Motor Industry V's Climate Change

[GT4 genius]

Has the motoring industry played a sizesable part in climate change.
This issue was brought up alot in a similar thread, so here it is so as we can discuss it without being told we're getting away from the point!

 

[Tom_IW_Racer]

No I don't, I think cars are being used as scapegoats by the environmentalists when other things pollute more, because they are something a person has a choice in using, whereas say housing which pollutes more the arguement cannot be used in the same way.

 

[High-Test]

No. There are 6 billion people on earth breathing in oxygen and breathing out CO2. I do this 12 times a minute, ritually. If I were to stop so that the earth won't have as much CO2, I'd be dead. There are also billions of other lifeforms breathing out CO2. Plus, volcanic activity and methane coming from cows, the world's got it's work cut out for itself naturally. The Industrial revolution in the 1800s polluted FAR more than industry today.

 

[Philly]

Yes. The automotive industry contributes to global warming. However, there are other factors that contribute more. For fossil fuels, industry is the main culprit. This includes all of those coal-fired power plants and factories and the like. I'm not sure how shipping rates on the scale, but I know that I always see some huge billowing cloud of black smoke whenever I see a container ship. So yes, cars have contributed. They may even be next on the list of fossil fuel factors.

High-Test, fossil fuels may not be the biggest contributer to global warming. Natural CO2 emissions may exceed those made by man. I have no data to say either way. However, it seems as though the earth has been going through climate "swings," (as anybody who doesn't belive in global warming would say.) Maybe these were caused by slight risings and fallings in the levels of "natural" CO2 ect. Add in fossil fuels, and suddenly the levels of CO2 in the air are far more extreme causing more extreme weather, maybe like what we have been seeing in the last few years. That's the scenario I quickly created in my head...

What I'm trying to say is that while cars and factories may not be the biggest source of CO2 in the system, what they are contributing is very easily enough to upset the balance. You don't need a majority to make a difference.

EDIT: Oh yeah.....

Opinions forum?

 

[High-Test]

I understand that perfectly. You typed that as If I'm a fourteen year old from Alabama running around in a V6 Camaro with zoomies.

I do believe that man's emissions are playing an effect in our planet's temperature shenanigans. But, The Automotive industry is certainly not as big of a troublemaker as the Far Left paints it out to be. While it is responsible for some emissions, it is not responsible for the portion people believe it to be.

Sure, the Smog over LA is a glowing example of what happens when auto emissions go unchecked. Then, Catalytic converters and cleaner fuel have significantly reduced the amount of CO2 and other pollutants that came from each car. My 1960 Chevy probably belched forty pounds of chemicals into the air each year it ran. Now, cars don't put out one tenth of that. I could be wrong.. Is my figure for NOx or CO2?

ANY combustion reaction, regardless of what it is being used for, produces CO2.

If we noticed the Climate Change in the fifties? The Auto Industry would certainly be blamed.

 

[Philly]

I understand that perfectly. You typed that as If I'm a fourteen year old from Alabama running around in a V6 Camaro with zoomies.

It made sense in my head.

Sure, the Smog over LA is a glowing example of what happens when auto emissions go unchecked. Then, Catalytic converters and cleaner fuel have significantly reduced the amount of CO2 and other pollutants that came from each car. My 1960 Chevy probably belched forty pounds of chemicals into the air each year it ran. Now, cars don't put out one tenth of that. I could be wrong.. Is my figure for NOx or CO2?

Smog in LA is partly caused by the fact that all of those emissions can't go anywhere. They are allowed to build up for periods I'm not sure of (days?). Plus there is all that other junk LA pumps out into the air, it's not all from the cars. Look at China. Sure, they have cars. Lots of dirty cars. Those cars pollute a lot. The biggest reason you can't see the sun there anymore is that they are running lots of coal plants and coal everything else. The cars don't do all that much damage.

Where cars are killing the environment is in India. In the Ganges valley, motorized rickshaws and other dirty cars are the main reason for all of the pollution that is causing a lot of respiratory problems and really bad smog issues. I think this was attributed to bad fuels. At least that's what Natural Goegraphin or whatever said.

 

[Joey D]

Once again, don't cows produce more "green house gas" then cars do?

 

[Philly]

Once again, don't cows produce more "green house gas" then cars do?

Yes. They do. We should eat them all.

That doesn't cange the fact that cars produce them too.

