Remember Global Warming on December 12!

"Chris.B" wrote in message
...

On Nov 16, 7:24 pm, Linus Das wrote:

Fuel consumption totally irrelevant? Fuel use accounts for 85% of a car's
lifetime output; only 10% comes from manufacturing.

Is that really the total CO2 manufacturing footprint from first idea
to leaving the sales room with the customer? Or just what you have
been told by the salesman?

Mining for all raw materials, footprint of the entire workforce due to
employee commuting, business travel, holidays and housing, total
internal/external/global transport CO2 costs, the manufacture of
spares and their storage, building maintenance and repair, lighting,
heating and floodlighting of salesrooms, all advertising costs,
maintenance, consumables, retooling, recalls, lubricants, research
including road testing and CAD, heat, light and power at every stage
in every location right down to the heated kiosk of the all those
chaps on the factory gates. The cost to health of injury, sickness and
pollution and all CO2 loads of their insurance companies. The list
just goes on and on. A bit like me, in fact. ;-)

Yeah, business as usual makes real sense: let's keep running 12-mpg SUVs
and keep sending troops to fight endless oil wars...

I can sense you are on the defensive. ;-)

Most car journeys are short enough to be easily be taken on foot or by
bicycle and often made at higher speed with positive, clearly
identifiable, long term health benefits.

Car fuel consumption rises exponentially when the car is standing
still in a traffic jam, waiting to park, refuel or just left to warm
up in winter. The only green car is the old one standing unused for
long periods while the owner cycles, walks and gardens responsibly.

================================================== ======
No amount of your silly arguments are going to keep my home warm this
winter, I am going to irresponsibly burn far more fossil fuel to maintain my
body temperature, 24/7 if necessary, than either of you will drive 2/5
responsibly to commute. I can sense you are a pair of idiots.

On Nov 15, 12:36*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 15 Nov., 12:44, wrote:

On Nov 15, 6:22*am, Quadibloc wrote:

On Nov 15, 3:19*am, wrote:

On Nov 14, 10:01*pm, Linus Das wrote:
Funny, I recently ordered a Toyota Auris Hybrid (the Toyota dealer said that every hybrid car sold helps protect the planet).

He should have said that every hybrid car NOT sold helps protect the
planet.

But every hybrid car sold instead of a regular car ALSO helps protect
the planet.

That's not what the dealer said, apparently. *Besides, some "regular"
cars get better MPG than some hybrids.

Only an old car which has paid off its CO2 debt to society makes any
real sense today. Its fuel consumption is of absolutely NO interest
except to the owner. You spent $xx,øøø on a car just to save fuel?
Yeah right! How much spin is there on that hype?

Ironically, the insanity which is Cuba, may be the only place on the
planet which actually has a fairly green road transport footprint. One
day, rich Americans will have access to those beautiful old classics.

Or maybe the refugees will bring the cars with them:

http://www.floatingcubans.com/

How did the Chevy truck sink? Like a rock.

On Nov 16, 1:24*pm, Linus Das wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:36:20 PM UTC, Chris.B wrote:
The _Total_ CO2 footprint of designing, developing and building _any_
new car is an advertising man's perfect blind spot. Fuel consumption
is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Even an electric
car, which runs entirely on wind power, still has to be designed,
developed and built from CO2-heavy materials sourced from all over the
world.

Fuel consumption totally irrelevant? *Fuel use accounts for 85% of a car's
lifetime output; only 10% comes from manufacturing.

Only an old car which has paid off its CO2 debt to society makes any
real sense today. Its fuel consumption is of absolutely NO interest
except to the owner. You spent $xx,øøø on a car just to save fuel?
Yeah right! How much spin is there on that hype?

Yeah, business as usual makes real sense: let's keep running 12-mpg SUVs
and keep sending troops to fight endless oil wars...

A 12-mpg SUV driven only a few miles a day has a smaller "CO2
footprint" than a hybrid that is driven much more.

