[1fastz28]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Hard to believe people can’t grasp mankind plays a part. That’s simple denial to fit the narrative. Now claiming mankind is 100% responsible for climate change is about the same.

Look at it this way. You have a swimming pool in your back yard. Your kid pees in the pool and you are probably still ok to swim in it. If I have entire Chicago beats ream stand around that pool and pee in you probably aren’t going in.

THat being said, transportation accounts for about 30% of the man made part. Going all EV, which might happen around 2050 is only addresses a portion of the problem. No one talks much about the other 70%.



Or this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=ca4ba8b1897e

That’s a good indicator that the declining frequency of disasters is due to the human-side of things.”

Disaster preparedness, in other words, is working remarkably well. “This is evidence that what’s called ‘disaster risk reduction’ works. That’s good news but not unexpected because it’s what societies and governments have been trying to do.”

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Number 3

THat being said, transportation accounts for about 30% of the man made part. Going all EV, which might happen around 2050 is only addresses a portion of the problem. No one talks much about the other 70%.

Of that 30%, what portion is from personal/consumer automobiles, in already pollution regulated first world countries where the focus is most intense? ...break that down and I bet it's less than 3%. Hardly seems worth upending an entire industry, and forcing consumers to acquire products they don't seem to want yet. "Well, we gotta start somewhere!" ...with the highest hanging fruit, apparently.

How much CO2 can be attributed to the coalfire power plants that currently and will eventually provide power for our EV future? How's Germany doing begging for LNG these days?

If reducing carbon emissions is the real objective, flipping the auto industry on it's head seems like a poor place to start. If limiting/controlling a populations mobility and gaming regulations for profit is the objective, then the auto industry seems like a nice fat ox to gore.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Capricio

Of that 30%, what portion is from personal/consumer automobiles, in already pollution regulated first world countries where the focus is most intense? ...break that down and I bet it's less than 3%. Hardly seems worth upending an entire industry, and forcing consumers to acquire products they don't seem to want yet. "Well, we gotta start somewhere!" ...with the highest hanging fruit, apparently.

How much CO2 can be attributed to the coalfire power plants that currently and will eventually provide power for our EV future? How's Germany doing begging for LNG these days?

If reducing carbon emissions is the real objective, flipping the auto industry on it's head seems like a poor place to start. If limiting/controlling a populations mobility and gaming regulations for profit is the objective, then the auto industry seems like a nice fat ox to gore.

Here is what the EPA says which attributes 15% to transportation.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/glo...emissions-data

This breaks it down in more detail hat transportation is 11% personal and the rest shipping and air. Also show residential energy use exceeds transportation by just a bit. Again no one mandating energy efficient heat and A/C or insulation or new windows. The reason is you can’t regulate the people but you can regulate manufacurers. But that’s a different discussion.

And here is a link that shows transportation at almost 30% which is what I recalled.

https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

[laynlo15]

Lots of gas trucks and cars on the lots now also. The manufactures are catching up now and the dealers are loaded to the brim. Pretty much like before Covid. I've driven a couple EV including the new Hummers, geez that thing is huge but who wants to give 125k for a 1000 hp, 10,000 lb behemoth. I guess some do since they are are sold when they finally hit the dealer lots. I have to admit it really hauls ass but you can feel the weight even though its down low, but you feel that weight. I'd drive one of those Blazer EV SS's but would never own one as my daily driver, it would just be a toy to have fun with since they are going to be almost 600 hp. I love my 3.0 diesel Ltz Silverado and my Camaro that runs on corn. Can't ever see just having an EV for my daily.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Hard to believe people can’t grasp mankind plays a part. That’s simple denial to fit the narrative. Now claiming mankind is 100% responsible for climate change is about the same.

Look at it this way. You have a swimming pool in your back yard. Your kid pees in the pool and you are probably still ok to swim in it. If I have entire Chicago beats ream stand around that pool and pee in you probably aren’t going in.

THat being said, transportation accounts for about 30% of the man made part. Going all EV, which might happen around 2050 is only addresses a portion of the problem. No one talks much about the other 70%.



Or this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=ca4ba8b1897e

It's not about an inability to grasp anything. It's about a natural and healthy skepticism about the current situation.

It's demonstrably true that our government lies to us. It's demonstrably true that our government has an agenda. It's clear to anyone who's paying attention that there is a ton of taxpayer money being thrown at 'green' projects. For example, the 'green new deal suddenly becomes the 'inflation reduction act'.

I find it hard to grasp how anyone is willing to accept at face value statements made by people who clearly 'have a dog in the fight'.

When someone who has something to gain makes statements that if believed are going to result in them gaining power or earning profits I am going to be extremely skeptical about anything they say on the subject.

When people start screaming about the next ice age, then change their tune and start screaming about global warming, then change their tune again and start screaming about climate change, I'm skeptical.

When people predict the end of the world by a certain date, then when that date passes and they never explain why things are still moving along fine, instead just pushing back the date when the sky will fall, I'm skeptical.

When a person tells me that cold winters mean we're experiencing climate change, and then claim that hot summers mean we're experiencing climate change, fewer storms - climate change, more storms - climate change. I begin to realize that no matter what happens to the weather they're going to claim it's due to climate change.

