The March 2009 Car Update
-
mmelio (4/1/2009)
Its vitally important that we understand what is ailing our planet earth...That is the first problem right there... the assumption that planet earth is ailing, and not just going through natural cycles of sun, space, and time.
There are competing arguments from scientists on both sides of the issue. You choose to believe the gloom and doom histeria. After evaluating both sides of the argument, I chose to believe the opposite.
I am for better and cleaner energy. That said, NONE of the current crop of powered vehicles is "green" by green standards. Only shades of percieved greenerness. (Yes I said greenerness).
I think mankind has made amazing discoveries and uses of the resources of this planet, and that there are still far more to be. I believe that mankind eventually does steer to cleaner ideas, because most of mankind doesn't want to live in a dump.
Cleaner energy is one facet of green-ness. I certainly am not convinced that wallopping on someone for choosing an Hummer over a Hybrid makes any sense at all.
Pot - Kettle - Black.
-
Wow this discussion is all over the place. I think it started out about the problems with an old business structure that needs fixing and how Steve's doing with his Prius. The Big 3 automakers needed assistance so they must have a problem, what it is I am not sure because I am a computer geek and not a Management/Business geek.
As for the Prius, my wife is the one who wanted us to get one but after test driving a few I was all for it. I am a racer type when I drive, I ahve gone over 200 on a race track and fully enjoy going as fast as possible safely. That may mean only legally doing 80 mph but I want to be able to do that 80 mph with the A/C blowing ice cold on an AZ summer day, that means it is 120 outside. The Prius can do that while most small cars can't. Yes with my lead foot we only get 45 mpg but we get that while doing the speed limit with the A/C blowing ice cold, your cheap little car can not do that.
If you are going to compare cars just on mileage than you are only looking at part of the car. If you want a big car with a big engine then you give up the right to complain about the cost of gas or your mileage. If it is new it pollutes very little because it has to meet the same pollution standards as small cars. If the cost of the car is what is most important than get a cheap car with few options. If luxury is what is important than get a fancy car with all the options.
But if you want to make real comparisons than be fair and compare apples to apples. In this case power to power, mileage to mileage and comfort to comfort.
-
You do make some points, but it's the degree we're arguing about.
I really appreciate this comment. The light bulb has gone on for me. Your comments clarified where our disconnect is, and I think you are exactly right about it. If someone only sees a mild connection between the types of cars driven in America and national insecurity, environmental damage, human health damage, economy damage, loss of jobs, etc., then certainly that person would not believe that Americans have made any significantly bad choices.
Based on everything I've learned over the course of my life, I have no doubt that there is a significant link between those things. I'm not saying that cars are the only cause for the above list of woes. Just that there is a significant link. So, it would make sense for me to talk about poor car choices and you to disagree with the statement.
The news isn't necessarily about truth, it's (unfortunately) about ratings at times.
Amen to that! I'm constantly amazed at how little our major media reflects what is going on in the world.
At the same time, that generalized media criticism does not apply to this particular story about the closing of a giant truck line or my argument/points. The interviews with people who were unable to sell their big trucks were just supporting background anecdotes to help the listener understand the news story: that the car company was closing down the line of big trucks (Hummers? something else?). I don't think NPR and the major TV news outlets made up the detail of car company's announcement. The car company closed the line because people were no longer buying the product. The car/truck company made this decision before the recession took off and during the time of very high gas prices. If you buy all that, then my points are valid.
Do the real math on gallons of gas. ... choice loses on pollution.
Your logic lost me here. At this point, I think we are down to the same kind of debate that goes on around evolution vs. creationism. There is no amount of evidence or logic that would get either one of us to change our minds. All we can do is state our beliefs, which we have both already done.
I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but be careful of broad strokes and of stereotyping too much.
You seem to be saying that I am guilty of "broad strokes" and "stereotyping too much". This statement frustrates me. I agree that it is possible to make statements that are inappropriate broad strokes/stereotypes. I did no such thing.
To help you understand why I think your statement is illogical/wrong, here's an analogy: There seems to be general consensus in America that "top level executives in financial institutions" (let's say "bankers" for short for now, though the term is terrible, I don't have another to use) have made perfectly legal choices that in the short term maximized both their own and their company's profit. Yet those decisions have eventually lead to a great amount of pain for our country. While not entirely responsible for the ruined economy, there is general acceptance that it is fair to say that the choices those bankers made have been a significant contributing factor to the poor economy.
