let's assume global warming is not going to take place , or that it is not going to be as destructive as forecast by some scientists.
many manufactures in other countries - but some in north-america too - have developed manufacturing processes that are much more energy efficient and cheaper than traditional manufacturing.
take automobiles as an example , the japanese have been in the forefront of building more effiecient engines . north-american manufactures lagged behind . buyers started to vote with their pocketbooks and are buying more and more - mainly japanese - fuel-effient cars . we all know what is happening to general motors , don't we ? they have been batterd severely ; will GM survive ?
wouldn't it have been much smarter for general motors to have been in the fore-front ? they would have built and sold more cars . americans would have had more jobs ... and there would have been lower emissions !
nobody would have had to suffer : workers would have kept their jobs , fewer people would have suffered from air pollution ... and the shareholders would have been holding a valuable stock paying good dividends .
seems to me that would have ben a "win-win" situation.
for north-american car manufactures to catch up is going to be tough slogging ; i sure hope they make it (i'm driving a GM car !). hbg
I think the problem is that hybrid vehicles just don't sell that well - no matter who makes them. The technology itself is hardly new -- constant speed engines, compact DC generators and batteries, and even motor generator sets for braking & driving have all been around for a very long time. Some progress is still needed in mimiaturizatoion and low cost manufacturing, but the rest is old, familiar stuff. It costs more and it doesn't sell well. I suspect that will change over the next several years, and we will be seeing more of them from all manufacturers.
I think in addition to efficiency, quality is probably important for the consumer.
Blotham again displays his utter ignorance about "Global warming".
It is apparent that he is not in possession of the facts.
He apparently is not aware that:
l. Surface temperatures on the earth have varied throughout the centuries. The Medieval Warm Period manifested warmer temperatures than today without the benefit of co2 produced by man.
2. The US Senate decisively voted against acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol in July 1997 with a DECISIVE vote of 95-0. One of the major sticking points was that the C02 emissions of China and India were not to be cut back because they were both classified as "developing countries
3. The National Academy of Sciences published its report in 2001 and found that a large portion of the research on "global warming" could only be classified as 'UNCERTAIN"
4. There was a strong surface warming between 1890 and 1940 followed by a pronounced cooling between 1940 and 1970( and warnings of a catasthropic ice age to come) then rising tempertures from 1970 to today.
Since CO2 emissions were insignificant in the early 20th century, it is a puzzle why substantial warming happened anyway. It could have been due to natural causes of Climate Change.
5. Recent warming trends have been measured only on the earth's surface. There are major uncertainties connected with those trends, one of which is the heat island effect. The important point is that satellite measurements do not show the warming trends.
6. The Academy pointed out a serious problem with the theories concerning global warming. They noted that "The nature and magnitude of hydrological feedbacks give rise to the LARGEST SOURCE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY since all of the computer models assume that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from an increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air. If that assumption is untrue and the theories of Richard Lindzen, perhaps the US's foremost professor of Meterology at MIT hold true, then the thoery of global warming falls apart.
Dr. Lindzen holds that clouds tend to reduce much of the warming expected fromCO2 since he states that cirrus clouds act as thermostats. Dr, Lindzen points out that both clouds and water vapor-EACH MORE IMPORTANT IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAN CO2 ARE SIMPLY NOT WELL ENOUGH UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATOLOGISTS.
7. The National Academy of Sciences points out that without computer models there would be no evidence of global warming, no Kyoto. By simulating the climate on giant, ultra fast computers, scholars try to learn just how it will react to new stimulus--like a doubling of CO2. The NSA points out that AN IDEAL COMPUTER MODEL WOULD HAVE TO TRACK FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH AND THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE AND INCORPORATE ALL RELEVANT INTERACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR, ICE AND VEGETATION.
The NAS concludes that "Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in thier formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty in interpreting their answers that exhibit as much complexity as in nature"
8. Perhaps, more important, the NAS report highlights the difficulty in understanding NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE. If we can't understand those, then we can't understand the human effect. One of the MAJOR natural component in changing the climate is--the sun. New findings, based on satellite measurements,suggest that the heat emanating from the sun to the earth changes significantly on time scales of decades to centuries. NASA satellites have uncovered the fact that the sun's changing magnetism over the course of its sunspot cycle is accompanied by a change in total energy output. SINCE THE SUN IS AS MAGNETICALLY ACTIVE TODAY AS IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS OF DIRECT TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS, IT MAY BE THAT THE SUN IS HEATING THE EARTH WITH LITTLE THAT MAN CAN DO ABOUT IT.
georgeob1 wrote:I think the problem is that hybrid vehicles just don't sell that well - no matter who makes them. The technology itself is hardly new -- constant speed engines, compact DC generators and batteries, and even motor generator sets for braking & driving have all been around for a very long time. Some progress is still needed in mimiaturizatoion and low cost manufacturing, but the rest is old, familiar stuff. It costs more and it doesn't sell well. I suspect that will change over the next several years, and we will be seeing more of them from all manufacturers.