When people who claim the ice caps are melting and we're soon going to be treading water buy waterfront property, I conclude they're full of what comes out of the south end of a north bound horse.

Just me. I'm not a meteorologist, but I have several degrees, magna cum laude, and I'm pretty well read. I read things from conservative sources AND liberal sources and reach my own conclusions. For doing that I get called all kinds of names and get my intelligence questioned.

Meanwhile Chicken Little keeps screaming while I see a clear blue sky and a shoreline that is exactly where it was back in the sixties.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by 1fastz28

It's not virtue signaling, that is a poor argument not based in reality.
It sucks for those that live in Florida or that enjoy enthusiast cars but its the reality of business.

Hurricanes that fizz out in the open seas don't count, I guess, so...

if twice as many hurricanes make landfall next year over this year, will that be considered "climate change?" do our CO2 emissions account for steering storms the right right or left, if the same number of storms occur with the same intensity? If one year had twice as much damage, and that's our benchmark for the affects of carbon emissions... a direct correlation... then we also get to say in a year with less storms hitting landfall that all our deprivation was worth it, too, right? ...I like how this works, win/win, for the climate crowd, no matter what happens.

[CHASLT1]

This is just a short 1500 year warming cycle. The planet has heated up and cooled many times over millions of years.

[Alan47717]

Originally Posted by crazedmodder

I agree there shouldn't be any free market manipulation. GM and Dodge should have went away in 2008 along with the Camaro and Challenger.


I'm sad even being sarcastic about that scenario.


To at least keep this a bit on topic, I like EVs and I like ICE, most cars have some cool things about them. I'm genuinely interested to see what GM can do with an EV sedan, they're pretty good at chassis development. Not in love with reusing the Camaro name for a sedan but Ford did worse in my eyes with the Mach-E being an SUV.

Which free market "manipulations" are objectionable to you? You don't like the 2008 federal government interventions, obviously. How about state governments, with federal support, using tax breaks and right to work laws to establish foreign automakers with the ability to build vehicles at half the labor cost of domestic companies?

The federal government allowed some states to supply one segment of companies with loaded assault weapons to go hunting another segment of companies. And after twenty years of the onslaught you are complaining about some loan guarantees (that came with really onerous conditions) to allow some restructuring.

[Wizard1183]

Title is misleading. If real it’d be 2025 since 2024 is last yr of the Camaro.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Alan47717

Which free market "manipulations" are objectionable to you? You don't like the 2008 federal government interventions, obviously. How about state governments, with federal support, using tax breaks and right to work laws to establish foreign automakers with the ability to build vehicles at half the labor cost of domestic companies?

The federal government allowed some states to supply one segment of companies with loaded assault weapons to go hunting another segment of companies. And after twenty years of the onslaught you are complaining about some loan guarantees (that came with really onerous conditions) to allow some restructuring.

Two things.

The Constitution clearly delineates the powers the Federal Government has vs. the powers the States have. The Feds often encroach on State powers, usually through administrative ‘laws’ created by bureaucrats, but it doesn’t ‘allow’ anything.

There are no such things as ‘assault’ weapons. That’s a pure fiction created by politicians who want to restrict and infringe citizens civil rights. If you disagree, please define an assault weapon and give an example.

[Bosse'sBoss]

It's a disgrace that GM is planning to replace the actual outstanding Camaro to become a EV SUV or 4 door sedan. Following a bad example of Ford that used the Mach name for a EV SUV and the Maverick name of their previous car now for a pickup that is very close minded, they should use other names, since are very different vehicles compared to the original vehicle.I don't like EV's but at least the new Dodge Charger would keep the retro design of the original car. Why not going instead toward an hybrid 2 door sport car Camaro like Ford is planning with the future Mustang.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wizard1183

Title is misleading. If real it’d be 2025 since 2024 is last yr of the Camaro.

Even though the ICE Camaro from LGR ends in 2024, the replacement doesn’t come until 2026 as either a 2026 or 2027 MY, depending on month of launch and what GM wants to call it.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Bosse'sBoss

It's a disgrace that GM is planning to replace the actual outstanding Camaro to become a EV SUV or 4 door sedan. Following a bad example of Ford that used the Mach name for a EV SUV and the Maverick name of their previous car now for a pickup that is very close minded, they should use other names, since are very different vehicles compared to the original vehicle.I don't like EV's but at least the new Dodge Charger would keep the retro design of the original car. Why not going instead toward an hybrid 2 door sport car Camaro like Ford is planning with the future Mustang.

Ford has gone very quiet on the idea of a hybrid Mustang. All indications now are that they will keep Coyote in production as long as they can, probably 2025 or 26, then it’s gone. Then they will continue with EcoBoost until they can introduce a BEV Mustang coupe. Probably sometime around 2027-28.

There are new emissions requirements coming in 2027 that might be impacting Ford introducing a hybrid Mustang. I’ll check with our powertrain forecasters and see what they say about it.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

You’re reading my thought balloons. Has anybody looked at weather maps lately? Just asking.

Here.