GM hearts Planet Green

[Slack]

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05...-planet-green/

GM hearts Planet Green
Jeremy Korzeniewski, AutoblogGreen

General Motors looks to get loads more exposure in short order as it becomes the exclusive automotive sponsor for the new Discovery Communications channel known as Planet Green. Therefore, viewers should expect to be inundated by vehicles from the General - hybrids and flex-fuel SUVs in particular - while they watch shows like Living With Ed.

Says Betsy Lazar, executive director, GM advertising and media operations, "Planet Green programs will attract consumers who also want to know what GM has to offer in terms of fuel-efficient cars and trucks, hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles."

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05...-planet-green/

[GM lover]

sounds good

[slade'man]

I dont know about you guys but I am tired of this whole "green" movement. I am still not convinced we are the cause of global warming. I hate that every place I go they are in some way advertising it. It is more of a trend now, of who can be the greeniest. GM has to advertise this way though, gas prices are helping promote this "clean energy" because people are begining to think its cheaper and helps the environment.

[poncho1982]

Originally Posted by slade'man

I dont know about you guys but I am tired of this whole "green" movement. I am still not convinced we are the cause of global warming. I hate that every place I go they are in some way advertising it. It is more of a trend now, of who can be the greeniest. GM has to advertise this way though, gas prices are helping promote this "clean energy" because people are begining to think its cheaper and helps the environment.

Good, don't buy the hype. We are not responsible. It would happen in the future, and has happened in the past without our "help".

Go ahead greenies, bash away, you know I am right. Facts don't lie.

the only real reason to get better gas mileage is because of high gas prices, now there's a reason I can get behind.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by poncho1982

Good, don't buy the hype. We are not responsible. It would happen in the future, and has happened in the past without our "help".

Go ahead greenies, bash away, you know I am right. Facts don't lie.

the only real reason to get better gas mileage is because of high gas prices, now there's a reason I can get behind.

high gas prices is a big reason to build vehicles that get better MPG as consumers will want vehicles that get better MPG.

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

Interesting. So GM is behind that channel. Interesting.

[CadiEldo67]

Its not just the green movement. Its the fact that oil isn't going to last forever, and it may hurt to raise prices now, but it will hurt a lot more to continue to use it at the levels we use it at now, and then there is a complete cutoff. The world needs to be weaned off from oil slowly, if raising gas prices does this to the economy, can I ask what would happen if there was a complete lack of oil?

[ronald mcretard]

Originally Posted by poncho1982

Good, don't buy the hype. We are not responsible. It would happen in the future, and has happened in the past without our "help".

Go ahead greenies, bash away, you know I am right. Facts don't lie.

the only real reason to get better gas mileage is because of high gas prices, now there's a reason I can get behind.

What about to stop funding terrorists? Why doesn't anyone ever mention this?

[CharlotteFirebird]

Originally Posted by poncho1982

Good, don't buy the hype. We are not responsible. It would happen in the future, and has happened in the past without our "help".

Go ahead greenies, bash away, you know I am right. Facts don't lie.

the only real reason to get better gas mileage is because of high gas prices, now there's a reason I can get behind.

Were there "ozone days" and "high pollution days", when you're not supposed to go outside, prior to cars as well?

[poncho1982]

Originally Posted by CharlotteFirebird

Were there "ozone days" and "high pollution days", when you're not supposed to go outside, prior to cars as well?

Yes, except they were caused by wildfires, volcanoes and such. But, nobody knew back then to warn people. One big volcano has effected the global climate before, much worse that CO2. Mt Pinatubo (sp?) caused global cooling for three or more years.

Air quality is one thing, global warming is another. look into the climate history of our great planet. There have been warming, and cooling cyles for it's entire history. The only constant is the Sun, and guess what? It goes into activity cycles, that effects the Earth's climate.

Look it up, it might do you some good to get both sides of the story first. I did. I used to be a global warming advocate, until I realized the logic of history, and the effects of the Sun on the Earth.

Is global warming happening? Absolutely. Are we the cause? Not likely. Are we helping it along a bit? probably. Can we do anything to stop it? I seriously doubt it.

Maybe all those civil engineers should think twice about building a city on the coast. Might not be a wise thing to do. Look at Egypt's ancient city of Alexandria, it is now under water, has been for thousands of years, and we were not doing anything back then that could have effected the climate, but the sea levels rose, and the city went under, as did ALOT of ancient cities.

[CharlotteFirebird]

Originally Posted by poncho1982

Yes, except they were caused by wildfires, volcanoes and such.

OK. Were there ozone days that were not caused by wildfires, volcanoes, etc prior to the invention of the car? The answer is "no."

Cars cause pollution. Pollution is bad; therefore less pollution is a good thing. Regardless of the global warming debate, reducing pollution is a plus, so why are you arguing against global warming people? It would be nice if the next generations have some air to breath, much less some oil. Here are some reasons to reduce the amount of oil consuming that DO NOT include global warming:

1. Reduced dependence on foreign oil
2. The cost of oil will not go up as much as it would if the US used more
3. Reduced trade deficit
4. Reduced pollution
5. More air, oil, etc for future generations

Really, I'm not sure what the debate is. Global warming or not, it's nothing but a good thing to reduce the amount of oil we consume. While you're doing your research, take a look at how rich Dubai is, thanks to the USA.