This was a crime:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj5gzvGnGP4

As for this nonsense about "oil-wars" the only one that can even
_remotely_ be thought of as such might be Gulf War I, but even that
was humanitarian in nature due to atrocities committed by Hussein's
army.

On Nov 16, 2:47*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:24*pm, Linus Das wrote:



Fuel consumption totally irrelevant? *Fuel use accounts for 85% of a car's
lifetime output; only 10% comes from manufacturing.

Is that really the total CO2 manufacturing footprint from first idea
to leaving the sales room with the customer? Or just what you have
been told by the salesman?

Mining for all raw materials, footprint of the entire workforce due to
employee commuting, business travel, holidays and housing, total
internal/external/global transport CO2 costs, the manufacture of
spares and their storage, building maintenance and repair, lighting,
heating and floodlighting of salesrooms, all advertising costs,
maintenance, consumables, retooling, recalls, lubricants, research
including road testing and CAD, heat, light and power at every stage
in every location right down to the heated kiosk of the all those
chaps on the factory gates. The cost to health of injury, sickness and
pollution and all CO2 loads of their insurance companies. The list
just goes on and on. A bit like me, in fact. ;-)



Yeah, business as usual makes real sense: let's keep running 12-mpg SUVs
and keep sending troops to fight endless oil wars...

I can sense you are on the defensive. ;-)

Most car journeys are short enough to be easily be taken on foot or by
bicycle and often made at higher speed with positive, clearly
identifiable, long term health benefits.

Car fuel consumption rises exponentially when the car is standing
still in a traffic jam, waiting to park, refuel or just left to warm
up in winter. The only green car is the old one standing unused for
long periods while the owner cycles, walks and gardens responsibly.

Cycling burns a fair number of calories. When one considers the fuel
needed to grow and transport food, it turns out that the CO2 footprint
of cycling is not all that much different than that of small cars. In
some situations it will be worse.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:47:21 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:24?pm, Linus Das wrote:

Fuel consumption totally irrelevant? ?Fuel use accounts for 85%
of a ca=
r's
lifetime output; only 10% comes from manufacturing.

Is that really the total CO2 manufacturing footprint from first idea
to leaving the sales room with the customer? Or just what you have
been told by the salesman?

Mining for all raw materials, footprint of the entire workforce due
to
employee commuting, business travel, holidays and housing, total
internal/external/global transport CO2 costs, the manufacture of
spares and their storage, building maintenance and repair, lighting,
heating and floodlighting of salesrooms, all advertising costs,
maintenance, consumables, retooling, recalls, lubricants, research
including road testing and CAD, heat, light and power at every stage
in every location right down to the heated kiosk of the all those
chaps on the factory gates. The cost to health of injury, sickness
and
pollution and all CO2 loads of their insurance companies. The list
just goes on and on. A bit like me, in fact. ;-)

To be fair though, that footprint should be divided by the number
of bcars manufactured -- that workforce does not only manufacture
your car.

But you could add to the footprint the manufacture of the cars
used by the workforce to commute to work, go on holidays, etc.


Yeah, business as usual makes real sense: let's keep running
12-mpg SUVs
and keep sending troops to fight endless oil wars...

I can sense you are on the defensive. ;-)

Most car journeys are short enough to be easily be taken on foot or
by
bicycle and often made at higher speed with positive, clearly
identifiable, long term health benefits.

I think you are overly pessimistic if you think most car journeys are
slower than walking speed and shorter than walking distance. If
that was the case, people would stop using cars.

Car fuel consumption rises exponentially when the car is standing
still in a traffic jam, waiting to park, refuel or just left to warm
up in winter.

The fuel consumption doesn't rise exponentially, rather it
becomes inversely proportional to the speed of the car.
And as a car driver, you can, and should, turn your engine
off whenever you're standing still longer than ten seconds
or so. A car, standing still with the engine turned off, has
a fuel consumption per km that's not infinite but at least
indeterminate (zero divided by zero).

The only green car is the old one standing unused for
long periods while the owner cycles, walks and gardens responsibly.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you that e.g. a car,
abandoned in some wood to deteriorate (which is one
case of a car standing unused for long periods - in this
case, that period is very very long) is a green car....

