Ustwo

Vrs....

I read both of these today, and died a little more on the inside. On the one hand we have a scientist, who's views I agree with (I have a degree in Ecology so I do have some backround there) and on the other the state of California suing ....auto makers.

Its things like this that make me want to start to horde amunition.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ratbastid

I don't understand the last sentence at all, but....

This is certainly something under contention. I think it makes perfect sense that the average temperature of the Earth has fluctuated, historically, and there's no reason to think it would be stable now.

At the same time, human input into the ecosystem can't be having NO impact. There's been lots of research to demonstrate that our pollution is contributing to global warming.

Then you have to wonder about the anti-warming camp's political motives. It seems clearly economical in nature. Big business wants to deny that global warming is happening, or that it will have the impact that it is alledged to have, because that would render them vulnerable to lawsuits and liability and force them to change to less profitable products and means of production. They've pumped lots of money into their buddies in Washington to keep the nation's official head in the sand. So I'm automatically skeptical about anything that bucks the standard, scientifically accepted understanding of warming and its causes.

Willravel

Whether or not you agree with the liberal opinion on the effect of greenhouse gases on our ecology, I think you can agree that the exhaust from fossil fuels is dangerous. I am living proof. The only members of my family with asthma were born and raised in major metropolitan areas. All members born and raised in metro areas have asthma, none born and raised in suburban or rural areas have it. Aparently, my family isn't an anomaly:
Study Links Air Pollution and Asthma
Researchers Link Childhood Asthma to Exposure to Traffic-related Pollution
Researchers Link Childhood Asthma to Exposure to Traffic-related Pollution(again)
Link Strengthened between Air Pollution, Asthma

Ustwo

Lots of people have been killed by cars too.

I'd not be surprised if there was a link between asthma and polution, but thats not what they are suing for. They are basically blaming automakers for causing global warming and costing California money. Its almost to inane to be insane.

Are they going to sue the cattle industry next? Methane production from cow farts is far worse in terms of greenhouse gasses than CO2. Perhaps they should sue people next for breathing and farting.

I thought it got silly when cities tried to sue gun companies, but this is assinine.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

They refuse to find alternate fuels because it's more cost effective in the short term to simply run out all the oil on the planet. *If* someone were to make the car that runs on water and exhausts vapor, life would be a lot easier for everyone; everyone, that is, except oil execs. The reason I support their suit, besides my personal opinions about global warming, is that the oil execs need to understand that there are people out there that can and will hold them responsible for their actions, even if the federal government can't. It's easy to bribe a few government officials. It's damn near impossible to bribe everyone effected by their decision.

Ustwo

Then why don't they just outlaw petroleum sales in California?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Because even though California is forward thinking and adapting to new sources of fuel, the transfer to a system that's no longer dependant on fossil fuels is going to take some time. San Jose has public busses that run on hydrogen, though.

Elphaba

I agree with u2 that California's suit against the auto makers is misdirected as the auto makers are only rising to the minimum requirements of the federal government. This administration continues to subsidize SUV's and large trucks if they merely claim to be biofuel compatible. It would seem unimportant that those fuels can only be found in a small segment of the cornbelt, or that these vehicles are gas hogs.

California would make a more direct hit to the auto makers if they implemented a luxury/penalty tax to those vehicles that are contributing to the oil problem in Cal.


U2 on global warming? Naw, why bother?

Baraka_Guru

This might not be far off... if you read this press release from Cornell University, you'll see the high cost of producing beef: "...beef cattle production requires [a fossil] energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1." And this is compared to the 4:1 ratio of producing chicken meat. Oh, and let's not leave out the mention of the 100,000 litres of water required to produce each kilogram of grain-fed beef.

But I am, of course, changing the subject... so: I think California is suing these auto companies to raise the profile of the issues of global warming and pollution. I really don't think they intend on winning a case of this magnitude on the basis of a theory that is still being debated. (Just as with evolutionary theory, global warming and the human impact on global warming will remain a theory for years to come. But does this mean we should ignore it completely?) These auto companies will probably get the picture, but they'll realize that many of their customers might feel alienated if nothing is done about auto emissions, regardless of the outcome.

