Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

"Plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles" and replace them with what? Natural gas? Batteries? Solar Panels? Nukes? Hydrogen?

The company have already spent £2million on their new long-term Sustainable Mobility plan and are set to invest a further £7billion before 2014.

This includes making current engines even cleaner and more fuel-efficient while increasing the amount of hybrids, emission-free electric cars and clean-fuel gas engines and the further development of battery and hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Mercedes will drip-feed different forms of more eco-friendly vehicles into our showrooms as and when the technology has been developed over the next decade - but the process begins towards the end of this year.

"Plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles" and replace them with what? Natural gas? Batteries? Solar Panels? Nukes? Hydrogen?

Any car you buy today will be obsolete in seven years...

Electric cars may no doubt be practical in very small countries with dense population and short distances between towns. I don't see much future for them for some time out here where you can see nothing but maybe a jackrabbit or antelope or coyote for more than a hundred miles.

The cool thing is that with new batteries coming out, the range could easily be increased:

Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery


2,200 miles between charges... that would be nifty, eh?

ican711nm wrote:

...

...
Your insistence that we remained shackled to a wasteful and pollutive energy source is about as intelligent as your insistence that we remain shackled to a wasteful and costly Iraq policy; and both are in the process of being soundly rejected by the American people.

Cycloptichorn

old europe wrote:

Any car you buy today will be obsolete in seven years...

The car I drive in my work I bought on Halloween 1995. Come this October it will be 13 years old, it still looks good, it still runs like a new one, it is dependable in all kinds of weather due to AWD, parts are readily available for it, and I can purchase fuel, which I need sparingly, just about anywhere. I figure it has at least another 10 years or more good wear in it. Why should I hope it becomes obsolete? It sure isn't now.

Electric cars may no doubt be practical in very small countries with dense population and short distances between towns. I don't see much future for them for some time out here where you can see nothing but maybe a jackrabbit or antelope or coyote for more than a hundred miles.

The government and its contending politicians tend to want to look at certain aspects of energy consumption, but I think it is wiser to allow the free market to arbitrate and moderate the most efficient path of all of this stuff, not only for us as individuals, but as a whole. By allowing the individual to make the choices most efficient for them, we simply endorse a concept called "freedom."

Carnage for car makers as panicking investors send US shares into reverse

Panicking investors are dumping shares in America's biggest car manufacturers, amid suggestions that collapsing sales could push them to the brink of bankruptcy.

General Motors, the world's biggest car maker and producer of American icons such as the Chevrolet, the Cadillac and the Hummer, saw its shares plunge to the levels of more than 50 years ago, after a Wall Street analyst predicted it would need to raise emergency cash from shareholders to stave off insolvency.

And in the skittish atmosphere, Chrysler, which is owned by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital but whose bonds trade on the financial markets, felt it necessary to deny rumours circulating in Europe that it had already begun considering plans to seek bankruptcy protection.

With renewed gloom over the economy, due to weakening consumer confidence and rising food and fuel bills, and fears of more losses in the financial sector due to the credit crisis, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped 358 points - or 3 per cent - to 11.453.4, having accelerated lower through the afternoon.

The American car industry is emerging as a particularly significant casualty of high oil prices, which closed at another new record level in New York last night, up $5.09 at $139.64. Earlier, it had traded above $140 for the first time, as Libya said it might actually cut output. US petrol prices have soared and consumers are switching away from gas-guzzling SUVs in droves, a move which favours foreign car makers. Twice in the past three months, Ford and GM have announced sweeping cuts to production of their largest models but sales of many models are now running some 20-40 per cent below last year.

...

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Any car you buy today will be obsolete in seven years...

The car I drive in my work I bought on Halloween 1995. Come this October it will be 13 years old, it still looks good, it still runs like a new one, it is dependable in all kinds of weather due to AWD, parts are readily available for it, and I can purchase fuel, which I need sparingly, just about anywhere. I figure it has at least another 10 years or more good wear in it. Why should I hope it becomes obsolete? It sure isn't now.

Electric cars may no doubt be practical in very small countries with dense population and short distances between towns. I don't see much future for them for some time out here where you can see nothing but maybe a jackrabbit or antelope or coyote for more than a hundred miles.

Congratulations to you, Foxfyre, for evaluating the whole package deal, one part being how long a car can last, and the longer you drive your car, the less energy you consume by not compelling a waste of energy involved in manufacturing another vehicle. Think of all the wasted energy involved in the equipment to mine, reprocess, and manufacture all the parts of a car, plus all the parts of the machines to make the cars. And think of making all the parts of the machines to make the machines that mine, reprocess, and manufacture, etc. etc. etc. And think of all the fuel consumed by employees going to the factory to build the new vehicles, and in transporting them and selling them. It all adds up.

