Are hurricanes more damaging, or is there just more to damage?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Back to the original hijack (I think, maybe it was a hijack off of a hijack), yes CO2 on its own may or may not present a problem. A fair percentage of the things that produce CO2 also throw off a lot of other fairly bad stuff, and that other fairly bad stuff may in fact cause breathing ailments, such as asthma.

Last stats I saw, over the last 25 years the percentage of americans with asthma rose 75% and the percentage of preschoolers with asthma rose 160%.

I'm thinking that this has something to do with increased pollutants. But then again, I didnt go to medical school, i'm not a scientist and i'm not even an economist.

Seems to me though that arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of piecemeal bits of data isnt relevant, although its a great way to rathole a discussion until you can make it someone elses problem. Heck, you can rathole a whole presidential campaign for an entire year just by talking about someones wartime medals from 30 years ago.

Do a prairie dog on this.

Pollution Bad.

[laurence]

More gasoline on the fire:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13591551/

It talks about how the big three autos produce more pollution than the biggest power plant, but that's a gimmick statistic. What I thought interesting is their cars produce 75% of the car emmissions in the U.S. but account for less than half the cars overall. This tidbit was also enlightening:

"With just 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 30 percent of the world’s automobiles and produces 45 percent of the world’s automotive carbon dioxide emissions, the report said. U.S. cars are driven more and burn more fuel per mile than the international average."

[justin]

Cars have been getting cleaner for decades. Except for CO2 (which is an unavoidable byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion), the other pollutants have been gradually declining. Better fuels, better sensors, more perfect combustion and catalytic converters all lead to drastically lower levels of non-CO2 pollution, even though the population has increased and the total number of vehicle-miles traveled has increased.

If you define "air pollution" as CO2 emissions, then yes, cars are a big source of pollution.

For localized air quality concerns (what causes bad health) CO2 just isn't a concern.

[laurence]

Are you proposing CO2 isn't a problem?

Cars may be doing a little better per gallon of gas, but gas mileage has actually decreased, principally because people want the same thing Capt. Kirk wants, "More Power, Scotty!". The Catalytic converter was a big step forward, but that was decades ago.

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence Are you proposing CO2 isn't a problem? Cars may be doing a little better per gallon of gas, but gas mileage has actually decreased, principally because people want the same thing Capt. Kirk wants, "More Power, Scotty!". The Catalytic converter was a big step forward, but that was decades ago.

I never said CO2 emissions weren't an issue. They're just a different issue from the real pollutants and irritants that vehicles and industry emit that have rather immediate effects on those near the pollution sources and downwind. Different strategies exist to deal with the different types of pollution. CO2 is important on a macro scale and the other pollutants are important on a much smaller localized scale. Plus the non-CO2 pollutants have much more immediate effects than CO2 emissions.

Re: catalytic converters - the technology continues to advance and provide cleaner exhaust. Other technologies continue to advance and provide cleaner exhaust. And yes, the major reductions on NEW cars occured a while ago, but there are still old cars on the road today. Every year the US vehicle fleet gets cleaner and cleaner because the cars get more and more recent. This trend will continue for a decade or two into the future even if we stop all pollution control technological advances today and keep the status quo re: allowable emissions. It's amazing to see the reduction in pollution since the 1970's due to the new regulations implemented starting around that time.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence Cars may be doing a little better per gallon of gas, but gas mileage has actually decreased, principally because people want the same thing Capt. Kirk wants, "More Power, Scotty!".* The Catalytic converter was a big step forward, but that was decades ago.*

Do you have a crediable link to support this statement. It seems to me to be just the opposite. There are many new cars using v-6's with as much power as v-8 a few years ago, and with better mileage. Many of the old reliable's (5.8's, 5.7's, 5.0's, 4.9's etc.) have been phased out, because they used too much gas, but they were war horses and could run forever.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I could probably find one, but I know its a true statement. Sure there are a lot of better mileage vehicles, but the float towards larger and larger trucks and SUV's has more than offset better economy in some vehicles. Look around you in traffic for validation.

[eridanus]

Fleet average MPG has decreased since 1987 due to more power and heavier vehicles.

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/071001German.PDF

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny the float towards larger and larger trucks and SUV's has more than offset better economy in some vehicles.* Look around you in traffic for validation.

or you can look to any parking lot where my little car's parked. i have to take up two spots to assure safe exist. if i don't, i come out to the car and two monster trucks are a foot away on either side of me and i can't see a thing backing out.

if all you soccer mom's are gonna drive such big cars you ought to at least jack them up a few feet so i can at least see under'm.

oh, and to keep within the thread it's even worse just before a hurricane when all the soccer moms are panic shopping.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Did you just call me a soccer mom?

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Did you just call me a soccer mom?

only if the suv fits :P

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Did you just call me a soccer mom?

Soccer mom... diaper dad... tough choices!

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Jeez Louise...

[laurence]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Do you have a crediable link to support this statement. It seems to me to be just the opposite. There are many new cars using v-6's with as much power as v-8 a few years ago, and with better mileage. Many of the old reliable's (5.8's, 5.7's, 5.0's, 4.9's etc.) have been phased out, because they used too much gas, but they were war horses and could run forever.

Eridanus answered for me. But I hear that kind of talk from all my co-workers who drive expiditions. "My car has the latest technology! One time when I was driving downhill with the engine off I got 20 MPG!"

:P

[lets-retire]

eridanus--Those are six year old stats. Does anybody have anything newer. The increase in the number of hybrids surely has affected the CAFE. There have also been other increases in MPG in other engines since then. If I replace my vehicle with a similar one with a v-8, rather than the six I currently have, I'd get a little better MPG. When I replaced the DW's car with her SUV in 2001 she received batter MPG.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

The number of hybrids sold is a drop in the bucket.

As the table below from the NHTSA's CAFE folks shows, gas mileage peaked around 1982 and has just flopped around within a mpg or so since then, declining since 1987 and then rising slightly last year as people turned away from 8 ton vehicles.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny The number of hybrids sold is a drop in the bucket. As the table below from the NHTSA's CAFE folks shows, gas mileage peaked around 1982 and has just flopped around within a mpg or so since then, declining since 1987 and then rising slightly last year as people turned away from 8 ton vehicles.

24 years on, even with all those advances, and we have a .1 mpg gain from 1982. Yay! :

We're still below the 1987 peak.

Nope, Pogo, we can not have our cake and eat it too.

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus 24 years on, even with all those advances, and we have a .1 mpg gain from 1982. Yay! : We're still below the 1987 peak. Nope, Pogo, we can not have our cake and eat it too.

Well, it seems that we actually can have our cake and eat it too...The inflation adjusted price of gasoline today at $3.00 per gallon is less than it was in 1981.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING....boohooboobhoo....

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Well, it seems that we actually can have our cake and eat it too...The inflation adjusted price of gasoline today at $3.00 per gallon is less than it was in 1981.

Eh? Were we just discussing pollution and CAFE or were we just discussing the inflation adjusted cost of a gallon of gas?

Oh, I get it. You want to win. Ok, you win. We ARE paying less per gallon than 1981.

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus Eh? Were we just discussing pollution and CAFE or were we just discussing the inflation adjusted cost of a gallon of gas? Oh, I get it. You want to win. Ok, you win. We ARE paying less per gallon than 1981.

naw, I don't need to win. I already have ,and now I am just bustin' chops. Have fun