Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

Thread: EU: Proposed 18% CO2 cut

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,031
    My temp gauge says a balmy +31C @ 6.30 in the evening - this in Oz's coldest mainland capital, mind you - so I could be a bit amienable right now to some of that lovely Finnish weather

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
    there is evidence out there but at the same time there is also evidence and statistics saying this is just the earth's climactic balancing act.
    I appreciate the fact that you try to present both opposing opinions on the topic, but I have to disagree with one of them.

    I'm not a scientist or anything, but common sense makes me think that, if all the weather changes were a balancing act, then it wouldn't happen so dranatically fast.

    I remember that 5 years ago, none of these took place (even if some f it did, it was really mild weather changes on some parts of the world). These weather changes, if it was a balancing act, would happen in centuries or millenia.

    Ice ages did not happen overnight. (lightweight, 2005)
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,580
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight
    I appreciate the fact that you try to present both opposing opinions on the topic, but I have to disagree with one of them.

    I'm not a scientist or anything, but common sense makes me think that, if all the weather changes were a balancing act, then it wouldn't happen so dranatically fast.

    I remember that 5 years ago, none of these took place (even if some f it did, it was really mild weather changes on some parts of the world). These weather changes, if it was a balancing act, would happen in centuries or millenia.

    Ice ages did not happen overnight. (lightweight, 2005)
    Indeed they don't - Global warming does not happen "Day after tomorrow" style. so why are they saying it's increasing in speed and veracity? it just smacks of scare tactic and is the worst form of environmental blackmail i've yet seen.

    There is evidence out there which suggests the earth followed a similar pattern of heating and cooling for a very long time. while i agree the supposed veracity has increased, it's still cycling.

    10 years ago these weather phenomena were blamed on El Nino. this time it's global warming. what will it be in 10 years time?
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
    10 years ago these weather phenomena were blamed on El Nino. this time it's global warming. what will it be in 10 years time?
    The El Nino is (was) a part of the weather-system, so you can't exclude it from the phenomena that are happening now.

    The El Nino and the weather extremes that we frequently hear on the news are just different versions of the same problem: Human activity affecting climate balance
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,580
    El Nino was apparantly around long before humans - so that argument is null and void.

    I accept Humans have had an effect on the world and that the status quo is no longer sustainable. but i don't think Global warming is the issue. global warming is just one giant umbrella under which many regional issues are grouped under. and has become a Media scare word.

    "be careful when you sleep children....or global warming might make your room into an Igloo!"
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
    El Nino was apparantly around long before humans
    I was under the impression that El Nino was an adverse effect of global warming, but after googling it, I revised

    My bad

    Quote Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
    global warming is just one giant umbrella under which many regional issues are grouped under. and has become a Media scare word.
    I agree that it has become a scare word, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.

    This means that journalists, in order to create a buzz, use the stereotype phrase: "Global warming this..", "Global warming that"...

    But, to add some more data on the future policy of the EU concerning the Auto industry (remember? that was the original post ), let me contribute the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.just-auto.com/proactive/pdf/1a2ss34sw/lotus-newsletter-issue-18.pdf
    The European Commission (EC) has proposed that biofuels make up a minimum of 10% of all transport fuels by 2020.

    The move its part of the EC’s “Renewable Energy Roadmap” that is integral to its new energy policy for Europe.

    A proposed legislation package will include legally binding targets, but each member state will have the freedom to determine the best renewable energy mix for its own country.

    While biofuels are more expensive than other forms of renewable energy today, they are the only way to significantly reduce oil dependence in the transport sector over the next 15 years.
    So, biofuels it is for the immediate future (the next 15 years). This means again that the cost of motoring increases (low mpg for biofuel vehicles) but at least the carbon emissions fall.

    Another upside of this proposal (it's only a EU proposal, not a done deal) is that no significant investment will be made to current technology. Existing motors, with low-cost modifications can be used as biofuel motors.
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Another clue on the CO2 emissions debate.

    Five to 10 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions come, not from automobiles or forest fires, but from manufacturing cement. The global warming gas is released when limestone and clays are crushed and heated to high temperatures.

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/0...19-502-ak-0000
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight
    Another clue on the CO2 emissions debate.

    Five to 10 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions come, not from automobiles or forest fires, but from manufacturing cement. The global warming gas is released when limestone and clays are crushed and heated to high temperatures.

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/0...19-502-ak-0000
    But does it matter?
    The major natural greenhouse gases is water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    The auto manufacturers are lobbying heavily against the EU proposal concerning CO2 emission reduction.

    Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would "never agree" to any proposal that penalised makers of big cars.

    In the light of Ms Merkel's uncompromising stance, an approach which sets a target for the industry as a whole - and spreads the burden across all Europe's manufacturers - will probably be needed.

    So a proposed solution would be to measure the 120 g/km for the whole industry not for every manufacturer. This is a big help for companies that manufacture small quantities of big-engined cars. It would be unfair for Maybach, with its 6.0 V12 (they will bore and stroke it to 8 or 9 liters by 2012) to try and achieve a 120 g/km, when Fiat has a maximum engine capacity of 2,5 liters and 95% of its cars are less than 2 liters
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by lightweight; 02-07-2007 at 02:00 PM. Reason: adding pic
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    The major natural greenhouse gases is water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth
    Given that:

    1. Recent scientific reports reach the conclusion that global warming is a human caused phenomenon

    2. You can't stop water evaporating

    Then:

    It's better to concentrate on the sources of CO2 emissions that are human related and can be reduced with technological advances
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,495
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight
    The auto manufacturers are lobbying heavily against the EU proposal concerning CO2 emission reduction.

    Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would "never agree" to any proposal that penalised makers of big cars.

    In the light of Ms Merkel's uncompromising stance, an approach which sets a target for the industry as a whole - and spreads the burden across all Europe's manufacturers - will probably be needed.

    So a proposed solution would be to measure the 120 g/km for the whole industry not for every manufacturer. This is a big help for companies that manufacture small quantities of big-engined cars. It would be unfair for Maybach, with its 6.0 V12 (they will bore and stroke it to 8 or 9 liters by 2012) to try and achieve a 120 g/km, when Fiat has a maximum engine capacity of 2,5 liters and 95% of its cars are less than 2 liters
    That can be regarded as fair, but I still think Maybach should try its best to reduce the emissions on their cars. then again another option could be to achieve the 120g/km target by Groups of manuafacturers. I mean Daimler-Chrysler as whole has to achieve the target, the Fiat Group (including Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Maserati and Ferrari) has to achieve the target, and so on...
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight
    It's better to concentrate on the sources of CO2 emissions that are human related and can be reduced with technological advances
    Isn't that like trying to demolish a house, but since you don't have many tools, you'll just take out the windows?

    1. Recent scientific reports reach the conclusion that global warming is a human caused phenomenon
    Mabye it's because they disregard water vapour?
    Last edited by The_Canuck; 02-07-2007 at 01:53 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    Isn't that like trying to demolish a house, but since you don't have many tools, you'll just take out the windows?

    Mabye it's because they disregard water vapour?
    You don't understand anything.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    I wouldn't say anything, possibly climate change though.

    Also Egg Nog, your entire argument so far is that lots of Scientists believe it to be true...
    There are also thousands who don't.
    Last edited by The_Canuck; 02-07-2007 at 02:24 PM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    I wouldn't say anything, possibly climate change though.

    Also Egg Nog, your entire argument so far is that lots of Scientists believe it to be true...
    There are also thousands who don't.
    Come on Canuck! Don't try to prove something that can't be proven. It's good to have an open mind of things and try to judge what is being discussed, but being too open minded can lead to false conclusions
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •