[Cold Iron]

paladin;293220 said:

we're already doing our part in the scheme and others aren't playing by the rules.

Really?

Quote

we waste billions of dollars in money and damage our economies in the process to reduce a few percent.

Quote

Out of the $24.3 billion requested by President Bush for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fiscal 2008 budget, approximately $1.2 billion will be allocated to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -- up $60 million or 5 percent from 2007.

1.2 billion is less than 0.0083% of 14.5 trillion, hell it's not even 5% of the total energy budget. This is hardly damaging your economy. We are both still the number 1 and 2 per capita polluters in the world. While this is the case, pointing fingers at a country just because it has more people is just wrong.

[Cold Iron]

More news:

Arcic Ice Suffered from Sunny Year

discovery news said:

The record minimum set last year dipped 22 percent below the previous minimum set in 2005, and more than 43 percent less than in 1979 when measurements started.
...
The weather patterns that created the especially sunny weather are probably just part of the natural variability in Arctic weather, Kay said, but other years have seen even lower cloud cover without the same effect.
"While the weather conditions in the Arctic were unusual, they weren't unprecedented," Kay said. "We've seen them before and they haven't had the same impact. So something's different up there. It's likely that sea ice is thinner, so it's more vulnerable to this variability."
...
"This winter the ice is even thinner than last, so if we were to have a similar pattern as last summer, we would lose even more ice than we did in 2007," Stroeve said. "But even if we were to have conditions from other previous years, it's still likely that we could see dramatic ice loss again this summer."

[Optimus Prime]

It scares me that people don't believe Global Warming exists. And just in case anyeone still thinks it is due to the sun, some British scientists disproved that theory

If you want the 3rd world countries to develop, let's get them started with more efficient means that pollute less. That way 100 years from now they aren't polluting as much as the US and China are now.

[Cold Iron]

Xander;293593 said:

It scares me that people don't believe Global Warming exists. And just in case anyeone still thinks it is due to the sun, some British scientists disproved that theory

Link please.

[paladin]

Cold Iron;293548 said:

Really?




1.2 billion is less than 0.0083% of 14.5 trillion, hell it's not even 5% of the total energy budget. This is hardly damaging your economy. We are both still the number 1 and 2 per capita polluters in the world. While this is the case, pointing fingers at a country just because it has more people is just wrong.

im not speaking of government spending, at least solely. the workers and the companies bear the brunt of the cost of this. while we may be the top polluter, we are also much more advanced in pollution controls than many nations. the law of diminishing returns* applies here. its much cheaper and easier for economies without these controls to reduce greater amounts of pollution, both now and in the future, by "encouraging" them to modernize their pollution control measures rather than enforcing tougher measures on countries that already have current pollution control technology in place.

in the mean time, for example, chinese(you can substitute malaysian, indian, pakistani, etc) companies use cheap outdated manufacturing processes that pollute at levels much higher than countries with modern pollution regulation and because they do not have the overhead cost related to pollution control(among other things) they are able to undercut companies in countries that do spend on technology to comply with modern pollution regulation(which is always tightening, thus always taking cash out of the company's pocket). so these nations sacrifice the environment to grow at a greater rate and get a free pass while the economies of the more advanced nations make the mandatory increasing investments into pollution control and pay for it in increased cost per product vs the lesser regulated competitors. change is gradual, and the further up the scale you go the slower and more expensive it is. steps should be taken to net the most gain effectively


* - def: The law of diminishing returns is a classic economic concept that states that as more investment in an area is made, overall return on that investment increases at a declining rate, assuming that all variables remain fixed. Meaning, to continue to make an investment after a certain point (which varies from context to context) is to receive a decreasing return on that input.

An example for this discussion would be to compare the price of forcing a company with no pollution control(say they are dumping sewage directly into a river) to institute a common modern system(say a sewage processing plant, which we'll say reduces 25% of the total pollution output 5million$ per % point(representing modern technology) after which other percentages up to 50% net cost double per % point (10million$, representing cutting edge technology or not yet developed technology requiring r&d)) and then compare it to a company that already has a sewage processing plant and they need to have a net of 40% reduction in pollution because of local laws. The cost of that extra 15%($150million) will be more than the cost of the 25%($125million) because the easy measures have already been taken and they need to install newer technologies and additional treatment plants to reduce their pollution output to meet the standard. Why spend a higher amt per % point to net that smaller percentage gain when we could spend less to net more across the board by getting those that use little or no established technologies(established meaning cheaper cost versus technology on the cutting edge) to control pollution? Then compare it to a company that has no pollution control and you have at least an extra $125million in pocket.

[Cold Iron]

Yes, however the problem with that is you are neglecting to realise the huge gap in GDP. It's ridiculous to suggest that modern countries should stall their environmental controls until less developed nations improve theirs, all you will achieve is setting us back decades. And not only that, when they do catch up, their development systems will be in motion, whereas ours will have stalled, so they will easily move ahead of us and we will be the ones with the outdated and heavily polluting infrastructure.

[Optimus Prime]

Cold Iron;293612 said:

Link please.

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7327393.stm

[paladin]

Cold Iron;293619 said:

Yes, however the problem with that is you are neglecting to realise the huge gap in GDP. It's ridiculous to suggest that modern countries should stall their environmental controls until less developed nations improve theirs, all you will achieve is setting us back decades. And not only that, when they do catch up, their development systems will be in motion, whereas ours will have stalled, so they will easily move ahead of us and we will be the ones with the outdated and heavily polluting infrastructure.

you dont stall, but you do have to slow down dramatically because of the increasing cost or the economy will crumble under the pressure of the relative cost, which would go down if in the mean time other economies are instituting measures to catch up. then the potential investment ceiling would go up as the pressure eases elsewhere.

the problem the US govt has with kyoto is related to this if i recall. for a relatively small, but expensive, gain you are investing much more that could be better invested for a greater gain elsewhere, and it can be crushing to companies to comply with that in the US(especially considering the already increased labor and real estate costs vs other countries), so they relocate to malaysia, hurting the local economy with layoffs while effectively fattening their wallets and loosening the standards with which they produce goods as have less pollution laws to comply with.

basically, just like electric cars and such. the general public(both as people and companies) are more apt to accept change and cost if it is gradual. we thought that electric cars would be great, but noone wanted to buy in. so someone came up with the concept of a hybrid, which was supposed to be a stopgap measure for manufacturers to comply with federal rules for mileage and alternative fuel source vehicles, and it took off. hybrids require nothing different to be done, since they still use gas, they cost a little bit more in the frontend, and promise a return on the backend over time. electric vehicles also promise a return on the backend, but typically at a much higher pricepoint, or at least much higher price per single use effective range(an electric golfcart may only cost 5k, but it will only take you 10miles per charge), while also potentially requiring a charging device and having the inconvenience of taking more time to charge than filling up a gas tank and not having nearly as many recharge stations as their are gas stations on the road. people obviously took to the hybrid because it requires no extra effort on their part and it was cost effective.

we can send all our old hondas to cuba to get rid of the 50s and 60s era v8s while we institute measures to increase the use of vehicles like hybrids. cuba reduces its vehicular pollution by a great percentage on the cheap while we gradually phase in better technology on our end. both turn out winners, but one is much easier and much quicker than the other.

[Cold Iron]

paladin;293627 said:

you dont stall, but you do have to slow down dramatically because of the increasing cost or the economy will crumble under the pressure of the relative cost, which would go down if in the mean time other economies are instituting measures to catch up. then the potential investment ceiling would go up as the pressure eases elsewhere.

the problem the US govt has with kyoto is related to this if i recall. for a relatively small, but expensive, gain you are investing much more that could be better invested for a greater gain elsewhere, and it can be crushing to companies to comply with that in the US(especially considering the already increased labor and real estate costs vs other countries), so they relocate to malaysia, hurting the local economy with layoffs while effectively fattening their wallets and loosening the standards with which they produce goods as have less pollution laws to comply with.

basically, just like electric cars and such. the general public(both as people and companies) are more apt to accept change and cost if it is gradual. we thought that electric cars would be great, but noone wanted to buy in. so someone came up with the concept of a hybrid, which was supposed to be a stopgap measure for manufacturers to comply with federal rules for mileage and alternative fuel source vehicles, and it took off. hybrids require nothing different to be done, since they still use gas, they cost a little bit more in the frontend, and promise a return on the backend over time. electric vehicles also promise a return on the backend, but typically at a much higher pricepoint, or at least much higher price per single use effective range(an electric golfcart may only cost 5k, but it will only take you 10miles per charge), while also potentially requiring a charging device and having the inconvenience of taking more time to charge than filling up a gas tank and not having nearly as many recharge stations as their are gas stations on the road. people obviously took to the hybrid because it requires no extra effort on their part and it was cost effective.

we can send all our old hondas to cuba to get rid of the 50s and 60s era v8s while we institute measures to increase the use of vehicles like hybrids. cuba reduces its vehicular pollution by a great percentage on the cheap while we gradually phase in better technology on our end. both turn out winners, but one is much easier and much quicker than the other.

I agree in part but you're being overly pessimistic and it certainly wouldn't be crushing for US companies to meet similar standards as those used in Europe.

[paladin]

though europe doesnt have a direct port to asia either, so costs are different, and i'd be willing to bet some european countries have better protections in place to protect their workforce from problems that result from places like china selling cheap shit than the US does(meaning tariffs on imports, limits on imports, etc).

the us is constantly trying to improve in pollution, but it is a slow going process. yesterday news hit that the govt set rules for the vehicles being sold by automanufacturers to average approx 30mpg by 2015 or 2012 or something. its not something that can be instituted overnight, and the government understands that and is instead spacing it out over a halfdozen years or so.

[Macros]

American cars are shocking uneconomical, our jeep, a 3 litre, can get 30 mpg is driven with reasonable manners. getting a CAR to average 30mpg? out of curiousity I decided to see how good an average mpg I could get outa my car on the way home last weekend its a 67 mile journey from door to door. Theres a few roundabouts and junctions and about 2 miles of city driving.
It averaged 60.4 mpg. I'll try it again and take a photo sometime if disbelief is in evidence.
It could be instituted pretty damn quickly, let the japanese or the germans built your engines, they'll get more than 2 bhp per litre.