The only truly green cars are those which aren't manufactured
at all.

wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:47 pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:24 pm, Linus Das wrote:



Fuel consumption totally irrelevant? Fuel use accounts for 85% of a car's
lifetime output; only 10% comes from manufacturing.

Is that really the total CO2 manufacturing footprint from first idea
to leaving the sales room with the customer? Or just what you have
been told by the salesman?

Mining for all raw materials, footprint of the entire workforce due to
employee commuting, business travel, holidays and housing, total
internal/external/global transport CO2 costs, the manufacture of
spares and their storage, building maintenance and repair, lighting,
heating and floodlighting of salesrooms, all advertising costs,
maintenance, consumables, retooling, recalls, lubricants, research
including road testing and CAD, heat, light and power at every stage
in every location right down to the heated kiosk of the all those
chaps on the factory gates. The cost to health of injury, sickness and
pollution and all CO2 loads of their insurance companies. The list
just goes on and on. A bit like me, in fact. ;-)



Yeah, business as usual makes real sense: let's keep running 12-mpg SUVs
and keep sending troops to fight endless oil wars...

I can sense you are on the defensive. ;-)

Most car journeys are short enough to be easily be taken on foot or by
bicycle and often made at higher speed with positive, clearly
identifiable, long term health benefits.

Car fuel consumption rises exponentially when the car is standing
still in a traffic jam, waiting to park, refuel or just left to warm
up in winter. The only green car is the old one standing unused for
long periods while the owner cycles, walks and gardens responsibly.

Cycling burns a fair number of calories. When one considers the fuel
needed to grow and transport food, it turns out that the CO2 footprint
of cycling is not all that much different than that of small cars. In
some situations it will be worse.

Extra calories needed for cycling are only a small part of the day
requirement. Non cyclists also need to eat.

On Nov 16, 6:23*pm, wrote:

As for this nonsense about "oil-wars" the only one that can even
_remotely_ be thought of as such might be Gulf War I, but even that
was humanitarian in nature due to atrocities committed by Hussein's
army.

Indeed. It's almost like opposing World War II with the slogan "No
Blood for Coal" - after all, they let Hitler have Czechoslovakia, but
the war started when he invaded Poland, because it's big coal reserves
would - and did - facilitate the conquest of all of Europe.

John Savard

On Nov 17, 5:17*am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:47 pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:24 pm, Linus Das wrote:

Fuel consumption totally irrelevant? *Fuel use accounts for 85% of a car's
lifetime output; only 10% comes from manufacturing.

Is that really the total CO2 manufacturing footprint from first idea
to leaving the sales room with the customer? Or just what you have
been told by the salesman?

Mining for all raw materials, footprint of the entire workforce due to
employee commuting, business travel, holidays and housing, total
internal/external/global transport CO2 costs, the manufacture of
spares and their storage, building maintenance and repair, lighting,
heating and floodlighting of salesrooms, all advertising costs,
maintenance, consumables, retooling, recalls, lubricants, research
including road testing and CAD, heat, light and power at every stage
in every location right down to the heated kiosk of the all those
chaps on the factory gates. The cost to health of injury, sickness and
pollution and all CO2 loads of their insurance companies. The list
just goes on and on. A bit like me, in fact. ;-)

Yeah, business as usual makes real sense: let's keep running 12-mpg SUVs
and keep sending troops to fight endless oil wars...

I can sense you are on the defensive. ;-)

Most car journeys are short enough to be easily be taken on foot or by
bicycle and often made at higher speed with positive, clearly
identifiable, long term health benefits.

Car fuel consumption rises exponentially when the car is standing
still in a traffic jam, waiting to park, refuel or just left to warm
up in winter. The only green car is the old one standing unused for
long periods while the owner cycles, walks and gardens responsibly.

Cycling burns a fair number of calories. When one considers the fuel
needed to grow and transport food, it turns out that the CO2 footprint
of cycling is not all that much different than that of small cars. *In
some situations it will be worse.

Extra calories needed for cycling are only a small part of the day
requirement. Non cyclists also need to eat.

Wrong. Cycling is intensive exercise that can easily increase basic
Calorie, protein and nutrient requirements by 50% , 100% or more. Add
to that the fossil fuel inputs that are now necessary to produce and
supply enough food and the "greenness" of the bicycle disappears.

On Nov 17, 6:06*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:23*pm, wrote:

As for this nonsense about "oil-wars" the only one that can even
_remotely_ be thought of as such might be Gulf War I, but even that
was humanitarian in nature due to atrocities committed by Hussein's
army.

Indeed. It's almost like opposing World War II with the slogan "No
Blood for Coal" - after all, they let Hitler have Czechoslovakia, but
the war started when he invaded Poland, because it's big coal reserves
would - and did - facilitate the conquest of all of Europe.

Would it have been turned into an "oil-war" when the Allies bombed the
facilities at Ploesti, or had it already become one as soon as the
Nazis invaded Romania?

On Nov 17, 4:48*am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:47:21 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"











wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:24?pm, Linus Das wrote:

Fuel consumption totally irrelevant? ?Fuel use accounts for 85%
of a ca=
r's
lifetime output; only 10% comes from manufacturing.
Is that really the total CO2 manufacturing footprint from first idea
to leaving the sales room with the customer? Or just what you have
been told by the salesman?
Mining for all raw materials, footprint of the entire workforce due
to
employee commuting, business travel, holidays and housing, total
internal/external/global transport CO2 costs, the manufacture of
spares and their storage, building maintenance and repair, lighting,
heating and floodlighting of salesrooms, all advertising costs,
maintenance, consumables, retooling, recalls, lubricants, research
including road testing and CAD, heat, light and power at every stage
in every location right down to the heated kiosk of the all those
chaps on the factory gates. The cost to health of injury, sickness
and
pollution and all CO2 loads of their insurance companies. The list
just goes on and on. A bit like me, in fact. ;-)

To be fair though, that footprint should be divided by the number
of bcars manufactured -- that workforce does not only manufacture
your car.

But you could add to the footprint the manufacture of the cars
used by the workforce to commute to work, go on holidays, etc.





Yeah, business as usual makes real sense: let's keep running
12-mpg SUVs
and keep sending troops to fight endless oil wars...
I can sense you are on the defensive. ;-)
Most car journeys are short enough to be easily be taken on foot or
by
bicycle and often made at higher speed with positive, clearly
identifiable, long term health benefits.

I think you are overly pessimistic if you think most car journeys are
slower than walking speed and shorter than walking distance. If
that was the case, people would stop using cars.

He's just basing his notions on things that his propaganda-ridden news
media presents to him.

Car fuel consumption rises exponentially when the car is standing
still in a traffic jam, waiting to park, refuel or just left to warm
up in winter.

The fuel consumption doesn't rise exponentially, rather it
becomes inversely proportional to the speed of the car.
And as a car driver, you can, and should, turn your engine
off whenever you're standing still longer than ten seconds
or so.

That is likely to precipitate more frequent starter motor and battery
replacements, which will negate both the monetary savings and the fuel
savings.

A car, standing still with the engine turned off, has
a fuel consumption per km that's not infinite but at least
indeterminate (zero divided by zero).

In very heavy traffic the delay caused by having to restart the engine
is likely to increase the congestion even more. Hybrids have the
advantage of being able to more forward on battery power, but the cost
of building one could exceeds the fuel savings.
..
If a hybrid costs substantially more than a similar sized non-hybrid,
ask yourself why.

*The only green car is the old one standing unused for

long periods while the owner cycles, walks and gardens responsibly.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you that e.g. a car,
abandoned in some wood to deteriorate (which is one
case of a car standing unused for long periods - in this
case, that period is very very long) is a green car....

The only truly green cars are those which aren't manufactured
at all.

The only truly green ""anythings" are those which aren't manufactured
at all.