Environment Technology

Environment Technology

Big 3 Face Global Warming Goad

Posted by admin on September 28, 2012 in Global Warming with 27 Comments


The top executives of the largest automakers around the globe and the head of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union are set to testify before Congress this month during a high-profile hearing on climate change and the clamor for automakers to do more measures to curb global warming.

Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors Corp., and Jim Press, the president of Toyota Motor Corp.’s North American division, have agreed to testify 14 March before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The said committee is chaired by U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn.

The Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG’s Chrysler Group have also expressed their assent to participate in the hearing. Ford will be sending its executive chairman, Bill Ford Jr., to participate in the happenings. Tom LaSorda, the Chrysler Group CEO, will also represent the automaker in the said hearing. Ron Gettelfinger, the president of UAW, will also appear at a separate session of the same hearing.

Dingell is calling the largest automakers to Washington to make a compromise to President George Bush’s proposal to increase fuel economy by four percent every year. This measure is aimed at reducing vehicle emissions that have been connected to global warming. The legislator’s aim is to limit greenhouse gas emissions that the automakers could sustain.

This is the very first time in recent years that top executives of the largest automakers have been called to the US Congress as a group regarding the Global Warming issues. The hearing will also tackle the opposition of the automakers to fuel economy standards. Critics in the industry said that the hearing could be likened to the appearance of tobacco company CEOs in 1994 to declare that nicotine was not addictive.

Automakers expressed their dissent to the idea of comparing them to tobacco executives. They noted that the auto industry has spent billions to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles and does not oppose achievable increases. They added that the current corporate average fuel economy requirements, more commonly known and referred as CAFE, distort the market by forcing them to heavily discount smaller, more fuel-efficient cars to meet fleet-wide mandates.

“There is change in the air,” said Dave McCurdy, the current head of the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, which represents GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota among other companies. “We are going to be at the table. I often use the Oklahoma saying, ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.'”

In a short span, automakers have faced mounting pressure from Congress and Bush administration. The said pressure is anchored on the goal of increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles and limit greenhouse gas emissions. This goal is estimated to cost the industry billions of dollars. Aside from this, the new rules could eventually force them to cease producing heavier vehicles in favor of hybrid models.

Dingell, one of four lawmakers who met with President Bush on energy policy, has told the top automakers about the need to be part of a broad-based reduction in carbon dioxide output from many industries. He added that his committee attempts to meet a July 4 target for a draft bill.

Excerpts of Dingell’s statement obtained by The News state: “I am proud of what this committee accomplished thirty years ago, however, we are now confronted with new and pressing questions,” pertaining to the original fuel economy law in 1975. “Faced with evidence that the globe is warming, is the current method of regulating the fuel economy of vehicles the most effective way to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, from cars and trucks?” he further shares.

The global warming goad is a serious matter because every one is affected. With the greater burden imposed on the government and other sectors, the solution is not as easy as producing sophisticated auto engines and blending them to effective brakes, EBC pads and a number of systems. It takes intensive studies and a considerable sum for the goal to be realized.

Anthony Fontanelle
http://www.articlesbase.com/automotive-articles/big-3-face-global-warming-goad-112202.html

« previous post

Now Pesticides in your Toothpa...

NOW PESTICIDES IN YOUR TOOTHPASTE ! Pesticides, especially triclosan, which is almo...

next post »

Renewable Energy – Lesso....

Considering the current state of the economy, it is no surprise that a significant amount ...

  1. Dana1981September 28, 2012 - 7:09 am #1

    What do you think of this Nature editorial on the stolen CRU emails?
    Some excerpts from an editorial in presitgious Nature magazine:

    "To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

    This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."

    "Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers."

    "If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden."

    "In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science."
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

    What do you think of this editorial?

  2. ErinSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:11 pm #2

    Well hello Dana 1981 Masquerader of Science!
    Cover ups and Denials from anyone are beginning to look very bad for the Copenhagen Conference!
    Just give up already!
    References :

  3. OuroboroSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:13 pm #3

    I think this blows the global warming thing up in their face, that’s all there is to it. Without getting biased that’s just what has happened.
    References :

  4. liberal_60September 28, 2012 - 12:15 pm #4

    I think it is a careful and reasoned response. Unfortunately, I doubt many deniers will give it a careful and reasoned reading.
    References :

  5. jerrySeptember 28, 2012 - 12:17 pm #5

    keep trying, you may swing gwen to your side
    References :

  6. BaratiSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:19 pm #6

    They essentially are saying that man made global warming is real and that the emails are just private discussions between scientist, despite the fact they talk about some pretty crucial things, like covering up data, trying to get people out of doing a peer review who didnt agree with them, etc. All in all it does discredit the global warming science. The earth will be fine long after we get erased from it, get over it people. Throwing paper money, ironically enough at this supposed problem will do nothing to solve it, since it isnt real
    References :

  7. Eric cSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:21 pm #7

    Rubbish. I will let global warming proponent answer that question

    "Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc."

