• 73
In the U.S., we can buy hybrids, a few diesels and, soon, some serious plug-in vehicle contenders. But, on the whole, we're a dirty, dirty car market. At least, so says a new report from automotive data provider JATO Dynamics. JATO compared the American light vehicle market for the first quarter of 2010 to the markets in Europe and Japan and came away with the following results:
  • The average CO2 emissions in the U.S. are 268.5 grams per kilometer. Excluding "pick-up trucks, full size vans and small commercial vehicles" brings the number down to 255.6 g/km.
  • Europe's overall number is 140.3 g/km.
  • Japan: 130.8 g/km.
So, America is losing this race in a serious way but at least we're improving. Compared to the 2009 full-year averages, the U.S. is down 1.0 g/km. For the same time period, Japan decreased 0.4 g/km while Europe smoked the competition with a 4.3 g/km drop. One reason the U.S. is Number 1 in CO2 emissions? The low price of gas, JATO says. What does all this mean for the U.S.? David Mitchell, president of JATO Americas, said in a statement that:
It is still clear that American consumers need to undergo a fundamental re-think of their vehicle buying preferences, but the past period of economic upheaval is likely to have meant that other domestic issues have taken consumer's priority. The blame can't just lie with consumers though, the OEM product offering in the US still does little to promote alternatives to the large engine capacity gasoline vehicles which still dominate the market.
Details of the study are available after the jump.

[Source: JATO Dynamics | Image: Kerosene Photography - C.C. License 2.0]

PRESS RELEASE

US CAR MARKET STILL ALMOST TWICE AS POLLUTING AS EUROPE AND JAPAN


16/06/10 from Jato Dynamics Ltd Print this page
Add this release to Your Downloads

* US car market struggling to embrace 'greener' fuels and technologies
* US car market still dominated by less fuel efficient gasoline engines
* European and Japanese car markets gain advantage through downsizing and diesel adoption

JATO Dynamics, the world's leading provider of automotive data and intelligence today reports that the US car market is still significantly behind Europe and Japan in terms of reducing vehicle CO2output.

JATO's study of the US light vehicle market in the first quarter of 2010 reveals that the market's average CO2is 268.5 g/km. In order to reflect like-for-like comparison with car markets in other global regions, excluding pick-up trucks, full size vans and small commercial vehicles the figure falls to 255.6 g/km. This figure compares very unfavourably to Japan (130.8 g/km) and Europe's five biggest markets, which average 140.3 g/km. All markets have improved marginally when compared to the full-year average in 2009; Japan is down 0.4 g/km, the USA is down 1.0 g/km and Europe has improved most significantly with a 4.3 g/km reduction year-to-date.

"It is still clear that American consumers need to undergo a fundamental re-think of their vehicle buying preferences, but the past period of economic upheaval is likely to have meant that other domestic issues have taken consumer's priority", says David Mitchell, President of JATO Americas. "The blame can't just lie with consumers though, the OEM product offering in the US still does little to promote alternatives to the large engine capacity gasoline vehicles which still dominate the market."

One of the key influences in other global markets, the cost of fuel, still remains comparatively low in the US and this removes one of the most significant drivers for change. 33.9% of vehicles sold in the US still fall within a 15-20 mpg consumption bracket, compared with only 0.28% in Europe and 0.63% in Japan. European average CO2 emissions have reduced most significantly thanks to the rising popularity of diesel, a fuel which has 48.9% of the market share. Japan has a tiny diesel share of only 0.11%, but its highly congested roads make very small and economical gasoline cars a popular choice. Currently, the USA market is dominated by gasoline which has 81.9% market share, with only 1.7% being diesel.

"An interesting point to note, is that American consumers have been significantly more inclined to adopt Hybrid technology than the Europeans", says Mitchell. "Hybrids have 2.3% market share in the US, while in Europe it is still only 0.5%. Not surprisingly, Japan leads the way with 10.1% of market share going to Hybrids".