I'm sure you'll have a response for each of the above, so it's probably a pointless discussion.

[Slack]

Originally Posted by CharlotteFirebird

OK. Were there ozone days that were not caused by wildfires, volcanoes, etc prior to the invention of the car? The answer is "no."

Cars cause pollution. Pollution is bad; therefore less pollution is a good thing. Regardless of the global warming debate, reducing pollution is a plus, so why are you arguing against global warming people? It would be nice if the next generations have some air to breath, much less some oil. Here are some reasons to reduce the amount of oil consuming that DO NOT include global warming:

1. Reduced dependence on foreign oil
2. The cost of oil will not go up as much as it would if the US used more
3. Reduced trade deficit
4. Reduced pollution
5. More air, oil, etc for future generations

Really, I'm not sure what the debate is. Global warming or not, it's nothing but a good thing to reduce the amount of oil we consume. While you're doing your research, take a look at how rich Dubai is, thanks to the USA.

I'm sure you'll have a response for each of the above, so it's probably a pointless discussion.

Because global warming, and now climate change, are political scare tactics, just like communism and terrorism.

[YupYupYup]

Where is the Kyoto Accord? Yup, dead as nails...Sure we want to save the environment, but we do not want to be a slave to a socialist machine. Kyoto was nothing more than a left-wing mechanism marketed as "save the world" policy. It is dead, get over it.

Now give me a policy that is not laden with political bias and anti-corporate rhetoric.

[marinerbc]

Originally Posted by CharlotteFirebird

OK. Were there ozone days that were not caused by wildfires, volcanoes, etc prior to the invention of the car? The answer is "no."

You are aware that automobiles are NOT the largest contributor to global CO2, right? That industry such as electricity production is a larger component to global pollution?

Let's blame cars for everything, who cares about facts.

Now then...if we are permitted to build Hydroelectric and Nuclear plants, then we can talk about banning cars, or even better, electric cars like the Volt.

Originally Posted by poncho1982

Yes, except they were caused by wildfires, volcanoes and such. But, nobody knew back then to warn people. One big volcano has effected the global climate before, much worse that CO2. Mt Pinatubo (sp?) caused global cooling for three or more years.

Air quality is one thing, global warming is another. look into the climate history of our great planet. There have been warming, and cooling cyles for it's entire history. The only constant is the Sun, and guess what? It goes into activity cycles, that effects the Earth's climate.

Bless you. Global Warmig acolytes won't even acknowledge that we have a parent star.

[ogg vorbis]

Originally Posted by CharlotteFirebird

OK. Were there ozone days that were not caused by wildfires, volcanoes, etc prior to the invention of the car? The answer is "no."

Cars cause pollution. Pollution is bad; therefore less pollution is a good thing. Regardless of the global warming debate, reducing pollution is a plus, so why are you arguing against global warming people? It would be nice if the next generations have some air to breath, much less some oil. Here are some reasons to reduce the amount of oil consuming that DO NOT include global warming:

1. Reduced dependence on foreign oil
2. The cost of oil will not go up as much as it would if the US used more
3. Reduced trade deficit
4. Reduced pollution
5. More air, oil, etc for future generations

Really, I'm not sure what the debate is. Global warming or not, it's nothing but a good thing to reduce the amount of oil we consume. While you're doing your research, take a look at how rich Dubai is, thanks to the USA.

I'm sure you'll have a response for each of the above, so it's probably a pointless discussion.

a discussion is only pointless if one side isn't listening. all of your points are valid. he's saying that the government has alterior motives for regulating pollution and fuel economy...and global warming is a 'convenient' tool. they can't just come out and say americans eat too much, use too much gas, use too much electricity, etc.

SAE magazine printed a report by MIT saying that ALL human transportation is responsible for 0.1% of all global CO2 emissions...cars respresenting 1/3 of that, and planes/tankers the rest. thanks to china, the number of cars will DOUBLE in the next 20 years, increasing total output to 0.133%. if you spent your own money on attacking the pollution problem, would you spend it on the smallest fraction, of a negligible quantity? i wouldn't be that dumb. planting a tree for every car sold would do more. they say a squirrel used to be able to go from boston to florida without touching the ground...now those trees are cookie cutter houses in suburbs. 2/3 of the world's trees have been cut down in the last 100 years.

you're absolutely correct that air quality is very important. did you know that emissions devices kill about 20% of an engine's fuel economy? is the tradeoff worth it? diesels aren't in north america because until recently diesel fuel had too much sulfur. doubling mileage, and lower CO2 emissions weren't good enough trade offs?!

shouldn't we stop urban sprawl? it forces people to commute longer distances, use more fuel, increase the probability of collisions, and wastes valuable arable land...so as the population expands (pun intended), the land to feed them shrinks. we should be building vertically.

the government is exercising way too much power over manufacturers. high gas prices will naturally force a change to more efficient vehicles - for the sake of saving money, not for any other reason.