Hybrid sales up 26% in April

Coincedence?

GM profits fall 90%

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 3 2007, 10:21 PM) [snapback]435201[/snapback]</div>

Wow, excellent, thanks. I see an economist's Ph.D. thesis there, based on the correlation between gas prices and Prius sales, net of trend.

Nice to see the shift in car purchases. Wish it would happen faster.

Now for a tangent. It really needs to start happening faster.

At this point, I'm going to ramble off-topic and talk about global warming. This admittedly has nothing to do directly with your post, but I need the therapy.

This week I ended up re-examining in detail everything I thought I knew about global warming, in response to an article published last week on Counterpunch.org (and, apparently, in The Nation), regarding global warming. I had an exchage of email with the author and (oddly, the wife of) the "expert" who provided the arguments for the article. All I ended up doing was reinforcing how deadly serious a problem this is, how little there is to the arguments that there is no anthopogenic global warming, but mainly, how persistent the global-warming deniers are in their beliefs, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. This was my first personal brush the global-warming denying crowd, and I'm just appalled to find people with advanced academic degrees for whom, as far as I can tell, no amount of evidence or logic or even pointing out clear mistakes of fact will ever make them change their beliefs. It's really been kind of traumatic.

The gist of that article is that there is simple, conclusive proof that man has nothing to do with global warming. All you have to know is that atmospheric C02 didn't fall during the Great Depression. That's it. Boom. End of story. And, further, that people who believe global warming is caused by man are just deluded (I believe the phrase was that they have it "nice person-backwards"). And of course, that any effort to curb GHG emissions is folly, because it's completely unncessary. I read Counterpunch for coverage of Middle East issues (because one of the editors actually lives in Iraq), and they do publish some loony stuff from time to time, but nothing quite as loony as this. The article has since been featured on Rush Limbaugh's website.

So I took it upon myself to send an email, just to correct the most obvious errors in what they said. It didn't take a lot of work, because some of the things they said were just simple errors of fact, and others in essence arithmetic errors, and a few required that you actually knew a tiny little bit about the facts, for example, that there is a small net flow of carbon from the atmosphere into the earth/ocean that equals (at present) an amount that appears to be somewhat over half as large as the amount that mankind emits every year. (The awkward wording there is because that's usually stated incorrectly as "half the carbon we emit each year is absorbed back into the biosphere", which makes it sound like the biosphere is rapidly absorbing the stuff we just emitted, when in fact it's slowly absorbing a small fraction of the total cumulative excess of carbon we've emitted, and that amount at present just happens to equal about half of what we currently emit in a year.)

Anyway, even for the clear, simple errors of fact, I got no acknowledgement that there was any error. For example, the article mocks climate models because, in part, they "completely ignore" water vapor. Well, you know, that's just wrong. Was true 20 years ago, not true today. The rest of the errors in the paper were not much more sophisticated than that. The eeriest part was that several items in the emails I got from the (wife of) the "expert" actually literally contradicted what was said in the published article, but when I pointed this out, all I got back was silence. For example, the (wife of) the expert was unhappy with the share of greenhouse effect attributed to water vapor in climate modeling (as much as 85% in some models, based on one published description, but typically lower), she thought it ought to be higher. But then was apparently completely unconcerned that her husband was quoted as saying that climate models completely ignore water vapor. That was kind of scary. Yes, you can reasonably discuss whether the paramter value is high enough based on the available evidence. But it takes a odd turn of mind to find no contradiction between saying that models omit the role of water vapor, and saying that models attribute (up to) 85% of net greenhouse effect to water vapor, that's just not large enough to suit you. Being aggressive in pressing my case didn't help, being polite only invited abuse. Absolutely hopeless. Here I am, considering their arguments, taking the time to track down their obscure references, learning the details in case there was something there that I'd missed, and then pointing out exactly what they had done wrong. And there they were, saying "you're wrong, neener neener". That's about as far as it went.

Anyway, I now get it when the serious climate scientists say that almost none of the arguments by global-warming deniers have any validity whatsoever. I mean, obviously, I don't claim to have tracked them all down, or claim that there is not significant uncertainty about a lot of issues, but I worked through this published article completely, and all it did was make me validate the internal consistency of all the main parameters of the "mainstream" view of global warming: where the excess (gross emissions less sequestration) is coming from, what the half-life (residence time) of C02 in the atmosphere is, and what the near-term trend is like. You really don't even have to know the details to take those numbers, do a bit of arithmetic, and see that if we continue to produce C02 at this rate, we're in deep doo doo. Or more properly, successors are. We can legitimately argue about how deep, but not about the fact that there is a problem looming.

So, yeah, we need more people to emit less C02. Now. For my part, my wife and I talked it over last night, and we're going to blow $10K on the Hymotion conversion when it's offered to consumers (supposed to be next year). Assuming it'll last 10 years as they claim. It's a waste of money, narrowly defined (not even close to cost effective). I'd go so far as to say its a waste of a lot of money. You could do a lot of good with $10k. But because we (in theory) get carbon-free electric, it'll knock another 10 or 15 percent off our carbon footprint, more or less. This will be the first move to reduce carbon that has actually cost me a significant amount of money, and prett clearly, my efforts to reduce carbon footprint have reached the point of severly diminishing returns. And I realize that, in effect, all I'm doing is paying money so that I can have a clear conscience about this -- that my reduction means nothing in the grand scheme. But at this point, based on my re-examination of the facts, I feel compelled to do more.

Anyway, sorry to be off-topic. I'm moving to PHEV, ASAP even if it's kind of DUMB, in a money sense.

And it's great to see Prius sales up. We definitely need more of that.

 

chogan, nice write-up.

We understand your sense of urgency regarding global warming/climate change. You're willing to go to great lengths to deal with the issue constructively.

Contrast that to the typical American's complete lack of concern for the issue. A buddy of mine told me his wife just traded in her old Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV for a new car. The new car? Another Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV. Oh, and it has 4-wheel drive, so it can waste even more gas. They live in town, and have absolutely no need for 4-wheel drive. They don't have a need to tow anything, either. Why did she want the SUV? "She likes sitting up higher while driving."

Harry

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Earthling @ May 4 2007, 07:59 AM) [snapback]435361[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I think a lot of purchases reveal a level of indifference to this issue that I just find absolutely stunning. And to the national security issues around oil imports. And so on.

What it reminds me of most is the birds that were hunted to extinction so that their feathers could be used for ladies' hats. In hindsight we can safely tut-tut about our ignorant ancestors who drove species extinct for the most frivolous of fashion accessories. But that's totally backwards. Even if they had cared, they didn't have the understanding or the legal system to prevent it.

I mean, of course each person has the right to purchase and drive whatever suits his or her preferences, within the limits set by law. If I think I'm being harmed by that purchase (or by the collective impact of all the purchases like that), then my recourse is to work through the political/legal system to discourage or outright ban such purchases, if we collectively decide that would be in our best interest. Like incandescents in Australia.

But I still wonder what could be done just with a little more public education. Saying "Help America, Don't Waste Fuel", as a matter of public policy, just doesn't strike me as being radical.

Well, guess I'm all ranted out for the day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 3 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]435220[/snapback]</div>

"Oh, but we'll have the Volt . . . any day now . . . you'll see . . . just wait . . ."

 

The trend I see is a gradual downsizing of US vehicles - not as fast as most here would like. It's helping hybrid sales, but it's helping fuel efficient non hybrids more - still some hybridphobia out there. This fear will dimish as more positive experiences are heard and gas prices rise.

Just as the middle class is shrinking, I see a polarization in the driving population. A few will drive Hummers and other gas guzzlers with impunity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ May 4 2007, 10:30 AM) [snapback]435407[/snapback]</div>

Hi Delta,
Perhaps you can clarify "american" vehicles ... like as in Toyotas being made in the U.S. ? or Chevys made in Mexico / Canada? Point being, the line is murky, to say the least.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ May 4 2007, 11:46 AM) [snapback]435477[/snapback]</div>

I Was "Dazed & Confused"

Sorry about that - very misleading. {blush}

I meant - "vehicles driven by US drivers".

 

I think a lot of people were trying to get in before the Federal tax saving percentage change - also Toy was offering 2.9% financing at the same time. Looks like it started dropping right after.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 4 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]435503[/snapback]</div>

I'm having trouble mastering Hold 'em, and that is exactly the reason! :blink:

Harry

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ May 4 2007, 06:07 AM) [snapback]435356[/snapback]</div>

WOW! do you really think that people are going to read all of that?! Where is the bullet point with the bottom line? lol.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1x1 @ May 4 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]435594[/snapback]</div>

Yes, that was me. Before I realized the "Federal tax savings" is mostly smoke to make it look like the gov't really cares about our environment. They should have let him plug the AC into the hydrogen filler port <_<

A prospective buyer can only do so much research on Priuschat before they reach info overload, eyes glaze over, and you just say "It's easier to just go to the dealer and sign!" At least I got 3.9%, and the most fantastic car I could have imagined. I can't believe the design and engineering that went into my car, its mind boggling!