Climate change and cars

topic posted Tue, February 20, 2007 - 7:51 AM by  offlineHarmen
Why are there always ten car and travel commercials after they did admit that human induced climate change is real.

It is caused by cars and airplanes, they should tell the truth!

Is money the reason?
posted by:
Harmen
Netherlands
  • Re: Climate change and cars

    Sun, March 18, 2007 - 8:02 AM
    It's big corporations,money and greed!
    All that matters is selling their product no matter how adversely it is affecting the planet.
    Recycling technologies have come a long way in 50 years but as an example lets look at something as simple as a Glad Brand Ziplock Bag:
    Nearly everyone uses them,but few realise how LONG it takes for one Ziplock plastic bag to 'decompose' when dumped in a landfill,roughly 60 years.
    Car companies know that they heavily pollute the air we brethe,they also are not willing to give up on America's obsession with 'SUV's' they are still promoting their 'Bigger is Better' concept. SUV's have gotten better in recent years with a few even getting 20 MPG(City) but Car companies are still not manufacturing Cars that can save the planet,The gas powered internal combustion engine must be abandoned and new ways to power cars that WORK and are cheaper must be found. Until Car companies do this,they will still be promoting the same old shit.
    • Cars Suck in General, But SUV's Take the Cake

      Sun, March 18, 2007 - 8:54 AM
      Jake:
      I'm still not impressed with the SUV's, even if they get 50 MPG. The fact of the matter is they are still too heavy, and they are ridiculously dangerous for pedestrians and motorists who drive regular size cars and they are putting tremendous strain on our roads and bridges. Secondly, all their tires and fixtures are several times larger than cars', particulary the mega SUV's like the Hummers, the Exepidtions, the Seqouia's and so on. So, they are using up several times more resources just to produce these unnecessary behemoths. In my part of town, I very seldom see large families riding around in those things (which is the excuse many use to justify purchasing them). All I see is one person: the driver. So, essentially, you have one person weighing maybe 200-250lbs being transported by a 6,500lb vehicle. It does not make sense.
      • A good point to bring up Roger about suvs and their size vs. smaller vehicles and pedestrians. yeah, no kidding they are safer (suvs), but you just killed a family of 4 in a sedan that had no chance against an excursion. well, i guess it's back to "be the change you want to see in the world". I see that bumper sticker everyday on my neighbors jetta, if by chance he does not live in an accident because his car was not the larger one by majority and all other variables set aside, then he helped spread the message to me by example. I dont think people in unnecessarily large vehicles care, or even think about a larger picture unless it has to do with their finances.
        capitalist industry is driven by demand. The companies advertised are giving american customers what they want: conveinience and big things. For any saving grace in the automobile industry, it will be the comsumer thinking materially smaller and efficiant, and globally larger and human friendlier. It will not be government regulations and controls, well, not with this current administration. Who knows how long it will take for such policies to be put into place and if people across the nation will get the point about sastainability. (with exception of cali).
        • i cant help but blame my neighbours who choose to own and drive ostentatious murder wagons for changing the climate. i dont actually blame the corporations because we live in a culture that celebrates freedom of choice, especially consumer choices. your choice of transportation lifestyle is your supreme self expression. nobody is forced to buy a hummer. i get to repect or disrespect people for what they do with their supreme freedom.

          it looks to me that anybody that buys and operates an oversized vehicle is making a statement against the earth, against nature, against life, against community and against the future.
          • word
            • Re: Cars Suck in General, But SUV's Take the Cake