These regional variances can in part be put down to varyingCO2-based taxation regimes that reward or penalise certain technologies, while Japan's high-technology driven economy will automatically favour new technologies such as Hybrid and electric vehicles. Additionally, European vehicle 'scrappage' schemes have contributed significantly to the introduction into circulation of a huge number of low polluting, fuel efficient small cars - something that "cash for clunkers" didn't do to the same effect.

*Note: Some adjustment to the figures used in these findings for the different regions is necessary. Direct comparison is subject to variances of the official fuel-consumption tests for different markets, which utilise different test cycles
.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 73 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      @LS2LS7

      Your argument, though complexly worded is simple, and stupid. The carbon emitted by cars is not "special" carbon, any different than that emitted by natural processes.

      This is a simple volume issue, despite the complex and imaginary processes Climate Change cultists have invented to explain why excess human CO2 matters, the reality is, earth has had much higher CO2 concentrations (4x today's levels during the Permian, for example) in the past with no ill effects. In fact, life thrived, even more than today. That this time the slightly higher CO2 emission are caused by humans instead of natural processes is of NO RELEVANCE.

      Of course, all you the stupid climate cultists can't see the forest for the trees. You're wrapped up in the idiotic (and imaginary) minutia of how man made CO2 might be "amplifying" natural processes when in reality IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE CO2 IS MAN MADE. It's all the same chemical. These imaginary forcing processes didn't occur at all or to enough of a degree to be dangerous at higher CO2 concentrations in the prehistoric atmosphere. Just because a bunch of Climate Change eco-hippies are trying to ban cars doesn't mean the scientific reality that CO2 level increases DON'T CAUSE SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE INCREASE will because today's CO2 comes from "evil" cars instead of volcanos (and other natural sources).

      Seriously, you Climate Cultists are the most phenomenally stupid bunch I've ever met.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Climate Cultists" ???

        burn. 8^|

        -------------------

        So far you have been spouting off the same drivel without one ounce of credible proof. Please link the .org website that you pull your information from so we can tear it to shreds.

        Or do you get it straight from the Fox News feed box?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Steve,

        You better zip it before you look like an even bigger tool than you already are.

        Seriously...are you really that freaking stupid or just putting on a show?

        Either way....you're an idiot.

        Do us a favor and go to the Gulf of Mexico and throw yourself off the side of a boat and lap up that black sht you think is good for you. Hopefully you'll swallow enough of it to put yourself out of your own pathetic existence.

        Signed,

        Someone who gives a sht about the air and water that surrounds me.
        • 5 Years Ago
        - "...the #1 reason the United States is the leading producer of CO2 is because of our reliance on coal power, NOT our driving of SUV's. Cars only produce 2-3% of the total man made CO2 output...
        ... if you're stupid enough to think CO2 is dangerous you're also stupid enough to ignore that fact (or ignorant enough to not know it)."

        - Steve

        -------------------------------

        Aahh... fiction can be fun... but I find the reference section much more enlightening.

        35% of the total U.S. CO2 emissions comes from electric power plants. And 80% of those emissions are from Coal plants.

        So coal fired power plants account for 28% of the total CO2 emissions.

        While transportation accounts for 27% (not 2-3%) of the total.

        http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/US-GHG-Inventory-2010_ExecutiveSummary.pdf page 15

        http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf

        ----------------------

        Too late Noz... he has been show for the idiot he is. Let this be a lesson for the rest of the illiterate masses out there. We do math and science here. Better bring some books if you want to make claims.
        • 5 Years Ago
        It is special carbon. The carbon in the oil has been in the crust since before you were born (most likely thousands of years before that). So when it is released in the atmosphere, it represents new carbon, and thus an increase in atmospheric carbon. The carbon from your breath was captured by plants this spring (or perhaps last) and turned into food. And although it does go back into the atmosphere when you exhale, that same amount will be captured again for you to eat next year.

