Warm and Toasty

[Greji]

[Tsuru]

What is the point of these kind of articles?

That the Kyoto protocol is a load of bollocks doesn't mean America and it's cheap gasoline economy aren't in a lot of trouble. I think everybody on this board knows how wasteful Japanese can be... to put that in perspective: they and the Europeans are only using half as much crude oil per capita as the average American.

Personally I don't care too much about global warming as a single volcano eruption brings more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever could. But what I am concerned about is the amount of oil left and the rate at which we are using it.

Interesting read about oil in an aviation perspective: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180027

[Charles]

Junk Science.com

Well, at least the site is named appropriately, the "science" he uses to "debunk" various subjects is pure junk. The author is a hyper-conservative from the CATO Institute and is solely devoted to pushing his political agenda with misleading and blatantly erroneous logic. I look forward to Steven Milloy's vigorous support of cutting edge scientific theories, like the Flat Earth, parthenogenesis, and phlogiston.

[jingai]

Please verify your sources before you post utter nonsense here. Find me anyone reputable (scientist, academic, etc) who thinks this has any merit whatsoever. Steven Milloy used to work for the tobacco industry talking about how the cancer risk was totally unfounded. Very impressive record...

Please move this to Political Erections where it belongs as it is not news, it is a polemic.

Personally I don't care too much about global warming as a single volcano eruption brings more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever could.

That simply isn't correct. We put out way more additonal CO2 than any natural process, volcanoes included.

If you are actually curious about the science of global warming visit http://www.realclimate.org to see what working climate scientists have to say. If you are interested in the politics, let me know what aspect and I'll find an interesting link.

[Big Booger]

What is the point of these kind of articles?

That the Kyoto protocol is a load of bollocks doesn't mean America and it's cheap gasoline economy aren't in a lot of trouble. I think everybody on this board knows how wasteful Japanese can be... to put that in perspective: they and the Europeans are only using half as much crude oil per capita as the average American.

Personally I don't care too much about global warming as a single volcano eruption brings more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever could. But what I am concerned about is the amount of oil left and the rate at which we are using it.

Interesting read about oil in an aviation perspective: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180027

EUROPE (the Ural Mountains in Russia form the boundary between Europe and Asia) 9,938,000
NORTH AMERICA (includes Central America and the
Caribbean) 24,474,000

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001763.html

Comparing land areas alone you can see why the Average North American might use up more petrol. Also considering the culture, preferred mode of transportation, and the way cities and so on are designed, well these all account for the differences.

And then look at your example: JAPAN + EUROPE are only using half the amount of the united states. Japan is 1/25 the size of the US, with a population HALF that of the United States and yet, if the figures are 50/50 proportionate between Japan and Europe, then Japan, a country 1/25 the ize of the United States, and with a population 1/2 the size is using 1/4 the amount of petrol of a country that is double the size in population, and 25 times the size in land area.... mmmm

What does that say about Japan??? LOL

And I'd like to see the figures where it states that Japan and Europe use half the amount of petrol that the USA does...

[Tsuru]

It's all in the link I posted

You are confusing the TOTAL amount of petrol used with the amount used PER CAPITA... land size only matters if you consider the amount of patrol someone uses up by going to work, and find a correlation between land area and commuter trips. Because I think this is rather due to the fact most Japanese use a train to go to work, and not a car... Europe is somewhere between the two in that aspect, and even still there are the subtle differences between European, Japanese and American cars. For example: A 2,5 litre V6 engine is considered huge by most people I know.

And by the way: USA =/= North America

[Big Booger]

[Tsuru]

Oh yes, how silly of me... if China is left out of the equation then obviously it can't possibly be a valid observation of any economic issue. Maybe I wanted to leave all the talking about China up to other people than me because I am tired of hearing about it.

However, I still fail to see how land area in general is a factor in the most petrol-consuming form of transportation. Someone who lives in Los Angeles doesn't usually drive all the way Denver to work everyday does he? Just as someone who lives in London doesn't drive to Rome for work. Yet, I still think there is bit of a difference between a 1,8l Toyota and a 3,5l Ford Explorer. I even think the EU and the US are quite similar in the way people and goods are transported, as they both have an incredibly busy airspace and people love their cars. Also, I believe most of the cargo in Europe is still distributed by truck, even over long distances, as opposed to the US where most of the long-distance freight is handled by trains.