The way this looks to the public is that California thinks auto companies don't care about the health and well being of people and the environment, so they need to be taken to court in order to make them at least listen.

As a sidebar, what do you guys think about Ford hurting so badly these days? Any correlation to their long-standing, horrible track record on gas emissions?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Elphaba

I believe that, and the focus on *BIG* vehicles that no longer sell due to gas prices have been the problems for Ford, and our other auto companies as well. They have relied for so long on our "oil addiction" that little forward thinking has initiated more economical vehicles.

Willravel

Fords are crap.

Marvelous Marv

We agree!!

Bill Lockyer has been one of the biggest cream-cheese dildos on the planet for quite some time now.

Nice to see he's consistent.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Elphaba

A Boeing exec took over young Ford's position. I can't say that will promise much of an improvement.

(Former Boeing employee)

kutulu

Classic stuff. First global warming was a myth. Now it's real, but we aren't causing it and even if we were causing it there isn't anything we can do about it.

Nice try, but mostly wrong. On a ton for ton basis, yes, the CO2 equivalent for methane is 21 (one ton of methane is worth 21 tons CO2). However, the amount of methane generated via livestock is negligible to the amount of CO2 generated just from vehicle exhaust, let alone total fossil fuel usage.

Look at the 2004 National Emissions Inventory. Fossile fuel burning accounts for more than 5600 Tg (million metric tons) CO2 equivalent. All methane sources together account for 557 Tg with landfills and natural gas systems making up about half of that alone. Continuously bringing up methane from cows is either ignorant or trolling. Since I know you are an intelligent person, I'm going with trolling.

Don't take this personally, but you need to read up on what a theory is. If you are implying that when there is enough evidence then they will become laws and not theories then you are wrong.

For the record, I think the lawsuit is silly and shortsighted. If CA really wanted to do something beneficial rather than attention-whoring, they would institute stricter fuel efficiency requirements. Start with attainable baseline llevels for each vehicle class and raise those levels annually. Existing vehicles would of course be grandfathered in but if a new vehicle cannot meet the current efficiency standards it cannot be sold in CA.

Baraka_Guru

Don't worry, I don't take anything personally.

I'm suggesting that some theories are stronger than others. It's easier for people to accept evolutionary theory than it is to accept global warming right now. Evolution has the advantage over global warming by a few more years of study. The main debate over evolution right now is that between science and faith. The main debate over global warming is between members of the scientific community. Until it becomes more commonly accepted, it will remain a theory in a more traditional sense of the word.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aberkok

Speaking of evolution, a recent survey just named Turkey as the country least accepting of the theory (don't worry, U.S.A was right behind at number 2). Yay for my people! Yay for science!!

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

MSD

Rather than provide intelligent discourse due to my lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding global warming (I'm not up to date on the latest studies,) I'm going to reiterate my position that we should saw off California and allow it to float out into the Pacific until it becomes someone else's problem.

kutulu

That is the impression that the right would lead us to beleive but it's more like 90% vs. 10%. Global warming is vastly accepted among the scientific community. The right likes to call it junk science but the majority that accepts global warming has stood strong in their position while the detractors keep giving up ground (first it was false; then it is happening, but not human caused; now some of the right says it may be partially human caused but there is nothing we can do to stop it). It reminds me of the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages.

Baraka_Guru

Well, until this "right" realizes that we must do something to clean this up, it will remain a traditionally perceived theory (i.e. to certain areas of the public) that doesn't yet require the attention it deserves. When those in power find out that global warming and its effects are costing too much money and productivity, they will probably then do something. Until then, the debate is still open. We need more direct evidence that the public (i.e. those who believe the "right") can't refute.