              Sun, April 29, 2007 - 11:36 AM
              You all have brought up some good point's against "Hulking" SUV's
              Why is it neccessary for a single fat suburban fucker to climb into his Hummer.Expedition,Navigator,or Tahoe,and blow 5 dollars worth of gas out of the tailpipe just going to the corner store for a pack of smokes? This is just wasteful arrogance.
              It was mentioned here that "sure SUV's are safer,but they just wiped out a family of four in a Sedan". The fact is,SUV's are NOT "safer",they LOOK safer becuase of their size and gross weight. Google "Safety and Crash Test's" for the current crop of vehicles being sold today and see this for yourselves. VERY often,becuase a large SUV such as a Tahoe,is "Big" they don't even bother with a "safety crumple zone" around the vehicles occupants. The last test I looked at was for the 2006 Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon Denali.
              It faired WORSE in frontal and side impact tests than a Hiundai Elantra why? In the 50MPH frontal crash test here's what happened:
              In the Elantra it's "Crumple Zones" fully protected the front seat occupants from being crushed by the engine crushing in on their lower bodies,In the Chevy/GMC test as with the test of the 2006 Hummer H-2,the engines came into the occupant compartment and crushed the crash dummies bodies from the hips down,resulting in "Fatal Blood Loss and ceartain death".In the Hummer Test,a piece of the engine actually severed the Femoral Artery of several front seat occupants in two seperate crashes,resulting in death by immediate blood loss. The dummies in the Elantra,if they'd been real passengers would have "walked away from the crash scene".
              As was pointed out here,the biggest danger a "Safety Car" like the Hiundai Elantra faces is being "crushed or rolled over onto" by a Hummer or a Chevy Tahoe. We need cars to be of comparable size,so bumpers match up and these big hulks don't just "roll over" the smaller vehicle. The reasons for getting rid of large SUV's are Many!
    • Re: Climate change and cars

      Sun, April 29, 2007 - 12:15 PM
      /> It's big corporations,money and greed!

      It's not just big corporations. Who's in those cars and planes?
      • Re: Climate change and cars

        Sat, December 22, 2007 - 6:29 AM
        It is not ONLY corporations but they certainly play a role...

        It is not ONLY the men that buy Gas guzzlers..

        It is also the women that find them sexy..

        Women Who Find Ferrari Drivers Sexy Contribute to Global Warming?
        By Chuck Squatriglia December 17, 2007

        We doubt this came up last week at the United Nation's conference on global warming in Bali, but Britain's top government scientist says the best thing women can do to ease global warming is "stop admiring young men in Ferraris."

        Yes, you read that right. Sir David King, a chemist at the University of Cambridge, says the world would be a greener place if only women didn't find men in exotic cars so sexy. Taken at face value, it seems outlandish - and some would argue chauvinistic - but King raises a valid point, even if it is obscured by the "sports cars and the women who love men who drive them are bad" tenor of his argument.

        King, the UK's chief scientific advisor, told the Telegraph there's only so much governments can do to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and real progress will come only through cultural change. People, he said, must take a greater personal role in addressing the issue. He singled out women who find drivers of expensive sports cars "sexy" and said they should instead focus their affection on men in more eco-friendly autos:

        "I was asked at a lecture by a young woman about what she could do and I told her stop admiring young men in Ferraris. What I was saying is you have got to admire people who are conserving energy and not those willfully using it."

        King's comments, as you might expect, brought a sharp rebuke from Ferrari owners...

        Dak_2 King has long called for immediate and aggressive action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and he is widely credited with pushing the issue to the top of the British government's agenda. He is known for controversial comments, perhaps most famously his claim three years ago that global warming poses a greater threat than terrorism. King played a key role in pushing the U.K. to go beyond the emissions reductions outlined in the Kyoto Protocol, but tells the Telegraph:

        "Government has so many levers it can pull - when it comes to the business sector, it is quite effective. As soon as you come to individuals, however, they will buy a Ferrari, not because it is cheap to run or has low carbon dioxide emissions, but because young women think it is sexy to see men driving Ferraris. That is the area where a culture change is needed."

        Peter Everingham, secretary of the Ferrari Owners Club, tells the Telegraph "nearly 90 percent" of Ferrari owners are married and so "are not looking to impress women." It also should be noted that Ferrari is aware of its contribution, whatever it may be, to carbon dioxide emissions and vows to produce greener, more fuel efficient cars.

        King claims he wasn't condemning Ferraris or those who might find their drivers sexy, but offering an example of the cultural shift that must occur if we are to seriously address global climate change.