 

[Joey D]

Yes cars produce it but there have only been cars on the planet for a little over 100 years...cows have been here for hundreds of thousands (I'm not sure on the evolutionary history of cows so maybe less).

But however it is, the car has only been here a short amount of time and we really haven't been burning fossil fuels all that long either in the long history of the earth.

 

[Philly]

I'm sure cows are a part of the problem too. The world has been consuming more and more beef which leads to more cows and more methane.

The thing is, we have been burning fossil fuels for 300 or so years. Since oil came on to the scene around 100 years ago, we have been burning more and more. Which would mean that global warming would be accelerating faster, which would lead to weather getting wierder, like t seems to be doing now.

Anyway, if the Earth had some kind of "right" level of CO2 for all of those thousands of years that cows have been around, and the Earth was relatively stable, and then loses stability once fossil fuels enter the stage, wouldn't that make fossil fuels a big contributer?

 

[High-Test]

I would wager a guess that many earlier East Asian cars and motorized rickshaws were powered by 2 cycle engines, which burn oil like none other. Anywhere where there are huge numbers of 2 cycle engines will have big problems with air quality.

 

[Philly]

Yeah. Anywhere you have a lot of high emissions vehicles in a small area that does not have good wind to blow the pollution away will have huge issues with smog.

The thing about those parts of the world is not that they don't pollute a whole lot more than the US. It's just that all of that grossness is concentrated in a small area. The US as a whole probably pollutes more than China or India it's just that China and India have all of their pollution in one spot.

 

[GT4 genius]

If we could find out how much co2 cars produce a year on average right, then get an average for the amount of cars in the world ok, then calculate the combined co2, and finally get an estimate of the global temperature increase due to this figure and find examples of were a rise by this figure has caused problems.

I know theres plenty of holes in this way of calculating something but if we came up with a figure say .2 degrees a year would this not frighten people.

PS i havent voted yet still not sure which to choose.

 

[Stevisiov]

The thing is, we have been burning fossil fuels for 300 or so years. Since oil came on to the scene around 100 years ago, we have been burning more and more. Which would mean that global warming would be accelerating faster, which would lead to weather getting wierder, like t seems to be doing now.

Anyway, if the Earth had some kind of "right" level of CO2 for all of those thousands of years that cows have been around, and the Earth was relatively stable, and then loses stability once fossil fuels enter the stage, wouldn't that make fossil fuels a big contributer?

This could be true however, a decade long bad weather does not mean 'oh noes! global warming' as has been brought up previosly in the global warming thread there was a period called the little ice age, where the thames froze over, was there heavy CO2 produced then, no. It was far before the industrial revolution, still freak weather. If you look even further back we can see that there are trends in temperature levels, they go up down up down up down, fairly unevenly until they reach a peak temperature then everything rapidly cools, and Ice age ahoy!

We are as of now, due a natural ice age, so naturally unusual weather isn't so surprising, perhaps we are making no impact, perhaps we are making a large impact, perhaps we are just speeding up things a little bit. What we can say is, that bad weather here or there cannot be linked to cars, in the scheme of weather cycles, a decade is here or there, it could be attributed to a natural blip in temperature. We cannot say for sure about the impacts of fossil fuel and other industrial practices have on the planets weather system, but what we can say, is that in comparison the modern car does little in comparison, hybrids, biofuel will certainly help, have they been created to solve a problem that never existed in the first place, maybe we will find out one day. Still they play an important role in satisfying the public, and must help the companies PR departments a bundle.

Is running on ethanol good/bad, its certainly more environmentally friendly, and since they can get impressive power from it these days, then there should be no problem 👍

 

[GT4 genius]

It was found though that if you consider a prius's whole life a hummer actually works out more enviromentally friendly.

 

[Stevisiov]

It was found though that if you consider a prius's whole life a hummer actually works out more enviromentally friendly.

Really in what way,I don't believe that for a second. Sounds like its a fairy tale to me, things like that are often floating around the internet.

 

[GT4 genius]

This was on irelands no.1 radio show. It took into account that the nickel has to be mined and then the car has to be built and then it has to be scrapped far earlier than a hummer which needs no nickel and lasts way longer.

it was mentioned in the alternative fuel thread aswel

 

[Joey D]

Really in what way,I don't believe that for a second. Sounds like its a fairy tale to me, things like that are often floating around the internet.

