GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,546
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on April 23rd, 2019 in the Automotive News category.
The thing is, the only way to "help" the planet is by not burning fossil fuel, donating some bucks for somone to produce "clean" energy will not balance the CO2 that you car put into the air, that's nonsense. Now if the car manufacturers want to truly help they need to put pressure on the development of new types of fuel that do not rely on fossil fuel.
The thing is, the only way to "help" the planet is by not burning fossil fuel, donating some bucks for somone to produce "clean" energy will not balance the CO2 that you car put into the air, that's nonsense.
So much of being kind to the environment is about matching your outward appearance so that you can be treated like the hero you feel like. And this doesn't do that.
The thing is, the only way to "help" the planet is by not burning fossil fuel, donating some bucks for somone to produce "clean" energy will not balance the CO2 that you car put into the air, that's nonsense. Now if the car manufacturers want to truly help they need to put pressure on the development of new types of fuel that do not rely on fossil fuel.
This only applies to people who care a lot about ultimately superficial and pointless things. It's the same as the dreadful "charity happenings" vs contributing actual help in the form of manhours or similar tangible engagement.
BTT: I'm a bit torn on this one. It does amount to little more than throwing money at the problem, but could eventually raise conscience, too. It is at least a mighty name behind it, so maybe other manufacturers will follow or create joint ventures.
This.
You know these little programs mean well and are great, maybe just to spread awareness but in the big picture of global warming achieve nothing.
We may not feel intolerable temperatures in our lifetime but I do think about the people 200 years from now. What will life be like when ambient air temps are 130° in New York?
I never paid attention to Al Gore was much too young. I am older now and have been doing a lot of reading lately it's serious stuff.
Because every time you burn fossil fuel you are adding CO2 to the air, one way to offset it would be funding a project that absorbs that pollution. One example that reduces the CO2 emissions is a company that burn fuel on a powerplant to produce energy changed to wind turbines, stopping the use of said fuel driven powerplant, this way you reduce the emission.Really? Why?
So for example let's say you put X amount of CO2 in the air with your car, and you fund a project which reduces X amount of CO2 emissions. Where's the issue?
NET benefit is a valid goal.
If you removed 1000 cars from the road OR you find a carbon reduction solution that is the equivalent of removing 1000 cars from the road, the net benefit is the same.
Every breathing animal emits carbon. so ceasing all carbon emissions is not possible. However, offsetting carbon emissions is.
Because every time you burn fossil fuel you are adding CO2 to the air, one way to offset it would be funding a project that absorbs that pollution. One example that reduces the CO2 emissions is a company that burn fuel on a powerplant to produce energy changed to wind turbines, stopping the use of said fuel driven powerplant, this way you reduce the emission.
At the moment there’s four projects which you can choose to contribute to. There’s a forest protection program in the USA, a hydropower project in Vietnam, solar energy installations in Mexico, and a species diversity scheme in Zimbabwe.
You buy a tesla, everyone knows you care about the world and are a good person.
those projects doesn't reduce car emissions, they are cool projects, but they do nothing about car emissions, renewable energy powerplants only offset fossil fuel powerplants, like you build a hydropower instead of a diesel one, forests have their own carbon cicle, they help but they are not that effective.↑
Because every time you burn fossil fuel you are adding CO2 to the air, one way to offset it would be funding a project that absorbs that pollution. One example that reduces the CO2 emissions is a company that burn fuel on a powerplant to produce energy changed to wind turbines, stopping the use of said fuel driven powerplant, this way you reduce the emission.
At the moment there’s four projects which you can choose to contribute to. There’s a forest protection program in the USA, a hydropower project in Vietnam, solar energy installations in Mexico, and a species diversity scheme in Zimbabwe.
I'm thinking you've not read the article.those projects doesn't reduce car emissions, they are cool projects, but they do nothing about car emissions, renewable energy powerplants only offset fossil fuel powerplants, like you build a hydropower instead of a diesel one, forests have their own carbon cicle, they help but they are not that effective.
With Porsche in GTS.Saving the GT Planet...