All of this conjures up again the argument that I made that cost or price in the free market is a pretty good arbitor or measure of just what is the most efficient, which includes energy. So it isn't just the up front price, but also the price of operating over the life of the vehicle. If a vehicle is cheap, but only lasts half as long as another more expensive one, that all needs to be factored into the equation. And another way of looking at it could be if operational costs are more, but if the vehicle lasts twice or three times as long, the lower capital investment into the vehicle when averaged over the long term may result in showing the vehicle with higher operational costs is more efficient.

Further, when one evaluates the energy efficiency of someone's lifestyle, you must not only look at their vehicle, but also their travel habits such as commute length, location of residence, flying habits, vacation habits, eating out, home efficiency, clothing that they wear, etc. To pick just one example of numerous ones that could be looked at, perhaps a person does not wear expensive clothing which may require more energy to produce, or perhaps a person never takes a cruise or goes to Las Vegas, which are very energy consumptive endeavors. If Mr. Do Gooder drives a Prius, but goes on a cruise or two every year, he has probably wiped out every gallon of gas he supposedly saved with his Prius, plus more.

The government and its contending politicians tend to want to look at certain aspects of energy consumption, but I think it is wiser to allow the free market to arbitrate and moderate the most efficient path of all of this stuff, not only for us as individuals, but as a whole. By allowing the individual to make the choices most efficient for them, we simply endorse a concept called "freedom." One person may choose to be more efficient with their home vs car, while others are vice versa, etc. That should be our choice to make as individuals.

okie wrote:

The government and its contending politicians tend to want to look at certain aspects of energy consumption, but I think it is wiser to allow the free market to arbitrate and moderate the most efficient path of all of this stuff, not only for us as individuals, but as a whole. By allowing the individual to make the choices most efficient for them, we simply endorse a concept called "freedom."

Yup.

In today's news, from The Independent:

Quote:

Carnage for car makers as panicking investors send US shares into reverse

Panicking investors are dumping shares in America's biggest car manufacturers, amid suggestions that collapsing sales could push them to the brink of bankruptcy.

General Motors, the world's biggest car maker and producer of American icons such as the Chevrolet, the Cadillac and the Hummer, saw its shares plunge to the levels of more than 50 years ago, after a Wall Street analyst predicted it would need to raise emergency cash from shareholders to stave off insolvency.

And in the skittish atmosphere, Chrysler, which is owned by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital but whose bonds trade on the financial markets, felt it necessary to deny rumours circulating in Europe that it had already begun considering plans to seek bankruptcy protection.

With renewed gloom over the economy, due to weakening consumer confidence and rising food and fuel bills, and fears of more losses in the financial sector due to the credit crisis, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped 358 points - or 3 per cent - to 11.453.4, having accelerated lower through the afternoon.

The American car industry is emerging as a particularly significant casualty of high oil prices, which closed at another new record level in New York last night, up $5.09 at $139.64. Earlier, it had traded above $140 for the first time, as Libya said it might actually cut output. US petrol prices have soared and consumers are switching away from gas-guzzling SUVs in droves, a move which favours foreign car makers. Twice in the past three months, Ford and GM have announced sweeping cuts to production of their largest models but sales of many models are now running some 20-40 per cent below last year.

...

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:

The government and its contending politicians tend to want to look at certain aspects of energy consumption, but I think it is wiser to allow the free market to arbitrate and moderate the most efficient path of all of this stuff, not only for us as individuals, but as a whole. By allowing the individual to make the choices most efficient for them, we simply endorse a concept called "freedom."

Yup.

In today's news, from The Independent:

Quote:

Carnage for car makers as panicking investors send US shares into reverse

Panicking investors are dumping shares in America's biggest car manufacturers, amid suggestions that collapsing sales could push them to the brink of bankruptcy.

General Motors, the world's biggest car maker and producer of American icons such as the Chevrolet, the Cadillac and the Hummer, saw its shares plunge to the levels of more than 50 years ago, after a Wall Street analyst predicted it would need to raise emergency cash from shareholders to stave off insolvency.

And in the skittish atmosphere, Chrysler, which is owned by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital but whose bonds trade on the financial markets, felt it necessary to deny rumours circulating in Europe that it had already begun considering plans to seek bankruptcy protection.

With renewed gloom over the economy, due to weakening consumer confidence and rising food and fuel bills, and fears of more losses in the financial sector due to the credit crisis, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped 358 points - or 3 per cent - to 11.453.4, having accelerated lower through the afternoon.