I can't believe you live in SF and can say that the Hybrids aren't selling. They're jumping off the shelves so to speak. I'm going to double check, but I think there is a considerable wait to buy one now.
Anon
It should read 95-5-0. The middle stat is usually reserved for ties or noncommittals. Wins-Ties-Losses.
Sorry- 72000, it was 95-0. Five Senators did not vote.
Poor Morkat,
Here are a plethora of links leading to articles about Bush admitting Global Warming is an issue, but refusing to do anything about it. You can't stand the fact that even your hero admits it!!
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy_warming.asp
Readem and weep Massa honey!
Anon
Nearly 17 Million Cars were sold in the US in 2004. Toyota announces that 120,000 Prius autos will be sent to the USA in 2006.
120,000 is What Percent of 17 Million?
Less than One Percent.
George OB1 has a good point. When gas costs do not increase, the American buyer goes back to the SUV.
Mortkat wrote:Nearly 17 Million Cars were sold in the US in 2004. Toyota announces that 120,000 Prius autos will be sent to the USA in 2006.
120,000 is What Percent of 17 Million?
Less than One Percent.
George OB1 has a good point. When gas costs do not increase, the American buyer goes back to the SUV.
Then we can only hope that gas goes to $5.00 a gallon!
Perhaps you could tell me why GM is laying off 30,000 at the first of the year, and Ford is laying off 4,000?? Could it be ... Sales???
Anon
It could be sales. However, the point was whether or not the electric/gas autos were selling. GeorgeOB1 said that hybird cars don't sell that well.
120,000 from Toyota to come to USA. In 2004, 17 Million Autos sold. Do the math.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article335198.ece
Europeans can not even comply with their own treaty!!!
"Although the US is portrayed as the ecological villain for refusing to sign up to the agreement, 10 out of the 15 European Union signatories - including Ireland, Italy and Spain - will miss their targets without urgent action, the Institute for Public Policy Research found.
France, Greece and Germany are given "amber warnings" and will only achieve the objectives if planned policies are successfully carried out."
Thanks for that update.
Btw: you might have overead it, but the article and the related report are NOT about an European treaty but about
Quote:European countries honouring their Kyoto commitments
Anon-Voter wrote:[Perhaps you could tell me why GM is laying off 30,000 at the first of the year, and Ford is laying off 4,000?? Could it be ... Sales???
Anon
Because they are saddled with exhorbitant labor costs imposed in earlier collective bargaining agreements with the United Auto Workers. One example is that they must keep entire assembly plants operating, no matter what the level of sales & matching production may be. I suspect they will begin to use a strategy employed by European manufacturers involving the outsourcing of vehicle assembly to other companies as a means of escaping the labor unions that have imposed a cost premium on them that is borne by none of their competitors.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Btw: you might have overead it, but the article and the related report are NOT about an European treaty but about
Quote:European countries honouring their Kyoto commitments
I'm not sure I understand your meaning here, Walter. Are you forecasting that the European countries will indeed meet their treaty committments?
Most of the projections I have seen suggest that they will noit - even despite the built-in boost they got from the clever selection of the reference year against which changes are measured.
George,
Supply and demand ... they are not making sensible cars, and they have stopped selling. They are the victims of their own greed, now they have to answer to the market!
Ford is making the move to some hybrids, but they have a very late start.
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:
[Perhaps you could tell me why GM is laying off 30,000 at the first of the year, and Ford is laying off 4,000?? Could it be ... Sales???
Anon
george wrote:
Because they are saddled with exhorbitant labor costs imposed in earlier collective bargaining agreements with the United Auto Workers. One example is that they must keep entire assembly plants operating, no matter what the level of sales & matching production may be. I suspect they will begin to use a strategy employed by European manufacturers involving the outsourcing of vehicle assembly to other companies as a means of escaping the labor unions that have imposed a cost premium on them that is borne by none of their competitors.
_________________
It's not only the union contracts won by the workers that includes health insurance coverage that increases in cost over double-digit every year. Most competitive countries have universal health insurance that doesn't directly impact the competiviveness of manufacturing autos.
In the final analysis, it's car efficiency, quality, and cost. American car-makers lost that edge many years ago.
CI.
They dug the hole, and they jumped in it!!
Anon