Also... over 70% of all Porsches built are still on the road (an even higher percentage of 911s), which means there's a very healthy second-hand market, which means they're the ultimate eco-car! Even electric vehicles have to be constructed from parts built all over the world in huge factories (using fossil fuels) and transported to another huge factory (using fossil fuels) to be bolted together and then shipped again (using fossil fuels) to the showrooms.
I think I'm really just trying to justify something here...
I do wonder to what extent it's calculated. Carbon offsetting for say, 10k miles based on official CO2 figures only goes so far if you go over that mileage and your car's only doing 75% of the MPG quoted in the brochure. Or whether it's tailpipe CO2 alone, or it's well-to-wheels. Or whether it changes depending on production and raw materials impact; the Cayenne mentioned is 2+ tons, so before it's even turned a wheel it's consumed 2x the raw materials of say, a Ford Fiesta.So for example let's say you put X amount of CO2 in the air with your car, and you fund a project which reduces X amount of CO2 emissions. Where's the issue?
This has long been overplayed, particularly with EV comparisons:Also... over 70% of all Porsches built are still on the road (an even higher percentage of 911s), which means there's a very healthy second-hand market, which means they're the ultimate eco-car! Even electric vehicles have to be constructed from parts built all over the world in huge factories (using fossil fuels) and transported to another huge factory (using fossil fuels) to be bolted together and then shipped again (using fossil fuels) to the showrooms.
To be fair, I was basing this on something Clarkson claimed once.In simple terms, during the average car's lifecycle, far more of its environmental impact comes from use than from its construction. EVs can offset their production impact pretty quickly. Regular cars less so, but basically the thirstier something is, the sooner buying something less thirsty will make a difference.
It's probably less the case with old Porsches, which will probably be used relatively sparingly compared to say, the average repmobile, and given they do stay on the road longer than most cars you can effectively ignore the energy related to their recycling since they rarely die and get recycled (whether that's offset by the energy relating to the odd restoration here and there, plus various fluids and parts over their lifetime I'm not sure).
There's always going to be some merit to it - that's how it sounds plausible.To be fair, I was basing this on something Clarkson claimed once.
Carbon offsetting does seem a bit like a band-aid to me. It's better than nothing I guess, but it's a bit like recycling plastic - better simply to avoid things made of plastic in the first place than it is to continue as normal and throw it in a different bag afterwards.
That, and it goes against the physical laws of the universe. You can carbon-offset one or a hundred cars in isolation but unless you can say, conjure full-sized trees into existence from nothing there's always energy being lost elsewhere.
Perhaps not impossible, but very difficult to do on the same scale as that which is being released. Maybe if you're Porsche and selling relatively few cars you can do it effectively for the even fewer people who sign up to such a program.I don't see how it goes against any physical laws. The carbon presumably already exists, it's just being moved around in different forms. We're not capturing carbon from space and bringing it to Earth here. Sure maybe some of it is trapped in another material, but it's here. In this case, it's in oil under the ground. So there's nothing saying that it's impossible to recapture that carbon.
I'd agree. Planting trees isn't a good carbon offset at all, not least because we're chopping the damn things down at a rate far greater than we're sticking saplings in the ground. And also because those saplings are pretty ineffective compared to full-size trees. Not much offsetting is going on if it takes a hundred years for it to reach maturity, and even then only absorbs 48lb of carbon a year.I think maybe a better argument is that it's not being done intelligently, which is only a partially valid argument. For example you might think that planting a tree is a good carbon offset, but not really. I mean while the tree is alive it's a carbon sink, sucking carbon out of the air and storing it in tree form. But then when the tree dies or burns, it releases that carbon again. I suppose if that tree manages to create 5 more then you've won.
Well there's more to it than just CO2 for a start... though offsetting 3.7 tons of CO2 for 10k miles in a 911 (at circa 190g/km) is a big ask on its own. CO2 isn't the only tailpipe emission though, and I'm guessing this program won't offset Porsche's emissions as a company to any great degree.But let's say you bought a wind turbine with your carbon offsetting. That wind turbine is producing electricity presumably in place of something dirty, like coal. For the life of the wind turbine, it offsets emissions from coal use. A wind turbine could even be refurbished, I'm not sure to what extent they ever really "die". How is that not offsetting your vehicle emissions? Sure you're creating emissions, but if you're reducing emissions by more than that somewhere else, the carbon balance comes out ahead.