Gas Guzzlers

[Des]

I thought this might be an interesting topic for our multinational membership....

I just watched the Channel 4 documentary "What Would Jesus Drive?" It described the Americans' love of gas guzzlers, particularly SUVs and featured the opposition to them in the form of a kindly vicar urging his congregation not to pollute God's earth (he drives a Prius, of course), and a radical group called ELF who vandalise people's SUVs as a protest.

One of the most startling facts revealed was that if the average vehicle in the US did 40MPG instead of 20, the country would become self-sufficient in oil. This would save a lot of hassle in the middle east, and of course do the environment a power of good. So why does there seem to be no attempt whatsoever by the US government to encourage more fuel-efficient vehicles?

The documentary implied it was mainly the people's love of big cars, though fuel prices must be a factor. In Europe there are heavy taxes on fuel and various EU regulations on emissions, and as a result lots of people drive petrol superminis or larger diesel cars, both of which typically give better than 40MPG. Dunno about other Europeans, but Brits have been buying more and more big SUVs just to take the kids to school, so perhaps we're following the Americans in a similar way to the rise of obesity?

[PaulH]

Cars are getting cheaper and cheaper, and the SUV is definately very fashionable. I live opposite a primary school and you see hordes of them at 3pm when the school empties. Also cars are getting cleaner, more efficient and also more powerful: some manufacturers are releasing efficient engines at over 100bhp per litre.

I suppose the US have always driven great big gaz guzzlers, and this will take a lot of changing. But with these new advances in engine technology, there should be no reason why the new cars cannot be big, but have a small and powerful efficient engine.

Of course we have the newer fuel types as well... but where does hydrogen come from?!! Ultimately the burning of fossil fuels provides the source of power for the electrolysis, so until we start using more renewable energies, hydrogen as a 'clean' fuel is a long way off. We all want renewable energy. If its cheap, and 'not in my back yard'.

Oh, and just to throw a spanner in the works... the burning of fossil fuels also releases particulates into the upper atmosphere that reflect the suns energy...

[Gambit37]

Unfortunately I only caught the end of that documentary -- wish I had seen it all. What little I did see was very interesting.

I don't drive. I am 32 years old and do not hold a licence. It was never an anti-car feeling that led to that decision; I just never had a big desire to learn and my life has stayed in the town in which I was born. A car in Brighton is more of a hindrance than anything else. I would still like to learn to drive purely for the benefits of being self motivated while on holiday or for weekend breaks, but so far in my life I have managed perfectly well on public transport and sharing friends or families cars for long trips.

Over the years I have become more and more anti car though. Perhaps this is partly because I am mainly a pedestrian, a cyclist or a user of public transport. Largely though, because of the utter madness I see on the roads from day to day -- I'm not talking about bad driving, road rage, accidents or the like (all though there is plenty of that) -- no, I am talking about the utter insanity of the types of cars people drive and how few people are actually in them.

I don't know the figures for % of large format cars versus "normal" sized cars either here or in the states. But I am convinced that 90% of all SUVs, 4x4s, pickups, whatever -- are probably never used for their "intended" purpose, ie, off road driving or driving in places that a normal car can't go. When I see these cars on the road they invariably contain 1 person, and it drives me insane. Of course, most other cars also contain 1 person, so that's not the preserve of large cars.

What made me insane with anger was the guy towards the end extolling the virtues of the new Hummer. This guy was a first class prick. He said something like "Now that we own Iraq, George Bush should make an effort to take gas down to 10c a gallon". I couldn't believe my ears. This guy not only had a completely distorted view of world politics, he seemed to be crying about the fact that he couldn't enjoy his new car properly because the fuel was too expensive. A little factoid was printed shortly after that -- the Model T ford in 1924 did 25 miles to the gallon -- that new Hummer he had bought 80 years later does 11 -- yep, 11mpg. How fucking crazy is that?

I do not know what America's obsession with cars is or where it comes from. All I know that from what I have seen it is a country that has made no effort to educate it's population about exactly how much resources it consumes. Did you know that USA is around 3% of the worlds population yet consumes around 25% of the world's food? OK, a different argument, but anyway....