The American car industry is emerging as a particularly significant casualty of high oil prices, which closed at another new record level in New York last night, up $5.09 at $139.64. Earlier, it had traded above $140 for the first time, as Libya said it might actually cut output. US petrol prices have soared and consumers are switching away from gas-guzzling SUVs in droves, a move which favours foreign car makers. Twice in the past three months, Ford and GM have announced sweeping cuts to production of their largest models but sales of many models are now running some 20-40 per cent below last year.

...

Its called "change," oe. The free market institutes the process of change, constantly, and it is all in favor of ultimately the consumer. This all illustrates one fact, that corporations are not king, but consumers are. No corporation can or will survive unless it changes to fit the demands of consumers.

On this forum, we have countless examples of people railing against evil corporations on a continuous basis, especially when they are successful. Being successful however merely means they are providing goods and services that the consumers want, in other words they are serving us. They are the servants, and we are being served, the consumer is king. Now that we see auto companies suffering or going broke, instead of taxing them more, do we hear the compassionate liberal proposing that we bail them out? No.

And to be clear, their is always a replacement for what becomes antiquated. Just because car companies are suffering doesn't mean the economy or free market is failing, but instead it means the free market is working, and there will be different products, perhaps even different companies to take their place. All of this will happen quite efficiently if the government stays out of the way.

Now the government is going way too far. It is attempting to dictate how privately owned resources are to be used and in what quantity. It presumes to take away our choices and force products on us that we may or may not want while denying us the ability to exploit our natural resources during the transition period. In the process, we are driving whole industries to the brink, the stock market is tanking, and we are likely to have nothing to show for it in the short term and possibly long term other than economic grief and raising of the misery index.

And all that due to global warming that most of us think will most likely turn out to be normal climate change and unrelated to anything humans have done or are doing.

Its called "change," oe. The free market institutes the process of change, constantly, and it is all in favor of ultimately the consumer. This all illustrates one fact, that corporations are not king, but consumers are. No corporation can or will survive unless it changes to fit the demands of consumers.

Foxfyre wrote:

Now the government is going way too far. It is attempting to dictate how privately owned resources are to be used and in what quantity. It presumes to take away our choices and force products on us that we may or may not want while denying us the ability to exploit our natural resources during the transition period. In the process, we are driving whole industries to the brink, the stock market is tanking, and we are likely to have nothing to show for it in the short term and possibly long term other than economic grief and raising of the misery index.

And all that due to global warming that most of us think will most likely turn out to be normal climate change and unrelated to anything humans have done or are doing.

It's a bit hard to follow your argument here. The Bush administration has for years followed the maxim that there's no conclusive evidence for human contribution to Global Warming, and has consequentially not been pushing for innovation and a switch to new technologies - arguing that any kind of regulation would result in enormous costs for the industry and would therefore be detrimental to the US economy.

It's hard to blame the current situation on "the government going way too far". US car makers were not forced to invest huge sums into R&D (as their Asian and European counterparts did) and into new, fuel efficient product lines. They were able to rake in the profits while their models were still selling well.

Also, the choice of what kind of cars and models are available has been largely left to the market and to American consumers.

GM chart from 01/01/2000 - today:



That's the free market at work. US auto makers have nobody but themselves to blame...

denied ability to do the R&D that would allow us to safely and effectively use much of what is plentiful and cheap (i.e. coal)

to develop increased capability of utilizing the resources we do have (new refineries)

President Bush has been as incompetent on managing 'climate change' as much as in any issue but he has been much more of a 'tree hugger' than a skeptic all along. The energy bills before and after the Democratically controlled Congress have been devastating both to the industries mentioned and being able to effect competent remedies for the problems they have created--this has been especially true under the Democratically controlled Congress. There has been no 'free market'. CAFE standards have been dictated, components of fuels have been dictated, and the environmentalists have been allowed excessive and unreasonable clout in all these issues.

We have been denied the ability to get at vast amounts of our natural resources, denied ability to do the R&D that would allow us to safely and effectively use much of what is plentiful and cheap (i.e. coal), to develop increased capability of utilizing the resources we do have (new refineries) and all of this has been devasting to our economy including agriculture, manufacturing, and all the industries dependent on the affected industries.

You as a German with mild socialist leanings might not be able to fully understand the dynamics in play here, but you can't lay all this on the auto manufacturers. I don't excuse our auto manufacturers for failure to read the trends and for their failure to deal with the drag of union-negotiated mandates and a growing retirement problem when they could, but the government has not been a help and has been a definite hindrance to correcting existing problems.