Time For Buyers To Have Some Skin In The EV Game

Politicians know that $8- or $9-a-gallon gas like in Europe would end their careers.

The back-and-forth between those writing the fuel economy rules and auto manufacturers is designed to see how far the CO2 regulations can be pushed without inconveniencing the general public.

Rather than taxing fuel like they do in Europe to encourage buyers to opt for the most fuel-efficient vehicles, in America it's up to the manufacturers to develop a fleet that averages some magic number, in this case 54.5 mpg by 2025. That's because most politicians know that $8- or $9-a-gallon gas like in Europe would end their careers.
Matt DeLorenzo is the former editor-in-chief of Road & Track and has covered the auto industry for 35 years, including stints at Automotive News and AutoWeek. He has authored books including VW's New Beetle, Chrysler's Modern Concept Cars, and Corvette Dynasty.


There is no fundamental change in overall buying preferences.

On the other side of the coin, the manufacturers will work the system using whatever credits or loopholes they can carve out until it becomes apparent that they will no longer be able to build V-8 engines or large pickups. In fact, CAFE is precisely why fullsize rear-wheel-drive sedans and station wagons have largely been replaced as the family vehicle of choice by fullsize SUVs because of the two-tier fuel economy regulations that gave trucks a break.

This approach is what I call trying to solve a retail problem at the wholesale level. By making the manufacturers do all the heavy lifting, the public does benefit with cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars. On the one hand, we are getting cars that are good for us, on the other, the changes are so subtle, we really don't notice it. Naturally, interest in small, fuel-efficient cars increases when gas spikes up, but then dissipates as prices fall. There is no fundamental change in overall buying preferences.

And by not having any skin in the game, it's hard for anyone to get truly excited about new technologies like clean diesels, hybrids and EVs.

Elon Musk could offer the Model S for much less than the fake $500 per month lease rate.

So, if government lacks the courage to pass high fuel taxes that would encourage the use of hybrids, diesels or EVs, why don't they open the doors up to incentives instead? I read with interest in the Los Angeles Times that Tesla has been able to sell CO2 emission credits that amount to as much as $45,000 per car for each Model S it sells and that the company expects to reap a cool $250 million in the process.

Why not require manufacturers to pass those credits along to the customers who will actually be driving the cars and making a difference in air quality? If it's true that Tesla stands to make 45 grand on emission credits per car, then Elon Musk can pass that along and offer the car for much less than the fake $500 per month lease rate he initially calculated by factoring in your time saved at the pump.

Keep the sticker prices where they are, and let the consumer decide what to do with the credits.

Better yet, keep the sticker prices where they are, and let the consumer decide what to do with the credits. In fact, if the emission credits are part of the package, it might allow makers to sell EVs closer to their true cost rather than at some subsidized rate.

If buyers get the CO2 credits, they can opt to sell them immediately back to the manufacturer to lower their cash outlay, peddle them to another higher-bidding manufacturer or hang onto them in the hopes that their value will climb over time as government standards tighten. Or, if they are truly altruistic, never cash in on them. If they do so, they will be making a real difference in lowering CO2 because those credits would give someone else the ability to offset excess emissions.

Best of all, it takes behind-the-scenes-maneuvering and makes it a public topic, thereby making both the costs and benefits of high fuel economy standards much more transparent.


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
  • 231 Comments
      archos
      • 1 Year Ago
      How would that be an incentive to buyers or automakers? First the car price would be raised to include the credit, and then automakers like Tesla would lose a major incentive to sell ZEVs. Looks like a lose-lose.
      Big Squid
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is all BS. Credits? Trading? Money changing hands? How does any of that reduce C02 emissions? I want my Thorium-fueled Cadillac!!
      robitrobit
      • 1 Month Ago

      Start online work

      what Bruce responded I am blown away that any one can profit $6257 in four weeks on the computer . go to this web-site