The bottom line is that we are ALL responsible for the future of this world. The current lifestyle that we in the west enjoy is UNSUSTAINABLE -- at the current rates of consumption, within the next 60-100 years cars as we know them will not be around because there will be no oil ti run them. People need to start changing their atitudes NOW. Given that more and more of the developing world wants to become 'westernised' you can see that things will only become worse.

The world needs to shift it's views away from consumption and more to conservation and sustainable living. We are not currently doing that, and even with the best efforts of key groups around the world, we are barely scratching the surface. I personally choose to believe that tragedies such as the recent tsunami are the world making a point: that it has simply had enough of our wanton distruction and that if we don't do something about it soon, it'll be too late for all of us....

[Paul Stevens]

It is my opinion that people (other than I...I drive a 3-cylinder Metro)
don't mind low mileage because gasoline is essentially free. The demand
curve it totally flat at the current prices. It costs less than it did 40 years
ago when inflatiuon is considerred. Folks complain about the price and
drive an extra 100 miles so they can complain again.

[Gambit37]

That's exactly the problem -- gasoline is nowhere near "free", but the USA has a gas driven economy that has got to the point where this illusion is maintained. I am no economist and I do not pretend to understand how and why this situation arose, but it won't be "essentially free" before long and then where will we all be? Stranded at home by the looks of things as it seems most people have forgotten how to walk!

[PaulH]

The problem is that a lot of people do not want to sort out tomorrows problems today; they simply won't be around anyway, so why bother? But this is of course the wrong attitude to take, and the government (especially UK, and DEFINATELY USA) should start implementing strategies to reduce our consumption and improve recycling and efficiency. Germany and Holland (and other European countries leave us far behind in this respect). We need more areas to recycle and more information available to the general public about the problrms that lay ahead and how small changes today will make a big difference not just in 50 years time, but maybe in just 5 years time. As Gambit said, we ALL need to work together.

Solar cells are becoming more efficient: new houses should have cells built into the roofs to provide for the grid. And people should stop bloody complaining about wind turbines. It really, REALLY isn't going to spoil the view in Selby, as local people protest. Where do you think the electricity comes from, grows on trees? Er, you are probably right at the moment actually...

[Gambit37]

Quick fact: The US produced 36% of emissions in 1990, making it the world's biggest polluter.

[Des]

I think wind turbines are a thing of beauty, but I guess I'm in a minority.

But I don't have any green credentials w.r.t. cars, I drive an Alfa Romeo 147 that does about 28MPG (OK it will do 32 with a gentle right foot, but it makes a lovely growly noise and accelerates like buggery at 5000+ revs). I bought it because it is enjoyable to drive, looks sexy, and has lots of nice gadgets. The poor fuel economy did not put me off, though I was concerned about depreciation, but the 147 holds its value quite well unlike other Alfas, so no problem there.

So even at £4 a gallon, depreciation costs more than fuel unless you do a lot of miles, so perhaps petrol prices are too low in the UK, despite the protests. This could be the answer for the US - slap $2 on fuel tax. Trouble is I can't imagine that the American people would vote for that!

[Selie]

You want to know why the American government won't support hybrid cars or otherwise encourage people to waste less gas? It's a political thing and has to do with the large oil industry. People make a LOT of money in that industry, and then they give that money to support politicians, and the politicians don't want to end the cycle. Much of the economy here in Texas was built on oil found in the state. It's a serious problem.

Me, I drive a nice little Mazda Protege. It's big enough that I don't worry about going squish if something happens, but it's small enough that it has pretty good gas mileage, I THINK. I'm not sure, it just doesn't seem too bad to me. I also don't drive all over the place. I drive to school and I drive to work, and once a week I drive to dance class, which is actually a fairly long drive but it's all highway and I'd carpool if I could. I do carpool when possible.

I work at a place that does birthday parties for kids. It isn't a very cheap place for parties, so the families that come are generally reasonably wealthy. We once counted 5 or 6 H2s and I think something like 12 SUVs in the parking lot for a single party. Many of these brought one parent and one child. Most people who own these cars have a family size of four or less. It's extremely wasteful.