The language I would use to describe the situation is that the bankers made some bad decisions. I am not alone. People say a lot worse about those bankers and they feel perfectly comfortable talking about "the problem that the bankers have caused" without clarifying that certainly not every banker is to blame. And certainly those bankers' bad decisions alone are not wholly responsible for our failing economy. But if you believe there is a significant link, it needs to be OK to talk about how bankers have caused a problem. We have to have a way to talk about real problems.
For those that believe in the car problem, the parallels are remarkable: this time, every day individuals have made perfectly legal decisions that in the short term maximized their profit and other desires in a context of many externalities (an economic term). Not every car buyer is guilty of making those short sighted decisions. And those short sighted decisions are not the only cause of the problems. But we have to have a way to talk about it if we want to be able to have a discussion at all.
Just as people are talking about the financial crises, I am talking about the car problem. And I clarified on more than one occasion that my statements were generalizations/stereotypes (in a good/necessary to communication way), not an attack on any particular individual or an attempt to paint all Americans the same color. If you do not see the link between some of America's problems and car choices, then you could rightly disagree with me. However, it would not be appropriate to accuse me of being "just wrong" (as another poster put it) in simply writing out the problem statement.
I think we have a problem that we have to solve, but in a way that culturally works.
In light of the first quote above, I'm not sure what problem you think we have to solve. What interests me is the second part of your sentence about "culturally works." What a whopping discussion that could start. I don't want to go there. But I think the following is related to the topic. On the same day that you wrote your sentence, I happened to receive a link to the following editorial:
"One Man's Car Shows Why Aid to the Automakers Must Include a Commitment to Fuel Efficiency"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/one-mans-car-shows-why-ai_b_181544.html
I don't think you will resonate with the second part of the article, but I think you might find the first part interesting. Your comment and the article got me to wondering how culturally acceptable it would be to run our cars on vegetable oil. Personally, I want to run my car on doggie doo. My dog produces enough to power a giant SUV. (.grin.)
CONCLUSION: I want to finish by thanking you for this discussion. It has occupied my thoughts for days and has been a real eye opener for me.
-
JJ B (4/2/2009)
To help you understand why I think your statement is illogical/wrong, here's an analogy: There seems to be general consensus in America that "top level executives in financial institutions" (let's say "bankers" for short for now, though the term is terrible, I don't have another to use) have made perfectly legal choices that in the short term maximized both their own and their company's profit. Yet those decisions have eventually lead to a great amount of pain for our country. While not entirely responsible for the ruined economy, there is general acceptance that it is fair to say that the choices those bankers made have been a significant contributing factor to the poor economy.I had to comment on this. Yes, the executives of major financial institutions made bad and, though legal, ethical choices. BUT you need to put a good portion of that blame on Congress as well, and not just the former President. They are just as guilty for the failures that have occurred and NONE of them seem to be accepting ANY of the blame, instead pushing it solely on the executives of those financial institutions. Everyone of those bums should be voted out of office over the next 6 years.
-
Sir, what you state ("For every global warming argument, there is research that shows it's not necessarily significant") is just factually wrong...and terribly misleading for anyone following the discussion.
The percentage of scientists who do not believe global warming today is in large part due to human activity is about 5%. The other 95% have little doubt that the melting of the ice caps, the warming of the planet, and the rising of sea levels is largely the offspring of fossil fuel burnings by homo sapiens.
Consider this quote:
"What is causing global warming?
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. Our fossil fuel use is the main source of these gases. Every time we drive a car, use electricity from coal-fired power plants, or heat our homes with oil or natural gas, we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air. The second most important source of greenhouse gases is deforestation, mainly in the tropics, and other land-use changes.
Since pre-industrial times, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 percent. Over the same period, atmospheric methane has risen by 151 percent, mostly from agricultural activities like growing rice and raising cattle.
As the concentration of these gases grows, more heat is trapped by the atmosphere and less escapes back into space. This increase in trapped heat changes the climate, causing altered weather patterns that can bring unusually intense precipitation or dry spells and more severe storms.
What is the best source of scientific information on global warming?