        It's a yearly cycle, unlike the oil carbon. If the oil carbon is a cycle, it's one that's very very long, and we don't know enough about the conditions back when that carbon was being pulled from the atmosphere and stored in oil to know that that environment was hospitable to us. Yes, the earth survived it, and it could survive it again, but that doesn't mean it'll be a climate that humans and current animals can survive in.

        Maybe you think that all this extra carbon being put into the atmosphere will just be absorbed by more plants. As you say, it's the same CO2! But I think the argument that plants can absorb this greater amount of CO2 and thus keep the earth in stasis with the same climate it current has is not nearly iron clad. Yes, it could be true. And it also very well might not be. I don't want to roll those dice and I think people who do are probably just foolish.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Typo: Correction in [ ]

        Just because a bunch of Climate Change eco-hippies are trying to ban cars doesn't mean the scientific reality that CO2 level increases DON'T CAUSE SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE INCREASE will [change] because today's CO2 comes from "evil" cars instead of volcanos (and other natural sources).
        • 5 Years Ago
        "CO2 level increases DON'T CAUSE SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE INCREASE"

        Depends on how you define "significant".
        Increase the concentration of a *greenhouse gas*, as we are undeniably doing by burning through fossil fuel (and other human effects like land use changes) and the temperature will go up. The only debate is how much. Climate models predict "the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century." Your capital letters don't disguise the fact that you have NO climate model of your own on which to base your claim of insignificance.

        The Permian was a very different time from now, so 250 million years ago isn't much comfort in trying to figure out the climate over the next century unless you're a climate expert and a paleoclimatologist. Yes its CO2 levels were much higher, but it's estimated it was 2 °C above modern temperatures. So pointing at it and saying "Earth survived" is also saying high CO2 in the past was associated with much higher temperatures.

        Global warming is a fact (it's gotten warmer), the only credible explanation for that fact (increasing levels of greenhouse gases in industrial times), and a range of dire predictions for the future. Labeling the undeniable scientific consensus on all three parts a "cult" is ludicrous.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Arsenic is naturally occurring too, so is mercury and cyanide. And we take great measures to prevent that from getting into our drinking water.

        Maybe we should stop regulating that too, just let the factories dump it right into our lakes. It's part of the cycle of life anyway, right?
      Level4
      • 5 Years Ago
      arguing about the "green movement" is like a Jewish Rabbi debating a Catholic priest..Both sides make very good compelling points but ultimately both side don't know jack and aren't 100% right...

      This your bad I'm good is getting way out of hand....
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Level4
        "Fact is scientist don't even know what the hell is going on and just have theories"

        Another scientific illiterate. You know Pythagorean's Theory seems to work out 99% of the time. But it is still just a theory.

        The theories of Einstein make possible all electronics and optics. Our satellites remain in orbit (giving GPS signals) because of "theories" that only called that because they cannot be tested as 100% true in every conceivable way.

        -------------------

        Global climatology is not 100% accurate, no... but it is not some untested hypothesis. It is based on real science, and has "fairly" good accuracy for prediction.

        The weather man is not always right. But if you risk going out side without an umbrella when the weather man says 80% chance of rain... you are probably gonna get wet.

        Can our ability to survive on the this planet, afford to continue on this path... assuming that 95% of scientists are dead wrong?
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Level4
        Kudos to Joe. Great point.

        The consequences of doing nothing are far, far greater than the consequences of working toward reductions in CO2 emissions.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Level4
        But one is going to Hell, and the other is going to Heaven.... so it might be smart to get it right.