So although the US and the EU are not the same in land area, you can't say this accounts for most of the difference in oil usage.

Let me but it this way for you: land size is a factor, but use of inefficient cars for day-to-day transport of people is a bigger factor. And more importantly: the latter you can change. And I see we both agree the best solution for this is rising prices for petrol.

But you are incorrect in saying the few exclusive V10 and V12 cars made in Italy (and Germany ) weigh up to the abundant 4,7l V8 in the US. I'd very much like to see a trustworthy survey where engine capacity and petrol usage per car in the US, the EU and Japan is compared, but I think that no matter what there is no denying that there are on average HEAVIER cars with BIGGER engines using MORE fuel in the US than there are in Europe. And that is exactly my point.

And India! What about India!? You forgot to mention India!

[Big Booger]

Oh yes, how silly of me... if China is left out of the equation then obviously it can't possibly be a valid observation of any economic issue. Maybe I wanted to leave all the talking about China up to other people than me because I am tired of hearing about it.

However, I still fail to see how land area in general is a factor in the most petrol-consuming form of transportation. Someone who lives in Los Angeles doesn't usually drive all the way Denver to work everyday does he? Just as someone who lives in London doesn't drive to Rome for work. Yet, I still think there is bit of a difference between a 1,8l Toyota and a 3,5l Ford Explorer. I even think the EU and the US are quite similar in the way people and goods are transported, as they both have an incredibly busy airspace and people love their cars. Also, I believe most of the cargo in Europe is still distributed by truck, even over long distances, as opposed to the US where most of the long-distance freight is handled by trains.

So although the US and the EU are not the same in land area, you can't say this accounts for most of the difference in oil usage.

Let me but it this way for you: land size is a factor, but use of inefficient cars for day-to-day transport of people is a bigger factor. And more importantly: the latter you can change. And I see we both agree the best solution for this is rising prices for petrol.

But you are incorrect in saying the few exclusive V10 and V12 cars made in Italy (and Germany ) weigh up to the abundant 4,7l V8 in the US. I'd very much like to see a trustworthy survey where engine capacity and petrol usage per car in the US, the EU and Japan is compared, but I think that no matter what there is no denying that there are on average HEAVIER cars with BIGGER engines using MORE fuel in the US than there are in Europe. And that is exactly my point.

Land size matters whether you see it or not. And more importantly is the Clustering I mentioned earlier in a previous post. Europe and Japan are clustered. The distance between someone's home and work should be farther on average for an American than say a European or Japanese... Obviously not everyone lives in a large city like Los Angeles....

And not just commuting, I am talking long haul transport, say from NY to California.. it's a long drive. And in the US, due to the absence of freight trains, trucking makes up the difference. That uses astronomical ammounts of diesel and petrol.

How many trucks operate in the U.S.?
Estimates of 15.5 million trucks operate in the U.S.. Of this figure 1.9 million are tractor trailers.

http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm#Size%20Stats

How much fuel does the trucking industry consume?
The trucking industry accounts for 12.8% of all the fuel purchased in the U.S. Compared to automobiles and light vehicles accounted for 63% of the fuel purchased.

12.8% is quite a bit when you consider that Japan uses about 25% of the total of the US *using your stats. so the trucking industry plays a role in consumption as well.

But the overwhelming use is in cars and light vehicles...

And then you say well the US should have more public transportation like trains and buses. I totally agree. I think the US should employ an extensive public transportation network, buses, trains, and the like should be developed in every city over 100,000 people. But cars beat out the train culture 50-60 years ago. A shame really. Perhaps one day there will be a return to the communal commuter in the states.


I was taking a pop shot with the V10s and V12s.. I know they make up less than a percent of a percent...

ANd I fully well know that the days of a V8 being standard are marked... I know American's need far less power and thus will consume far less fuel due to a smaller engine size. And I do believe we are seeing a downsize in that area... Ford specifically has made decreases... from say 5.0 litres to 4.6 in the Mustang as one example. Which by the way caused a major stir.... but that is for another forum.

I know that differing methods of transportation make up a large portion of the fuel consumption used by the countries. It's just you cannot totally ignore the fact that country A is 25 times the size of a country B and so on.

I think there are lots of different things that play a factor in consumption of oil...

Prices are the end all of end alls and when it goes up, Americans will be forced to make changes. As they should.

I do believe totally that SUVs greater than V6, and over 3500 shouldn't be produced... there is no reason at all to make a V8 powered car.. other than for commerical applications.

I'd very much like to see a trustworthy survey where engine capacity and petrol usage per car in the US, the EU and Japan is compared.

I too would like to see such a survey or research statistic.


I enjoyed skimming through this article:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=679743

Perhaps you will as well.

[Tsuru]

Thanks for the link

Land size matters whether you see it or not. And more importantly is the Clustering I mentioned earlier in a previous post. Europe and Japan are clustered. The distance between someone's home and work should be farther on average for an American than say a European or Japanese... Obviously not everyone lives in a large city like Los Angeles....

I know, but a lot of people do. And still, if you can you don't work 100 miles away f r o m where you live. It's the same thing, no matter if you're in the EU or in the US.

I agree with you that distances to drive in the US are usually greater, but all I'm saying is more and bigger cars in the US make up most of the difference.

[drpepper]

How many miles a day do you think the fedex guy drives a day in Los Angeles compared to one in Tokyo?? I am from LA and I can tell you for a fact the size of the city and how spread out it is makes it impossible not to drive and drive alot. My mother still comutes over 125 miles a day. Anybody in sales or customer service fields will drive a hell of a lot more than that in LA. Trains?? LOL Never work in LA. Take a train get off at stop B and then only have to walk 10 miles to get to work... yeah real practical. Geographical considerations are certainly pertinent.

[jingai]

This comparison is pointless and misses the point.

LA wouldn't exist without the car, so you have it backwards. You don't need a car in LA- LA was made for cars and didn't even have a subway until recently.

America's size actually gives it an advantage over Japan. It makes zero sense to ship freight via rail over short distances because it takes too much time to load and unload it, so trucks work much better. In Japan rail is almost only for passengers and freight goes by truck. In America much more freight goes by rail which is way more climate-friendly, even if passengers go by car. The New England states are working together to improve their rail connections and use more barges as well.

If you look at energy use for corporations in the US and in Japan you will see that Japanese companies are far more efficient. In the US there has been no economic reason and no government pressure to encourage efficiency. The opposite is true in resource-poor Japan where industrial energy demand has stayed flat since the '70s despite the growth.

The Kyoto Protocol is about relative reductions anyway. The US would have to reduce ITS OWN EMISSIONS 6% under ITS OWN EMISSION LEVEL IN 1990 which makes all these international comparisions pointless. If the US wanted to, we certainly could, and states like California, Washington, Oregon, New England and New York are all implementing their own ambitious global warming plans without Washington's help.
For an idea of what that looks like and how to make the reductions, visit http://www.ctclimatechange.com.

[Charles]

...LA wouldn't exist without the car, so you have it backwards. You don't need a car in LA- LA was made for cars and didn't even have a subway until recently...

No. LA was built around light rail and even had a subway back in the 1940s.

[jingai]

The subway opened on November 30, 1925 and cost $1.25 million to build. It was in operation for about 30 years, until June 19, 1955, a victim of the gradual dismantling of the rail system. The Red Cars rolled until 1961.

http://www.westworld.com/~elson/larail/PE/tunnel.html

Decades before Southern California was known for its freeways, it had the largest trolley system in the world -- the Pacific Electric Railway. "The Big Red Cars," as the locals called the trolleys, spanned 1,100 miles throughout Southern California and was the primary means of transportation in the pre-freeway age. Back then, Downtown Los Angeles was a highly active, bustling city center, and a typical street would be indistinguishable from those in New York or Chicago at the time. Downtown was also the hub of the Pacific Electric.

