Anonymous
Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 7 years ago

If the US government foresees gasoline powered vehicles dominating the roads clear to the year 2040?

What does that say about how much the US government actually believes in AGW? I mean if Eco Reverend AlGore is so right about the internal combustion engine destroying the planet then why is the US government going to allow these things to even exist? We passed laws banning incandescent light bulbs to save the planet so why not ban ICEs in vehicles? What's the problem? Even in the year 2040 electric cars will not be a significant mode of transportation in spite of Obama's failed crony capitalism attempting to force "green" lifestyles on everyone.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131217/AUTO01...

We have a liberal government in power that refuses to force so called eco friendly lifestyles on us the same as it is forcing its version of health care on us. Is that not hypocritical to say the least? We're talking about the total destruction of the entire planet according to the AGW cultists. We're told that if we allow the earth to warm up just a few degrees the planet is GOING TO EXPLODE!

http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

Who's the real enemies here? Those of us who think that AGW is a fraud or those in political power who are out there condemning humanity for causing AGW and making promises to transform human civilization to conform to a new world order which promises to save us all from annihilation yet goes behind the magic curtain and does nothing or even the opposite of what they promised?

Fact is that at least we "AGW Denialists" are very honest about what we believe and all those elected libtards like Obama, Gore, and the like say one thing and do another just like the hypocritical heathens they are.

If AGW was as real and a threat as these libtards and the AGW cultists claim it is and the ICEs in cars were a major contributing factor then the US government would be using its full authority and power to alter society as we know it. But it knows that AGW is a fraud and all these carbon schemes to save the planet are nothing more than tax increases that destroy economies and personal freedoms and no democratically elected government will dare to implement the fascist policies demanded by the AGW cultists if they wish to remain in power.

Hydrocarbon based internal combustion engines to dominate US transportation clear to the year 2040. AGW must not be that much of a threat.

Update:

And what kind of future would we be preparing for, Amy? One based on AGW hysteria that has not only never been proven accurate but proven to be very inaccurate or a future based on economic growth and prosperity? Both futures are polar opposites from each other.

Mike, apparently you didn't read the linked article. Even with all those improved fuel standards, hybrids, etc. etc. the article states that "Overall energy consumption by the nation’s transportation sector is expected to fall by about 4 percent..."

Yes it is a slight decrease however keep in mind that if most vehicles are getting 50+ (nearly DOUBLE of today's standards) miles to the gallon but only result in a 4% reduction in fuel consumption that there are going to be a hell of a lot more cars travelling much further on average in 2040 than today. How is much more cars travelling on average much further consuming 96% of the amount of fossil fuels in 2040 going to save the planet from AGW? We're

Update 2:

And what kind of future would we be preparing for, Amy? One based on AGW hysteria that has not only never been proven accurate but proven to be very inaccurate or a future based on economic growth and prosperity? Both futures are polar opposites from each other.

Mike, apparently you didn't read the linked article. Even with all those improved fuel standards, hybrids, etc. etc. the article states that "Overall energy consumption by the nation’s transportation sector is expected to fall by about 4 percent..."

Yes it is a slight decrease however keep in mind that if most vehicles are getting 50+ (nearly DOUBLE of today's standards) miles to the gallon but only result in a 4% reduction in fuel consumption that there are going to be a hell of a lot more cars travelling much further on average in 2040 than today. How is much more cars travelling on average much further consuming 96% of the amount of fossil fuels in 2040 going to save the planet from AGW? We're

Update 3:

C, ROTFLMAO!!! That "New World Order" BS comes straight from the proposed 2009 Copenhagen Climate Accords. Do not try to erase history that occurred only 2 years ago. LOLOL!!!

Update 4:

I meant 4 years go

Update 5:

I meant 4 years go

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Mike
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Who says they are doing nothing. Passing mandates of higher fuel mileage up to 60 mpg, drastically reduces the number of cars driven as prices will go higher, and models shrink making them less attractive.

  • 7 years ago

    By October 2013 there were 150,000 plug in vehicles sold in America. http://www.hybridcars.com/total-us-plug-in-car-sal... while the number of vehicles in the US has been reported at 239.8 million cars http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-popula... Just a small bit of arithmatic tells us that presently .625 % of vehicles are therefore plug in vehicles. This market share has mostly been captured in the last 2 years. It is therefore highly unlikely that it will take another 27 years to less than double the market penetration to 1%. This in turn casts some suspicion on the quoted article and the validity of these "US predictions" or any implications for AGW. Rather we have to observe that a conservative president spent 8 years packing the civil service with conservative appointments that handle such information. Such predictions are probably more a tribute to the petrochemical lobby than liberal politics.

    As humorist George Carlin loved to point out environmental issues and AGW will not harm the planet. It is humans that will be wiped out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqT1x_5B80

    Youtube thumbnail

    Explosion of the planet as described in your 2001 article is unlikely and seems to have been postulated based upon early and possibly inaccurate information. We have learned a great deal about AGW since then. Most of that suggests more dire consequences but not explosion of the planet. Certainly we have much more we could learn.

    Carbon in the atmosphere comes from numerous sources. Most of these sources are natural. But more importantly the CHANGE in levels of carbon in the atmosphere from about 1860 is attributed to human activity. Of those sources vehicles contribute only about 31%. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gase...

    Because the premise and facts associated with your question don't appear to be accurate the question of a conflict seems less an issue. From here we could turn from science to politics. The lobby for petrochemicals is well funded and connected. You suggest a distrust of various sources and connections. But we have to wonder why your skepticism does not include the obvious influences while it pursues the obscure?

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    "We have a liberal government in power that refuses to force so called eco friendly lifestyles on us the same as it is forcing its version of health care on us. Is that not hypocritical to say the least?"

    So you want a Fascist government that ignores personal freedoms and liberties? A least we know where you denialists stand

  • 7 years ago

    Isn't there some kind of word count limit on questions? And a policy against "carrying on conversations" rather than asking a question and picking an answer? I believe there used to be.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Wow, that second link had to be just about the stupidest thing I have read in quite a while. The temperature at the surface in no way affects the temperature a hundred miles down let alone in the inner core. What a charlatan. Jeesh.

  • C
    Lv 5
    7 years ago

    New world order Where do you get all this bullsh*t

    AGW is a reality not a fraud. You really know nothing about GW and less about AGW

    Your conspiracy stuff is like listening to a song you don't like over and over

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.