Mini was just named the #8 on the "Greenest" Car List.

http://autos.aol.com/gallery/smart-c...nest-cars-2008

 

Placing the Prius as the second greenest car clearly shows they aren't aware of the true environmental effect that hybrids have. At least they got the mindframe down though. People who drive Prius' want everyone to know that they drive a hybrid.

On a side note, I had no idea Fit's had worse gas mileage than Civics do. Thats kind of odd isn't it?

 

the fit gets worse gas mileage on the highway because it is not as aerodynamic, in the city it is better. the fact that whoever wrote this used quotes around "causing" global warming, under the rediculous title "All vehicles sold in the US are green" pretty much shows this guy is an idiot. a hummer is green? what gas mileage does that get? beside, the statement that "Every passenger car and light truck for sale in the US is 95-99 percent cleaner running than vehicles produced in the 1960s -- this is comparatively emissions-free." is totally false. carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and that has not improved 99%. that is linked directly to gas mileage, which has NOT improved since the CAFE standards passed.

 

Once again decisions are made by data alone and are.....wrong. I don't care what the EPA numbers are, in the real world manual Coopers can easily get 36 mpg around town and 40 on the highway. If one tries a bit it gets even better. I do city driving only and I can consistently get 40 mpg on the OBC. Right not I'm at 40.8.......city!!! Many folks are getting 45 mpg on highway road trips.

That should bump the Cooper up the list quite a bit!!!

 

So the exhaled breath of every living thing is a pollutant? Decomposing organic matter (leaves, trees, etc.) are pollutants? I think this whole man made global warning thing is getting ridiculous.

 

yes it is, the EPA has listed it as so. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that is an undisputed fact, unless you are a member of the bush administration...

 

Oh its not getting ridiculous, it is ridiculous, but thats another topic entirely

 

I'm going to go on and disagree with you completely here. He's saying that all cars today emit less CO2 than they did in the 60's. True.

And you're only taking into account gas mileage, which is the exact same mistake that the author of the article is making. What you're not taking into account is the nickel mining process to produce the batteries on all these hybrids.

 

Actually, this was a political hot potato for many, many years, but is less so now, even for the current administration. I say this because this could be considered a political discussion, but that's not so much the case now. Of course, folks still have their positions, even though the official politics/policies have changed dramatically in the last several years.

 

it is another topic, but the fact that nearly all scientist agree it IS happening right now and it IS caused by man should have ended whatever "debate" was happening years ago. only a very few minority of renegade scientists, probably paid to do studies sponsored by big industries, are even putting this misinformation out there just to fuel a debate that shouldn't even be happening. there is a false image being promoted everytime these people are given equal time to spew their crap, because there IS NO DEBATE. it makes it seem like a 50/50 issue when it isn't, but as long as the media keeps promoting it as such this "debate" will continue until it is too late, if it isn't already.

 

Sure there's a debate, lol.

Global warming is not, and has not been caused by humans. That is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. The earth's climate is dynamic, and has been heating and cooling ever since it was formed. There isn't an honest scientist on earth who would claim otherwise.

The debate is whether or not man is contributing a significant amount and speeding up the warming process. To that end, there's no proof, and the burden of proof in this case lies in your court, because there is literally tons of evidence that suggests that the earth will warm and cool as it always has.

But back to the topic at hand, that list is complete hogwash.

 

All I have to say is thank you. Someone who doesn't believe/buy into Al (I invented the internet) Gore's literature is refreshing.

I agree with the basic premise of your statements, since the oceans and nature produce more of the infamous "greenhouse gases" than humans do. And the earth has been getting warming since the last ice age, hasn't it??

My only question is, how much are we actually accelerating the process with our additions?

 

wow, they got to you to... amazing. i work in a shop full of people who "think" the same way and still do even after years of mounting evidence. how can you say we are not even contributing? where is this TON of evidence? incredible...

to the original poster, i apoligize for taking this thread off topic. i will recuse myself from this thread because i know it is impossible to sway minds so entreched in thinking that everything will "work itself out".

 

Fun and will save you money. What else would you want?

 

Nobody has gotten to me. I just don't fall for alarmists and their agenda that easily.

Never did I say that we aren't contributing (actually, after re-reading what I wrote, I can see how it came across that way), its obvious that we are. Every car emits carbon dioxide. Every fart emits methane gas. I said that we aren't contributing a significant amount, and certainly not enough that we can do something to reverse a climate shift if we were to change our ways.

Here, I'll lay out how alarmists work with this topic. And by alarmists, I mean Al Gore in this instance (although he's neither the first nor the last that we'll see).

1) Recognize that the earth is warming
2) Recognize that man is contributing to it
3) Recognize that scientists suggest that both of the above are true
4) Recognize a HUGE profit potential
5) Set up a business that takes advantage of people's need to feel like they're making a difference (carbon offsets)
6) Take the facts from 1 & 2 and twist them to suit their own agenda and support it by 3, claiming that if we don't change our ways we'll kill the earth, show pictures of ice melting, maybe a picture of a lonely baby polar bear, etc etc. maybe even tie in seal clubbing somehow. Basically they just want you to feel awful for polluting when you've got no other option, which makes you want to buy carbon offsets. Keep in mind that they offer no viable alternative.
7) Profit

Also, keep in mind that they don't practice what they preach.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp



And sorry, but I'm really bored at work today.

 

See...I think these traditional agruments are something we have to get past because the current administration sent everybody back to double-check the facts and is developing national policy/strategies for this. Much is not known, but much is. As I say, this is becoming policy, so we're all going to have to deal with this on some level.

 

I 100% agree that we need to ween ourselves off of our gas dependency, and I fully intend to do so as soon as a viable alternative becomes available!

As far as I see it, switching to a hybrid doesn't do it, and won't until the nickel mining process is much less polluting, and 100% electric cars don't do it for the aforementioned battery problem as well as most people's electricity doesn't come from natural sources yet.

I'm holding out for hydrogen fueled cars

 

I wouldn't hold my breath to long for that either. I don't know how much of an answer this really is. The process for extracting hydrogen isn't the most energy efficient process either. The best way would to have some solar extraction method, but that is full of problems too..

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/0...ef_020905.html

And I have one word for you: Hindenburg

I don't want to be within a city block of the first generation hydrogen car that is in a serious accident that breaches the structural integrity of the car.

 

I'll be watching for better options, too...and in the meantime am very glad to drive a MINI. Thing is....a MINI is good at being efficient, and it is good at being a motor car, and few cars do both so well. Driving dynamics and driver feedback are very important and auto makers really need to realize this component of MINI success. FWIW, my next MINI purchase will probably revolve around the next MINI efficiency evolution. How cool is it to drive a car that was born out of a fuel resource crisis???

 

Since it has not been discussed thin lets try the obvious. There is the carbon cycle, living things breath in oxygen and exhale Co2, plants do this at night when photosynthesis is inactive. Plants actively inhale Co2 in daylight releasing O2 as a by product. All living things eventually die and in the process releases Co2. The net effect is a zero sum gain, that is the net amount of Carbon in the environment stays the same.
As I have stated the carbon cycle would be in stasis were it not for mans impact by our actively adding Carbon to the cycle. We add to the net carbon in two ways: We release carbon by mining and or drilling for sequestered (Deeply buried) carbon reserves and then burning it the presence of oxygen=Co2: We also increase the net carbon indirectly by altering the carbon cycle as in paving, building on, polluting to the point of making life devoid dead zones or burning large tracts of forest thus removing the very plants and plancton that would consume Co2 and release oxygen. The net effect of all this is a progressive addition of Carbon to the environment.
The debate thus is only about whether we,man, is by our collectively adding Carbon to the carbon cycle deleterious. Are we causing Global Warming by our addition of a Green House Gas to the atmosphere, think extra Co2. This is not a political rant, it is just explaining the obvious to all.

 

Thats not entirely true, our atmospheric composition has changed multiple times in history, including CO2. There are plenty of natural phenomenons that generate CO2, mountain-building and coral reefs come to mind.

 

Thats the same argument people used when gas powered cars were first introduced. Now the technology is there to prevent them from exploding, and the same technology will be applied to hydrogen cars. Additionally, hydrogen gas rises, so fires will be much less of a problem too

 

Vicskimmer,
that is a logical point of view eg. that the amount of Co2 has varied over geological time. Yes Mountain building and erosion have changed the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, so has volcanic activity and other contributing agents have too. The question remains, did this activity change the temperature of the globe when it happened. Did the belch of a super volcano or the erosion of a mountain range significantly alter the global temperature? If so was the additional Co2 the causative agent? And if this is so are we by adding our Co2 doing the same? Just my .02c.

 

Seems logical to me I just haven't seen evidence that suggests we're contributing enough to make a difference either way.

In my honest opinion, we'll start to use less gas as it becomes more scarce, forcing us to look at alternative energies. Luckily for us, there are corporations hard at work bringing those technologies to light and when they're ready for adoption, we'll adopt them, regardless of whether or not it will stop the earth from warming (as if this is necessarily a bad thing to begin with). Until then, I'm not going to get my panties in a wad over something that is outside our control.

This is completely independent of the Earth's seemingly miraculous ability to heal itself. What if the increase in CO2 causes plants to develop better ways of harvesting it? In the past the Earth has certainly balanced itself out despite massive increases/decreases in CO2, why would this be any different?

On a side note (thats dangerously close to being on topic), how often do the batteries in these hybrids have to be replaced and how costly is it to replace them?

 

Or for that matter how much energy does it take to mine the minerals, process them, transport them and then make all those batteries that go into the Hybrid cars. Is this energy ever figured into the actual greeness of the vehicle? Is a hybrid any greener then a conventional IC engine car? If we catalog all the Co2 spewed in process of making and using a Hybrid does it produce more or less Co2 over it's lifetime then an equivalent IC engine car?