        It's a valid point. A survey earlier this year by the Pew Research Center found roughly three in four Americans believe global warming is real, but just 47 percent believe human activity - i.e. burning fossil fuels - is to blame. What's more, most Americans don't consider it a pressing issue. Another survey, by AC Nielsen, places the U.S. toward the bottom of 46 nations with regard to its attitudes on the issue.

        Perhaps more telling, a recent survey of British consumers by the international business consulting firm LEK Consulting found 37 percent of respondents believed their actions were responsible for global warming, but only 20 percent thought they bear any responsibility to do something about it.

        Most felt the problem should be addressed by the business and government sectors.
        blog.wired.com/cars/2007/...o-find.html
        • Re: Climate change and cars

          Wed, December 26, 2007 - 1:55 AM
          Not that many men drive ferraris. A lot more men and women drive SUVs. So I think this is a distraction. American soccer moms contribute a lot more carbon to global warming than guys in Ferraris who women admire.
          • Re: Climate change and cars

            Sun, February 10, 2008 - 8:42 PM
            Not this woman.
            • DJ
              DJ
              offline 0

              Re: Climate change and cars

              Tue, February 19, 2008 - 12:30 PM
              It's disheartening to see this discussion sink to the level of gender-bashing by otherwise intelligent people. Let's step back from the position of blaming and unravel the interconnectedness of all of these issues. Climate change, corporate mass media and marketing, greed, the stereotyping of men and women (to have or be with someone who has access to lots of cash and the conspicuous display of consumption) , the idolization of material goods at the expense of healthy, happy relationships, and of course, greed. The bottom line.

              Let's not lose our obligation to and respect for each other to work through the real issues that threaten us and the environment.
              • Re: Climate change and cars

                Tue, February 19, 2008 - 4:46 PM
                DJ:
                I completely agree with your assessment. I do think , however, that it is going to take a global, catastrophic event for most people to change their minds. Sometimes I feel as though our society -- American society in particular -- is sleep walking.
          • Re: Climate change and cars

            Fri, March 28, 2008 - 4:42 AM
            i didn't mean to gender bash. there are a lot of soccer moms driving SUVs in Santa Cruz. and there are a lot of professionals -- many of them men -- who commute to work in SUVs. i was just pointing out that it is not the guy in the ferrari who is crashing the world. more aptly, it is the car fetish-worship of this mechanized culture. and people's lack of connectedness to using their bodies for locomotion as human beings have done most of our existence.
        • Re: Climate change and cars

          Thu, May 1, 2008 - 11:36 AM
          That totally brings up a valid point.
          <roughly three in four Americans believe global warming is real, but just 47 percent believe human activity - i.e. burning fossil fuels - is to blame. What's more, most Americans don't consider it a pressing issue. Another survey, by AC Nielsen, places the U.S. toward the bottom of 46 nations with regard to its attitudes on the issue.
          Perhaps more telling, a recent survey of British consumers by the international business consulting firm LEK Consulting found 37 percent of respondents believed their actions were responsible for global warming, but only 20 percent thought they bear any responsibility to do something about it. >

          We all must change our own actions. We cannot expect change elsewhere that we are not willing to implement. When we prove to ourselves its possible - in perhaps the most disciplined way, then we can can call our neighbors to say, "Look, I did it - you can too." And we can expect it out of the corporations and the government. Because when we've stopped buying useless shit, then the corporations sales figures will go down, and we will be part of the market change. What we do here is encourage each other to a lesser carbon footprint and share tips. We inspire each other. Then we elect those who are with us...
          • Re: Climate change and cars

            Thu, May 22, 2008 - 10:18 PM
            my friend asked me tonight if i saw any clueless people as if there were none. i pointed out the big-ass truck that just drove by and said that mfer for one is totally clueless. gw + peak oil + water and food shortages. then an SUV drove by. i pointed out all the people driving by in happy denial or ignorance.

            cluelessness is convenient. i like what you said about plastic bags. things have to switch in our heads for them to happen in our actions. the problems are our heads not our arses.
            • Re: Climate change and cars