When I'm situated and have a real job and everything, I want to get a hybrid car. Hopefully they won't bankrupt me by then...

[zoom]

Modern Diesel engines emmit smaller particles that make citizens ill (through inhalation). So they do not waste as much diesel oil as older cars do but they are more hazardous to the health than older diesels!
There is also a very low efficiency factor of car engines. Too low.

As much for the C02 thing with reflecting sunbeams back on earth(like an overcast cloudy sky in the night makes for a warm night):
there is a second "theory" of non environmentalists or critics:
The Sun is intensing it´s beams, there is nothing we can do about it. So all this issue could be pointless; but i do think that this gas or the ozone layers have s.th. to do with the climate.. well the earth is rather complicated and large, it is very hard to estimate anything in an chaotic system and we should try to do what is possible. So we are groping in the dark. Trees are producing C02 in the night in expense of Oxigen and vice versa at day, i think...
Cars are not the problem, though.
If we could stop planes, which are the highest pullution figures(you can either fly a plane full of people to their destination or they could also drive all by themselves with a car; it´s all the same) you could stop wasting environment´s health much.
even if you will disintegrate all oil on the planet, there be a problem, because it would then become much warmer, before the positive effects could take place. kind of chemical reaction. The system has to stabilize. .
Solar cells will never pay off. THey use up more enery in their creation process than they will produce in their livetime. at least they are clean when "running"
Why use fossil fuel to heat up water? Maybe we could drill and get it for free..
Ah, and another thing:
catalysts of cars(which do NOT work if you are in the city, need some time to take effect and speed too) have a platinum/rhubium coating.
This is bad, because after time fragments get rubbed away and land onto "grass" next to the streets: it is special waste, which should be disposed of
carefully. Platinum is rather expensive, and therefore they recylcle car catalysts to use again, but gladly the newer catalysts are not hazardous anymore. But there are enough old cars still running.

what happens with the old cars? Recycling? They get shipped to Africa,India, Egypt? and there they drive without doors ect..

In the UK there are some trains that use diesel or petrol and are rather loud.Maybe they should get rid of those..

In Cambridge Students aren´t allowed to drive! THats because the town would end up being a traffic jam.

I have to use a car, because i live in the backs of beyond. Each week there is a bus twice into the next bigger village, where there is a train available.
It would take me twice to thrice as long to use public transports instead of driving there by car. I am not especially fond of driving. Sometimes i like it , and sometimes it is a waste of time. (being in a case of metal, the sunny landscape passing by)
Near Loch Ness there are hills and mountains, and on those streets you do not have to wait if you descend, because they could back then not manage to stop. the ascending could stop.

US citizens move a lot. And politics back and fro, i think space travel and exploration is a point. There is plenty of oil on Mars, i think, and ice on the moon(frozen c02). If fuel gets expensive they won´t bring satellites high up and woohoo.
Last point . In china, many people are beginning to "want motirized transportations". Like cars.
Some distritctsof Shanghai are out of Energy most of the time. They d0 not have enough ofit.
Energy is our problem, next to bacteria. Everyone takes it for granted.
If the fossile fuels ect. will become scarce, i.e. not easy to get as know, we have plenty, the best of it is liquid the rest, most of it is contained in rocks, hard to get out(have to squeeze), medicals will get scarce, too. They use these molecules/whatever.WHo of you will event world changing locomotion techniques??

[PaulH]

Interesting comments.

The suns output varies periodically, and this has a huge effect on global temperatures. Add to this the elliptical progressing orbit of the Earth, and the variation in tilt, then the Earth has periods of hot and cold over thousands of years.

The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by maybe 20-30% over the last 200 years which is directly attributed to industry. However, natural emmisions of CO2 still make up the majority of atmospheric CO2. Also, temperature rises over recent years correlate directly with increased CO2 emmisions, but it is difficult to say whether the effect is solely from CO2. However, there is some effect. The biggest greenhouse gasses are water vapour and methane. The water vapour is a positive feedback loop: atmosphere warms, more water vapour, and so on. Methane is converted to water vapour at high altitudes and is 200 times more effective than Co2 as a greenhouse gas. As Zoooom says, the whole process is very chaotic and difficult to model, but manmade processes seem to have definatley had an effect on the natural process of the Earth. Hence we need to do something about it. A relatively large increase in Earths global temp over a small period of time will cause large changes very quickly, and it seems we are accelerating this process. Did you know only a few hundred years ago there was twice as much O2 in the atmosphere?

Solar cells: new technology has increased the efficiency of cells remarkably; maximum theoretical efficiency is 25% and has been achieved. Also production costs are falling, as is energy requirements to make them and I believe that they could be a viable source of power for us.

[zoom]

Mhh. How fresh the air must have been.
I always thought the air after a thunderstorm to be clean and fresh. In real it is merely ozone (O3) [air + lightning bolt] that is actually bad for you. If you copy sheets of paper, better let fresh air sidle in. I wonder if we could produce so much ozone to mend the ozone layer.

There are Athletes who train at great heights to increase their oxygen absorption at lower heights.

Because at great heights(mountains) there is less Oxygen, the body creates more red blood cells(which transport the O2 through the veins and stuff). When descending again, the body did not as fast change back again and you can run much better.

Thinking about the air back then (200+years, ++O2) the people must have had less red blood cells!
If the people over 200 years back time traveled straight into nowadays Tokyo, they would most likely suffocate !

how poison works. Some poison types attach to the red blood cells, blocks therefore the O2 absorption and you suffocate! I tired to find this via google and failed. But a teacher told me once upon a time.
Oh well, horribly off- topic. (make it poison gas maybe that helps )

Sure, solar cells are technically increasing. If research would be more focused on those and batteries maybe instead of, say engines, they could be a real alternative. mmh. maybe this should have happened 80 years ago. Satellites use solar cells as well, maybe that is part of their increased tech standard.
Enough from me!!

[PaulH]

Yes the gas thing is correct: CO works in exactly this way, and binds to haemoglobin 200x more efficiently than O2.

Such an amazingly vast topic. Maybe if we walked everywhere, farted less, and lived in trees the planet would be OK

[Des]

On the farting subject, I dimly remember reading somewhere that space aliens could detect the presence of life on earth due to the presence of excess methane caused by bovine flatulence.

[PaulH]

Cows produce an extraordinary amount of methane! Never stand down wind of one!

[PaulH]

There was a very interesting programme on in the UK last night regarding global warming. The scientists reckon that in the next 30 years, and as little as 10, the Earth will reach the point of 'no return' as far as global heating is concerned. The solution as pointed out by the presenter seems to be that if this conjecture is correct, then the only way we can halt this armageddon is to stop all fossil fuel fired power stations and convert to nuclear power while we consider a way forward (nuclear power seems to be seen as the lesser of two evils).

[Des]

I just watched another scary documentary - a "Horizon" on "Global Dimming".

A few scientists discovered that the intensity of the sun reaching the earth has been falling steadily over that last 50 years. This was largely ignored at first, but then climatologists proved that air pollution was having a bigger blocking effect than expected - it was making clouds much more reflective.

This affected the movement of monsoon clouds and probably was the cause of the great famine in Ethiopia in the 80s. At the same time, this "global dimming" has been counteracting the effects of global warming.

Now comes the killer bit - various measures have been enacted to reduce smog, and as a result global dimming is receding. But at the same time CO2 emissions continue to rise, so global warming will accelerate.

This led to a revised prediction that the earth's temperature would rise by 5C in 2050. At this point, the Greenland ice sheet would melt, later the Amazon rain forest would burn, and by the end of the century the trapped methane ice in the oceans would rise to the surface causing global warming to spiral out of control and thus the end of all life on the planet.

Want to buy a Hummer now?

[Gambit37]

Yes, I watched too and felt physically sick afterwards. While these are only predictions based on what we currently know, even if they are 5% close to what might actually happen then we really are fucked. The time for talking is over -- the whole world needs to start radically rethinking it's policies for living and start making changes NOW. Bollocks. We really fucked up.

[PaulH]

It ain't gonna happen with some countries. India is a prime example: the economy is really taking off, and they need to power it somehow. After years of been a comparitively poor nation it is gonna be difficult to tell the people that they have alter their new lifestyles. It is because we live for today and not tomorrow.

[Tom Hatfield]

Life on earth will not end because the temperature rises. *Human* life might end, but this planet isn't going anywhere. Cockroaches, for one, will live forever. They've already survived four extinction-level events.

Anyway, I would have absorbed all this because it interests me, but I hate reading from a monitor, and let's face it: most people just don't write pleasantly enough. Better grammar and punctuation would really grab people's attention. (This is a personal peeve.) I don't understand why people like SUV's. They're gas guzzlers to the max, and they don't even look cool. It would be extremely easy for our country to redefine its infrastructure *IF WE STILL HAD ANY MONEY IN THE NATIONAL BUDGET*, but unfortunately all the money goes to oil and pharmaceutical giants, and Selie already touched on that. We need a new administration.

[Ameena]

My mum watched both those documentaries ("What Would Jesus Drive" and "Horizon"), and I happened to be in the room for most of both of them so I know what's going on. Y'know, it may not sound very nice, but if humans are so unwilling to change their ways and sort themselves out, the most logical solution would seem to be to get rid of the humans, lol. Well, Nature seems one step ahead of us there. Anyway, whatever happens to the planet, it'll all regrow eventually. There's always something that survives a major cataclysm, and since most of everything else has been wiped out, it's free to regrow and flourish. I bet the planet'll look beautiful 50 years after humans have fooked off...pity I wouldn't be able to see it lol.

[Tom Hatfield]

Yes, having a new administration wouldn't solve the problem, unless it's an administration of tree huggers, and that will never happen. I stand corrected. Geologically speaking, this planet is about due for another ice age. I've heard at least one account that it may happen in the next 400 years. The issue is so convoluted that it's hard to make a guess. Some people say "Ice Age tomorrow!" Other people say, "global warming!" The fact of that matter is that global warming leads into an ice age. And of course we've been studying the sun for, what, 1/10,000,000th of its life cycle? What the hell do we know about how the sun behaves? I say, play the cards you're dealt, and let the rest fall.

[PaulH]

"What the hell do we know about how the sun behaves?" says Tom.

Quite a lot actually. We have a general idea on how stars behave on a long time scale according to mass etc, but recent studies of the sun have shown definate measurable short period cycles that influence our planet.

Sunspots have been coming and going in 10- to 12-year cyclic patterns since the early 18th century. Prior to that, there was a 75-year period, during which the cycle was dormant. During this period, known as the Maunder, Earth underwent a little ice age.

[DaveTheMiller]

I can't see Americans changing their habits and driving smaller cars simply because it would be counter productive.
You could have a small car thats super friendly to the environment and does 200 miles per gallon, but put some 25 stone American in there (if they can fit behind the wheel) the extra weight will drag that down to about 5 miles per gallon.
I think a lot of what we read and hear is scare mongering, remember when the Y2K bug was being banded about as being the end of the world?
Computers would think they didn't exist and that would release the nuclear bombs that the USA has pointed at North Korea etc.
I think worldwide one computer broke down and that was an Amstrad that was sick of Asteroids.
Look back at old photos, every major city was miles upon miles of factories that billowed out so much shit into the air there was a perennial fog over every populated area. Now the only places that are still like that are Middlesborough in the UK and Newark New Jersey.
Back then nobody cared about the environment, nowadays we are a lot more conscious of it, true there are a load more cars on the road but at least we can see the sky. Well on a good day anyway.
I just think this world has to have something to be scared of, and now that nobody believes an Alien invasion is imminent, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were exposed as a wooden aeroplane and people who don't smoke can get lung cancer anyway, we need to find something else to keep us awake at night.