In 1988, the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to examine the most current scientific information on global warming and climate change. More than 1,250 authors and 2,500 scientific experts reviewers from more than 130 countries contributed to the panel's most recent report, Climate Change 2007: The Fourth Assessment Report (the full report will be released in November 2007). These scientists reviewed all the published and peer-reviewed scientific information produced during the previous few years to assess what is known about the global climate, why and how it changes, what it will mean for people and the environment, and what can be done about it.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is the most comprehensive and up-to-date evaluation of global warming. As the new benchmark, it serves as the basis for international climate negotiations."
Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html
-
Lynn: Nice to hear from you again. I kind of figured that by now you would be deleting all my postings in disgust without reading them. (grin)
I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crises. (I believe the same can be said for the situation our car industry is in. I wouldn't blame either problem solely on any one group of people.)
I find it interesting that on the political front you put the primary responsibility on congress and do not even mention the previous executive administration.
There's some congress people I admire and would keep and believe have done all they can to prevent the current crises. And there are some new bodies in congress who deserve a chance to prove (or disprove) themselves. But I'm with you on voting out a great many of them. Glad we could find a little common ground.
-
In the middle of the pacific ocean there are two massive debris fields of plastic crap
from all over the world. Each is the size of the continental United States.
These continents of trash are killing fish that feed off the plastic thinking it to be
food. The fish are dying from malnourishment, they are starving because the
plastic clogs their digestive tracks. The small fish are eaten by bigger fish
and birds. The birds too are dying in massive numbers.
Plastic is a by-product of Oil.
It takes 20 to 1000 years to decompose plastic.
So the "garbage continents" will be around for quite a while, even if we were to
stop adding to them today.
The food chain on the planet is dependent upon the health of each part of this
living organism: air, water, earth. When one part is sick the whole body is affected.
We are affected too. We made this mess and we're gonna have to clean it up.
So when you shop today and fill your tank tomorrow,
Think of the plastic you waste.
Then do something about it.
-
JJ B (4/2/2009)
Lynn: Nice to hear from you again. I kind of figured that by now you would be deleting all my postings in disgust without reading them. (grin)I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crises. (I believe the same can be said for the situation our car industry is in. I wouldn't blame either problem solely on any one group of people.)
I find it interesting that on the political front you put the primary responsibility on congress and do not even mention the previous executive administration.
There's some congress people I admire and would keep and believe have done all they can to prevent the current crises. And there are some new bodies in congress who deserve a chance to prove (or disprove) themselves. But I'm with you on voting out a great many of them. Glad we could find a little common ground.
Obviously you didn't fully read my post completely. I said don't blame JUST the former president. It's also why I said ALL (ie every single one of them) the bums should be voted out of office over the next six years, and that includes our current President as he was a member of the Senate that helped by passing legislation that resulted in our current economic crises.
-
mmelio (4/2/2009)
Sir, what you state ("For every global warming argument, there is research that shows it's not necessarily significant") is just factually wrong...(and)
Consider this quote:
"What is causing global warming?
Scientists have concluded (blah blah blah)
5% and 95%? Wow. Your percentages are wrong. Please note from which source you pulled such statistics.
As to the second part, do you know how long ago that statement was published? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't 2007 as someone could be led to believe.
Do you know how much of the atmosphere is comprised of CO2? Do you know what is the biggest contribution point of that CO2?
Just a start on a long trail of "Food for thought":
http://www.world-mysteries.com/gnovak.htm
There is no evidence for a global warming scenario that is caused by man or man-induced causes... or cars for that matter. There is only wild speculation and FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). There is not even enough data around to speculate with.
-
Dude, obviously no amount of scientific data will turn your opinons. Global warming from human activity in the burning of fossil fuels is an irrefutable fact.
There are ice-core samples from Greenland dating back 250,000 years which expose the carbon (and other gases) of the planet during this long period of time. This evidence alone is conclusive.
Choose to live in willful ignorance if you wish. I will waste no more time with you, because the overwhelming preponderence of scientific evidence proves this point beyond reasonable doubt. You are content to follow the lead of marginal scientists who are often the lackies for mega-corporate powers. Why you choose to believe the minority opinion of questionable sources is beyond me. If I were to venture a guess, I might conclude that you are afraid of losing your way of life, or that the findings might challenge you to change your ways -- and both options are unappealling to you. Change is not easy. I understand this much.
It is much easier to shoot the messenger...using the pistols provided by the corporations who stand most to lose by mandatory reductions in green house gases, tighter regulations on carbon emissions, and taxes on fossil fuel burning and the consequent reduction in fossil fuel consumption. They have given you the ammunition you need to argue "there is a debate",:sick: and to justify your inaction on this most critical of planetary ecological issues. Kudos to the Oil companies for they have succeeded -- at least in your case.
"What's the use of a house, if you haven't got a habitable planet to put it on?" -- Henry David Thoreau.
FYI: I followed your link to this guy Gary Novak's site. Now I understand where you are coming from. Especially informative was his refutation of the Big Bang theory by reference to an "Intelligent Designer" aka "god". It is doubtful he believes in evolution -- maintaining his religious belief against all the weight of bones and fossils and geological evidence. If you take you lead from Mr. Novak, and it appears you do, then Religion trumps Science every time, and Faith must always take precedence to scientific findings.
I think you would be happier in another more distant time, when the church ruled the masses and theology governed all thought and behavior.
On a personal note, I was a pre-seminarian many years ago. I tossed all that in favor of a scientific world view in part because I could no longer reconcile the innumerable errors in the bible, and in part because I witnessed the great debilitating effects that religion has on the human mind, and in part because geology, history, and evolution leave little room for the dogmas of religion (e.g. creationism, heaven, hell, etc.). Religion is indeed an opiate -- it dulls the mind and senses, and makes the masses of men putty in the hands of the rich and powerful.
-
mmelio (4/2/2009)
Dude, obviously no amount of scientific data...Whose scientific data? Speaking of big money, global warming is quite the cash cow these days.
Nevermind that the Antarctic is as stable now as it was in 1980, in area and depth. Nevermind that we have no substantial data for nearly any aspect of supposed man-made environmental change past 50 years. Never mind that Mt. St. Helens spewed more global warming garbage into the air than a decade of all that man could do.
Never mind that the last 4 years have actually been cooler than the previous decade. Never mind that only a few decades ago there were scientists worried about the earth cooling, not warming.
Never mind your assumptions of how some people might just care to evaluate the entire body of evidence before riding soley on the FUD. But go ahead and subscript any who disagree to converts of the evil oil empire. Your personal insinuations still have absolutely no bearing on any version of the data nor the truth. While your empathy is noted, the discussion is not justification for living any particular lifestyle.
Never mind that the IPCC is not made up entirely of actual scientists. It includes lobbyists, member countries, and many other types. It is nothing more than another arm of the UN.
The fact is, nobody knows, because there is not enough data for a long enough period of time to assess a solid predictable model. Sure, lots of theories have some low-data-density models supporting them. The speculation is wild, and quite debateable.
-
i think i liked it better when this was a discussion on cars and fuel economy. Nothing more. Sadly my vw tdi needs some bandages before it returns to providing me with 40+mpg of amazing Torque and driving fun. Amazing how quickly they can look like a crushed soda can. Back to the space issues, the main reasons i chose the jetta over a civic\prius hybrid was space and mass. Coming from driving a '94 minivan, '89 olds 98, '85 chrysler Laser, i am used to beefier vehicles. The leg room was also an issue for me. The jetta provided me the mass and the space for my size and busy life.
-
Sorry to hear about the Jetta. My wife loves them, but it was never really a car I liked. We couldn't agree on a Jetta v a PT Cruiser some years ago and ended up with a minivan, go figure.
I was always more of a Rabbit/Scirocco guy. More fun to drive for me.
-
When I originally asked why American cars were so big, I wasn't expecting all this. Being just about 5ft tall, most driving seats do not move far enough forward to touch the pedals. It seems that most American cars are automatics and do not have a gear change so I presume I could drive one but I never have. I just wondered if I would be rattling around like a pea in a tin.
Madame Artois
-
the pt is one I can't stand. reminds me of my wife's neon. same frame so it makes sense.
as for the jetta, the torque of the diesel makes it far more fun than the gasser. and the mileage outweighs my need for a sports car. I know I don't drive more than some but I put 85k on it in three years. 65 of which was in the first 2 years. the fuel savings alone are enough for over half the payment
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 76 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply