RossBleakney’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The cash for clunkers program was not designed to be great for the environment. It was designed to help out the auto industry a bit, so that it didn't drag down the rest of the economy. It wasn't designed to save it, but it was designed to slow the bleeding. In an ideal world, this would mean no layoffs, but no replacement of the jobs lost to attrition either. It didn't work quite that well, but things would probably be a lot worse without it (like 15% unemployment instead of 10%). As ToSeek said, though, 15.8 MPG to 24.9 MPG is a huge bonus. It might not seem like much, but it is really big (when you do the math). Now, whether we would be better off just buying more buses (GM makes Hybrid buses which I occasionally ride) is a different story. That might help GM, but not Chrysler (I have no idea if Chrysler makes buses).On Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers! posted 2 weeks, 4 days ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Gary: Write "Car Talk". Seriously. Those guys are very smart and know a lot about cars and would be able to address your question in a serious and informed manner (OK, maybe not serious, but certainly informed). This article is about legislation, not particular techniques for making a car more efficient (and the legal or other obstacles to doing so).On Kerry-Graham op-ed dramatically enhances prospects for Senate climate bill this year posted 1 month, 1 week ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Great article. It also shows how short-sighted this CEO is. If we had an aggressive climate policy, then major improvements to the rail system (including elecrification as described here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301) would be great for his company. In general, moving freight (and passenger traffic) from the roads to the rails makes great sense for the climate as well his company. Of course, such changes would not necessarily make money the next couple of quarters -- which is where he seems to be focused.

  On Is Chamber of Commerce prez biased on climate because of his ties to Union Pacific railroad? posted 2 months, 1 week ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Well said C. L. Weber. This article builds up straw man arguments and then defeats them. It is the cow burping that is the problem and this article doesn't even address that (it is insightful to see just how ignorant or misleading this article is when it does not mention the biggest problem with raising cattle).

  Brian S is also correct in his summary. It is possible that a much smaller number of grass eating cattle (along with the elimination of grain fed cattle) might end up benefiting the environment more than it hurts it (the increased storage might offset the emissions). Unfortunately, as C L Weber points out, the science to this point suggests otherwise.

  In general, I'm afraid this is another article by someone who probably believes he is doing right for the environment, but is wrong. There are lots and lots of folks like that. I sympathise with them. Unfortunately, this article will convince many of the naive environmentalists (who don't read the scientific literature) to conclude that eating meat is OK, because it is local, organically raised beef. I'm sorry, but just because factory beef is worse, doesn't mean that eating locally raised organic beef is benign. Smoking American Spirit cigarettes is probably better than smoking Camel straights, but it doesn't mean that is OK.

   

   

  On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 92 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  This is nice, but I'm not sure how popular this will be. Nor am I sure that we should encourage the purchase of such cars (through subsidies, etc.). The problem with a plugin is that it takes too long to charge. If you are travelling for several days, then having to wait for hours to charge just doesn't make sense. Thus, the car only makes sense for commuters and folks who want a car for the occasional errand. For commuters, I wonder if it would be cheaper to improve public transit. As an errand car, this makes a lot of sense, but I wonder if there aren't cheaper cars out there for that. The beauty of the hybrid is that it dramatically increases fuel efficiency, while losing nothing (but the extra cost of the car). A plugin hybrid further reduces gas consumption.

  We get diminishing returns, however. The difference between a car that gets 20 miles to the gallon and a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon is the same as the difference between a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon and an electric car. I know that sentence seems crazy, but do the math. If you travel, say 80 miles, the clunker will use 4 gallons, the hybrid 2 and the electric 0. You saved two gallons when you switched to the hybrid, and another 2 miles when you switched to the electric car. Of course, that assumes that an all electric car consumes no fuel at all (which is possible, especially in certain areas of the country).

  Again, I don't want to rain on Nissan's parade. If they do indeed make a car that is reasonably cheap, popular and all electric, then this is a great accomplishment. However, the world would be better off if we just stopped buying and driving cars that such poor mileage.

  On Nissan unveils 'Leaf' electric car posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses