[Ed753]

This is an interesting story I heard on the radio this morning, kudo's to John McElroy, WWJ-950 AM Detroit and his "Automotive Insight" segments.

He is quoting a report done by the IPCC stating only 21% of “global warming” (CO2 emission) is caused by transportation, all transportation that is, when you take out planes, trains and boats, you’re left with only 11%!? Eliminate the automobile (as Al Gore would suggest?) and you still have 89% of the problem. Why is the automobile the one getting so much of the blame!?

And taking this a step further …………… if the automobile itself is only 11% of CO2 production, its safe to assume it too is only “roughly” 10% of the global consumer of energy.

Not sure how to post his audio clip, but here is WWJ's home page, http://www.wwj.com/ the file is under audio: Automotive Insight-A 07/03

 

[T-Type]

Excellent point. This is something I have thought myself. Regardless of whether or not you believe in GW, why has the auto been singled out? What about other sources of CO2 emissions?

 

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

Because the automobile represents freedom, individuality and essentially, capitalism. These are all anathema to the "watermelon" people who are the "activists" promoting global warming.

 

[big swede]

Because local businessmen line the pockets of local politicians so the real problems gets overlooked and blamed on out of state conglomerates.

 

[IROCNROL1]

I would suggest that the reason cars get a disproportionate share of the blame is because of the lifestyle they imply. They represent everything that environmental extremists detest about this country and due to one sided media coverage are an extremely easy and visible target. If you can indoctrinate the general public in the belief that cars are an inherently bad means of transportation, then the battle to control the populace's lifestyle is half won.

You won't get much traction crying about a ship's mpg, and besides, most everyone knows they're necessary, evil or not.

 

[Ed753]

You won't get much traction crying about a ship's mpg, and besides, most everyone knows they're necessary, evil or not.

Yeah, hauling all those Chinese goods over to the US.

 

[osv_alero]

A single cargo ship produces as much pollution in one hour as 350,000 cars (Blue Water Network, 2007)

. . . ocean-going vessels now produce more of the major air pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SOx), than all the world’s cars, trucks and buses combined (ICCT, 2007)

. . . at least 17 percent of emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), and can contribute more than 25 percent of NOx in some port cities and coastal nations The study also finds that international ships release more carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, than many of the industrialized nations listed in the Kyoto Protocol (ICCT, 2007)

Ocean going vessels use over 289 million metric tons of fuel per year (Corbett, 2003).

EPA rule will provide no air emissions benefits because it only applies to new U. S. flagged vessels, of which there are none (Blue Water Network, 2007)

Wanna do something for the environment? Stop buying foreign made stuff!

 

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

A cargo ship might make as much pollution as 350 000 cars but how much does it weigh

 

[casket_demon]

It's easier for Politicians to go after the "little" things than to tackle the bigger issues at hand.

 

[vcs2600]

The coal industry's bribes are bigger.

Part of it certainly because a regulatory framework exists for cars so it is "easier". To regulate ships would need an international treaty, I believe, and the US doesn't want to sign one of those.

 

[Neanderthal]

Because the automobile represents freedom, individuality and essentially, capitalism. These are all anathema to the "watermelon" people who are the "activists" promoting global warming.

BINGO! To paraphrase the great (J/K) Sen. E. Hollings, "There's just too much freedom a-goin' on out theaah!"

I would suggest that the reason cars get a disproportionate share of the blame is because of the lifestyle they imply. They represent everything that environmental extremists detest about this country and due to one sided media coverage are an extremely easy and visible target. If you can indoctrinate the general public in the belief that cars are an inherently bad means of transportation, then the battle to control the populace's lifestyle is half won.

You won't get much traction crying about a ship's mpg, and besides, most everyone knows they're necessary, evil or not.

Indeed.
So much freedom, so much indoctrination, so much agitprop media that is no longer willing or capable of doing their job of dispassionate reporting vs. subtle tearing down of the greatest free society in the planet's history...

The coal industry's bribes are bigger.

Part of it certainly because a regulatory framework exists for cars so it is "easier". To regulate ships would need an international treaty, I believe, and the US doesn't want to sign one of those.

International treaties are typically not in the US-America's best interests. See LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty, for instance).



I'm afraid the convenient whipping-boy status of the US auto industry was created by the industry itself, specifically the idiots who were running the big three (now known as The Shriveling 3) in the 1960s and their hamhanded efforts to muzzle Ralph Nader and fight the inevitable tide of regulation.

Other industries (big pharm, big ag, big chem) have learned the lessons well, and so they simply "lobby" (aka bribe) congresshomies with sufficient funding to make sure the rules go in their favor. :doh:

 

[Tone]

I think its a bit simplier than that: cars are the "low hanging fruit" in terms of reducing CO2 production. People replace their cars far more frequently than other personal CO2 item (heating/cooling/lighting and other building-related emmissions, for example, are big contributors), so the opportunity to get updated technology into use is much greater for personal cars.

The automotive industry actually has a pretty successful track record of addressing these kinds of problems. They may have done it kicking and screaming, but the reduction of smog-causing pollutants from the late 60s to today is quite an impressive feat.

But, most importantly, personal transportation is far more flexible than, say global supply chains supported through shipping. The primarly use for many people for their cars is to get back and forth to work, something that can be reduced by public transit, better urban planning, walking/cycling and more efficient vehicles. Yes, all of those are complicated, but still less complicated than (again, for example) getting rid of every coal-fired electriciy plant.

Of course, conspiracy theories are far more intriguing!

 

[Neanderthal]

^^ The fact that you mention a mythical "greenhouse gas," CO2, lends credence to conspiracy--or mass hysteria--theories.

And the fact that a seriously tenuous hypothesis--globabble warming--is supposedly created by the gas absolutely required for plant life, makes the entire debate something that our enemies (foreign and domestic) must take great delight in.

 

[IROCNROL1]

The automotive industry actually has a pretty successful track record of addressing these kinds of problems. They may have done it kicking and screaming, but the reduction of smog-causing pollutants from the late 60s to today is quite an impressive feat.

But, most importantly, personal transportation is far more flexible than, say global supply chains supported through shipping. The primarly use for many people for their cars is to get back and forth to work, something that can be reduced by public transit, better urban planning, walking/cycling and more efficient vehicles. Yes, all of those are complicated, but still less complicated than (again, for example) getting rid of every coal-fired electriciy plant.

Of course, conspiracy theories are far more intriguing!

I agree completely that the auto industry has made tremendous strides in pollution control whether they wanted to or not. The thing is, the point of diminishing returns has been reached in this particular segment and it would be far more beneficial to look elsewhere in efforts to reduce pollution. Along with the fact that because of high fuel prices consumers are opting to buy more fuel efficient vehicles without an oppressive government forcing them to do so, the question remains as to why cars continue to be the focus of environmentalists. An agenda is the only answer that I can come up with.

Your second and third paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other. By stating that auto usage can be reduced by public transit, urban planning, walking/cycling, and more efficient vehicles (?), and admitting that such efforts are underway, you yourself seem to be moving the "conspiracy theory" into the realm of "conspiracy fact". If that's not the case, then please explain how concerted efforts by the government and certain unnamed groups to manipulate the way people live can be considered anything but a conspiracy.

 

[vcs2600]

Your second and third paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other. By stating that auto usage can be reduced by public transit, urban planning, walking/cycling, and more efficient vehicles (?), and admitting that such efforts are underway, you yourself seem to be moving the "conspiracy theory" into the realm of "conspiracy fact". If that's not the case, then please explain how concerted efforts by the government and certain unnamed groups to manipulate the way people live can be considered anything but a conspiracy.

News flash. The "conspiracy" of zoning laws already exists. Governments already dictate population density, building heights, business locations, road capacity and so on. And that manipulates how you live.

Nobody's going to put a gun to your head and force you to live in a tenement. But altering government policy to allow higher-density and mixed-use developments, more people can live in places where they aren't required to suck down gas to do everything.

 

[Tone]

Your second and third paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other. By stating that auto usage can be reduced by public transit, urban planning, walking/cycling, and more efficient vehicles (?), and admitting that such efforts are underway, you yourself seem to be moving the "conspiracy theory" into the realm of "conspiracy fact". If that's not the case, then please explain how concerted efforts by the government and certain unnamed groups to manipulate the way people live can be considered anything but a conspiracy.

To call good public policy a conspiracy means we are greatly at odds on such fundemental issues as the role of government and the relationship between individual rights and individual responsibilities.

