|
jcaine
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| G's and the environment...
Since we got a bit off topic in the reliability thread, I figured this one was appropriate...
For the record, I'm no G hater... I have one remember. I'm not even an SUV hater... I love cars, bikes, etc. and motors in general... I have for my whole life... I believe most all vehicles have their purpose.
What I don't like is waste, apathy, and complacency in the face of a global environmental crisis... (for those of you who deny global warming, this is probably a good time to stop reading)... G's are the best of road vehicles on the planet in my opinion and shared by many others... they are rugged, mean, tough, capable, reliable, etc... plus they are made by MB and they look cool... all great reasons to own one... that's why I have one.
However, as with anything in life, there plus's and minus's... G's use a whole lot of fuel... these days that's not a good thing so in my opinion G's should be used appropriately... meaning if you are going off road, moving you , your stuff, your family/friends, etc. through treacherous or adverse conditions, doing more than a little activity that requires 4wd, carrying multiple passengers, then by all means you should feel justified in driving your G proudly. If you use your G for recreation , cruising, profiling, etc. but leave it parked most of the time, ditto... BUT if a G that burns petro (especially a G55) is your daily driver and you drive by yourself 2-3 blocks to the store, punch it to try and move that big brick at a pace it was never designed for, and basically use it irresponsibly, in my opinion you're could be doing better... again... MY OPINION! I'm not spray painting your car or even flipping you off on the street... I'm just saying how I feel about this and put it in the same category as Hummers, Suburbans, Bentley's, and plenty of other vehicles... It's simply not smart to burn fuel at the rate these vehicles do when there are reasonable and easy alternatives...
For my part, My daily drivers are an ) MB 320 CDI... awesome car that gets 40 MPG and runs (most of the time ) on BIO, a 2006 F-250 Diesel that gets pretty crap miliage (15-19) but runs primarily on BIO. My G (300GD) that currently runs BIO and will run veggie in a few weeks is pretty much a daily driver... and last but not least my beloved 97 Porsche 993TT (avg 12MPG on GAS) I put maybe 2000 miles per year on this car... use it for flogging, special occasions, or when the mood strikes but NOT a daily driver because it's just not responsible to burn that kind of gas when I can do better...
That's all I'm saying friends... we can all try to hang on to the status quo but the smart money says it's simply not sustainable and that we are close to forced major changes if we don't make some voluntarily now... In Europe it's already happening... you have to pay a serious tax to simply drive into London now... Most if not all of Europe has a 45MPG minimum standard for all new cars, BIO and other alt fuels are readily available to the public... This is going to happen here sooner than later. Why not try to do better now? Why would anyone in their right mind argue against it?...
Now let's not get into the nonsense about banning cars, etc... I'm just talking about TRYING TO DO BETTER...
Peace and Love
J
|
|
| |
|
syncro
Extreme Veteran
Date registered: May 2007
Location: Orinda, CA
Vehicle(s): '84 280GE LWB > 300GD, '75 240D
Posts: 477
| Re: G's and the environment...
environtmental responsibility can can take on some not so obvious forms - there are many factors to consider.
Finding ways to bring work and home closer together is a major way to improve your energy footprint.
Another is to consider the "cradle to grave" cost of your vehicle. From what I understand, the environmental cost of making a new vehicle outweighs the cost of operation. So anyone who can make their car last for hundreds of thousands of miles would end up ahead of the game.
|
|
| |
|
amzimmy
Elite Veteran
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: South Africa/Italy
Vehicle(s): GD300 1981, Alfa GT 3,2 V6, Alfa Brera Q4 3,2 V6.
Posts: 850
| Re: G's and the environment...
Don't mess around with Nature ......... She will turn on You!
amzimmy 
 (Nature's revenge.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Nature's revenge.jpg (34KB - 40 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
4x4abc
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: La Paz, Baja California, Mexico
Vehicle(s): 02 G500
| Re: G's and the environment...
I applaud all efforts to make the world a better place. Or at least keep a decent status quo.
I see two things coming (just by looking a couple of thousand years back over my shoulder)
A) we will fail with what we have in mind (we always did)
B) we will come up with something new (I don't dare to call it solution) that we have no clue of today
result then: a "better life" (at least sold to us as such), lots more people, new problems.
Our burning problem today: the philosophy of success worldwide is MORE. More of everything. All societies subscribe to it.
More cars - more pollution. Even with bio diesel and hybrid. How much do we win with cars that pollute 50% less,
when we then increase the number of cars by the same margin. And we have to add more cars otherwise Wall Street
falls on its face. Not good for all of us. Right now we should be happy that Chrysler is selling less cars. Less cars = less polution, less oil consumption.
But wait, it also means less jobs, less money, less buying power.
Even if (miraculously) the richer nations on the planet change their success philosophy from quantity to quality (Less is more etc.) - how do we convince the growing nations (so, the next war is about "less"?) to subscribe to the same philosophy. I can see the answer in form of a prominent finger right about in the middle of the hand. How dare we to tell them what to do (including the farmer burning down the forest in Brazil) - they want to get where we are! With the same methods. Want to be as rich as we are now. When they get there (maybe) they might go for "Less is more". Now they do what we did for a few hundred years. Burn down the forest, create a strong agriculture and then pollute the heck out of the land for industrialization. We preached to them for few hundred years as well that the future is in development. In Growing.
We have a serious problem. Saving a few gallons with hybrid won't keep Greenland from losing its ice cap. Using veggie won't keep future idiots from starting a few new wars.
So, splashing with veggie oil might make you feel better at the moment (and you all have my respect for it), but its
less than a sugar pill on some serious cancer.
Since we are all in the same (life) boat and still looking for rescue, we should neither point fingers at the guy in the Hummer nor
at the woman on the bycicle. Pointing fingers does not help. We need serious help. Declaring your Hummer driving neighbor the enemy won't help us. It might make you feel better because you drive on veggie. But notice the emphasis on "feel". Make your neighbor your ally.
This thing can only be won together.
As an afterthought to the guys who don't believe (and believe is a word usually tied to a religion) that we have global warming or that cars are a contributing factor. Cool, I accept that. Don't have to believe everything. Critical mind. Cool.
But you can't deny the fact that cars (even with catalytic converters and such) produce a lot of pollution (yes, I know the power plant as well - duhhh) and pollution (wouldn't you agree?) is pretty bad for you and your family. So, we should all actively reduce pollution. Drive less, drive a smaller car, use veggie etc. Ahh you smoke? Guess, I wasted a good argument on someone who dies soon anyway.
Peace!
Edited by 4x4abc 5/17/2007 3:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Maxwell Smart
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: G's and the environment...
The problem is we live in a society where no one wants to be told what to do and we all want to be free to make our own decisions. And this is not something we should take away. So if Mr. X wants to drive his Hummer or his Brabus G V12 then that is his prerogative.
While cars are known to contribute to global warming - the amount that SUVs contribute is relatively small. At the end of the day there are not a lot of Hummers and such on the road. The bigger issue is actually with mid-size cars that the white picket fence family with 2.5 kids own. This is what is responsible for the most amount of pollution in the auto industry. This and the fact that people turn their cars every 2-3 years. Particularly when they get better tax breaks to do so.
I personally will do what I can with veggie oil or what not but I would NEVER tell someone else what to do with their car. Cars are very personal and for many people are extensions of their personality.
If one is really concerned about the pollution they put fourth – then one needs to look at both their home and their business first. Homes cause about 300-400% more pollution than your car. This is fact. It may not be apparent but its there through heat loss, energy waste, sewage, building etc.
If one were to tell someone how to reduce their environmental impact it won’t be through what they drive – it will be by telling them reduce their household consumption and to switch off their lights, switch off their computers/tvs when not in use, install better windows, run their washing machine/dish washer ona full load, use energy efficient appliances, shop locally… and the beauty here and why it should appeal to even the most hard nosed environmental sceptic is that it will save them money.
The proof of this is in the hotel industry. Do you know why more and more hotels are going “green”? It’s because their profits immediately jumped 10-20%!
Cars and more particularly fuel consumption are an easy scapegoat because it is visible and apparent. This is also why SUVs get more flack than more fuel efficient cars that in reality have a larger negative environmental impact.
Sure everyone needs to contribute but they need to do so in a manner which is comfortable to them. And if you tell them “no you can’t drive your G500”, then as Harald points out you will only alienate them and that is not a good thing when we are all in this together.
Small steps….
|
|
| |
|
Merz-Ben
Extreme Veteran
Date registered: Aug 2006
Location: Floyds Knobs, IN 47119
Vehicle(s): 230G, U1200, U1250 DoKa, U1300L, U1500, U1700, 416
Posts: 377
| RE: G's and the environment...
Disclaimer: This is my opinions I have formulated over time, from my scientific and phisics background through education and interaction with scientists and professors. Please don't come after me with an angry mob and burning stakes if you do not agree  .
My opinion of the interaction of the G with the enviornment is that it's impact is minimal compared to many vehicles. In this world of throw away cars that we live in today, the G is one of the few vehicles that does not litter our salvage yards, I would venture to say that a very large percentage of them are still alive and on the road, and that the ones which were parted out or junked were due to rust or accidents. Most other cars built end up thrown away for mechanical failures instead, they were not manufactured to survive 500K KM or beyond. As has already been said, the enviornmental impact of producing a new car is far worse than from the fuel most any G will burn in it's lifetime. Another reason the G is not that bad on the enviornment is that most of us G owners keep our vehicles in tune, thus reducing emmisions although we do burn a little more fuel. That being said, the place where the G hurts the enviornment the most is many times due to the driver, in off road situations where too much throttle and too little technique is used, causing the soil to be disturbed more than nessessary, thus causing erosion to the land.
Now on to generalizations on the enviornment and such, not necessarily related to the G.
For the record, I am not a hater of the enviornment, I believe we need to take care of the earth, in fact, when I was younger I was very interested in the developement of alternative fuels and power sources for vehicles, I built a hydroelectric car and worked on trying to use electrolisis to break hydrogen and oxygen in water and burn it in an internal combustion engine, but my research came to a halt when I came close to ending my life with an experement that went wrong (good thing I had a good shield between me and the explosion).
I don't subscribe to the global warming theroy as it is stated by the media... I'm not saying that there is not a phenominon that is happening to the earth that is warming it, I'm just have been through too many lectures of professors and scientists who were pissed off at the "ignorance" of the general public, the media, and polititions on this so called Global warming. The term Global Warming is used as a scare tactic by the polititions and their paid "scientists" to scare people into voting for some one who will do something about the problem, when they in fact have no intention of doing anything that is not profitable. If you notice, depending on who is in power or upcomming elections makes a huge difference on the threat of Global warming. Now you can't tell me that global warming comes and goes... if it is the problem, wouldn't there be a united front of most of the scientists in the world making a stink about it every day and demanding that something be done, even working to fix the problem? One thing that is extremely flawed about the Global warming theroy as it is presented to the public is the global flooding it is supposed to cause... now that is ignorant, because if (or rather when) the earth heats up and the ice caps melt, then the Ocean level should DROP... if you don't believe me, get a glass, fill it with ice and water to the brim, and let it sit on the table for an hour or so. The glass didn't run over, did it? NO, it lowered, and the ocean is no different. If anyone thinks that cars are the main cause of any global phenominon they are sadly mistaken, industry and even our houses contribute a lot more. One also has to factor in that any planet will, over time, heat up due to the expansion of the sun throughout its life until the sun finally consumes the inner planets, so if humans weren't on earth, there would still be eventual global warming (and global burning). And let's not forget that at times in the earths history before humans that there is concrete evidence that the earth was both hotter and colder than it is today, it's called a climate shift folks, and it also contributes to the earths tempature, among thousands of other factors. I could rant all day on global warming, but I'll leave it at that.
The emissions controls on diesels will be my next rant. I have worked on diesels since I was 7 years old, and I can tell you that many things have changed in diesel technology just in my short life, but I can't for the life of me figure out what this latest wave of diesels is supposed to do to help the enviornment. The new 2007 emissions equipment placed on diesel engines have in effect caused the fuel milage to be almost cut in half... now I have no scientific background on this, but I can't figure out how burning twice as much fuel is going to reduce greenhouse gasses. It also doesn't make since to me why a recent test of a Caterpillar diesel engine that has been on display in the Cat headquarters since 1946 can be given a freshen and run on emission test stand in California and achieve as good of emissions as a current '07/'08 engine that is supposed to be so much greater for the enviornment (information I was given from a Caterpillar associate).
And on to the production of ethonol for use in cars. I don't understand why everyone thinks this is a good Idea... it pollutes more from burning it (higher emissions), takes more fuel to produce the same amount of energy, and causes hardships for the land. The only good thing about it is that it is renewable, but if it pollutes more, then aren't we going backwards? The worst thing is the impact on the earth from over cultivation, did you know that many farmers cleared all kinds of land so that they could plant more corn this year? much of the pasture land and any other avalible land that could be converted was planted (or is being planted as we speak) with corn, not to mention that lots of our clean drinking water will be used to irrigate the corn when summer hits, possibly causing water shortages in the western states of the U.S.
Now again, I am all for helping our enviornment, but I just think we need to find some better ways to go about it. Sorry for the rant, just needed to get some of my enviornmental opinions off of my chest.
Cheers,
Ben
Edited by Merz-Ben 5/17/2007 6:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
Boy G
Expert
Date registered: Feb 2007
Location: Bushveld, South Africa
Vehicle(s): Diesel G's: 617A and 602
Posts: 1683
| Re: G's and the environment...
Thank you for this thread. As Ben points out above, with my views, as with his, you can also choose to take exception or not.
I believe that there is a "collective" morality, a collective opinion, a collective reaction to things and even a collective government (democracy). In fact the human race is notorious for collectively thinking that they are individuals but in fact behave predictably and collectively, like lemmings. So much of our existence is taken up by vast amounts of knowledge and no wisdom, and because we hear things long enough and loud enough doesn't make 'em right.
Since I can remember as a child I have been terrorised by someone telling me something like:
By 1980 - no more oil
By 1997 - no more water in South Africa
In 2000 - Y2K = global meltdown
By 2000 - desertification that includes Johannesburg
By 2005 - 200% increase in skin cancers - change your fridge
Present - All current threats (except I no longer panic)
If we just had the wisdom to see that science has a very poor track record as far as analysing our past and future are concerned. Now that is contentious? PM me for evidence. I will accept all science that is verifiable, experimentable, and, please note repeatable, but I will no longer terrorise my children and myself with pseudo science that demands faith to believe. In stead I will try to raise them to worry about today and put their faith elsewhere.
It is a fact that this planet is groaning under the load - perhaps Harald / someone else will elaborate more about "MORE". What causes it?
In the meantime today I will continue to drive my G and enjoy it, I'll tread softly - and learn from the wise, I'll head for the hills and valleys while I still can, and until our collective mind decides "enough of the "MORE" already".
May wisdom reign.
|
|
| |
|
G350DT
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: G's and the environment...
My G runs on Spotted Owls so I am not warming up anything. |
|
| |
|
discap
Regular
Date registered: Nov 2006
Location: Wichita Kansas
Vehicle(s): 2000 G500
Posts: 63
| Re: G's and the environment...
Make sure that you are not getting all of your info from Al Gore. Did you know that 95% of the "Greenhouse Effect" is from water vapor. The remaining 5% is from Methane, CO2 etc. Of the small amount of greenhouse effect caused by CO2 less than 0.1% is caused by man made CO2. Of that amount only a very small portion is caused by man made CO@ that can be controlled by better car mileage etc. So somewhere around 0.001% of the Greenhouse effect is actually under our control.
The Kyoto guys knew this but they said that some control was better than none. I would argue that 0.001% is no control. Don't get your information from politicians and newspapers |
|
| |
|
roughneck
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: UK, Germany & USA
Vehicle(s): 270 cdi.300 GD 300 GE.lwb 300 GE.swb. Disco 2
Posts: 4398
| Re: G's and the environment...
In the late 70s we had a couple of harsh winters, we were warned of another ice age coming.
I think there is enough oil left in the ground to last me out, and when ever I can I plant a tree.
Lifes to short allready, so just get on with it and quit worrying.  |
|
| |
|
DUTCH
Administrator Doppelgänger
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: US, GA, Atlanta
Vehicle(s): 2015 Audi Q7 3.0 TDI,2018 Sprinter
Posts: 9965
| Re: G's and the environment...
Boy G - 5/17/2007 8:22 AM
If we just had the wisdom to see that science has a very poor track record as far as analysing our past and future are concerned.
They can't even predict the weather two days from now with any real accuracy. How can they tell us what's going to happen even further down the line. |
|
| |
|
G350DT
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: G's and the environment...
Save a tree eat a beaver |
|
| |
|
mb230s
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: SWFL
Vehicle(s): G-less for now, vintage MBs, FJ40
| Re: G's and the environment...
B/c I don't have a wife and kids and usually drive alone - I'm being irresponsible for owning/driving a G as my daily driver? Right....... I think owning 5 cars with very limited purpose is worse on the environment. The actual gas you are burning is such a small part of the pollution associated with a car.
Explain to me again how owning a G55 is worse than your Porsche?
Having said this - I think I'll get a Smart FourTwo cabrio. It would be nice for most of my around-town driving and gets great mileage. It is also small enough I can squeeze it into my garage. Can't do that with any other car on the market.
Edited by mb230s 5/17/2007 11:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Maxwell Smart
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: G's and the environment...
DUTCH - 5/17/2007 4:02 PM
Boy G - 5/17/2007 8:22 AM
If we just had the wisdom to see that science has a very poor track record as far as analysing our past and future are concerned.
They can't even predict the weather two days from know with any real accuracy. How can they tell us what's going to happen even further down the line.
Basic trend analysis shows that its easier to predict long term than short term. Short term has to do with minute variations but all these variations may still be moving a trend line in one direction or another.
Its the same premise on why trading the stockmarkets short term is more risky than trading longterm. |
|
| |
|
jcaine
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: G's and the environment...
While I'm reading some thoughtful insight here, the prevailing attitude is " well other things and people are causing more damage than me so why should I do anything until they do?" Personally, I don't cotton to that. I'm no preacher and I'm not telling anyone what to do... Giving my opinion and suggestions on how to change things is not finger pointing or pontificating...
I agree totally that we are in a "more is better" society and I don't necesserily think that in itself is a bad thing... but flagrant waste is never a good thing... and I said Flagrant... leaving a whole house full of lights on when you're not there, yard lights on in the daytime, Idling jets, trucks, etc.,
Heat and air running full blast when no one is there, allowing oil companies, who make $1billion/week profit, get away with more polluting because we NEED more gas and the cost to do it cleaner would be too much on them... what the F?... Why do small and mid sized cars in america get such crappy miliage?... manufacturers can EASILY tune those motors to get better economy but they choose not to...
I never said put less cars on the road... I said make them more fuel efficient, keep them in proper working order, and use them responsibly. I also never said they are the ONLY problem but they are a big one.
I also feel in general that if you are willing to deal with the consquences of your actions, go ahead... get in the football game but don't complain about bruises...
In the meantime if you want to make a difference there are some real EASY ways to do it... here are some:
Use flourescent light bulbs
Turn down the heat and up the air
Insulate
use timers and motion switches for your lights
turn off your monitor and/or set your computer to "rest" when not in use
Use solar yard lights, gate openers, pool heater, hot water heaters... (all easy and inexpensive)
Use salt for your pool instead of chlorine... works great.
recycle carefully
Use alt fuel for heating and driving, motor sports, and recreation
Try to bring your work and home closer... I did years ago and it changed my life tremendously for the btter in many ways...
All easy affordable and would little to know negative impact on lifestyle... Just a few things that if everybody did, would make a huge difference... fact if everyone in the us used just one compact florescent bulb it would mitigate the effect of 2MILLION cars on the road...
Again, I'm no hater of lifestyle... I live large... mutiple houses, cars, animals, etc... I just try to do the best I can and for me, a life long lover of all things motor, it means being a little more considerate , practical, and responsible with the way I use my vehicles...
If you feel persecuted, alianated, judged, or whatever else by this, soory. Not my intention... just saying how I feel and then trying to walk the walk... If you want to try , great... if not, do you and live with it.
|
|
| |
|
jcaine
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: G's and the environment...
The former will be my last post on this subject... seems the subject is a bit too inflamitory...
Anyone wishing to have constructive dialouge on this subject can pm me any time...
Respectfully
J Caine |
|
| |
|
rstl99
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: G's and the environment...
syncro
Another is to consider the "cradle to grave" cost of your vehicle. From what I understand, the environmental cost of making a new vehicle outweighs the cost of operation. So anyone who can make their car last for hundreds of thousands of miles would end up ahead of the game.
Very interesting and pertinent thread. I won't get into the "is climate change real?" tangent, but just speak a bit about the point raised by Syncro (cradle to grave).
Back in the days when I (briefly) owned a VW Type 2 Camper-van, I enjoyed reading the "sermons" of Bob Hoover, a sort of VW guru. He used to talk about a concept of the "Forever Car", a vehicle that was designed for long life due to its simplicity, durability, user-maintainability, parts availability, etc. He obviously made a case for the air-cooled VW bus as being one of these Forever Cars, that in the hands of a caring, responsible owner, could potentially last almost forever (well, a couple of decades anyway).
The 1982 Benz diesel sedan (240D) I own can certainly be put in that category of "forever car", and barring accidents, could probably last me another 10-15 years (maybe more) with proper maintenance and care. I see the G-wagen also being in that category, especially the older, simpler 460 series (as are the older Series Land-Rovers and Land-Cruiser 4x4's).
As good as the 240D is, it can't allow me to haul much stuff, and also can't as easily allow me to confidently explore roads "off the beaten path", hence my intent to acquire a diesel 460 or 463 for those purposes.
So in my view, and expanding on Syncro's comment about the environmental costs of manufacturing a car (and replacement parts), a reliable, durable vehicle like the G *is* in its own way, from a long-term perspective, contributing positively to being environmentally responsible. |
|
| |
|
ewalberg
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: Past: San Francisco. Present: Germany
Vehicle(s): 2000 g500
Posts: 1887
| Re: G's and the environment...
I heard an statement that was interesting... that because the H2 is really a basic low tech vehicle, it's overall less total resources consumed during it's lifetime from materials used, assembly etcetera all the way through fuel consumed than a Toyota Prius. Ultimately it wouldn't surprise me. Technology for it's own sake doesn't bring increased efficiency. Ultimately that's one of the things i hang my hat on with the lotus i bought. It's ultimately a really simple car... costly in dollars to some degree, and not that efficient, but at 30mpg and 1900 lbs it may be a status car car to some degree but it's ironically if not hilariously simple... it's pretty efficient... accept body work... darnit!
If you drive a g-wagen for 300k miles i'd say you've done a pretty good job of being efficient with resources becuase the cost of 3 new vehicles in overall resources has got to be worse. That said, if you're an individual that runs through cars like water changing every 40k miles i think you should be willing to accept that it doesn't matter what car you buy, you're being wasteful unless there's some really extenuating circumstances. If they're always used cars... well, you're not so stongly to new materials usage, but ultimately how long you keep your cars plays into the issue. Owning too many cars you could also argue is waste just because they're (almost always) losing value as they age rather than being kept in service.
The US has been bizarrely resistent to accept global climate issues that have been widely accepted throughout the rest of the industrialized world. I haven't paid much attention to the debate, but if it's one thing i trust its that our media supports business in the long term. Sure you have a scandal here or there. Big company corruption story or a politition getting a blow job or gross abuses of political power but at the end of the day, our media keeps serves american business interests very, VERY well. Pinching down on people for global warming is bad for business. I think it's hard to believe we're not having a big impact on our environment in one way or another... are cars the real problem? I obviously don't know. But whatever the scale of the climate issue... as it was said, trends are most easily established with long term data... as time passes, rest assured, well know the state of affair if it is a real problem... and then it may be too late. So the next question is would it be appropriate (or so bad) to be proactive? |
|
| |
|
folidol
Veteran
Date registered: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Vehicle(s): Bombardier subway car
Posts: 151
| Re: G's and the environment...
discap - 5/18/2007 8:56 AM
Make sure that you are not getting all of your info from Al Gore. Did you know that 95% of the "Greenhouse Effect" is from water vapor. The remaining 5% is from Methane, CO2 etc. Of the small amount of greenhouse effect caused by CO2 less than 0.1% is caused by man made CO2. Of that amount only a very small portion is caused by man made CO@ that can be controlled by better car mileage etc. So somewhere around 0.001% of the Greenhouse effect is actually under our control.
The Kyoto guys knew this but they said that some control was better than none. I would argue that 0.001% is no control. Don't get your information from politicians and newspapers
I find your numbers pretty intriguing, if they are in fact true and can be accounted for. I would like to ask you: Can you cite the sources on which your statement is based? |
|
| |
|
G350DT
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: G's and the environment...
The earth naturally heats up and cools off. We are in the warming phase.
We can not stop it maybe slow it down by say a week over the next 100,000 years.
Mind you they say that if enough fresh water gets into the Atlantic then the golf stream will shut down and we will have a mini ice age. Hrmm happened before.
I heat my house on used veggie oil. Not to help with the global warming BS but to save money from Exxon.
99% of all things that have ever lived on earth have died off. It is probably about our time. People forget there are some things that they can not stop.
Life is 100% terminal, no one has beat it yet |
|
| |