Well most of the Hummer is still built here in North America, while the Prius has parts made all over the world and requires a ton of shipping. Plus the mining on the nickel for the batteries is very destructive to the environment. Search on google and you'll find it, although you'll see heavy slants on both sides.

 

[Stevisiov]

This was on irelands no.1 radio show. It took into account that the nickel has to be mined and then the car has to be built and then it has to be scrapped far earlier than a hummer which needs no nickel and lasts way longer.

it was mentioned in the alternative fuel thread aswel

Well most of the Hummer is still built here in North America, while the Prius has parts made all over the world and requires a ton of shipping. Plus the mining on the nickel for the batteries is very destructive to the environment. Search on google and you'll find it, although you'll see heavy slants on both sides.

Oh I see, I hadn't considered production methods. Well thats an interesting read. I had heard of the nickel for the batteries but I hadn't bought into that argument myself.

 

[Pyrelli]

This could be true however, a decade long bad weather does not mean 'oh noes! global warming' as has been brought up previosly in the global warming thread there was a period called the little ice age, where the thames froze over, was there heavy CO2 produced then, no. It was far before the industrial revolution, still freak weather. If you look even further back we can see that there are trends in temperature levels, they go up down up down up down, fairly unevenly until they reach a peak temperature then everything rapidly cools, and Ice age ahoy!

We are as of now, due a natural ice age, so naturally unusual weather isn't so surprising, perhaps we are making no impact, perhaps we are making a large impact, perhaps we are just speeding up things a little bit. What we can say is, that bad weather here or there cannot be linked to cars, in the scheme of weather cycles, a decade is here or there, it could be attributed to a natural blip in temperature. We cannot say for sure about the impacts of fossil fuel and other industrial practices have on the planets weather system, but what we can say, is that in comparison the modern car does little in comparison, hybrids, biofuel will certainly help, have they been created to solve a problem that never existed in the first place, maybe we will find out one day. Still they play an important role in satisfying the public, and must help the companies PR departments a bundle.

Is running on ethanol good/bad, its certainly more environmentally friendly, and since they can get impressive power from it these days, then there should be no problem 👍

I can't say that I totally disagree with this post, I am a bit of a sceptic to alot of the things said about climate change but I found your post extremely dismissive - almost restricting the options.

You quite rightly refer to the 'ice age', however this assumes the current situation (be it climate change or not) can be modelled on the past. With the change in circumstances, such as having had the industrial revolution, and also inline with this thread, the motor industry amongst others - there is little in common with the past (substantially increased population, modern needs etc) which makes the comparison flawed. Bearing in mind I do agree that it is a natural process, such a simple comparison can't really be used as an indicator for the impacts of fossil fuels and industrial practices on the planets weather system.

By dismissing developments off as a company's PR and done just to please the public, you ignore the fact that perhaps the motor industry and other companies do truly believe in the effects that fossil fuels may have.

Talking about the atmosphere isn't my area of expertise but we are all taught that it has an important regulatory role regarding the earth's temperature, both absorbing radiation and also reflecting some back from off the earth's surface. These are largely undisputed and is a demonstration of the properties of 'green house gases'. Whilst quantities of various green house gases are small, unnaturally adding to them and changing the 'natural' balance is bound to have some sort of effect - be it by cars or as mentioned, cows; in a sense its the idea of 1+1 (though some environmentalists always manage to make it equal 3).

Whilst the motor industry is a contributor to releasing 'green house gases', it can't be said that any climate change has a direct causal link to the motor industry. Not having any substantial statistics makes coming to a conclusion hard, but it is equally flawed to attribute any changes just to natural variations whilst ignoring the potential effects of green house gases. More likely, knowing that natural variations do exist and the effects of green house gases, any climate change is a combination of both human and natural events, meaning the motor industry is taking the right direction in its developments. However there are other major contributors: be it energy providers, our own lifestyles and needs etc, that are also accountable and the motor industry shouldn't be used as a scape goat.

Pyrelli

Edit: Just a thought, but surely 'global warming' is a good thing by in a sense delaying an ice age..?

 

[Joey D]

Edit: Just a thought, but surely 'global warming' is a good thing by in a sense delaying an ice age..?

Global warming could actually bring on an ice age sooner in the northern parts of the globe.

 

[Stevisiov]

I can't say that I totally disagree with this post, I am a bit of a sceptic to alot of the things said about climate change but I found your post extremely dismissive - almost restricting the option.