We probably aren't that far off from a scientific slam dunk that would be embarrasing for anyone (yes, even the right) to disbelieve... like when the earth was revealed to be a bit more round than at once thought.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Charlatan

Regardless of the debate of Global Warming yes or no...

I do agree with the first article, that all points of view must be considered on the chance they are right. That's how scientific progress works.

As for the law suit... absolutely misdirected. They would have been better to aim at the pollution caused by emissions and the associated health issues. The industry needs pressure to make more efficient cars. They have proven this time and again.

They will make their products the cheapest before they will make them the best (Corvair anyone?).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

unless an individual makes his/her own concerted effort to keep emissions down, they have no business decrying the global warming issue or supporting Lockyers lawsuit on the pretense of 'alternative fuel' sources. How many of you who bitch and moan about mans effect on global warming drive a vehicle? Is that vehicle a efficient vehicle? Do you make unnecessary trips for fun? Do you walk? use public transportation?

There are many more questions everyone should be asking themselves before being able to jump on the bandwagon and try forcing the automakers and oil companies to switch their entire industry over to someting that you THINK will improve the environment. Also, instead of forcing an industry to change their business, why don't you go out and be innovative in providing a safe and cheap form of energy?

One more thing, it doesn't surprise me that this comes out of California despite the large numbers of intelligent people out there. There must be something in the water.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

kutulu

I agree with most of your post but that sentence is a bit silly. Common people do not have the knowledge or access to the means to conduct the type of research needed to develop alternative energy sources. Be realistic.

dksuddeth

whats not realistic about it? If you don't have the means to develop a source on your own, then what you do is contribute to the form of energy consumption you wish to see used. It's not that difficult to fathom. If someone is so dead set against vehicle emissions because of the environment, then use public transportation, bicycles, or walk. Buy a hybrid for yourself or anything but using a gasoline powered vehicle.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ustwo

Just a follow up.

Turns out the lawsuit was filed by the AG who is up for re-election. Typical for the land of fruits and nuts.

And if anyone feels they want to start a global warming thread, please fire away.

A new study in Canada found about 20 different ways to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock—each of them capable of cutting these emissions by one-third. North America has more than 100 million cattle, hundreds of millions of hogs and feeder pigs, and more than 2 billion chickens, together emitting billions of tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses every year.

The Canadian authors, Karin Wittinberg and Dinah Boadi of the University of Manitoba, say that such methane reduction strategies should be a top priority in any greenhouse gas reduction effort.

Methane is 13% of the greenhouse gasses produced, thats 13% by volume but 21X more potent. The biggest emmiters are land fills, natural gas, and animal digestion. Wouldn't it make sense to start with these systems being you get the most 'bang' for your buck?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Remember when you got mad becuase I suggested you were a bigot?

Ustwo

Lighten up Francis.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

I understand that you were using the term lightly, but just a head's up: gays don't like to be called fruits and liberals don't like to be called nuts, and some of the people in both groups are not fans of trail mix.

/threadjack

Ustwo

I call 9/11 conspiracy theorists nuts, not liberals, I call them mistaken

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

kutulu

Methane does not account for 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. Did you look at the links I had posted? After adjusting the pollutants into CO2 equivalent (ie including the factor of 21), emissions just from fossil fuels outnumber methane emissions by 10:1. Again, it is a small source compared to fossil fuel useage.

For the record, methane emissions from landfills are controlled now. Landfills that emit more than 50Mg/yr of NMOCs are required to operate gas collection and control systems (collect and flare the gas). Some add a genset and use it for electricity generation instead of just flaring it.

flstf

We seem to be hell bent on taxing tobacco products out of existence. If California is serious about internal combustion engines being a major cause of global warming why not tax those items like cigarettes. Lets see, cigarette prices are about 10 times higher than they used to be so a $20,000 car would cost about $200,000, that should but a stop to many of those polluting our environment. Also gasoline at about $25 per gal would discourage it's use.

Stiltzkin

Off topic, but, nice Stripes reference.

__________________
The most important thing in this world is love.