The Autobahn-"Global Warming hysteria's next casualty!

[MNBoxster]

Hi,

The whole topic of Global Warming is a very emotional and devisive one. Each side has an ample arsenal of reports and emminent scientists to support or bolster their view.

One argument which cannot be in dispute is the addition of free Carbon to the environment. Gasoline is made up principally of Hydrogen and Carbon. Carbon comprises 80% of this compound. A gallon of Gasoline weighs approx. 6.25 lbs. (@STP). This means that for each gallon of Gasoline you combust in your car, you are releasing 5 lbs. of Carbon (80% of 6.25lbs. = 5lbs.) into the atmosphere as free Carbon - Carbon which had heretofore been locked up in Petroleum.

It denies Logic to simply think that the release of this much Carbon (considering the Global use of Gasoline) into the atmosphere does not have some effect.

What effect? I cannot say, but here is where the whole Global Warming argument breaksdown from one of Science to one of Belief.

If one believes there is Global Warming, they offer all corroborating Scientific data as proof.

If one believes the opposite, they, in turn, offer their corroborating Scientific data as proof of their position.

But, in practice, if the World adopts conservation through better engineering for increased Range, and there turns out not to be a Global Warming crisis, what is harmed? In fact, profits would largely increase throughout Industry and/or costs lowered.

Costs tend to level out with increased costs in one area being offset by savings in others such as lowered Healthcare costs, lower Work Absence, and the like, so these arguments are largely moot or at least cancel each other out.

But, if the World simply ignores the issue and it turns out that there is indeed Global Warming, tremendous, and possibly irreversible, harm may be done. Not to us necessarily, but to future generations. What responsibility do we have to future generations? I'm not sure I can say.

So, it would seem to me that Prudence should rule the day and some measures in increased efficiency and possible alternatives be explored...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Back in the 1960s there were a little group of brat children known as Hippies. These people wanted to change the world. They protested the establishment without logic and at all costs.

They thought they could end the Vietnam war. Most were secret commies.

After the war they lost their purpose so they became peace freaks. In their minds they thought they could save the world. "Ya man, we can have peace, no nukes, lets save the world, man!". So they protested all government spending on military stuff like nukes thinking they were going to save everyone. They were now public commies and probably secretly working for the USSR, or just useful idiots.

The worse possible thing happened during the eighties and early nineties to the now-aging Hippies. A Republican President, a great man, spent so much money on weapons that the USSR fell to its knees. Peace was achieves in the exact opposite way that the old Hippies had wanted. This was such a tragedy to them that they are still in denial.

So how the hell can they save the world now? These old Hippies have no purpose anymore. The cold war is over. What can they do?

How about invent a new disaster? Remember Y2K Bug? Crap, the whole world is going to explode due to a computer error! Who can save the world from the Y2K bug? Of course the answer is the old retired programmers whose age just happens to be very close to the age of the old Hippies. As we all know nothing happened. The Y2K bug was a myth.

Ok, so how can these old useless/useful idiots save the damn world now? Well, what if they could convince everyone the world is about to die? The whole damn planet is about to turn into a microwave oven! We are all toast! But do not worry because the old Hippies are going to save us! Come on Algore, get out there! Lets have a protest! A big protest! In fact if anyone says we are wrong we will silence them with our protest! Just like the 1960s!!! MAN WE ARE GOING TO SAVE THE WORLD THIS TIME!!! YA MAN!

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

The whole topic of Global Warming is a very emotional and devisive one. Each side has an ample arsenal of reports and emminent scientists to support or bolster their view.

One argument which cannot be in dispute is the addition of free Carbon to the environment. Gasoline is made up principally of Hydrogen and Carbon. Carbon comprises 80% of this compound. A gallon of Gasoline weighs approx. 6.25 lbs. (@STP). This means that for each gallon of Gasoline you combust in your car, you are releasing 5 lbs. of Carbon (80% of 6.25lbs. = 5lbs.) into the atmosphere as free Carbon - Carbon which had heretofore been locked up in Petroleum.

It denies Logic to simply think that the release of this much Carbon (considering the Global use of Gasoline) into the atmosphere does not have some effect.

What effect? I cannot say, but here is where the whole Global Warming argument breaksdown from one of Science to one of Belief.

If one believes there is Global Warming, they offer all corroborating Scientific data as proof.

If one believes the opposite, they, in turn, offer their corroborating Scientific data as proof of their position.

But, in practice, if the World adopts conservation through better engineering for increased Range, and there turns out not to be a Global Warming crisis, what is harmed? In fact, profits would largely increase throughout Industry and/or costs lowered.

Costs tend to level out with increased costs in one area being offset by savings in others such as lowered Healthcare costs, lower Work Absence, and the like, so these arguments are largely moot or at least cancel each other out.

But, if the World simply ignores the issue and it turns out that there is indeed Global Warming, tremendous, and possibly irreversible, harm may be done. Not to us necessarily, but to future generations. What responsibility do we have to future generations? I'm not sure I can say.

So, it would seem to me that Prudence should rule the day and some measures in increased efficiency and possible alternatives be explored...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

The cost Jim, is not insignificant, not known, will not be voluntarily borne, will not be borne equally. Every resource that is devoted to alleviating a harm that is not agreed upon, is not measurable, and it quite possibly, not real, COULD be devoted to those things that we know are quite real.

For example, it is estimated that the cost of fighting this so-called distaster is in excess of what it would cost to eliminate drought and hunger from the continent of Africa.

What is interesting is that we can't get anyone enrolled in discussing THAT trade off at all.

Death by starvation is a KNOWN and measurable DISASTER yet Al Gore is nowhere on that one. Rather, his movie on a possible problem has made him a star!

Complete with a heated swimming pool and a private jet.

Do what I say, not what I do.

Sorry, I have been lied to by his type too many times to be taken again.

Gore is the biggest lying hypocrite the world has ever known. I know some people do not like Bush but we should all count our lucky stars Gore did not win!

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Death by starvation is a KNOWN and measurable DISASTER yet Al Gore is nowhere on that one. Rather, his movie on a possible problem has made him a star!

Complete with a heated swimming pool and a private jet.

[denverpete]

Ahhhh... Good times. Good Times...

Originally Posted by cartagena

Gore is the biggest lying hypocrite the world has ever known. I know some people do not like Bush but we should all count our lucky stars Gore did not win!

He did invent the internet...thank God!

I saw him on TV the other day...some award show...looked like he swallowed a down comforter!

I thought he invented the Information Super Highway?

Originally Posted by bmussatti

He did invent the internet...thank God!

[Allen K. Littlefield]

"an dat lucky ole sun, got nuttin to do but roll aroun heaven all day"

Party on, 986geezer

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

The cost Jim, is not insignificant, not known, will not be voluntarily borne, will not be borne equally. Every resource that is devoted to alleviating a harm that is not agreed upon, is not measurable, and it quite possibly, not real, COULD be devoted to those things that we know are quite real.

For example, it is estimated that the cost of fighting this so-called distaster is in excess of what it would cost to eliminate drought and hunger from the continent of Africa.

What is interesting is that we can't get anyone enrolled in discussing THAT trade off at all.

Death by starvation is a KNOWN and measurable DISASTER yet Al Gore is nowhere on that one. Rather, his movie on a possible problem has made him a star!

Complete with a heated swimming pool and a private jet.

Do what I say, not what I do.

Sorry, I have been lied to by his type too many times to be taken again.

Bruce,

Don't you think your arguments are a little extreme? I mean eliminate drought and hunger from the continent of Africa??? We're not doing that now so it seems a Non Sequitur for me.

But, this is an example of what I meant when I said it was an emotional and devisive issue. There may be a problem, I don't know, in fact I don't think anyone can say for sure.

But, isn't that the point? Shouldn't we be exploring and confirming the Science rather than trying to end the argument in one fell swoop by stating that we're gonna Doom Africa to Starvation and Drought? I just don't think these types of hysterical arguments are germane to settling the issue.

A 20% increase in Range was achieved by a semi Full-Court press during the Ford Administration and we all came through relatively unscathed. Where would be the harm of furthering our understanding and engineering of IC in an effort to increase Range?

No matter which way the argument on Global Warming finally swung, we'd have derived some benefit...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[szentej]

I don't know all the facts to this issue. Depending on which side gives the most compelling argument. Here is one side:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle
John

[Brucelee]

"But, isn't that the point? Shouldn't we be exploring and confirming the Science rather than trying to end the argument in one fell swoop by stating that we're gonna Doom Africa to Starvation and Drought? I just don't think these types of hysterical arguments are germane to settling the issue."

Of course, I never said that and I am not the one creating hyserical arguments, that is up to the Gore folks. I simply pointed out that the costs of doing something are very very signficant and will not be borne by Al Gore or his type.

The point is that money spent on one problem cannot be spent on another, another that is very real and very impactful every day. There is no contesting the fact that thousands die of starvation across the glove everyday.

Where is the media's attention to THAT little problem.

I guess those Malibu beach houses at risk are more interesting that dying children.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

"But, isn't that the point? Shouldn't we be exploring and confirming the Science rather than trying to end the argument in one fell swoop by stating that we're gonna Doom Africa to Starvation and Drought? I just don't think these types of hysterical arguments are germane to settling the issue."

Of course, I never said that and I am not the one creating hyserical arguments, that is up to the Gore folks. I simply pointed out that the costs of doing something are very very signficant and will not be borne by Al Gore or his type.

The point is that money spent on one problem cannot be spent on another, another that is very real and very impactful every day. There is no contesting the fact that thousands die of starvation across the glove everyday.

Where is the media's attention to THAT little problem.

I guess those Malibu beach houses at risk are more interesting that dying children.

Hi,

Famine, Drought, HIV-Aids, Alzheimers Disease, Cancer, the Elderly, Inadequate Housing, the list goes on and on. Of course our resources are Finite and devoting some to one problem naturally means they are not available for others. So, it's one of prioritizing how we allocate these resources.

But a very proper debate on Global Warming gets stifled when Gut-wrenching arguments like these are made. It side-tracks an issue which if correct has Global Implications, not regional or demographic ones. I'm not picking at you so much as trying to point out the need to stay on-point.

I'm not convinced that Global Warming phenomena do exist (no Chicken-Little syndrome), but neither do I believe that the continued unrestrained release of Industrialized Carbon, measured annually as approx. 6,400 Million Metric Tons Worldwide, with about 30% of that amount being stored in Carbon Sinks such as Forests, Oceans, etc. resulting in a Net release of approx. 4,480 Million Metric Tons of Carbon annually is without any effect whatever.

And, if that effect is negative, impacting all of us rather than some small portion of the World's population, then I believe that some allocation of resources is prudent to acsertaining it's implications and any possible corrective measures which may be available.

GHGs, CFCs, Aerosols, Free Carbon, Organic Carbons etc. each have their own implications and make the issue extremely complex - there is no one simple answer, or a simple debate. If interested, a good source of pertinent information (but certainly not the only one) can be found in the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States - http://www.pnas.org/

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Brucelee]

Life is full of tradeoffs!




Only Moonlight for Vermont?
By GEOFFREY NORMAN
March 9, 2007; Page W11

It probably came as no big surprise to the citizens of Burlington, Vt., this week that their city finished first among 379 metropolitan areas in a "Best Green Places" survey conducted by Country Home magazine. If Burlington hadn't won the contest, it might have led to an emergency session of the state legislature, investigations and, who knows, even special prosecutors. The Green Mountain State is seriously green.

It is also seriously small. Its population of some 600,000 is about equal to that of Charlotte, N.C. Its signature export is maple syrup. None would mistake it for a player on the world stage. Still, the Vermont legislature has lately been engaged -- to the exclusion of just about all other matters -- in a discussion of how it might lead the world in the mortally serious fight against global warming.