I think you have made many incorrect assumptions as you read my post, I also think you have not read my post properly either, I have not said this is what is happing, I have used lots of could and perhaps, etc. Please re-read my post properly, I know I have not typed it particularly well and for that I appologies.

You quite rightly refer to the 'ice age', however this assumes the current situation (be it climate change or not) can be modelled on the past. With the change in circumstances,

I think you have misinterpreted my post, or I have not been clear enough, I did not simply say 'freak weather conditions have been around for years, so this decades freak weather is just natural' What I believe I said was 'This could be true however, a decade long bad weather does not mean 'oh noes! global warming' this was in response to a previous comment. What this meant was; you cannot simply attribute this decades freak weather to global warming, as freak weather has often occured long before industrial practices, therefore it doesn't mean global warming is necassarily to blame. I had not said that it has nothing to do with global warming rather we cannot say for sure that global warming has anything to do with it. Hence I used the word could I even put it in bold the first time round.

such as having had the industrial revolution, and also inline with this thread, the motor industry amongst others - there is little in common with the past (substantially increased population, modern needs etc) which makes the comparison flawed.

Again I made no comparison, rather an example of how you cannot just say, bad weather means global warming. Thats it no more no less. I don't see where you find me trying to make a comparison.

Bearing in mind I do agree that it is a natural process, such a simple comparison can't really be used as an indicator for the impacts of fossil fuels and industrial practices on the planets weather system.

I am glad we agree on that the first bit, but again where have I made this comparison, perhaps you have misread my post, perhaps I have not made myself clear (I do that often).

By dismissing developments off as a company's PR and just done to please the public, you ignore the fact that perhaps the motor industry and other companies do truly believe in the effects that fossil fuels may have.

Please tell me where I have stated such thing, you appear to be assuming my view point, what I believe I said was: 'Still they play an important role in satisfying the public, and must help the companies PR departments a bundle.

Is running on ethanol good/bad, its certainly more environmentally friendly, and since they can get impressive power from it these days, then there should be no problem'

Find in there where is says the only reason companies do it is to satisfy public and to improve PR.... oh wait.... it doesn't. Admittedly I haven't stated that some companies actively want to help make a cleaner world, but I have by no means dismissed this. Read the last line I think it would suggest that I welcome biofuel etc. It therefore wouldn't surprise me if like-minded companies felt it was also a good idea, again this doesn't suggest that they would only do it for PR reasons. I think having cars as clean and friendly can only help the car business.

Talking about the atmosphere isn't my area of expertise but we are all taught that it has an important regulatory role regarding the earth's temperature, both absorbing radiation and also reflecting some back from off the earth's surface. These are largely undisputed and is a demonstration of the properties of 'green house gases'. Whilst quantities of various green house gases are small, unnaturally adding to them and changing the 'natural' balance is bound to have some sort of effect - be it by cars or as mentioned, cows; in a sense its the idea of 1+1 (though some environmentalists always manage to make it equal 3).

I will not argue that you are incorrect there however I have not said otherwise. I think this part of my post sums up my viewpoint: We cannot say for sure about the impacts of fossil fuel and other industrial practices have on the planets weather system,. That is all.

Whislt the motor industry is a contributor to releasing 'green house gases', it can't be said that any climate change has a direct causal link to the motor industry. Not having any substantial statistics makes coming to a conclusion hard,

I would agree with you again here, thats exactly what I was trying to say, I am sorry it has come wrong. That is what happens when you don't read through your post.

but it is equally flawed to attribute any changes just to natural variations whilst ignoring the potential effects of green house gases.

Oh dear, your plucking imaginary opinions out the air again, I have not stated anywhere that all freak weather is cased naturally only, freak weather doesn't have to mean global warming. This is about as close as I got: 'a decade long bad weather does not mean 'oh noes! global warming' however if you read the part that comes before it and the text I quoted you will realise that I am not infact saying all unusual weather patterns is normal and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases, the could that comes before that should make this obvious, I even put the could in bold so people didn't get the wrong idea.

More likely, knowing that natural variations do exist and the effects of green house gases, any climate change is a combination of both human and natural events, meaning the motor industry is taking the right direction in its developments. However there are other major contributors: be it energy providers, our own lifestyles and needs etc, that are also accountable and the motor industry shouldn't be used as a scape goat.

Pyrelli

That I think is a good analysis of the current situation with regards to cars and global warming. 👍

[edit]

Edit: Just a thought, but surely 'global warming' is a good thing by in a sense delaying an ice age..?

It doesn't work like that unfortunatly. You see if the worlds temperatures increase, then the ice caps will melt, this melting is thought to lower the oceans salt concentration due to a vast amount of 'new' fresh water from the melted ice caps. This will cause the gulf stream, a massive underwater current in the atlantic to shut down, when the gulf stream stops northern europe will freeze over, I think parts of America will also freeze over.

I am not certain if thats exactly right, its just what I have heard, however if the gulf stream shuts down that is what will happen. It happens regularly when we are talking in terms of the world, and we are due one soon, however it is thought that the increased CO2 with global warming level will cause the warming to happen faster, therefore the iceage will be sooner.

 

[Danoff]

Global warming could actually bring on an ice age sooner in the northern parts of the globe.

Pretty sure that's been debunked at this point. Unfortunately I don't have the link handy to show you.

A) I don't believe the tiny change in CO2 levels that mankind is responsible for could have nearly as drastic an effect as people claim.

B) If it did. It wouldn't be the "motor industry"s fault because the "motor industry" isn't the main contributor of C02.

C) If the "motor industry" were the main contributor of C02 AND it had a drastic effect on the atmosphere, it still wouldn't be the "motor industry"s fault that we all drive cars. Who's fault would that be? (Hint: Ours)

 

[Joey D]

Famine showed somewhere that global warming can and may cause another ice age, maybe he could shed some light on it again. I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying there are theories out there saying it might.

 

[Philly]

B) If it did. It wouldn't be the "motor industry"s fault because the "motor industry" isn't the main contributor of C02.

C) If the "motor industry" were the main contributor of C02 AND it had a drastic effect on the atmosphere, it still wouldn't be the "motor industry"s fault that we all drive cars. Who's fault would that be? (Hint: Ours)

B. The motor industry is a contributor. Every industry is a contributor. There is no main contributor. It is the combined effort of industry that puts all of the junk into the atmosphere. Should the auto industry be yelled at? Yes, but so should everybody else.

C. Well, the government could also play a role in helping us out to help the auto industry to become cleaner.

 

[Danoff]

Famine showed somewhere that global warming can and may cause another ice age, maybe he could shed some light on it again. I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying there are theories out there saying it might.

There used to be theories out there. I'm pretty sure they've been debunked. You're going to make me go find the article aren't you?

B. The motor industry is a contributor. Every industry is a contributor. There is no main contributor. It is the combined effort of industry that puts all of the junk into the atmosphere. Should the auto industry be yelled at? Yes, but so should everybody else.

The auto-industry in particular is not actually contributing. We're purchasing the vehicles and doing whatever contribution you think we're doing all by ourselves.

C. Well, the government could also play a role in helping us out to help the auto industry to become cleaner.

Wouldn't be necessary if consumers demanded it. The auto industry caters to us. If we wanted more fuel efficient cars at higher prices, we'd get them. Currently, we do not.

 

[Pyrelli]

...I think you have made many incorrect assumptions as you read my post, I also think you have not read my post properly either, I have not said this is what is happing, I have used lots of could and perhaps, etc. Please re-read my post properly, I know I have not typed it particularly well and for that I appologies...

Quite right you are, after that I did re-read your post (and more importantly the post you were replying to) I have since realised all along we were talking about the same thing. Your response made this very clear but reading your post first time, and under the wrong circumstances, you can understand how I misunderstood - the above refering to: "I had not said that it has nothing to do with global warming rather we cannot say for sure that global warming has anything to do with it"

So its not your apologies, its mine


Having read the part; "have they been created to solve a problem that never existed in the first place, maybe we will find out one day... must help the companies PR departments a bundle", I was under the impression that you were suggesting a motive for the motor industry to cash in on - remembering that I misread your post under the wrong circumstances, believing that you saw no chance for a link to global warming. Which is obviously not the case.

"I would agree with you again here, thats exactly what I was trying to say, I am sorry it has come wrong. That is what happens when you don't read through your post. "

Unfortunately I did skim read and did a very crummy job of it aswell.. Throughout we were both arguing the same thing, meaning our viewpoints are actually much more aligned than I first thought

..."Oh dear, your plucking imaginary opinions out the air again, I have not stated anywhere that all freak weather is caused naturally only, freak weather doesn't have to mean global warming. This is about as close as I got: 'a decade long bad weather does not mean 'oh noes! global warming' however if you read the part that comes before it and the text I quoted you will realise that I am not infact saying all unusual weather patterns is normal and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases"...