[Tom Hatfield]

What the crap??? I never read anything about bank mainframes launching nukes at Korea! But you're right: it was way exaggerated. I didn't flinch because I'm a programmer/analyst, but also maybe because I'm the most relaxed person I know. Your allusions to alien invasion and the cold war are interesting and spot-on.

You should talk to my friend Leanne. She's studying environmental management. Maybe I'll throw some carrots her way. I don't think she even knows what DM is, but she'd drop a train on this board, the way these convos have been acting lately.

[DaveTheMiller]

Back in 1999 the sheer amount of crazy theories about what exactly would happen at when the new millenium arrived were becoming something of a joke.
Maybe it never was circulated in the US, but here the "news" leaked that all America's war heads were controlled by a computer that would be struck with the Y2K bug and as a consequence send them roaring into the sky. Pointing at North Korea was a double dose of scare mongering because the rumours had always been North Korea had Nuclear weapons programmes and naturally if they learned the USA were pointing warheads at them they might feel inclined to return fire.
You are probably either laughing at this point or shaking your head in utter disbelief, but that highlights what I mean about the sheer lunacy that follows when people start to panic.
The thing with Y2K is back in the 90s no one was denying it. The government over here were not trying to calm people by saying it's all a myth or its over hyped or anything like that.
It was projected as "this is a very real threat."
Now we can look back and laugh at all the crazy conspiracy nuts and their theories. Did you ever hear the one about the Wal Mart truck that crashed and they found out it was really a military vehicle carrying signs that read "This Town is Under Martial Law." Apparently the US Military were going to take over towns to stop the spread of panic on New Years Day. Theres a good page about it on www.snopes.com.
Anyway this is straying away from the original topic. But I seriously think that this whole Global Warming issue is massively over hyped, just like the Y2K bug.
There was a programme on TV over here in Britain called "Nightmares." I didn't get to see it but I saw the advert for it and it was all about how governments are constantly using scare tactics to worry people into changing the way they live.
If anyone saw it then it'd be interesting to hear exactly what was said.
Regarding your friend Leanne, it would be interesting to hear a view from someone who is actively studying the subject.

[Des]

I thought "The Power of Nightmares" was a cracking documentary series, and it made a very strong case for the existence of Orwellian "control by fear" policies. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/sto ... 04,00.html for a summary.

However global warming is not really in that category IMHO. For me it is more like tobacco smoking. For years the majority of research suggested that smoking drastically increases a person's chances of getting nasty diseases, but it was not until quite recently that it was absolutely proven. In a similar way, most scientists who have studied it believe global warming is a real threat, but there are some who disagree, and as yet, the threat is still not 100% proven (though tell that to the tsunami victims). One can also substitute profiteering tobacco companies for profiteering oil companies in this analogy.

[Gambit37]

But I seriously think that this whole Global Warming issue is massively over hyped

Doubt you'd be saying the same thing when wintering in Scotland in 2050 and you need to wear nothing more than a pair of swimming trunks. I tend to agree with Des's comparison.

[beowuuf]

I think the point is that we live in a world we are still finding out about all the time, in a universe we barely comprehend, in enviironments that are one small shift from being unsuitable for our existence (whether man made by economics and such, or environment made by climate and food source)

To look at the big picture, whether it will change anything or not, i think blindly ignoring the economics, climate, resources and even philosophies and societies around us is the most foolhardy decision that people and governments ever take. There is no hurt in trying to conserve resources. There is nothing futile to look closer at the mechanics we take for granted in our society from dealngs with money to how we care for less fortunates to educating our children. Even if we will all be wiped out by the world aroudn us no matter what we do, it seems to stupid to ignore environmental issues, especially when it seems to come down to comfort and convienience as the reasons not to!

[PaulH]

Global 'warming' does more than just 'warm' - the extra energy in the atmosphere alters the weather cycles drastically.

The UKs weather is influenced by the effects of the gulf stream which makes our weather warmer than average for our latitude. Many scientists predict that global warming will weaken the gulf stream and feed less energy into our weather systems, creating colder harsher winters. However the net planetry temp gain may offset this. Simply, we do not know, but change is on the way.