An Inconvenient Truth
#11
05-26-2006, 03:06 PM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
China's fuel economy standards are so much higher than ours
I have- and transportation is vastly different over there.
Here in the states virtually no adults actually walk to the store or consider a bicycle as transportation (Not to mention the only transportation available to them)
Wouldn't a countries average vehicle fuel efficiency standards be much higher given that a very large, if not majority walk or ride bikes?
Even some of their taxis are pedal powered.
If Al Gore wants to bring China's pollution into comparison:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...-POLLUTION.xml
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/4/24/16155/4585
http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm...868&language=1
http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/000625.php
And
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/c...air.pollution/
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/sci...eut/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/hk.pollution.reut/
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/....ap/index.html
Look what all of this is doing to their, and their neighbors health.
I wonder why it was only their coal industry which was "mentioned?"
I'll have to agree with AZCivic. Purely political.
#12
05-26-2006, 03:46 PM
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Hot Georgia: I have visited the far East, too. I have been to Japan. India. Thailand. Hong Kong. I have also been to Egypt. Israel. Australia. Denmark. The UK. France. Italy. Germany. Denmark. and others.
Yes, transportation is vastly different in most of the rest of the world than it is in the US. In third world countries, more people bike. More use motorcycles or mopeds. More use animals, and carts, and public transportation. But we're not talking about the impact of camel dung on global warming, now, are we? Fuel efficiency is measured per car, or per driver, not per citizen of a country.
In most other industrialized countries (where there is usually a LOT more public transporation than here), even those people that drive themselves do not, on average, contribute as much to global warming as the people here. Why? Easy. They drive smaller cars. Little narrow European streets and the incredibly cramped parking spaces available in densely populated Asian countries have a big impact on the size of cars people buy. Further, some governments put standards on those cars that require higher FE than the US.
China is one of them. Their environment is being treated terribly in many ways, agreed, but in this one way, at least, they have the regulations in place to require better FE in cars sold there. This isn't news. I commented on it on this board weeks ago in relation to another article, in fact. Per car, fuel economy is better in China. Still, when you're talking about so many more cars because of their huge population, even far better averages add up to higher totals. Can you tell people not to buy cars? Can you tell car companies not to sell to people who want to buy more cars? No, but you can encourage carpooling and public transportation, and you can pass laws that make the cars that they buy less harmful to the environment.
Yes, the pollution situation in China and India etc. is tragic in many ways. But that doesn't detract from the point that Al Gore seems to be making (haven't seen the movie, just going by what's been said here). The reasons auto manufacturers give for not making cars in the US that are more efficient just don't hold water. It can be done with existing technology, and it IS done elsewhere.
Yes, transportation is vastly different in most of the rest of the world than it is in the US. In third world countries, more people bike. More use motorcycles or mopeds. More use animals, and carts, and public transportation. But we're not talking about the impact of camel dung on global warming, now, are we? Fuel efficiency is measured per car, or per driver, not per citizen of a country.
In most other industrialized countries (where there is usually a LOT more public transporation than here), even those people that drive themselves do not, on average, contribute as much to global warming as the people here. Why? Easy. They drive smaller cars. Little narrow European streets and the incredibly cramped parking spaces available in densely populated Asian countries have a big impact on the size of cars people buy. Further, some governments put standards on those cars that require higher FE than the US.
China is one of them. Their environment is being treated terribly in many ways, agreed, but in this one way, at least, they have the regulations in place to require better FE in cars sold there. This isn't news. I commented on it on this board weeks ago in relation to another article, in fact. Per car, fuel economy is better in China. Still, when you're talking about so many more cars because of their huge population, even far better averages add up to higher totals. Can you tell people not to buy cars? Can you tell car companies not to sell to people who want to buy more cars? No, but you can encourage carpooling and public transportation, and you can pass laws that make the cars that they buy less harmful to the environment.
Yes, the pollution situation in China and India etc. is tragic in many ways. But that doesn't detract from the point that Al Gore seems to be making (haven't seen the movie, just going by what's been said here). The reasons auto manufacturers give for not making cars in the US that are more efficient just don't hold water. It can be done with existing technology, and it IS done elsewhere.
#13
05-26-2006, 06:36 PM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
I visit Philippines every few years and I'd bet their MPG statistics better than ours. But doesn't neccessarily mean the situation is better.
Due to the lower cost, and better efficiency of diesel fuel is what they choose for their cars & trucks.
This is not the "clean" diesel fuel some of us hope to get here in the states, and their engines have little to no emission equipment- just a typically basic smoke blowing mechanical diesel, thus the cities- mainly Manilla is absolutely choking with smog.
Regardign China- I'd bet is very similar. To get a diesel truck would be a big step up from an ox cart for the farmer. But not neccessarily better for people's lungs.
That small diesel truck would likely get better MPG than most of our cars but pollute many X more.
Regarding overall pollution these cars contribute: how many more drivers are here in the U.S. vs. China? Here 99.99% of the people drive their cars.
What is the percentage of drivers in China?
You don't have to sell me on benefits of smaller, more efficient vehicles.
The bigger problem is selling it to the rest of the country.
Due to the lower cost, and better efficiency of diesel fuel is what they choose for their cars & trucks.
This is not the "clean" diesel fuel some of us hope to get here in the states, and their engines have little to no emission equipment- just a typically basic smoke blowing mechanical diesel, thus the cities- mainly Manilla is absolutely choking with smog.
Regardign China- I'd bet is very similar. To get a diesel truck would be a big step up from an ox cart for the farmer. But not neccessarily better for people's lungs.
That small diesel truck would likely get better MPG than most of our cars but pollute many X more.
Regarding overall pollution these cars contribute: how many more drivers are here in the U.S. vs. China? Here 99.99% of the people drive their cars.
What is the percentage of drivers in China?
You don't have to sell me on benefits of smaller, more efficient vehicles.
The bigger problem is selling it to the rest of the country.
Last edited by Hot_Georgia_2004; 05-26-2006 at 06:41 PM.
#14
05-26-2006, 10:28 PM
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Originally Posted by Hot_Georgia_2004
. . . I'll have to agree with AZCivic. Purely political.
One of the failures of the Soviet Union was to substitute political beliefs for natural science which gave them Lysenko biology. Lysenko thought you could grow wheat in Siberia. I don't mind a discussion of scientific papers on global warming although it really isn't appropriate for this forum (maybe "Anything goes".) What I do mind is a unilateral declaration that it is "purely political" like the supporters of Lysenko who made it Soviet biology.
I haven't seen this movie but doubt it has any revelations not already covered in the scientific literature I read. That literature also includes skeptics who present their papers for peer review. But over time, we're finding the recent skeptical papers are fewer and fewer with more marginal data.
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 05-27-2006 at 05:46 AM.
#15
05-29-2006, 04:23 PM
Just saw "An Inconvenient Truth"
What a well-made film! An opportunity to have all the facts regarding climate change explained to you by Al Gore. Sounds kinda dull? It's anything but. The film intercuts with compelling scenes of glaciers melting, floods and hurricanes. We view the earth from satellites and spaceships. The scientific proof is overwhelming. We have changed our climate, but it's not too late. The guy they called "Ozone Al" was right all those years ago. He's still right. There is no debate about global warming...all the scientists are in agreement, all the scientific journals concur. The only place you'll find dissent is in commercial newsrooms (owned by big corporations), or in the Bush administration, (owned by big oil.) Take all your friends and family to see this film, and maybe they'll understand why you paid extra to drive a hybrid car!
#19
05-30-2006, 07:03 AM
Re: Just saw "An Inconvenient Truth"
From this morning's Hollywood Reporter...
"Paramount Vantage's "An Inconvenient Truth" was raising temperatures in the world of limited releases on its debut this weekend. The documentary, which warns about the dangers of global warming, opened in four theaters in New York and Los Angeles and grossed an estimated $365,787, for a dazzling per-theater average of $91,447. The per-theater average was a company and documentary best."
The film opens wide July 4th weekend. And yes, everything will be fine, IF we all start curbing our carbon emissions.
"Paramount Vantage's "An Inconvenient Truth" was raising temperatures in the world of limited releases on its debut this weekend. The documentary, which warns about the dangers of global warming, opened in four theaters in New York and Los Angeles and grossed an estimated $365,787, for a dazzling per-theater average of $91,447. The per-theater average was a company and documentary best."
The film opens wide July 4th weekend. And yes, everything will be fine, IF we all start curbing our carbon emissions.
#20
05-30-2006, 09:57 AM
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Hot Georgia- In some ways, you're right. There are probably more diesel passenger vehicles in China and other Asian countries than there are around here, and there are also more drivers in China than in the US. We think of them as rural, but with nearly a billion more people than we have, the people who do drive still drive way more cars than we do.
Certainly, in China there is less availability of the newly developed and developing 'clean fuels' that oil companies are coming out with (although I think it remains to be seen how much 'cleaner' any of them are, since I have heard doubts expressed about that issue. I'm just stating an impression- no research of my own to back it up). But to draw the conclusion from this that somehow America isn't at the back of the line when it comes to fuel efficiency is mistaken. Al Gore is basing his conclusions on this basic fact: Lots of other countries have other ways of moving toward solutions for the auto pollution problem that we do not choose to take advantage of here because of the political strength of the oil industry and choices made by the auto manufacturers.
Take Brazil. It's a third-world country that is getting more and more industrial, like China, and they've gone from being nearly completely dependent on foreign oil to exporting fuel in a matter of years. They shifted to cane-based ethanol. Now, I can't speak to the issue of the ongoing sustainability of sugar cane-growing in Brazil (apparently it may be damaging the rainforests), but I know that corn-based ethanol could be made in the US without raising those issues.
The smog problem in India, at least, is not due to cars, mostly. I would guess it is similar in the Philippines. In India, the smog around Delhi (not nearly as much in Mumbai, where there are MANY more cars) is caused primarily by agricultural practices. Millions of farmers, who can't pay to get rid of agricultural waste, husks, straw, etc., burn it all and send billowing smog for hundreds of miles in northern India. I waited 17 hours for a one hour flight once due to smog so thick that planes couldn't take off or land.
Like I said, there are lots of environmental problems in these places. That doesn't change the fact that many foreigners can't buy American cars even if they wanted to, because their governments set higher FE standards than we do here. Many of our cars do worse than the mileage that old Model Ts could get in 1906 (17 mpg). What does that say about the differences between technology here and in the developing world?
Certainly, in China there is less availability of the newly developed and developing 'clean fuels' that oil companies are coming out with (although I think it remains to be seen how much 'cleaner' any of them are, since I have heard doubts expressed about that issue. I'm just stating an impression- no research of my own to back it up). But to draw the conclusion from this that somehow America isn't at the back of the line when it comes to fuel efficiency is mistaken. Al Gore is basing his conclusions on this basic fact: Lots of other countries have other ways of moving toward solutions for the auto pollution problem that we do not choose to take advantage of here because of the political strength of the oil industry and choices made by the auto manufacturers.
Take Brazil. It's a third-world country that is getting more and more industrial, like China, and they've gone from being nearly completely dependent on foreign oil to exporting fuel in a matter of years. They shifted to cane-based ethanol. Now, I can't speak to the issue of the ongoing sustainability of sugar cane-growing in Brazil (apparently it may be damaging the rainforests), but I know that corn-based ethanol could be made in the US without raising those issues.
The smog problem in India, at least, is not due to cars, mostly. I would guess it is similar in the Philippines. In India, the smog around Delhi (not nearly as much in Mumbai, where there are MANY more cars) is caused primarily by agricultural practices. Millions of farmers, who can't pay to get rid of agricultural waste, husks, straw, etc., burn it all and send billowing smog for hundreds of miles in northern India. I waited 17 hours for a one hour flight once due to smog so thick that planes couldn't take off or land.
Like I said, there are lots of environmental problems in these places. That doesn't change the fact that many foreigners can't buy American cars even if they wanted to, because their governments set higher FE standards than we do here. Many of our cars do worse than the mileage that old Model Ts could get in 1906 (17 mpg). What does that say about the differences between technology here and in the developing world?