        Pascal's Wager might apply to global warming. More so than it does to religion. With religion, the chances are very high that you might choose the wrong god to worship, or to worship in the wrong manner.
        Level4
        • 5 Years Ago
        @Level4
        You guys just ratified my point....WE are discovering new species ever so often but now everyone claims to know how the earth climates interacts.....At the end of the day you guys don't know any better and are just picking a bandwagon to follow depending on which side convince you the most...Fact is scientist don't even know what the hell is going on and just have theories but some individuals blindly believe whatever Al Gore says...
      • 5 Years Ago
      The Kyoto protocol was a joke..hell, the countries that did sign it, most of them havn't even followed it.

      As far as this article...who cares? CO2 isn't a bad thing, we exhale & inhale it all day everyday...yet people live longer today then ever before.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Hmmm.
        Hope you're not a farmer, or like to eat food, or that you can swim and like your house destroyed by a flood, or hurricane, or pestilence.

        The Bible says "subdue" not "destroy".

        And how about that One Little Oil Well puts FOUR States into the "Gulf Depression". Gosh, I guess MAN can have a big effect on DESTROYING the Wealth of Other Men.

        You geezer's need to take a Science course.

      • 5 Years Ago
      Gasoline is much cheaper here than in Europe or Japan.
      • 5 Years Ago
      First there are almost NO fuel frugal offerings in the US. The EU and Asia have many relatively large, ie, midsize, vehicles rated above 45 mpg(US) combined and vehicles like the Post 2010 Focus 1.6 Duratorq TDCi (109PS) diesel 5 Door Saloon (ECO Start-Stop) M5, 52/62/69 [62.8/74.3/83.1] mpg(US [Imperial] ) urban/combined/extra urban

      Or the smaller Post 2010¼ Fiesta, 1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) (+DPF) (ECO) and the 1.6 Duratorq (95PS) (+DPF) (ECO) M5 diesel M5s, 51/64/74 [61.4/76.3/88.3] mpg(US [Imperial] ) urban/combined/extra urban

      SEE: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/fuelConSearch.asp


      The US consumer's buying behavior would probably be significantly different ... IF ... these types of fuel economies were available!

      The challenge is figuring out how to COMPLY with the US STATUTORY FLEET AVERAGE NOx limit of 43.5 mg/km (70 mg/mile).

      The EU diesels seem to be MUCH close to US light vehicle NOx compliance than MOST US domestic diesels ... generally used in medium duty applications.

      See if youcan figure it out ....
      • 5 Years Ago
      Who gives a damn about CO2? It's hopelessly discredited. And even if it DID count, North America already emits no NET CO2. We have more than solved that problem with our land set aside and sequester programs. Go hector Europe and China which do emit CO2, and are nowhere near as advanced in limiting toxic emissions.

      The genuine Green issue is and always has been toxic emissions. And there, the North American ICE already achieves ZERO Pollution in mass manufacture. The CARB greens in California had to admit that already 25% of the Cars registered in California were ZERO emissions vehicles. It is now routine of modern US autos to reach PZEV and SULEV II emission levels, and most new cars for sale across the country do so. As the fleet turns over, and older dirtier cars are scrapped, the toxic emissions problem is solved too, even for "conventional gasoline" autos.

      And despite your attempts to keep the public misinformed and agitated, North America and the the rest of the industrialized world has almost a decade of declining use of Petroleum. That is far longer than the current recession that only reduced demand even further. Your hectoring for forty years has led to downsized autos that obtain much better mileage, leading to the reduced Oil demand. And the age of electrified autos is about to dawn.

      Go dream up some new CATASTROPHE to worry and Tax us about; this one no longer sells, nor is valid.
        • 6 Months Ago
        What is the dot org website that you get your information from?

        Are you sure it wasn't a satire website? Cause ALL the points you made were exact opposites to reality.

        • 6 Months Ago
        It was FOX [ Saudi ] News.

        Did you ever see so much oil and coal A** Kissing?
        The right really kisses a lot of ...
      • 5 Years Ago
      The difference is that European fuel taxation favors more efficient vehicles, period.

      That incentivizes the entire driving population to buy smaller ICEs and adopt more efficient diesels... or commute. All without relying on a government subsidy.
      • 5 Years Ago
      did we just have a large infusion of idiots from the more ignorant side of autoblog.com?
        • 5 Years Ago
        I'll take that as a yes : )
        so it is your firm belief that Al Gore made up global warming last year as a money making tax scheme for himself and that the climate scientists of the world are backing up his lie?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yes. We wanted to come over here and bask in your superior intelligence. Got any climate research emails for me to read?
        • 6 Months Ago
        Sigh. The sad part is the HUGE numbers of these people who have no idea how to think for themselves but rather spout tag lines from news organizations who support big oil regardless of the cost to all of us.

        They'll argue that any attempt to change it is based on "climate cultist" like our buddies Steve and Frank. They like to ignore what it does to our economy to spend $400billion a year on foreign oil, or the $trillion we have to spend on the military because it is overextended in wars due to oil consumption...or our kids getting killed over there for it.

        But go ahead Frank and Steve. Tell everyone how you know that global warming is wrong so you can be "right" and keep on screwing up our economy and getting our kids killed over there. As long as you're "right", it's all good isn't it?

        You must be so proud.

        • 5 Years Ago
        nah they need to be exposed to this. preaching to the choir doesn't get the job done.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I think we did Dan...the morons are coming here in hoards now...isn't there a way to keep the dumbasses out? Perhaps if they suck up enough CO and tailpipe emissions they love, they'll stay away.
      • 5 Years Ago
      The number one producer of CO2 is respiration from animal and plant life (that's breathing for scientifically ignorant greenies). Then atmospheric exchange from the oceans. Then volcanos. But you know, lets not let the fact that CO2 is a harmless, naturally occurring gas get in the way of psychopathic environmental extremism. Screw the cars, lets kill all animals life, they are producing too much CO2!!!

      Of course, over 95% of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not CO2, it's H2O (for all you scientifically challenged greenies out there, that's water vapor). Why don't we have a completely pointless and irrational discussion lamenting how humans produce too much of that too. Stop cooking tea people, it makes STEAM!!! OH NO!!! THE WORLD'S GOING TO END!!!

      In all seriousness, when are the scientifically retarded people behind the carbon nonsense going to STFU? Kids are already barely educated, we don't need morons envirowacko's making them even stupider by having a mental breakdown over a completely harmless gas.

      Mr. Blanco, before you write another idiotic piece of brainless babble about CO2, you (and all the Church of Climate Change cultists pretending to be scientists) need to go back to kindergarten and learn elementary chemistry.
        • 5 Years Ago
        breathing is a small percentage of the CO2 from technology and more importantly we don't eat fossil fuels. as long as we eat sunmade carbons it's entirely CO2 neutral and doesn't contribute to global warming. the piece of shit V8s running on fossil fuel do however add greatly to global warming.

        that makes you... wrong.
        • 5 Years Ago
        As anaside to my own comment, to preempt the wackos that will irrationally accuse me of hating the environment or "working for the oil companies"; I think there are plenty of good reasons to look at renewables and make cleaner cars. CO2 just isn't one of them.
        • 5 Years Ago
        CO2 emissions as part of respiration are part of the closed CO2 cycle that sees that CO2 removed from the atmosphere in spring and summer as plants grow. This is not the case for burning fossil fuels (or volcanoes!).

        Let me put it this way:
        Say CO2 from respiration is 10X what CO2 from burning fossil fuels are.
        And consider this:
        What if, every morning I gave you $1000, but you had to give it back to me every night. What happens after a month? You have the same amount of money as you had before.
        Now, what if, every morning I gave you $100 and never took it back. What happens after a month? You have $3000!

        CO2 from a closed cycle is like the former. You do have it for a moment, but it is returned to the system and there is no build up. CO2 from burning fossil fuels (and volcanoes) is like the latter. It accumulates.

        So your idea that cars are okay because breathing happens is not accurate. You cannot directly compare the two as you did.

        As to volcanoes, well, take a look at this:
        http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/correction-apology-planes-or-volcano/

        During the time Eyjafjallajoekull was erupting and throwing non-renewable CO2 into the atmosphere, it actually was net REDUCING the CO2 buildup because the planes it grounded would have emitted more in the same time period!

        I agree H2O vapor is an enormous greenhouse gas. Do you know what the other primary emission of combustion is besides CO2? It's H2O vapor. When a hydrocarbon is burned, the carbon joins with oxygen and turns to CO2, and the hydrogens join with oxygen and turn to H2O.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas trapping heat in the atmosphere. Condensed water vapor in the atmosphere (clouds) and frozen water (snow/ice) are the the largest reflectors of heat. A slight increase in global temperatures leaves more water vapor in the atmosphere, less condensed in clouds, and less frozen on the surface. It ends up being a multiplier of CO2- related global warming.

        In addition, ocean acidification (caused by disolved CO2) reduces plant growth and disolved oxygen- which leads to more anaerobic respiration of ocean bacteria leading to methane- which is a more powerful greenhouse gas. Slight rising temperatures increases rotting of vegitation on land (thawed permafrost)- releasing more greenhouse gasses. Rising ocean temperatures melts methane hydrates, which are not digested on their way to the surface due to lower disolved oxygen... more greenhouse gasses....

        The effect of man-made CO2 on global climate is multiplied by natural processes, not dwarfed by them. Everything is in a relatively delicate balance- messing with that balance can have major consequences. If global systems are overwhelmed by human activity, the accumulative effect over the next few decades could be dramatic.

        Simple-minded analysis that does not take into account the total impact on global systems does not grasp the impact of human behavior on global climate.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "I hear dinosaurs don't exist...is that true?"

        Yes. they have been extinct for millions of years.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Amen.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Trees only capture CO2 during growth stages. Mature trees just maintain it stored, they don't add a lot more.

        The point about the carbon cycle versus fossil fuels is that even though the carbon cycle carbon is so much more (the $1000 in my example), it doesn't build up, unlike the smaller fossil fuels amount ($100 in my example) because the renewable CO2 just keeps going in and out of the system while the fossil CO2 adds up.

        So if you see rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and they accumulate over years; it isn't from breathing. Of course, some may say the rising CO2 levels aren't a concern. I don't agree, but that; unlike the argument about breathing, is a cohesive argument.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I'll tell you what the real problem is: people. There are just too many of them. We have to find a way not just to slow population growth but to de-populate the earth. Abortion was a great start. We got rid of 50 million or so in America and many millions in Europe but then we just imported the missing future workers from Mexico and the Middle East respectively, so that didn't solve anything. We need to restrict immigration and keep people from breeding. We should not tax gasoline, but babies, and give tax credits for abortions. Maybe we could lock up more people in prison or re-education camps and sterilize them so they can't breed. If we could figure out a way to lock up all those Christian religious fanatics in the US that would be a great start. We could also do some kind of DNA scan on the population (implemented thru the new health care program) to check for any possibility of hereditary genetic abnormality and force those people to be sterilized so there would be less chance of children born with medical issues. This would have the secondary benefit of keeping the population down.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Ah Frank,

        The other villiage idiot...well at least you don't dinosaurs never existed....right? Right??
        • 5 Years Ago
        Way to go, Steve. You've cut through the hype of global warming and gotten right to the crux of the issue.

        Those darn cats, dogs and birds are breathing too much!

        I think this fella's onto something...
        • 5 Years Ago
        Did a bunch of 70 year olds stumble out of the Exxon & BP bar?

        The US is Dead Last in all Future Technology, except Propaganda.
        The Carbon industry spends 100's of millions of dollars on Regulatory, Legislative and Judicial CAPTURE, and the Economic's profession along with the "news" media. This is the United States of Bull.

        If you want your kids to have jobs, don't look at Engineering, send your boy to Lobby School.

        It's fools like these that keep the US Dead Last, with No Economic Future.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The level of CO2 has been constant for 100's of thousands of years, and animals and plants and volcanoes have been around that whole time. Just in the last 150 years the level of CO2 went from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. That wasn't from animals or plants or volcanoes. It was from humans burning fossil fuels.

        Winger-science is so much fun. No need for facts, research or observations, or writing papers or peer reviews. Just make stuff up!
        • 5 Years Ago
        Steve the village idiot is back.

        Hey Steve...I hear dinosaurs don't exist...is that true?
        • 5 Years Ago
        @ Steve

        - "...to preempt the wackos that will irrationally accuse me of hating the environment or "working for the oil companies"

        Look! A bunch of rational and scientific arguments that did not accuse you of being a hater or a shill.

        Nobody should accuse you of such. I believe Hanlon's Razor applies.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
        -----------------------

        AGW deniers have talking points and cleverly worded metaphors to describe how man-made global warming is preposterous. Those claims are VERY RARELY backed up with legitimate science. Occasionally some pseudoscience bafflegab.

        The people who actually throw in relevant statistics and hard numbers (not just "winter was cold this year")... are usually are in agreement about AGW. And the VAST majority of scientists working in related fields agree too.

        But Americans have grown increasingly afraid of intellectual types. They view scientists as "elitists" for some reason. The feverish opposition to science is partly caused by the dogmatic reverence for religion... but this is getting out of control the last few decades.

        But Americans tend to be more political and emotional.. than intelligent. Especially with Fox News writing every talking point that comes out of the mouths of deniers.
        • 5 Years Ago
        why not the LS2LS7: "So your idea that cars are okay because breathing happens is not accurate. "

        I don't think that's what he was saying. He was saying that the CO2 issue is blown out of proportion. At least that's the way I read it.

        Also, didn't I read somewhere that North America consumes more CO2 than it produces? I know I own hundreds of trees. :)
        • 5 Years Ago
        Nice to see signs of intelligent life on this board, Steve. Climate change is caused by solar activity, not human activity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum. If the bed wetters in the environmental movement succeed in passing cap and trade, they'll double or triple the cost of fuel for EVs for no good reason and severely limit their market potential.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Related to gas price? Just a wild guess.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Where are all the douchbags from Autoblog who should be arriving anytime now to pound their chests about how they don't want others telling them what do to and how to do it.

      Oh how I wish some of these people paid a hefty price personally due to their wasteful and pathetically exuberant lifestyles.

      Keep those wars going.
        • 6 Months Ago
        I see much more clearly why it's not easy to get Americans to sign any emission-reduction protocol.

        BTW, engines, stoves, gas-burners, etc produce both CO and CO2 (the first when O2 starts to fall in concentration, which is about always in any of these machines), however CO gets oxidized fairly quickly into the dioxide form (CO2).
        It's a common doubt people have on CO and CO2, and which one is harmful: CO is the poisonous one, but has much lower concentrations because it gets oxidized rather fast, and CO2 is the one absorbs heat like a sponge (otherwise we don't feel discomfort up to 2% concentrations).

        There are incorrect numbers of CO2 role and production on a lot of comments here... but that's not really a problem.
      • 5 Years Ago
      "CO is the poisonous one"

      Change that to "CO is the MORE poisonous one". Carbon Dioxide is poisonous to people at blood levels lower than alcohol- you need to rid it from your body or it will kill you. It is all a matter of the ability to remove it from your blood stream and atmospheric concentration.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia
        • 6 Months Ago
        BTW,

        You can live off drinking nothing but liquids with 5-10% alcohol (they did so for generations drinking wine in Europe when water contained many diseases during the middle ages). However, you will pass out and die breathing air with 5% CO2.
    • Load More Comments