the most anyway since they don't "pay" for it. (Heavy tax subsidies)
#4 Rental car fleets could introduce these vehicles to the public and companies could get feedback on how to improve them.
Look at any picture of a congested city highway and half the cars are commercial vehicles. I've just always hated how the public is punished for things that they don't really do.