      <~><~>~<~>www.YelpPay.com<~><~>~<~>


      Bernie Kressner
      • 1 Year Ago
      How in the world did we get into this mode of socialist European thinking? As a scientist, I can see that this automotive CO2 problem is one of those cause-and-effect phenomena that are microscopically true and macroscopically irrelevant. Translation: Vehicular CO2 is NOT the problem! It's a low-order effect. You can reduce CO2 output from automobiles until you're blue in your face --- to zero, in fact, -- and overall atmospheric/oceanic temperatures will continue to rise, -- virtually unabated. Surprise! Why? 1) CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas that afflicts the planet: H2O, as water vapor, is. 2) CO2 is not alone in the realm of minor contributing gases: try methane and SO2, for example. Maybe we should ban cows. 3) Even with CO2, the vast majority of that gas comes from coal-and petroleum fired power plants, principally in the US and China. Other sources of CO2 are volcanic and thermal-vent emissions. 4) Jet aircraft produce about 5% of all CO2, but the ice-crystal contrails they leave have a disproportionately large effect on trapping re-radiation to warm the atmosphere. Are we going to ban jets too, and maybe get them to run on batteries? 5) How can we explain that the equatorial temperature on Mars has been increasing since 1st measurements 40 years ago? Are we going to blame that on automotive CO2 also? Maybe the Rovers are at fault. Or has the sun cyclically increased its output, as it has done for eons? Gee, maybe there is more than one cause here... 6) So, you want to reduce CO2? Fine. That's 1/2 * 1/4 * 1/ 3 = 4.1 % of the problem. So here we are bending over backwards to inconvenience everyone who drives a car just because some bureaucrat never passed 9th grade math? And yes, I can burden you with links and references for all this, if needed. So, when do we have someone standing up to say that the Emperor has no clothes? -----------------
        Zoom
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bernie Kressner
        Another denier. Give me a dime. 'as a scientist'. entering the 4th grade science fair doesn't count.
        Snowdog
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bernie Kressner
        "1) CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas that afflicts the planet: H2O, as water vapor, is." Of FFS, not this ignorant drivel again. Don't cut and paste a bunch falsehoods you don't even have enough brains to realize are nonsense. The Earth needs to trap a certain amount of heat for comfortable temperature equilibrium, and water vapor is a big part of, but the amount of water vapor is NOT systematically increasing. OTOH C02 is systematically increasing, and this is what is putting us over the edge from equilibrium to increasing temperatures. Similar arguments apply to your other nonsense points that your cribbed from some wrong headed AGW denier web page.
        Scr
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bernie Kressner
        Let us not forget that there have been published articles that CO2 is not the greenhouse has the enviro-weenies think it is, and that the so called "waming" in not due to CO2, but the increase in CO2 is due to the "warming". The "green" economy is a false economy...stop propping it up.
          Ryan
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Scr
          There is nothing right about the above comment. CO2 does absorb IR energy, it is basic physics.
          Lachmund
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Scr
          get educated and stop misinforming other people
          Ray Blackburn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Scr
          \"The \"green\" economy is a false economy...stop propping it up.\" Some of us can afford to do good things for the planet, country, national security, city air, I am sorry you can\'t Scr. If you only had a brain you would realize we are the ones that will allow oil to be on this planet longer and not pushed into the atmosphere. As a oil abuser you should be happy we don\'t use it on our light duty fleet uses.
        Rampant
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bernie Kressner
        Finally, someone with some common sense about the global warming paranoia in the this society. There is one link I would like to add to your comment, because of its source - from this very website... http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/report-pollution-from-15-of-worlds-biggest-ships-equal-that-o/ That's right - 15 cargo ships out pace the pollution output of the whole of humanity. How could all this pressure for cleaner cars be based in logic when it is about as far away from the problem as possible? Its isnt logical - its emotional, or even worse, political.
          Rampant
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rampant
          *edit* I should have said "the pollution output of the whole of humanities automobiles". Makes my point less confusing that way. Soz
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rampant
          @ Peter Scott Where on earth do you get your 'scientific' information from ? Rampant is quite right ! The use of Bunker oil by shipping does emit vast amounts of sulphur into the atmosphere, but they also emit CO2, in huge quantities. Worse the particulate pollution from Bunker Oil usage destroys the oceans ability to sequester CO2, making shipping fuel the largest polluter in both categories ! Oh, CO2 and Sulphur a just a few of the cocktail of carcinogenic toxic poisons spewed in the bio-sphere by the use of this reprehensible product. Comparing motor vehicle pollution to the toxicity of Bunker Oil, is like worrying about leaving the tap on in your cabin, while the ship is sinking !
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rampant
          @Marco Unbunch you panties and read what I said. 1) These do not emit more C02 than ALL the cars in the WORLD. This is a fact. If you want to claim otherwise back it up. 2) I never said these ships aren't a problem. But they are a different problem. 3) You can't use the existence of different problems as an excuse to do nothing with the current problem.
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rampant
          No Marco he isn't correct unless the "worlds shipping fleet" = 15 ships. He said: "15 cargo ships out pace the pollution output of the whole of humanity..." You said: "UN estimates the worlds shipping fleet to emits..." Sadly: This kind of fact twisting is just trolling as usual from you.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rampant
          @ Peter Scott, Since you obviously have no reply, it might be nice if you acknowledged to 'Rampart' that his post was accurate. Rampart was making the point that if CO2 emissions are so terrible, the greatest priority should be devoted to the greatest source, and the most easily resolved! A very reasonable and effective assumption, don't you think ?
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rampant
          @ PeterScott "These do not emit more C02 than ALL the cars in the WORLD. This is a fact. If you want to claim otherwise back it up." Putting something in capitals, doesn't make it more of a fact ! The UN estimates the worlds shipping fleet to emits over 1.21billion tonnes of Co2 per year, this constitutes nearly 4.5% of total world emissions. It's expected to triple by 2020. In addition, the use of banker oil has reduced the oceans ability to sequester CO2, by several billion tonnes per year. (If the ability of the oceans to sequester C02 is negated, that's the same as emitting CO2 !) In contrast, since the UN estimates the world car fleet emissions at only only 900 million tonnes of CO2 each year, (decreasing), it would appear that you are underestimating the shipping fleets emissions. Interestingly, the UN rates the largest man made CO2 emitters, by percentage as: But bunker oil usage creates far more toxic pollution than just CO2 emissions ! But very few people seem interested, which is very sad since this is the most easily resolved of all pollution problems. Electricity 24% Manufacturing 11% Shipping 4.5% Refineries 4% Aviation 2%
        JB
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bernie Kressner
        Do you have any idea how much CO2 the earth can handle? I don't. But what I do know is 4% can be what puts us over the edge. And yes methane is an issue too, we should reduce our dependence on livestock for a great number of reasons, methane being one. Global warming is just ONE of many reasons reducing vehicle emissions is good for us. You only need to take a deep breath in a busy city to know that. Of course the other side of fuel efficiency we just transfer the pollution, the batteries and toxins from all the production we just dump on 3rd world countries, out of sight out of mind. It's also not just cars that get held to higher standards, but everything, you just notice the cars because it's something you see and deal with every day. Factories and power plants have to make changes too, or do the whole carbon credit swap bullshit. When the OPEC nations are looking to be the most efficient from energy production stand point they know what they're doing, being prepared so they don't have to rely on oil and can rake the the rest of the world over the coals when they haven't properly prepared.
        Lachmund
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bernie Kressner
        damn why do deniers loike you seem so clueless. one would think you'd be educated people. some people will only learn when it really hurts. so be it
        Ray Blackburn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bernie Kressner
        Bernie, the pollution pile you love stinks! Clean out your nose so you can smell, then tell me about the planet.
        Hello, Brian
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bernie Kressner
        Bernie, If you are a \"scientist\" I certianly hope that the research in the area in which you work is better than your research on global warming. I am not sure how someone who considers himself a scientist can call climate science \"socialist European\" thinking. Firstly, socialism is an ECONOMIC system; not a policital or scientific one. Science has nothing to do with economics, and therefore, has nothing to do with socialism. Secondly, you make an microscopic vs macroscopic argument, but proceed to discuss the facts using a microscopic point of view. Thirdly, the reason that water vapor has had an effect on global temperatures over the past 10 years is that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has FALLEN, not increased. Satellite measurements taken over the past decade or so, show that water vapor levels in the stratosphere have DROPPED about 10%. This could have REDUCED the amount of warming expected to be caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the last decade by as much as 25%. So basically, the science shows the inverse of your argument. We have lower water vapor levels that have actually reduced the potentil impact of warming due to increases in CO2.
      AngeloD
      • 1 Year Ago
      So now the enviro-religion not only has its faith-based belief system in anthropogenic global warming, it has the additional trappings of a big-money church in the form of the the sale of carbon credits which are just another form of the sale of indulgences. It was quite a lucerative scam for the Catholic Church in medieval times, should work for Al Gore, our Pope of Preposterous Prognostication.
        ElectricAvenue
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        "Faith-based belief system in anthropogenic global warming..." Really, dude? Almost every climate scientist on the planet agrees that the planet is warming up, and that burning fossil fuels is a big part of the reason, and... that's faith-based? You have it exactly backward.
          AngeloD
          • 1 Year Ago
          @ElectricAvenue
          @ElectricAvenue: Oh please...just stop with the "consensus" crap already. That crap has been debunked over, and over, and over again. You're not going to make that lie true by sheer repetition. Some of the absolute top climate scientists, for example M.I.T.'s Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology) solidly dispute the nonsense spewed by Hansen et al. Dozens of actual climate scientists resigned from the IPCC, and sued to have their names taken off of the inital report claiming a link between man made CO2 and global warming. Many of those whose names remained weren't even climatologists. And..again.. no warming for the past 20 years? You folks can only cling to the oceanic heat sink B.S. for just so long.
          Lachmund
          • 1 Year Ago
          @ElectricAvenue
          angelo you seem to be narrow minded and seem to believe every little illogival BS just beacuse it would make it easier for you.
        Lachmund
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        man are you clueless. please don't cry when it's too late
          yyz
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Lachmund
          Too late? What is going to happen when it is "too late"? Are the sea levels going to rise? Earthquakes, volcanoes, locusts....... yeah I saw the movie, it isn't going to be pretty. Say, has the earth been warming over the past decade? If it has, by how much? How much are we above the "correct" temperature? What is the correct temperature supposed to be?
          AngeloD
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Lachmund
          @Lachmund: When exactly is the warming actually going to start? LOL. 20 years and no discernible increase. What a fraud, Even the self-admitted liars like Hansen admit that the warming just isn't there. It's disturbing to see so much backwardness, scientific illiteracy, and just plain superstition driving the US towards adopting these carbon trading schemes so keenly sought after by Goldman Sachs and the other large Wall Street trading banks.
          Lachmund
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Lachmund
          you damn fools. so the glaciers are melting without a reason. stop denying you hurt the rest of us!
        max
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        I agree, it's about time we added about a $1 to the gallon of fuel, it will do a much better job of actually being green.
          Jarda
          • 1 Year Ago
          @max
          coz it has worked so great for Europe
        Chayil
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        Wel said. Yes, the environmental movement is a religion, a fanatical, fundamentalist one at that. Al Gore is a high priest of that religion and the church of the environment is evangelical in its nature.
      knightrider_6
      • 1 Year Ago
      3% of scientists deny global warming. 3% of doctors deny that rape can lead to pregnancy.
        PatrickH
        • 1 Year Ago
        @knightrider_6
        The whole "97% of climate scientists" has been discredited ad nauseum. Try to stay up with the times please.
          Spec
          • 1 Year Ago
          @PatrickH
          Actually a new report supports it.
        EZEE
        • 1 Year Ago
        @knightrider_6
        Scientists have also been all over the map on what exactly will happen. From Science Daily: When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7°C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis. But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a \"mere\" 1.9°C. Me again - interestingly, if you look at 3.7 degrees and 1.9 degrees, the 3.7 degree figure is off by nearly 100% (1.9 is 51% less, or, in the other direction, 3.7 is nearly twice as big as 1.9). This essentially means that the \'science\' was off by nearly double. Although not denying global warming (or global climate change, or global climate disruption, or global climate chaos, or whatever the new term will be), one has to be a bit skeptical about \'science\' who\'s predictions are off by almost double. Some of the early studies are off by 300%. Studies off by 300% are commonly known as \'wild ass guesses.\' You, as everyone else iin this room, including myself, are accepting these premises on an article of faith. An article of faith? Let me tell you of the Book of Mormon... ;-)