The president pro tem of the state Senate, Peter Shumlin, was emphatic on this point. "Historically, when we do bold things in Vermont, others follow," Mr. Shumlin was quoted as saying in January. "It is our moral imperative to lead again . . . and if we succeed in being part of the solution, we can help regain America's moral leadership and trust in the eyes of the rest of the world."

A charming vision. Millions and millions of people in China and India, waiting on orders from little Vermont before they fall-in and march. Las Vegas turning off unnecessary lights to conserve electricity and reduce greenhouse gases because Vermont has shown the way. Movie stars flying coach because they crave approval from the citizens of Bethel, Brattleboro and Bennington.

It's a pretty good bet that whatever the Vermont legislature does about global warming and greenhouse gases, nobody in India or China or anywhere else outside of the state will notice. If every living creature in Vermont disappeared tomorrow, their lack of activity wouldn't compensate for the carbon dioxide produced by one of the coal-fired generating plants that China brings online every 10 days.

So the concern over global warming in Montpelier (the country's only state capital without a McDonald's) seems quixotic on the face of it. And besides, Vermont is already a relative good guy -- its "carbon footprint" is fairly small. Why? Because the state's electricity comes largely from dams and a nuclear plant, called Vermont Yankee, located in the southeastern corner of the state. And here is where the discussion gets really interesting.

We have all become accustomed to political anomalies. Democrats for balanced budgets, Republicans for Wilsonian foreign policies, etc. etc. Now we have, among other odd spectacles, global-warming zealots relentlessly bashing the best available alternative to burning fossil fuels to make electricity. Meanwhile, some serious environmentalists who once opposed nuclear power as a threat to the environment now support it as the most environmentally friendly means of producing large amounts of base-load power (i.e. that is available even when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining). Patrick Moore, among the founders of Greenpeace, is one of these converts, and he visited Vermont recently to make the nuclear case. Which, in Vermont, is not about building new plants but about extending the life of the one that is operating now.

The Vermont Yankee plant is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency to operate until 2012. The plant's owners -- the Entergy Corp. -- have made an application to extend the license for another 20 years. The state can block the extension by denying permission to store additional spent fuel on site. If this happens, then Vermont's utility companies will be compelled to buy power that is produced by burning fossil fuels. Unless, that is, Vermonters are willing to cut their power consumption by a third -- not likely, since even Ben and Jerry need electricity to make their ice cream -- or find a way to provide the power through renewables.

Wind is the current favorite in that category. But Vermonters have been reluctant to allow the construction of 450-foot-tall towers on their ridgelines, and many of their objections are based on green arguments. Last year, three wind projects were either voted down by referendum or denied permits by regulators who cited -- among other things -- the potential threat to birds and bats from whirling turbine blades. Resistance to wind is, if anything, increasing in Vermont, where uncluttered views are an essential part of the environmental agenda. In other words, it seems unlikely that Vermont will, in five years, find a way to generate a third of the electricity it currently uses through renewable sources.

Still , for more than 20 years now, the Greens of Vermont have wanted to shut down Yankee nuclear plant in the way that Frenchmen of the late 19th century lusted for the liberation of Alsace-Lorraine. Their ardor allows no compromise, no retreat. Shut it down.

Yet if Vermont is truly "bold," as state Sen. Shumlin claims, it could accept the risk of storing spent nuclear fuel or construct bird-chewing wind farms -- or both. In short, it could step up and take a hit for the sake of the environment. If the planet has 10 years to get its act together -- as some of the more messianic prophets of doom-by-global-warming are saying -- then it seems almost suicidal to close down a source of electricity that produces virtually no greenhouse gases, just for the sake of false piety.

A truly "bold," environmentally conscious state would go nuclear even more. Burlington will only really be the "best of" Green Places when local postcards show its charming leafy streets, with a view of Lake Champlain -- and a nuclear power plant looming in the background.

Mr. Norman writes frequently for the Journal and is editor of the Web site vermonttiger.com.

[Bavarian Motorist]

Is there any benefit to the fact that higher speed limits will cause cars to be on the roads LESS time than slower cars, in terms of co2 emissions?