Having understood the reason for your original post, it's clear.. But you must understand when I first read the post starting with: "This could be true however", it appeared to be a counter-argument that used natural causes as its main point.

"It doesn't work like that unfortunatly. You see if the worlds temperatures increase, then the ice caps will melt, this melting is thought to lower the oceans salt concentration due to a vast amount of 'new' fresh water from the melted ice caps. This will cause the gulf stream, a massive underwater current in the atlantic to shut down, when the gulf stream stops northern europe will freeze over, I think parts of America will also freeze over."

Just before I dropped geography (a term into A2), we had a long discussion and our teachers were talking about evidence of ice ages. There is evidence that before an ice age, traditionally levels of greenhouse gases (we were shown a seperate graph for carbon dioxide which happens to be the most potent) fall before an ice age, meaning that infact, the addition of man made greenhouse gases appeared to be having the effect of prolonging the natural cycle - remembering that water has the property of also being a very large 'store' of carbon dioxide, which also has its own carbon cycle (If the concentration of carbon dioxide is higher in the atmosphere it will diffuse into the water). Incidently this is also the source of the evidence, showing green house gas levels taken from the 'layered' ice itself.

In the end, it is all still concepts and theories.. I'm sure the people around for the next ice age will be much better prepared

Once again, my apologies for not reading all the posts and then not reading yours properly - at least we figured out that we were infact pushing the same point. Be assured this mistake will only happen once, hope no offence was taken 👍

Pyrelli

 

[Stevisiov]

Once again, my apologies for not reading all the posts and then not reading yours properly - at least we figured out that we were infact pushing the same point. Be assured this mistake will only happen once, hope no offence was taken 👍

Pyrelli

Not a problem, I could have worded things better myself, I type slower than I think, and I think we have similar ideas on the impact of cars on climate change, well its resolved now anyway.

 

[Philly]

The auto-industry in particular is not actually contributing. We're purchasing the vehicles and doing whatever contribution you think we're doing all by ourselves.

Depends on how technical you want to get. You could say that the auto industry is at fault for not giving us fuel efficient vehicles, like the consumers are starting to want. Or maybe a lack of other transportation is forcing us to stay in our cars. It isn't entirely the consumer's fault.

And so if the auto industry is not at fault, is it our fault for keeping up demand that keeps coal power plants running? Is it our fault that we have to ship things over from China on dirty boats? Is it our fault that factories produce pollution while making all of our goods? You can't blame the world's problems on the general public. Somebody somewhere has to take responsibility.

Wouldn't be necessary if consumers demanded it. The auto industry caters to us. If we wanted more fuel efficient cars at higher prices, we'd get them. Currently, we do not.

Go to Seattle. People there have no problem paying an extra few grand for a hybrid, even if it does not pay off in ten years. Or, look at any TV commercial. 7% better gas mileage! 40 mpg highway! We want fuel efficient cars. True, there is only so much the industry can do. Maybe somebody could get them to try harder. Who knows.

 

[Danoff]

Depends on how technical you want to get. You could say that the auto industry is at fault for not giving us fuel efficient vehicles, like the consumers are starting to want.

No. They'll give them to us. We just have to want them enough. Enough to refuse to buy anything else. Enough to pay a lot more for it.

And so if the auto industry is not at fault, is it our fault for keeping up demand that keeps coal power plants running? Is it our fault that we have to ship things over from China on dirty boats? Is it our fault that factories produce pollution while making all of our goods?

That's quite different. In one case the company is doing the polluting. In the other case you're doing the polluting using the company's product. Very different.

Go to Seattle. People there have no problem paying an extra few grand for a hybrid, even if it does not pay off in ten years. Or, look at any TV commercial. 7% better gas mileage! 40 mpg highway! We want fuel efficient cars. True, there is only so much the industry can do. Maybe somebody could get them to try harder. Who knows.

Oh they do here in LA, probably way more than Seattle. The auto industry can't just offer super efficient cars overnight. They have to be developed. But if there's enough money in it, rest assured it will be developed. If there's anything that drives a business it's opportunity in the market. The demand just has to be there.

Every time you buy the 30 mpg vehicle over the 25 mpg vehicle you help point out the market opportunity of a 50 mpg vehicle. It takes time, and it's actually best if the transition isn't sudden, but that's the best way to get business to move - offer them money.