          CoolWaters
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EZEE
          When Global Glaciers are restored to their original size, then I would trust something you interpret on the internet.
          EZEE
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EZEE
          Look up the figures Ford. Estimates are wrong by as much as 300%. 300% is a wild ass guess.
      CoolWaters
      • 1 Year Ago
      Global Warming isn't Real? The CA drought has expanded all the way to the Mississippi. Only a FOOL would put Farmers and the US Food Supply at Risk. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu
        CoolWaters
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CoolWaters
        This is an ongoing 4 year drought at this time.
          PatrickH
          • 1 Year Ago
          @CoolWaters
          The drought was worse in the 50's. Who do you want to blame for that drought, Japan?
        Eco-Dork
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CoolWaters
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
      knightrider_6
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is really sad. Raising the taxes on gasoline and diesel would have been a much simpler solution.
        Dave
        • 1 Year Ago
        @knightrider_6
        The issue with raising gasoline tax is that it doesn't really change the type of new vehicles people buy. If you are wealthy enough to buy an expensive gas guzzler, you are wealthy enough to afford an additional $1 per gallon tax. A gas tax can't change the types of used cars people buy - the cars are already built and sold into the market.
          JakeY
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Dave
          There has been a measurable effect in the type of cars people buy in the US when gas prices rise (or drop) $1/gallon. This is happened practically every year for 2008-2012. And yes it does affect used cars by affecting their value on the market (there were tons of used SUVs on the market in 2008 that no one wanted to buy). To say there is no effect from a $1/gallon difference in the US is to ignore what has already happened before. http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/30/sorry-your-suv-is-now-worthless/ http://green.autoblog.com/2008/12/25/gas-prices-go-down-truck-sales-go-up/ http://green.autoblog.com/2010/08/12/u-s-car-buyers-want-large-vehicles-suvs-again-thanks-to-stabi/ http://green.autoblog.com/2011/05/24/high-gas-prices-lead-to-compact-vehicles-flying-off-dealer-lots/ http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/31/values-of-small-used-cars-fall-in-lockstep-with-gas-prices/
      CoolWaters
      • 1 Year Ago
      It's the sad state of the "Republican" party, and you can see why they push for NO Public Education. With Global Glaciers melting before your eyes, only a fool code vote Republican.
        EZEE
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CoolWaters
        Fool codes...can\'t ever trust them to do what\'s right.
      icon149
      • 1 Year Ago
      It amazes me how quickly the people commenting on this post can claim that Global Warming "science" is being debunked as myth. Not sure where anyone heard this other than talk radio. Fact is the science is really very simple, and there is no debunking it. What is not understood and is continually being tested, adjusted, analysed, and assessed is the effect of the changes humans are making to the planet (both by releasing millions of years worth of sequestered carbon so quickly that the earth can't adjust, and either can it's inhabitants, and by our own population explosion). The science is sound, the unknown is what it will effect and can we adjust as fast as the earth changes. Trees can't move to where the weather will support them quickly, it takes 10's of years. Ocean life can't escape the acidification. Reefs are dying and will take 100's of years to regrow if there is even a place on the planet that will support that kind of life. But then again, maybe we just have a few more floods, few more hurricanes and the earth finds a way to adjust and normalize. Regardless, the real reason to figure out a way to reward socially acceptable purchasing and transportation is to stay competitive. debt spending and buying foreign oil is no way to keep the USA a super power, we need better public transport, a home grown source for our transport energy (Electric, liquid fuels, H2, whatever). Whether it is with higher gas taxes, Carbon credits or some other contrived political BS, we need to move forward, ideally leading the way forward, we need to have the industries and companies that are pushing the developments and creating the jobs in the USA.
        AngeloD
        • 1 Year Ago
        @icon149
        Icon: Why no warming over the past 20 years? You enviro-religion fundies sure like to dance around the abject lack of evidence for your theory. BTW- it's a faith-based belief system just like astrology if you can't come up with a shred of hard evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Debunked as myth? Better described as: thoroughly discredited as false based on a lack of evidence and admissions by the proponents in leaked emails that the theory has no foundation in science.
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AngeloD
          http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/25/1768601/in-hot-water-global-warming-has-accelerated-in-past-15-years-new-study-of-oceans-confirms/?mobile=nc "Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically."
          EZEE
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AngeloD
          Think Progress - LOL - a biased website with leftwing leanings. Might as well listen to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Glenn Beck is probably as informed as Think Progress. LOL
      knightrider_6
      • 1 Year Ago
      @ Bernie Kressner You can keep denying it but it is not going to change the truth: Survey of 12,000 studies finds strong agreement on climate change http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/survey-of-12000-studies-finds-strong-agreement-on-climate-change/
        Bernie Kressner
        • 1 Year Ago
        @knightrider_6
        knightrider_6.... I read your link. (Again, using the term "denier" for those who challenge this hypothesis is inappropriate.) That "Ars Technica" (an amusing name, I must admit) article has two major problems: 1) It surveys "scientists" for what they BELIEVE about the existence of Global Warming. Good science is not a popularity contest, and it is not subject to vote or to a belief system; 2) It does not address any data for the causes of "Global Warming", only whether it exists. I don't think that anyone denies 50 years of measurements on whether the earth has gotten warmer (it has), only what has caused it. Anthropogenic Global Warming is just one hypothesis; there are others. As I have said before, correlation does not imply causality. ----------------
          knightrider_6
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Bernie Kressner
          "It surveys "scientists" for what they BELIEVE about......" And what you are saying here is what you BELIEVE is true. Are you even a real scientist, or a minimum wage worker on Exxon's payroll?
        Bernie Kressner
        • 1 Year Ago
        @knightrider_6
        knightrider_6..... You, like many others here, seem not to have a clue about what I said. You label anyone who disagrees with the SOURCE of global temperature rise as a "denier" or worse. I am not denying that temperature rise is happening. I am suggesting that the automotive CO2 theory is nonsense, because of its inconsequential effect compared to many other things, already listed above. It is also true that this whole topic has long since lost its proper science; has financial career involvement at this point; and has become a religion with socialist wealth-equalizations motives in the political realm. I have also looked the credentials of the 1000 members of IPCC; perhaps 1/4 have anything resembling proper training in this area of research, but the opinion of the majority seems to have ruled. See Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming ---------------
          Bernie Kressner
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Bernie Kressner
          Hello, Brian..... You're doing it again! With all due respect, you, like many others here, just don't get it. 1) I am not challenging global temperature rise (a less emotionally charged term) or increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere (ppm). I am suggesting that this is a complex topic and no single "cause", especially automobile emissions, has ever been FUNCTIONALLY demonstrated to be the culprit. Correlation does not imply causality. There was time when the rise and fall of the stock market tracked pretty neatly with the phase of the moon, too. So, in this case, is the earth getting warmer because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere; or is there more CO2 (and H2O) in the atmosphere because the earth is getting warmer? You completely ignored my comment about the temperature increase on Mars, which could only have come from the sun or other "causes" not yet identified. That is a fact, not a theory, just like the ppm increase in CO2 here; the question is: what factors (plural) cause it? 2) You know fully well that "denier" is a derogatory term. It has become a synonym for "unbeliever" and that is a religious term for this new religion, which is what automotive / anthropogenic global warming has become. When people challenged Newton's universal gravitational constant, were they "deniers", or those who legitimately questioned its validity. So, you could use the term "skeptic", but nowadays that too seems to have an irrational connotation. --------------------------
          Hello, Brian
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Bernie Kressner
          Bernie, It seems that the label of \"denier\" is a very accurate one. If you are unwilling to acknowledge that there CO2 concentrations, at 400 PPM are higher than they have ever been in the history of earth, and that,historically, higher concentrations of CO2 have also been directly linked to higher global temperatures, and that those past increases in CO2 and the corresponding higher temperatures have been directly linked to specific events ( large and/or numerous volcanic eruptions), then you are DENYING that there is a very clear and logical explanation for our current rising temperatures that cannot be explained by any specific event other than the burning of fossil fuels.
          Lachmund
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Bernie Kressner
          it makes me sad people trappen in false belief like you are the reason we all and especially future generations are going to suffer in the next years and decades. perhaps you should read this instead of your pro oil company propaganda: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
      Ducman69
      • 1 Year Ago
      LOL, not sure if the CO2 warning sign is supposed to be ironic or not. ROFLMAO! Higher average temperatures and higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere result in drastically INCREASED forestation, as trees thrive on high CO2 and warmer climates allow the trees to stay greener longer in the season, which both combined produce healthier faster growing trees. And actually, its not just trees, all photosynthesis needs is CO2, water, and sunlight and it produces glucose that plants need to live and grow and of course the waste product oxygen which is a poison to plants.
        Ray Blackburn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Ducman69
        Yes, and you should try running a hose from your exhaust to the center of your steering wheel and go for a 200 mile drive. While your at it use your toilet for the rest of the year without flushing it and see what happens. Both would be neat experiments, much like the one you have no problem conducting with our one atmosphere. Droughts via GW never hurt anyone. Wonder how fast the billions of acers of forest that get burned from droughts grow back? Nore does the rising sea flood anyone, nore does the acidic oceans hurt shell fish and other marine life.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Ray Blackburn
          @ Ray Blackburn, Um,.... depends on the forest. Many forests are equipped by evolution to utilise forest fires as a sort of bath, destroying pests, disease, undergrowth,etc, while promoting regeneration, bio-diversity, fertilizer, propagation, seed dispersal etc. Drought's are part of a natural process for forests. Climate change has always existed, created by a whole host of factors, mostly completely beyond the control of humans. Apocalyptic visions of 'Global Warming", like most apocalyptic predictions, are proving more myth than science. The fanatic and unscientific obsession with "Global Warming" , has diverted attention away from real man-made environmental problems and priorities. While politicians grandstand on "Global Warming" , less idealistic, but far more realist and urgent environmental issues are ignored. What really is disappointing is that these less fashionable environmental needs are within the power of human technology to resolve and repair, if all the effort wasn't wasted concentrating on useless, ideologically driven "green' politics.
        Nick Kordich
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Ducman69
        The CO2 warning sign is not ironic - it is in fact CO2 killing the trees in the background. However, it's not atmospheric CO2. Extremely high levels of volcanic CO2 coming up through the soil from below deprive these trees near Mammoth Lake of oxygen, which they also need. For more information, please see: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/
          EZEE
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nick Kordich
          Volcano\'s? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo - all CO2 and all things bad come from man, and most particularly the USA. Nothing bad comes from anyone else anywhere.
        Hello, Brian
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Ducman69
        That sounds great until you look at the actual science. One of the issue is that plants have evolved to take maximal advantage of their specific ecosystems. There is a reason why there are different plants in Florida than you will find in Alaska. More CO2 and longer growing seasons will not compensate for the fact that many trees are unable to survive under the stress of more heat, and life in more acidic soils (CO2 causes the water trappedin the soil to be acidic). Also, research reveals that the effects of long-term CO2 enrichment on photosynthesis are variable. Generally, the prolonged exposure to CO2 enrichment reduces the initial stimulation of photosynthesis in many species, and frequently suppresses photosynthesis. These responses are attributed to secondary responses related to either excess carbohydrate accumulation or decreased nitrogen content rather than direct responses to CO2. Accumulation of carbohydrates in leaves may lead to the repression of photosynthetic gene expression and excess starch seems to hinder CO2 diffusion. So, basically, trees will not be the greatest beneficiaries of more CO2, fast-growing plants (read: weeds)will tend to benefit more than woody plants will with long-term exposure to higher levels of CO2. That is the science, and not just an opinion.
    • Load More Comments