Simplify the problem with a smart arse answer. That'll make it go away.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Environmental Group Slams Honda's "Green"
- Thread starter NSXBat
- Start date
Simplify the problem with a smart arse answer. That'll make it go away.
Simplify the problem with a smart arse answer. That'll make it go away.
While it may have been a smart answer, I was simply trying to point out the silliness of suggesting that racing is going to make the planet uninhabitable. If you look back in our posts, I said that racing uses fuel for entertainment purposes, and your response was that racing cars will make the planet uninhabitable.
This is what you believe?
Or, another way to look at it is that this is the approximate amount of fuel Al Gore uses each month to heat his home. :smile:
no, my point is that all types of fossil fuel usage contribute and comments that make light of the problem do not help, only exacerbates the problem. These are the attitudes we need to change. My original point was, although i love racing, it does contribute to the aforementioned problems the earth is facing.This is what i believe.:wink:
we use fossil fuels which contribute to damaging the earth for entertainment purposes (if i was part of an intelligent alien culture i would find this appalling) on a micro scale, like people who smoke, damage their bodies deliberately for enjoyment. just because another form of transport/entertainment uses more fossil fuel, does not exonerate this in any way. cheers.
Last edited:
AUDI diesel Le Mans winner!!!How can Acura come out with a new NSX if the company is trying to be "GREEN"
and... into auto sports at the same time?
Honda is so confused right now!
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119844
Global warming is a crock of shit and the term "fossil fuel" is just as ridiculous. Do you really believe that rotting dinosaur flesh somehow managed to seep miles below the Earth's surface and form underground oceans of oil containing billiions of gallons?
Give me a break. There is so much oil below the earth's surface that we'll never run out. It is a core component of the planet's composition. The Russian who came up with this theory back in 1757 was obviously in a vodka induced stupor. What's even more remarkable is that people still believe it today.
Hugh, I agree with you 100%.
Mr. Hugh,
I hope you don't mind me quoting part of your post. I don't have a lot to contribute to the thread, but Hugh saying above reminded me of something.
I took an Econ class last year, and the prof was telling the class an anecdote about how long time ago(like 25 years ago) an economist and an environmentalist argued how human race is going to exhaust limited resource soon. Economist apparently countered with saying "name me any 5 natural resouce you think we will run out of and I will tell you in 20 years we will have more of it than we do now"
..that's all. :|
While I have no doubt there are ample, vast stores of oil deep within our planet's surface- and that it was likely formed by a combination of factors ranging from pressure to organic materials... all we have to know is that it is irrelevant if cannot be located, extracted cost effectively, safely capped with a well head, refined, and brought profitably to market. Currently extracting oil a couple of miles down, and then piping it a few hundred miles is still seen as an engineering marvel.
Thus, it doesn't matter if the oil ever run out- it matters when the cheap oil runs out. The tendency for government at all levels to impose significant taxes through-out the supply chain and a volatile stock market being driven my paranoid middle class 401K's will only serve to continue to raise the stakes. I think we can all agree that the economics are more viable of an issue than the geology.
The scientific premise behind global warming, while appearing well founded using pure C02 in a laboratory beaker or using an analogy to the weather on venus... is most definitely questionable in reality so far as real-world environmental impact. There are a lot of variables that get too often get left out, and frankly there is too much that is not known to prance around on the high horse (e.g. Prius).
Again, sides will use the facts and interpretations that side best for them. Personally, I think it is a tall order to predict that there is enough gasses pound for pound emitted, and that a few degrees in recent measurable and future recorded history means we need to break out the dooms day clock... mind you, these are the same minds that probably came up with the idea to 'duck and cover'.
Thus, it doesn't matter if the oil ever run out- it matters when the cheap oil runs out. The tendency for government at all levels to impose significant taxes through-out the supply chain and a volatile stock market being driven my paranoid middle class 401K's will only serve to continue to raise the stakes. I think we can all agree that the economics are more viable of an issue than the geology.
The scientific premise behind global warming, while appearing well founded using pure C02 in a laboratory beaker or using an analogy to the weather on venus... is most definitely questionable in reality so far as real-world environmental impact. There are a lot of variables that get too often get left out, and frankly there is too much that is not known to prance around on the high horse (e.g. Prius).
Again, sides will use the facts and interpretations that side best for them. Personally, I think it is a tall order to predict that there is enough gasses pound for pound emitted, and that a few degrees in recent measurable and future recorded history means we need to break out the dooms day clock... mind you, these are the same minds that probably came up with the idea to 'duck and cover'.
- Joined
- 18 October 2002
- Messages
- 172
concerning greenhouse gases:
according to the link below (using DOE numbers), humans are responsible for 3.3% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, with 96.7% emitted from the earth. This source explains that water vapor should be considered. So, factoring in water vapor, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28%, with 99.72% of global warming coming from natural sources.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
not something that is talked about in the media very much.....
according to the link below (using DOE numbers), humans are responsible for 3.3% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, with 96.7% emitted from the earth. This source explains that water vapor should be considered. So, factoring in water vapor, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28%, with 99.72% of global warming coming from natural sources.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
not something that is talked about in the media very much.....
The people over at Transocean would probably disagree with you.
This baby, The Discoverer Enterprise can drill wells in 10,000 feet of ocean water then once it hits bottom, it can drill up to 6 1/2 miles below the ocean floor. She has two sister ships at this time.
Chevron's Jack 2 oil field in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to contain about 15 Billion barrels of oil. In another 10 to 20 years we'll be digging deeper and fidning more and more of the stuff. As the technology improves, the recovery costs will continue to drop as well.
Last edited:
I don't think that anyone from the global warming community disputes that mother nature emits more C02 than any other source - 30x as much as we humans. Their point is that mother nature - via rotting organic material such as all plant life - emits only the C02 that it previously consumed. For example, a living tree consumes C02 and when it dies, it releases that C02 and nothing more. So over the course of thousands or millions of years, a balanced C02 cycle has been achieved. By burning coal, oil, etc., new C02 is being introduced. As car guys, we know the importance of things like the proper air/fuel ratio, ignition timing, etc. and that small variations in these parameters have measurable effects on HP. Similarly, adding 3% of new C02 (annually) to the "system" will likely have some implications on something.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
We need to just punch more holes in the ozone layer to let all this damn CO2 out! :biggrin:
Hugh,
I've been reading these forums for many years now. The kind of 'counter-education' you provide never ceases to amaze me. Please do kindly post more often. How does one acquire this kind of knowledge?
The biggest possibility is that the next generation comes with a hybride engine. WHy??? When honda came in 1990 with the NSX everybody looked at it with open mouth. Iff honda brings a normal v10 or a normal v8 who would find this just special ?? Nobody.
Iff you bring a sport car with hybrid technoligie the you make the world turn around.
I think this engine will be the next engine for the NSX
Honda - are investigating, via Mugen, an electric Hybrid LMP1 engine, based around the MF408 engine. The test engine (image left) has been run in a Vemac Super GT car.
Another Japanese firm who want to remain nameless were talking about the arrival of a new (also Japanese) manufacturer at Le Mans and how they have been trying to get the deal to build and run the works cars, "it has been like meeting a beautiful woman, and trying to seduce her, you take her for dinner but she just smiles and you get no where near the bedroom, she teases you but you still want to take her to dinner again, well we have had a lot of dinners with her and now we are at the bedroom door"
...Read into that what you will
ANd maybe we can buy a honda NSX diesel in a few years. Honda is finishing its testing programm at this moment with the v6 diesel engine , this will be the next model engine for the accord, ridgeline, etc why not the nsx ( i don't think so but you never know)
greatings ronny
I agree, Hugh. In fact, I believe that the whole global warming movement is getting closer to imploding as more facts are learned by the common man. Yeah, the planet is warming somewhat, but so what? It has been a lot warmer in the past, and a lot colder in the past also. Also, the Earth has warmed almost to its current temp without the help of SUV's and the like. This fluctuation in global temp is normal and nothing to be hysterical about.
Now, we hear that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate that they are melting on Earth....
I would.
A 3000 lb mid-engine, vtec V-10, made by Honda?
Yeah, THAT would be special!!!!!
Last edited:
i wasn't contesting that we are running out of fossil fuels, my point was that the WASTE products from these fuels are damaging. Vulgarity not needed to make your point, it makes it less believable.
when the ozone is thinning above your country, you start to wonder. :smile:
Trying to lessen our impact is good.
The problem is the way we do it. Certain businesses and people with power are more or less exempt from any limitations, while others that are more or less defenseless [such as ourselves] have more and more stringent emission laws etc. forced upon us every single year. Hmm.. put limitations on already clean passenger vehicles and CONSUMERS pay the $$$... put it on corporate organizations and THEY might have to fork over the dough..nah that won't work!
There are massive struggles fought almost continuously to keep classic cars on the road. They make up something like .002% of cars registered and about .0005% of miles driven per year, yet they are attacked every single year about how irresponsible they are because they don't have the correct catalytic converters. GIVE ME A BREAK.
People pay 10 grand so their Honda civic can get from 36 to 46mpg in hybrid form while the entire freeway going through Downtown Austin is flooded with 18 wheelers blowing clouds of smoke into the air literally 24 hours a day. Last night at 2am I-35 was grid locked SOLID with 18-wheelers. Anyone care to look up the fuel efficiency of an 18 wheeler? My company truck, a commercial F450 gets less than 10 around town even when it's not loaded. And that is a tax write-off 100%. Now go to 18 wheelers.. it ain't pretty; and there are millions of them that drive a solid 12 hours a day.
Whether you believe in mad-made global warming that is actually repairable or not, we all share one world. The majority of industrialized nations don't give a rat's a$$ about pollution. I could go on and on just about China's issues, but I'd barely know where to start.
We all need to drive 80hp hybrids, but all the COPS need V8 gas guzzling cop cars [and for what again?], the fireman need a squadron of Expeditions, and last week at a car meet in a park the park ranger had a Ford F250 Heavy Duty that he just cruised around in all day. You want to make me pay 2 grand+++ on every car I buy, but the park ranger [this park is actually just an area with benches by a dam and a small building with a restroom] gets a brand new Ford F250 to cruise around in ALL day?
Good lord..
Haha.. Norm with the white 96[?] was there, he can attest about the park ranger.
The problem is the way we do it. Certain businesses and people with power are more or less exempt from any limitations, while others that are more or less defenseless [such as ourselves] have more and more stringent emission laws etc. forced upon us every single year. Hmm.. put limitations on already clean passenger vehicles and CONSUMERS pay the $$$... put it on corporate organizations and THEY might have to fork over the dough..nah that won't work!
There are massive struggles fought almost continuously to keep classic cars on the road. They make up something like .002% of cars registered and about .0005% of miles driven per year, yet they are attacked every single year about how irresponsible they are because they don't have the correct catalytic converters. GIVE ME A BREAK.
People pay 10 grand so their Honda civic can get from 36 to 46mpg in hybrid form while the entire freeway going through Downtown Austin is flooded with 18 wheelers blowing clouds of smoke into the air literally 24 hours a day. Last night at 2am I-35 was grid locked SOLID with 18-wheelers. Anyone care to look up the fuel efficiency of an 18 wheeler? My company truck, a commercial F450 gets less than 10 around town even when it's not loaded. And that is a tax write-off 100%. Now go to 18 wheelers.. it ain't pretty; and there are millions of them that drive a solid 12 hours a day.
Whether you believe in mad-made global warming that is actually repairable or not, we all share one world. The majority of industrialized nations don't give a rat's a$$ about pollution. I could go on and on just about China's issues, but I'd barely know where to start.
We all need to drive 80hp hybrids, but all the COPS need V8 gas guzzling cop cars [and for what again?], the fireman need a squadron of Expeditions, and last week at a car meet in a park the park ranger had a Ford F250 Heavy Duty that he just cruised around in all day. You want to make me pay 2 grand+++ on every car I buy, but the park ranger [this park is actually just an area with benches by a dam and a small building with a restroom] gets a brand new Ford F250 to cruise around in ALL day?
Good lord..
Haha.. Norm with the white 96[?] was there, he can attest about the park ranger.
"counter-education"... :biggrin: Hugh is the resident expert.
well, to be on Honda's (racing) defense, IRL just made history by being the first racing division to use 100-percent fuel grade ethanol. and since honda is 100% IRL's engine supplier...honda is in effect, on the "right" path to make environmental issues known.
also, honda made a mission statement a few years ago saying it will be producing ULEV vehicles or something along those lines.
also, honda made a mission statement a few years ago saying it will be producing ULEV vehicles or something along those lines.
18 wheelers typically run 5-7 mpg. Older ones in the low 5 and newer models close to 7. It's funny, fuel is such a huge expense for transport companies, you'd think they would be the first to invest in a fuel efficient "green" solution.
I believe those are highway estimates correct? Although that is probably the vast, vast majority of miles traveled, there are tons of companies that work only within large cities that do city transport. Not to mention the average garbage truck gets LESS than 3 miles per gallon, but again, that's somewhat understood if that's estimated during their normal trashcan->trashcan operation.
Correct, those are best highway estimates averaged over a fleet of old and new trucks.