[paladin]

europeans do not use cars for recreation nearly as much as americans do. this results in a lot of v8s with the ability to tow(ie low mileage) and lots of 4x4 vehicles. whether or not people actually use those features, people buy the vehicle thinking that they'd like to. this contributes partly. ive never agreed with v8 road only suvs, but those are suffering as gas prices rise

[Macros]

thats a pretty foolish sentiment, unless you're towing an elephant around you've no need for a v8 SUV, you can tow a caravan with a car no problem, plenty of cars have the power for it, and it doesnt require a v8 17 litre engine either. Like I said we have our jeep for the farm, it tows plenty of stuff a fully loaded cattle trailer packs plenty of weight, but when not towing it sitll averages 30 mpg. Theres no need for all that engine americans seem to need to stuff into every vehicle they produce.

[drinksinbars]

there si talk that petrol will hti £1.50 this summer with diesel even higher

i only get 45mpg with my megane, but drive like a good un so suppose it aint bad.

[Macros]

when I put the shoe down my leon isn't so hot on the diesel either but it still manages over 30mpg, and industry "average" mpgs are normally taken as pretty as possible, meaning if you drive like a little old lady, your car will manage Xmpg, which is why a 30mpg target is so shockingly low considering how long economical engines have been in production in other countries.

[paladin]

Macros;293862 said:

thats a pretty foolish sentiment, unless you're towing an elephant around you've no need for a v8 SUV, you can tow a caravan with a car no problem, plenty of cars have the power for it, and it doesnt require a v8 17 litre engine either. Like I said we have our jeep for the farm, it tows plenty of stuff a fully loaded cattle trailer packs plenty of weight, but when not towing it sitll averages 30 mpg. Theres no need for all that engine americans seem to need to stuff into every vehicle they produce.

its how the free market works. people buy what they want, it doesnt matter if they NEED it. they want it and they think they need it. europeans buy for direct utility(cant believe how many ugly beatup hatchbacks i saw in london), americans buy for potential utility. we like having the option of going offroading, towing a boat, going 0-60 in 5 seconds, etc. its a different culture. the free market allows for that.

the government is stepping in to improve standards as it does every few years and manufacturers will make due.

and v8s arent 17 liters in any personal vehicle. big block engines are usually ~7 liters(GM 454 cu in big block is 7.4l) currently and small blocks range from 4 to 6 liters(typical GM v8 is 350 cu in. or 5.7l).

[paladin]

Macros;293869 said:

when I put the shoe down my leon isn't so hot on the diesel either but it still manages over 30mpg, and industry "average" mpgs are normally taken as pretty as possible, meaning if you drive like a little old lady, your car will manage Xmpg, which is why a 30mpg target is so shockingly low considering how long economical engines have been in production in other countries.

a toyota camry, the most popular toyota vehicle and their flagship sedan, averages 25mpg.

a corolla, their low-mid family sedan gets 29mpg.

honda accord, most popular honda vehicle and their flagship sedan, gets 24.

honda civic, low end, gets 35

gm, ford, and dodge all have comparable mpg vehicles in those vehicle classes but they do not sell nearly as well.

[Macros]

17 was a joke
I not talking about buying for utility vs desire, I'm talking about the ridiculous over engining going on.
6 litres? dear god thats likely pushing whats in under the bonnet in our tractors (not really but it sounded good) american car firms just seem to go down the simplist route for more power, make it bigger. My da is a little boy racer and drives an impreza, it gets 225 bhp out of a 2.5 litre engine, thats a flat 4 cylinder engine. if america companies were putting that kind of technogoly into their vehicles 6 litre engines would quickly be the hold of the super car, where they belong.

ETA, ah but the japs emissions rating are higher on their cars so they're still better for the environment.

ETA again, I had an old civic and it did better than 35 to the gallon if manners were involved, I'm assuming its the new heavy as a tank version we're talking about. Even at that the cdti dhoc (reasonavbly nippy engine) can get 60 mpg on motorway driving, so I'm assuming say 45/50 average. I must investigate to see if the american models is produced to different spec.

ETA again again:
Urban 42.8 mpg
Extra Urban 65.7 mpg
Combined 55.4 mpg

ETA Final one, promise: figured since diesel is more eco anyway to check out the petrol, the petrol 1.8 vtec runs average ec of around 44 mpg. and thats a nippy wee car, its no type r but at 140 bhp it'll shift on rightly
(odly though with progressive generation power output seems to ave dropped, I know the old 1.6 vtec (i mean mid 90s old) was thumpin out 160 bhp, but then again when you tramped it your wallet went out the exhaust in rush. must be where the economy's coming from. I would be happy with 140 break at the minute, my leon's only the 110 model

[Cold Iron]

Hey macros i don't think diesel is all that common in the US, it's mostly petrol. And paladin, like your government, you are being way too conservative, you're letting your companies tell you how to legislate, that is not free market.

[Cold Iron]

More news:

Pine Beetles Ravage Forests, Spew CO2
Ailing Rivers Need Urgent Care, Groups Warn