              Fri, May 23, 2008 - 1:59 AM
              Yesterday I witnesses a 4 wheel drive pickup pull into a parking spot and what jumps out? 2 guys in business attire form a town about 100 miles away. Talk about clueless. A couple of tickets on Amtrak and a rental car would be fine on their tax deductions.
    • Re: Climate change and cars

      Wed, April 30, 2008 - 5:19 PM
      Speaking of the ziploc bag, I've now started washing mine because I know where the plastic goes and how long it takes to break down. I've re-categorized them in my kitchen from 'disposable' to 'dishes' that I reuse until they have holes in them. Yes, SUVs need to not be made and they need to not be driven, and we need the government to impose the same fuel emissions laws and the same mpg laws on them. But we also need people to wake up and smell the coffee to their uselessness and how they do not need them. Unless people change, industry will make a profit by selling them what they want until the government says it won't be made anymore...
  • Re: Climate change and cars

    Wed, April 30, 2008 - 1:21 AM
    Even though the fuel efficient car is better but it's not the total answer. People know what the truth is, but in general won't do anything about it if it neans giving up their comfort and convenience. I refuse to drive to the farmer's market 2 blocks away from my home. I won't drive to work unless I have a good reason. We also need to invest in mass transit, bicycle/ pedestrian communities, etc. and to actually USE them.
    • Re: Climate change and cars

      Wed, April 30, 2008 - 5:18 PM
      Mike, you are right. It's amazing how public transportation in Miami-Dade County where I live is so ridiculously bashed by most residents here, but I use it everyday to get to work and on many weekends to visit museums and so on, and the system, though bogged down by traffic, caused by the very cars that the complainers drive, runs quite efficiently, and it spans the entire county. I could literally use the public transit system, including our local commuter rail, to get from the northern-most tip of the county to the southern-most tip. Folks, you're talking about a distance of over 85 miles. That isn't half bad.

      Another kind of complainer that really rattles me, are those who use transit once, look for bad things to happen, and when does happen, they then multiply that one negative thing and use it make blanket statments about ALL forms of mass transit and as an excuse never to use transit again. I had co-worker tell me that she would never use transit because she had a negative experience BACK IN HIGH SCHOOL. The lady is like almost 40 years old now. Hello? It makes no sense. Sometimes North Americans can be so irrational and downright ridiculous.
      • Re: Climate change and cars

        Fri, May 23, 2008 - 2:12 AM
        I agree with mass transit even though when being bogged down by traffic is still quite efficient. On our express routes espcially here in Harrisburg, Pa, the bus provider has good drivers who know the alternative routes when there is a traffic accident. When this happens, usually this means we are about 5 minutes late getting home wich is minor. Usually the accidents here invole a SUV driver who think that their big tires create fuel efficiency.
  • jOe
    jOe
    offline 0

    Re: Climate change and cars

    Sun, May 4, 2008 - 9:32 AM
    of course money is the reason. and the fact that peoples nature is to strive for things that a value has been assigned for,usually externally.
    the car culture has strefched cities into huge sprawl machines , often with little or no public transit, forcing folks into expensive little mobile solitary confinement cells.because they sold a lot of people,( myself included, at one point) into the idea that a car would give me a new level of freedom.

    no doubt henry ford et all felt they were offering the world a new possibility that would improve lives. the ripples of that reality resonate daily through our lives. and yes,plenty of folks rely on cars as their bread and butter. but oh, what a consequence what ,at the time,seemded a relatively small change has had on our world.
    the idea of climate change has been discussed at least for 30 years,but the initial batch of folks were dismissed as nut cases. the real challlenge has and will be to shift people whose incomes depend on promoting fossil based living to redirect and find new directions. the economics alone will shake a lot of people out of the related industries. but recognizing oil based living is fast becoming dinosaur technology will speed the process.

    in the mean time, exercise your economic power, and take the money you dont spend on cars, and support local businesses, especially ones that promote sustainable living and community building.

Recent topics in "Cars Suck"