I'm not a tree hugger. But i have experienced the air in Africa and believe me, breathing African air is very different from the air in Europe and in the USA. Not surprised that Africa is deemed the 'cleanest air breathing space' in the world because there is no such thing as pollution, particularly in Southern Africa.

This poll, however, is about who cares about emissions and the sacrifice UK and European customers have made in a power output decrease to meet EU pollution CO2 emmissions standards.

Do you really care?

Originally posted by ed hall
This poll, however, is about who cares about emissions and the sacrifice UK and European customers have made in a power output decrease to meet EU pollution CO2 emmissions standards.

Do you really care?

I don't believe automobile CO2 emissions are regulated - it's not a pollutant per se like carbon monoxide or oxides of nitrogen, it's just a greenhouse gas. There are no EU CO2 emissions pollution standards for automobiles. A theoretical perfectly clean, zero emissions internal combustion engine would have two components to the exhaust - H2O and CO2. CO2 is produced in proportion to the volume of fuel/air combusted - the only way to reduce CO2 is to burn less fuel. In the UK, CO2 emissions aren't regulated like other auto emissions, they're taxed. If you drive a big car that gets poor mileage and has corresponding high CO2 output, you pay a lot more in tax.

Also - CO2 will have absolutely zero effect on the quality of air. In fact, non-CO2 emissions from the diesel engines that Europeans are turning to will have more negative effect, even if they do produce less CO2 simply by virtue of being more efficient with fuel.

Since I personally don't believe in global warming resulting from CO2 emissions (it's a shaky theory based on bad scientific assumptions and very poor scientific analysis), I do not care about CO2 emissions by themselves.

Regards,
Gordon

I thought the air quality was really bad in parts of the US where theres just lot of traffic and industrial areas. I mean I've been to the mountains far from the big cities and suburbs. And the air up there felt and smelled pretty clean. I really can't imagine air being that much cleaner from the very little populated areas in the US.

Talk about polluted air. I know that LA is not the smogiest city in the US anymore but still the air feels so thick. And the garbage smell eeee-yuck pahtooy pahtooy. But NY NY stinks even more so.

And CO2 is regulated here in california. I know because I had a smog check for my car about 4 months ago. There were three pollutants they were checking during the smog check I forgot the other two but I know the third one was CO2. While I passed the first two way below the regulated minimum, but the CO2 emmissions were slightly higher than average.

Originally posted by Y&Y
IAnd CO2 is regulated here in california. I know because I had a smog check for my car about 4 months ago. There were three pollutants they were checking during the smog check I forgot the other two but I know the third one was CO2. While I passed the first two way below the regulated minimum, but the CO2 emmissions were slightly higher than average.

Nope, it can't be regulated, or SUVs would not exist in CA! The emissions checked are NOX (oxides of nitrogen), HCO (hydrocarbons), and CO (carbon monoxide, not CO2 carbon dioxide). I suspect you're confusing their CO check with CO2.

Regards,
Gordon

Gord96BRG,

Come to think of it you may be right about not being able to regulate CO2. I just looked at my smog check results papers.

Just checked out a couple of websites. And it seems that the more water and CO2 comes out of the exhaust pipe the better the emmissions are.

i care about pollution too, but what really has to be assessed is the cost of polluting less (in terms of our enjoyment of the drive, the cost of the equipment, etc) versus the benefit of polluting less... i'm sure that i'd NEVER think about driving a street car that wouldn't pass an emissions test at any given time (ie swap out cats), but i also think that if i could get my car to some really incredible performance numbers while remaining emissions legal, it should be my perogative to do so... sucks to CO2 emissions, that's why we have bajillions of trees in Canada, other than to produce lumber cheaply.

Originally posted by wakeech
i care about pollution too, but what really has to be assessed is the cost of polluting less (in terms of our enjoyment of the drive, the cost of the equipment, etc) versus the benefit of polluting less... i'm sure that i'd NEVER think about driving a street car that wouldn't pass an emissions test at any given time (ie swap out cats), but i also think that if i could get my car to some really incredible performance numbers while remaining emissions legal, it should be my perogative to do so... sucks to CO2 emissions, that's why we have bajillions of trees in Canada, other than to produce lumber cheaply.

A trade off between levels of polution reduction and the associated economic costs is only good if the levels of pollution we produce is at or below what the environment can absorb on a continuous basis. The rub is there is no agreement on the threshold. There probably will never be since the policy makers (95% attorneys) understand science at maybe a third grade level.

The other problem is there are many people that simply don't care about the future and live for the day. Damned their descendants. These are the people that yank their catalytic converter to gain 4 hp but now spit out 10 times the pollutants.

On the flip side are the people that eschew all emissions and do not believe that the earth can absorb any pollutants. Kind of like Ted Kozinski.

We need more people in the middle. Dammit!

Personally, it is an issue to me. However, I'm not going to be a wacko and decide to get rid of my car and take a bicycle everywhere. For me, its one of the factors I consider when buying a car (i.e. comparing "polluting" emissons and greenhouse gasses - i.e. CO2). In my idealistic world, most people would think like me and the market would recognize it and produce cleaner vehicles. Of course, with european taxes on CO2, the market does recognize it there.

I am not a tree-hugger persey, but I do try to make changes in my lifestyle to accomodate environmental friendlyness.

This is a reason I also told my cousin (which he took my advice on) to buy a Volvo XC90 SUV. He was looking at the BMW which had less room, less 'utility' (the U in the SUV hehe), and a better price tag. 90% of the entire vehicle can be recycled, as well as it being much less pollutive than other CARS, nevermind SUVs.

The RENESIS meets ULEV-2 California emissions standards, and those are the toughest in the world to pass. Thus I feel I'm making an environmentally sound decision. I mean... it is a sports car after all and I wouldn't want to get the most economic one... where's the fun!?! :)

I think it's important to plan for the future and make little sacrifices wherever you can. It can do a *world* of good :)

... and i want the world to still be around (not square), nice and clean, for my childen to fly around in their hover cars!

;) :D

Hey, I want to be around for that too! (I'm trying to talk my 5 year old daughter into saving up for a Moller Skycar ... which we saw at last year's Texas State Fair - she was torn between that and a new beetle convertible, but now one of her friend's mom just got a BMW convertible and that's wat she wants - kids today, who can figure them out ...)

:p

My daughter will be lucky if I'm going to be willing to give up my "classic" RX-8 for her in 11 years when she turns 16...

I really hate to sound like a heretic here, but there is one tiny tidbit of information that people always tend to leave out when discussing global warming, green house effect etc... It is the fact that these terms are based on theories not facts. Believe it or not, the environmental changes we have seen throughout the latter part of last century are nothing special, when compared to prehistoric climatic changes.

Moreover, a Danish scientist called Henrik Svensmark has proven an "alarming" corelation between incomming cosmic (or galactic) radiation and climatic changes.
In periods with little solar activity (can be monitored by simply counting sun spots), more cosmic radiation will bombard the earth's atmosphere than when the sun is very active. Cosmic radiation is the main ingredient in the production of carbon 14, which is how we know the amount of cosmic radiation that has hit our atmosphere through the past millenia.
During the period known as Maunder Minimun (or "little iceage") from 1645-1715 practically no sunspots were recorded and a lot of carbon 14 was deposited (which equals high levels of cosmic radiation) and guess what: "little iceage" was actually pretty cold!

Svensmark estimates human influence on the planetary climatic changes at a staggering 0,5%...

Just a bit of food for thought :D

Cheers

Eske

Originally posted by babylou


A trade off between levels of polution reduction and the associated economic costs is only good if the levels of pollution we produce is at or below what the environment can absorb on a continuous basis. The rub is there is no agreement on the threshold. There probably will never be since the policy makers (95% attorneys) understand science at maybe a third grade level.


I would contend that there are also a certain number of scientists who understand science at little more than a third grade level. I agree with Gord96BRG when he talks about global warming being a "shaky theory based on bad scientific assumptions and very poor scientific analysis." There are bad scientists, just as there are bad doctors and crummy lawyers. Just because a large body of the scientific community has bought into this global warming nonsense doesn't make it true.

I find it absurd that any scientist worth their salt can contend with a straight face that global temperatures have risen (by how ever much they say they have risen) over the last 100 years. For crying out loud, how friggin' accurate was temperature monitoring and recording 100 years ago?!!??

It is a big damned leap to make the jump from the obviously damaging local effects of automotive engines of 30 years ago to saying with any certainty that our actions are causing a supposed increase in global temperatures.

Just like babylou said, we need more people in the middle, dammit.

Originally posted by wakeech
i care about pollution too, but what really has to be assessed is the cost of polluting less versus the benefit of polluting less...

That is something that really needs to be assessed in terms of the upcoming "zero emissions" hydrogen cars. Sure the cars themselves make no emissions, but what about making the hydrogen? Using electrolysis to make hydrogen from water requires power, which in many cases comes from ... can you guess? Fossil fuels. And using those pollutes anyway. So whatever you would gain from hydrogen powered cars you would lose from creating the hydrogen, unless alternative power sources were found (e.g. those giant windmill things in Denmark(?), or the greenhouse in Australia (anyone know the website?) that creates energy via giant turbines). My point is hydrogen powered cars *can* be as polluting as normal ones depending on how power is produced. I think there should be more investigation into how to make hydrogen without polluting before making hydrogen cars. What do you all think?

my take on global warming:

on one hand, I think we might be making a mountain out of a molehill. I mean, we're coming out of an ice-age--the temperature is SUPPOSED to be rising. But at the same time, I'm worried about the holes in the ozone, or environmental indicators like the fact that only female alligators are being born (or was it males?). It doesn't sound like much, I know, but little things like that add up. Case in point--A woman in Great Britain has recorded when her flowers have started blooming--since she began, they've opened more than 50 days earlier in the year. What does that mean for other plants? For farmers? For food supply? If it's natural, fine. But if not, then what?

An increase of .5% in temperature can mean a big difference for a lot of species, and I think we should be wary of writing of global warming as a hoax too quickly. I mean, carbon (mono/dio?)xide concentrations are the highest they've been in 400000 years. Maybe it's natural, but then again, maybe we're causing it. Certainly, corellation does not equal causation--but what if global warming is our fault? If so, it is most certainly cause for concern.

Just my 2c. :)

Originally posted by vipeRX7


That is something that really needs to be assessed in terms of the upcoming "zero emissions" hydrogen cars. Sure the cars themselves make no emissions, but what about making the hydrogen? Using electrolysis to make hydrogen from water requires power, which in many cases comes from ... can you guess? Fossil fuels. And using those pollutes anyway. So whatever you would gain from hydrogen powered cars you would lose from creating the hydrogen, unless alternative power sources were found (e.g. those giant windmill things in Denmark(?), or the greenhouse in Australia (anyone know the website?) that creates energy via giant turbines). My point is hydrogen powered cars *can* be as polluting as normal ones depending on how power is produced. I think there should be more investigation into how to make hydrogen without polluting before making hydrogen cars. What do you all think?

Yep. Exactly the same argument for all those morons who thought that electric cars would be the answer. Well, geez, over 50% of the electrical power produced in the U.S. comes from coal fired generating stations. Uh, so we can just centralize our pollution sources, and that's better right? You never get something for nothing.

My point is not that we can't or shouldn't strive to get cleaner. I am just ranting about how easily popular theories can be so misleading or just plain wrong. The problem is that pandering to these theories wastes time and money that could be better spent on real problems. I mean it was only 10-15 years ago people thought that electrical cars were the way to go...

Things would be different if I were king... :p :p

Originally posted by vipeRX7
my take on global warming:

on one hand, I think we might be making a mountain out of a molehill. I mean, we're coming out of an ice-age--the temperature is SUPPOSED to be rising. But at the same time, I'm worried about the holes in the ozone, or environmental indicators like the fact that only female alligators are being born (or was it males?). It doesn't sound like much, I know, but little things like that add up. Case in point--A woman in Great Britain has recorded when her flowers have started blooming--since she began, they've opened more than 50 days earlier in the year. What does that mean for other plants? For farmers? For food supply? If it's natural, fine. But if not, then what?

An increase of .5% in temperature can mean a big difference for a lot of species, and I think we should be wary of writing of global warming as a hoax too quickly. I mean, carbon (mono/dio?)xide concentrations are the highest they've been in 400000 years. Maybe it's natural, but then again, maybe we're causing it. Certainly, corellation does not equal causation--but what if global warming is our fault? If so, it is most certainly cause for concern.

Just my 2c. :)

You see, vipe, now YOU are doing it. How the h#$% does anybody know that any of these incidents has any significance whatsoever? OK, a .5% increase in global temperature means a big difference for alot of species... but scientists are claiming that we have had more than that over the last century.

Yesterday my nose was 13% itchier than it ever has been in my entire life. I WANT AN EXPLANATION DAMMIT! Lets spend millions to find out!

Anyway, I sometimes like to get a little out of control on these things: its not a personal attack. :D I just get frustrated a bit, because I think that the big thing that people forget is that now, more than ever, we have so much information, and we are bombarded with it so quickly, that truly we as a population (and frankly "they" as scientists) have literally NO ability to filter out and assess the significant from the insignificant. So unfortunately, EVERYTHING is being treated as significant, whereas even 30 years ago nobody would have even known three quarters of this stuff was happening...

So, while our ability to gather and disseminate information has increased at a phenomenal rate, clearly our ability to discard the insignificant has not.

You have to distinguish between pollutants and CO2.

As for pollutants I actually don't actually care whether or not the RX-8 meets the very latest emission regulations. Thats not an answer I would have given ten years ago, but the limits for C0, NOx and hydrocarbons have been reduced by so much in recent years that there is no evidence that the tiny amounts emitted by modern petrol cars meeting say Euro 3 pose any harm to human health. The only pollutants where there is hard evidence are particulates from diesels, where we still need to make improvements. I think this drive to put out ever more miniscule amounts of polutants has now become a huge waste of effort. It also has knock-on effects which make vehicles less fuel efficient, and thus they put out more CO2. If I could I would have an RX-8 to Euro 3 spec and 250ps instead of the Euro 4 231ps model, and I wouldn't feel at all guilty about it (it would still put out about a half to a quarter of the polutants of my currrent vehicle).

CO2 is a different matter. I don't know whether global warming is genuine but it sounds plausible and it can't be a good thing to be pumping out ever increasing amounts of CO2. And even if there is a small chance that it is true, surely we have to do something? Besides, fosil fuel won't last forever. We need to make sure we don't waste it to give us time to develop viable alternatives.

So why am I buying a car that does 20mpg? The only answer I can come up with is that I only do about 8000 miles a year so I'm putting out less CO2 than a diesel owner who does 25000. Not a great answer, but it's the best I can come up with.

As for pollutants I actually don't actually care whether or not the RX-8 meets the very latest emission regulations. Thats not an answer I would have given ten years ago, but the limits for C0, NOx and hydrocarbons have been reduced by so much in recent years that there is no evidence that the tiny amounts emitted by modern petrol cars meeting say Euro 3 pose any harm to human health. The only pollutants where there is hard evidence are particulates from diesels, where we still need to make improvements. I think this drive to put out ever more miniscule amounts of polutants has now become a huge waste of effort. It also has knock-on effects which make vehicles less fuel efficient, and thus they put out more CO2. If I could I would have an RX-8 to Euro 3 spec and 250ps instead of the Euro 4 231ps model, and I wouldn't feel at all guilty about it (it would still put out about a half to a quarter of the polutants of my currrent vehicle).

ChrisW,

I don't know if you live in the a big city or have to work in a big city. But I commute to work everyday and I have to breathe the filthy air everyday. And if I look up into the morning sky I can see some of the tall buildings and some of the hills around the city. But by mid day I can't see either the buildings and the hills. Also there has been a study that children living in the big cities tend to develop asthma and allergies due to the air pollution more so than those who lives in the suburbs away from the big cities. I know for a fact that cars create about 50-60% of pollution and the factories makes about 40-50% of it. I know the tree huggers are trying their best to reduce pollution caused by cars and factories. But I believe its easier to reduce pollutions caused by cars than factories. So reducing that every bit of pollutants is very important. If we stop trying to get rid of even the smallest of pollutants. Then what are we going to do with the big ones?

But with global warming I don't believe we're doing that big of an impact. Yet the depletion of the ozone layer worries me to sh*tz.:(

Originally posted by Y&Y
I know for a fact that cars create about 50-60% of pollution and the factories makes about 40-50% of it.(

You have to further distinguish between new cars and older cars (and note that new trucks and SUVs have less strict emissions standards than new cars :mad: ). Saab has demonstrated on several occasions that they can pipe in grossly polluted exhaust from an old '60s 2 stroke Saab into the intake pipe of a new Saab, and the exhaust coming out of the new Saab is still within the current tiny limits. In fact, in a city like LA on a high-pollution level day, the air coming out of the exhaust pipe of the latest LEV and ULEV cars is cleaner than the air going IN the engine intake!!! Yup, the cars are actually cleaning the air as they drive. It's the truth!

But - how many of the cars on the road are new enough that they were built to the microscopic emission standards allowed since the mid-90s? A beater V8 from the 70s is putting out about 100x the emissions of a new car. If California was serious about reducing vehicle emissions, it would be far cheaper (and far, far more effective) to replace every beater on the California roads with a new Saturn etc. than to pursue stupid electric vehicle dead-ends. Hell, even gas-powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers put out far more emissions than current model cars!!!

Current emissions-compliant new cars are NOT a problem anymore. Most of their miniscule emissions occur at start-up in the few minutes before the catalytic converter reaches operating temperature - a warmed up internal combustion engine in a current emissions-compliant new car is pretty much a zero emissions vehicle.

Regards,
Gordon

You know, the area I live in now used to be covered by a big glacier. How big? I mean REALLY big. Some geologists estimate it may have been a mile thick at one time. Can you imagine that????? A chunk of ice a mile thick covering the ground?

So, where is it now?

It disappeared at least 10,000 years ago. Why? The world got warmer. It all melted and flowed away into the Columbia River and then the Pacific ocean.

Must've been all them damned cave men and their camp fires! All that CO2 released into the atmosphere warmed the planet and melted the glaciers, so I was deprived of seeing wonderful animals like wooly mammoths, sabre tooth cats, giant sloths, giant armadillos and beavers the size of black bears.

I know. Let's sue the decendants of the the cave men for depriving us of such wonderful flora and fauna!

Regarding automotive pollution in general, according to the National Academy of Sciences, 10% of the national automotive fleet produces 50% of pollution. These are usually older vehicles. See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309074460?OpenDocument

Newer LEV vehicles (of which the RX-8 is one) produce only tiny amounts of pollution releative to many older cars still on the road. In fact the RX-8 meets tough new US LEV-II and Euro 4 emission standards.

If you want to reduce automotive pollution, the best thing you can do is get rid of your old car and buy a new LEV, ULEV or SULEV vehicle. If the people driving the oldest, dirtiest 10% of cars did that, overnight total automotive pollution would drop by half or more.

The above is for true automotive pollution such as NOx, SOx, etc. Whether CO2 is pollution is highly debatable.

Here's a good article on automotive CO2 "pollution":

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=2502&page_number=1