C02 "greenhouse" emissions drop to lowest levels in 20 years due to market forces

[errosync]

Your argument makes no sense. Come back with a better one.

If we had a 2000kg SUV and a 1000kg car both going 50 m/s, the car needs to gain just shy of 50% of that speed to impart the same amount of energy into a hypothetical brick wall as the SUV will. If you get hit by a car, motorcycle or SUV at any decent speed threshold, you're going to die because the dissipation of the force is far too great for your body to handle; all he's saying is that SUVs are potentially more lethal, because their increased mass and size mean they don't have to go as fast as a GT 86 to impart the same amount of energy onto a body during a collision.


Less verbose, SUVs can kill you at slower speeds than cars or motorcycles, but don't go out in the freeway and try to test it.

I thought cars were being made with less sturdy materials or w/e since when you crash the force does not get transferred from the point of impact to your body or something like that.


I suck ass at physics, though.

You're thinking of crumple zones. The crumpling effect helps dissipate the energy through strain-hardening; the more you times you crumple up or fold over something like aluminum, the stronger it becomes, which then allows it to absorb the forces of impact while dissipating any remaining through the body of the car. In simpler terms, as the crash occurs, the vehicle actually gets stronger, depending where you're hit of course (a t-bone from the driver's side still will probably kill you even at lower speeds). As well, all the seats and parts on the inside are designed to crumple or absorb the energy, which is why a crash in a '57 Corvette was always a catastrophe and most crashes now that aren't high-speed usually have survivors with minimal wounding. The old cars were just moving hunks of metal that didn't crumple, so the forces never dissipated (nor did the innards), meaning whatever you hit with your car gave the bulk of the reactionary force directly to you and whomever else was in the car.

Sure you do.

Considering I shop for five, and haul a ton of cargo whenever the semester ends, yeah, I do need my Forester. If you want to complain about anyone, bitch about the parents in the incredibly not aerodynamic, gas sucking MPVs who aren't soccer moms/dads and only have two kids.

[Rukentuts]

What do climate scientists study, then? Do they study climate change? Because that's where I'm laying my chips. And they failed to factor the market impact. I question if they're unaware of or can't be asked to account for other variables when they make declarations about the environment that masses of people hang their hat on. Just saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

[Dacien]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

It was rhetorical, Rukentuts.

[Dendrek]

I've been in 3 different collisions and never had to pay a cent in repairs.

Remind me to avoid Indiana... (joking, JOKING)

On topic, market forces change either because a new option is less expensive/more efficient, or because there's a need/demand for change. In this case, I'm inclined to think a lot of that change came from people being more environmentally conscientious. In other words, I suspect that if not for the "green" movement, heavily inspired by scientific analysis of global warming, we probably wouldn't see these changes take place for a long time if ever.

So to laugh at the scientists because they were "wrong" is silly. This is actually, more or less, proof that they were right.

[Kraenen]

article is way too biased to be considered seriously

[Vexies]

Now if we can just get all those tanks that people drive off the roads in place of something that doesn't get less then 12 highway miles to the gallon, force people in overcrowded countries to stop buying cars and polluting our planet even more, things might be fine. Honestly, electric cars are going to be the way to go. With the speed at which solar and battery technologies are evolving, there won't be gas powered cars in 40 years.

Listen to this language.. Force.. And just who gets to decide what I am forced to do eh? Oh and once we give them the power to force this or that ware does it end? It amazes me just how shallow some peoples definition of freedom is and how easily and willing they are to lay down there freedom, choice, and thoughts to some supposedly superior entity. Bah sheep bah.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I'm skeptical of the idea that a station wagon has the same strength that my SUV does. And I'm pretty sure they can't drive offroad for shit. You'd understand if you lived in a rural area.


Exactly! I'll gladly switch when I can trade my truck in for an equivalent electric version, but until then hell no. And it has to be durable as hell. I've been in 3 different collisions and never had to pay a cent in repairs. Why? Because good ol' GMC steel is completely indestructible.

Cars that fare well in collisions usually end up hurting the drivers more because they don't absorb the impact. So much for safety.

[Wikiy]

Very interesting. I just hope it's global and not just in America. Unfortunately, though, this doesn't mean that the amount that's still being released wont eventually result in higher temperatures.

[Hothgor]

What do climate scientists study, then? Do they study climate change? Because that's where I'm laying my chips. And they failed to factor the market impact. I question if they're unaware of or can't be asked to account for other variables when they make declarations about the environment that masses of people hang their hat on. Just saying.

They HAVE factored in 'market impacts'. They have MULTIPLE scenarios that all depend on varying economic and technological contingencies. And the USA getting back to 1992 levels means nothing when China is now producing TRIPLE our C02 emissions.

[Dacien]

article is way too biased to be considered seriously

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...0269ea5a3ca224
http://www.northcentralpa.com/feedit...issions-down-0
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-20-year-low/1

---------- Post added 2012-08-20 at 07:50 PM ----------

They HAVE factored in 'market impacts'. They have MULTIPLE scenarios that all depend on varying economic and technological contingencies. And the USA getting back to 1992 levels means nothing when China is now producing TRIPLE our C02 emissions.

Yeah so let the environmental people go after China if they want to make an impact.

[Hothgor]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...0269ea5a3ca224
http://www.northcentralpa.com/feedit...issions-down-0
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-20-year-low/1

You still don't get it: we have already locked ourselves into at least a 2 degree global temperature increase, even if we stopped ALL production of C02 this very instant GLOBALLY. A reduction only mitigates climate change, it doesn't stop it.

[Maharishi]

Maybe i'm missing something, but the article doesn't actually serve any proof that market forces are leading to companies avoiding polluting, just that cleaner sources of energy have become more available cheaply. The market didn't go to them because they were clean. If anything, this would seem government investing in making green energy cheaper is a good idea.

The free market is great for making things that exist the most efficient they can be. It's terrible at proactively anticipating disasters.

Sidenote: Also, terrible graph that starts at 1 instead of 0 on a range that only goes up to 2.5, and deceptively only relates to coal emissions makes me sad.

[Hothgor]

Yeah so let the environmental people go after China if they want to make an impact.

That won't matter either. And China, nor India, will not reduce their carbon footprint anytime soon. The only way to 'solve' this problem is to develop incredible new technology that will completely replace fossil fuels AND produce enough extra energy that we can 'scrub' billions of tons of C02 out of the air in a short time period.

[Kalyyn]

You still don't get it: we have already locked ourselves into at least a 2 degree global temperature increase, even if we stopped ALL production of C02 this very instant GLOBALLY. A reduction only mitigates climate change, it doesn't stop it.

I still think the solution is fire aerosol-filled artillery shells into the atmosphere to block out some of the sunlight, but nobody likes that idea. I think its just because everyone is so thoroughly bombarded with the "reduce pollution" message, that they won't even consider that maybe we could just negate the effects of pollution and keep on doing what we're doing.

[Maharishi]

I still think the solution is fire aerosol-filled artillery shells into the atmosphere to block out some of the sunlight, but nobody likes that idea. I think its just because everyone is so thoroughly bombarded with the "reduce pollution" message, that they won't even consider that maybe we could just negate the effects of pollution and keep on doing what we're doing.

And then we can release mongooses to eat the snakes that ate the mice.


...mongeese?

[Dacien]

That won't matter either. And China, nor India, will not reduce their carbon footprint anytime soon. The only way to 'solve' this problem is to develop incredible new technology that will completely replace fossil fuels AND produce enough extra energy that we can 'scrub' billions of tons of C02 out of the air in a short time period.

R&D into clean energy is a good idea. But of course propping up markets that aren't ready is a bad idea, as we know. And neither is taking steps during an attempted economic recovery to saddle the economy with energy taxes like cap and trade.

Your urgency is noted, however. I just don't share the same passion.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Wait....So we are all starting to agree that Climate change is indeed anthroprogenic???

This is great news.

Of course, we can squabble about what solutions we think would be best, and how to go about implementing those solutions. I'm certainly all ears. But we can only do this once we realize a problem exists which is indeed fixable.


http://phys.org/news/2012-08-co2-emissions-year.html --From Phys.org a much more valid source so people can stop whining about bias.

[Dacien]

Well I always assumed the Associated Press was reliable, but to each their own.

[Kalyyn]

And then we can release mongooses to eat the snakes that ate the mice.


...mongeese?

Well that's just creating jobs. Think about it; we're not only getting rid of those damn mice, we're employing thousands of snakes and mongooses! Heck, throw some pumas in to eat the mongooses, and we're halfway to fixing unemployment.

[starlord]

but how could market forces cause a drop in CO2, humans werent causing it to rise.