I would argue that civil society is a careful balancing act between protecting individual rights and preserving "the commons" -- things we all share.

Lean too far to individual rights and you have anarchy. Lean to far to collective responsibilities and you have totalitarianism.

Driving is an individual act that is only possible because of "the commons" -- an extensive infrastructure of roads and other infrastructure we all share. Building those roads impacts a ton of things -- how our cities are laid out, where stuff is located, and how people can best get there.

I think collectively -- through our governments and public policy -- we must make decisions about how that commons is built and whether or not it is in our best overall best interest to encourage or discourage driving.

Nobody is taking away an individuals ability to get into their car and drive. It just may cost more, or they may find roads more congested. To me, this is a perfectly reasonable exercise in the balancing of our rights as individuals and our responsbilities to our societies.

You may feel very differently, of course, and this thread isn't probably the appropriate venue to discuss. Feel free to pick away at my post ... but I've said my piece.

 

[mbukukanyau]

Because the automobile represents freedom, individuality and essentially, capitalism. These are all anathema to the "watermelon" people who are the "activists" promoting global warming.

Yes. I agree totally.

 

[mikmak]

It may also have something to do with cars being the most inefficient manner it which to transport cargo. A story in Wheels Magazine recently, showed the amount of tonnage shifted per litre of fuel and the automobile is far and away the largest consumer on a weight/fuel basis.

 

[IROCNROL1]

News flash. The "conspiracy" of zoning laws already exists. Governments already dictate population density, building heights, business locations, road capacity and so on. And that manipulates how you live.

Nobody's going to put a gun to your head and force you to live in a tenement. But altering government policy to allow higher-density and mixed-use developments, more people can live in places where they aren't required to suck down gas to do everything.

That's true enough, and also why I choose to live where there are less restrictions on what I'm allowed to do on my own property. I drive my car when I want to go to town, and I still believe this is a choice that is being gradually eroded.

I'm somewhat, but not completely reassured by your claim that I won't be forced to be a good citizen at the point of a gun. Thankfully our glorious leaders haven't quite reached that level of control, but they're working on it. I'm of the opinion that government (paranoid conspiracy theory or not) would love nothing better than to implement a Matrix style society. The ultimate in control with the minimum expenditure of energy. How could it get any better (for them) than that?

If someone wants to live in Japanese style coffin apartments I don't have a problem with it at all, as long as it's their own choice. The problem comes when others arbitrarily decide that I should do so as well. I just need a little elbow room and that appears to be less socially acceptable all the time.

 

[IROCNROL1]

To call good public policy a conspiracy means we are greatly at odds on such fundemental issues as the role of government and the relationship between individual rights and individual responsibilities.

I would argue that civil society is a careful balancing act between protecting individual rights and preserving "the commons" -- things we all share.

Lean too far to individual rights and you have anarchy. Lean to far to collective responsibilities and you have totalitarianism.

Driving is an individual act that is only possible because of "the commons" -- an extensive infrastructure of roads and other infrastructure we all share. Building those roads impacts a ton of things -- how our cities are laid out, where stuff is located, and how people can best get there.

I think collectively -- through our governments and public policy -- we must make decisions about how that commons is built and whether or not it is in our best overall best interest to encourage or discourage driving.

Nobody is taking away an individuals ability to get into their car and drive. It just may cost more, or they may find roads more congested. To me, this is a perfectly reasonable exercise in the balancing of our rights as individuals and our responsbilities to our societies.

You may feel very differently, of course, and this thread isn't probably the appropriate venue to discuss. Feel free to pick away at my post ... but I've said my piece.

I'm not sure that packing people into the smallest space possible is good public policy, but will admit it's the latest, greatest plan for the US. Also, when meetings between government officials and private entities to influence the course of societal evolution are held without public overview or knowledge, I would think that would meet the definition for conspiracy. That was my original bone of contention, BTW.

You're right that society is a balancing act, I'm just of the opinion that it's tilting more and more toward government micro-management of most everything that matters in an allegedly free country.

Nobody is yet taking away your "privilege" to drive, but policy does seem to be trending in that direction. As long as everything is done above board, then I'll just have to accept the results, distasteful or not. I will continue to object to attempts to influence public policy done in secrecy.