While interesting and I didn't know about this, the point you are trying to make seems to be intentionally misleading as it ignores the massive growth of post-war LA, the city we know today.

My broader point was simply that communities around the country still have the choice whether to abandon their transit systems and grow in a way that is only supportable by cars or to do things differently. If we care about CO2 emissions the answer is obvious.

Perhaps the most important factor in whether transit is successful is the density and design of the urban area it serves. While Bay Area residents like to feel superior to automotive sprawl of Los Angeles, the fact is that is both northern and southern California have many types of neighborhoods, with the primary factor in an area's urban form being the period in which it was developed. Areas that were built before automobile ownership became widespread are more densely populated; both because of taller buildings and because of less space devoted to parking and roads. Not only does higher population density provide more potential transit riders per square mile; it makes walking to and waiting at transit stops more pleasant. Postwar suburban cities put pedestrians between eight lane roads of fast-moving vehicles on one side and acres of desolate parking lots on the other.

A major reason that the Red Line's ridership is as high as it is that it serves the densely populated tenements of Westlake as well as the 1920's pedestrian-oriented commercial district of Hollywood Boulevard. San Francisco's nineteenth century density is reflected in Muni's high ridership statistics, while sprawling Silicon Valley's transit ridership is lower than LA's. Transportation planners understand the connection between land use and transit, which is why two ridership figures were prepared for the proposed San Jose BART extension: one for current land use patterns, and another assuming dense development clustered around stations. Development so dense, in fact, that it would require tripling the office space of downtown San Jose, something never envisioned by San Jose's city planning officials or permitted by the city's zoning documents.

http://www.loudpapermag.com/article.php?id=70

[Charles]

While interesting and I didn't know about this, the point you are trying to make seems to be intentionally misleading as it ignores the massive growth of post-war LA, the city we know today.

You still don't understand the legend of the Red Cars. It is the quintessential LA story.

LA became a megalopolis of suburbs solely because of the light rail lines like the Red Cars. Commuting long distances around the city was cheap and easy, everyone used the light rail system. But after the war, General Motors wanted to sell diesel buses and automobiles so they bought up the rail system and scrapped it.

LA would have had a continuous system of light rail throughout the postwar era unto today, except for GM's monopolistic move to scrap the whole system. Ironically, when the modern light rail system was built throughout the city, they started digging up the streets to lay the tracks and encountered substantial delays due to hitting an unforseen obstacle: Red Car rails buried under the asphalt. Much of the new light rail system takes the exact same routes as old Red Car lines.
The point being, the massive growth of the Los Angeles basin is largely due to the early mass transit systems like the Red Cars. Centers of population and commerce were widely dispersed, united by the rail lines. This left lots of room for expansion within the city itself. When the rail lines were scrapped, it took many years to rebuild the Interstate Highway system along those same lines. Even today some of the planned highways have not been completed, leaving large areas of LA without nearby highway access. The rapid expansion of the LA population occurred despite the automobile, not because of it.

[canman]

Thursday June 30th I fillied up my car at the good old self service sttion and paid 112/lt. The next day on my way to work I drove past the station and they decided a price hike was in order. 124/lt in one frikin day. People in North America would have a heart attack if gas stations raised prices like that. But here its par for the course. Now I know that 112 wasquite low compared to other places but a 12 yen hike in one day!

[Big Booger]

Thanks for the link

Land size matters whether you see it or not. And more importantly is the Clustering I mentioned earlier in a previous post. Europe and Japan are clustered. The distance between someone's home and work should be farther on average for an American than say a European or Japanese... Obviously not everyone lives in a large city like Los Angeles....

I know, but a lot of people do. And still, if you can you don't work 100 miles away f r o m where you live. It's the same thing, no matter if you're in the EU or in the US.

I agree with you that distances to drive in the US are usually greater, but all I'm saying is more and bigger cars in the US make up most of the difference.

I totally concur that the size of car and specifically of the engine per capita makes a huge difference.

I see no reason for an engine larger than a V6 in 50 years. It will be pointless other than for shipping or something of that nature.