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/applause-for-judy-curry/

    What these emails clearly show is a group of elitists scientists, who cannot see themselves as being wrong, who think that it is o.k. to manipulate the peer review process to suppress any criticism of their work, in a romantic notion that they are saving humanity from us evil skeptics.
    References :

  8. Richard the PhysicistSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:23 pm #8

    I think they are right on and the investigations will prove it. Obviously, deniers will call the investigations BS anyway, so this won’t be the end.
    References :

  9. .September 28, 2012 - 12:25 pm #9

    Conflict of interest maybe, Did they not publish many of the AGW articles to the exclusion of opposing viewpoints? They are one of the objects of criticism. Skeptics have been saying that journals like Nature have been denying publication of dissenting viewpoints. Did you think Nature would tarnish its own name? Did you think they would say "Yep these skeptics have been shown right and we have not been publishing them, we are a bad journal."? Funny how Nature does not seem to care that the scientists have deleted FOI protected files. I think they are covering their donkey as best as they can.
    References :

  10. BBSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:27 pm #10

    Dana,

    As you certainly know (but stubbornly… will not admit), the Warmulists are in damage-control mode.

    There are careers/reputations and new Saabs at stake for the scientists involved. There are huge tax revenues at stake for the politicos. There is the possibility of some serious Court-time for a few of them as well.

    And then there is Al Gore….. who might have to cancel his "Man-Bear-Pig" speaking engagements and James Hansen….. who has been dreaming about walking side-by-side in a protest march with ‘Hanoi’ Jane Fonda.

    Like I said…. there is a lot at stake.
    References :

  11. jim zSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:29 pm #11

    It certainly shows that Nature can be biased. They have been generally careful in the past but have promulgated some misconceptions and errors. I don’t have a subscription, but I am willing to bet that at one time, they treated the Piltdown Man as a genuine human ancestor. It did genuinely disappoint me because I expect better from them but it doesn’t really surprise me either.
    References :

  12. SnowmanSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:31 pm #12

    Interesting they’re charging skeptics as the ones in denial.

    "To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’"

    That and the other 30+ controversial statements/suggestions found within the e-mails, yes. At the very best it leaves one begging the question. If it doesn’t, then it’s clear objectivity isn’t the goal here.

    "…and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition."

    Also read if the science is weak, don’t allow other scientists to question the work. There will always be critics but that doesn’t give one the right to modify the process.

    "…and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science."

    Wrong, skeptics and those who value the strict standards involved in scientific exploration demand those standards be upheld. We do trust scientists…the ethical ones w/ explanations and those who are willing to have their conclusions tested by others.

    And nobody in their right mind discounts science — what kind of low-brow explanation is that for such a reputable journal?

    I appreciate that those who are in denial are moving into the second stage — anger. Their careers hang in the balance and they’re grasping at anyone who will listen to their pleas. Let the entertainment commence.
    References :

  13. Mr. BlobSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:33 pm #13

    It’s so cool that Nature calls them out for what they are – denialists.

    And the points in this email are exactly true, exactly what denialists do, exactly what has happened and exactly what is going to happen.

    The denialists are fringe, nutty and a big problem.
    References :

  14. Ottawa MikeSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:35 pm #14

    That editor is probably a college buddy of Michael Mann. Maybe a few more leaked emails and we’ll see how the "gang" loaded up Nature’s editorial and peer review boards.
    References :

  15. bestonnet_00September 28, 2012 - 12:37 pm #15

    The suggestion that governments and institutions need to be provide assistance to researchers that are being bullied by crackpots is a good one although I’d like to know what they could be do to help.

    Wonder how much longer it’ll be before the deniers try to burn people who disagree with them at the stake.
    References :

  16. Noah TallSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:39 pm #16

    They look terrible publishing such a pathetic, political diatribe. Oh, wait, they were looking bad before, so i guess it’s familiar ground for them.
    References :

  17. martinSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:41 pm #17

    Trying to cover up the cover up!
    References :

  18. pegminerSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:43 pm #18

    I think it’s an excellent editorial, although I don’t much care for Nature. I think they dealt in a pretty underhanded way with a paper that a friend of mine and I submitted some years ago. At this point I wouldn’t mind if the political movement of AGW (cap and trade, carbon taxes, whatever) went away, so that scientists could do their work and deniers could go back to swilling beer and watching wrestling on TV.
    References :

  19. Peter JSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:45 pm #19

    More crap from crap peddlers. Not even good for fertilizer.
    References :

  20. davemSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:47 pm #20

    I think this article was written by someone with a chip on their shoulder. Very angry at the CRU crew but directing it to skeptics. Basically, it’s just more left-wing paranoia. Funniest part is where it says "harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information…" When CRU refuses to share information and deletes it instead can the author of this editorial really be serious? It’s typical of the left to blame everyone but themselves for their mistakes.
    References :

  21. StarbuckSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:49 pm #21

    Nature.com is laughable. They are an activist group, get over it. The debate is over, your ilk lost.
    References :

  22. GwenSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:51 pm #22

    It’s bang on.
    References :

  23. DaveHSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:53 pm #23

    It’s an editorial, so we should dismiss it as it hasn’t been peer reviewed.
    References :

  24. global coolingSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:55 pm #24
  25. Poke_the_BearSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:57 pm #25

    Give it up, Dana. How come they haven’t made their data available? Is it because their results cannot be repeated? What about Mann? He wasn’t exactly forthcoming with his data. It just goes to show that this has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics.

    Wake up.
    References :

  26. The Vampire Muffin ManSeptember 28, 2012 - 12:59 pm #26

    I think that it’s dead on. Of course the deniers have nothing, as usual. Half of their arguments now consist of "Give up. It’s over." I guess so if that’s all they got.

    _
    References :

  27. HopeSeptember 28, 2012 - 1:01 pm #27

    We should impose a world wide ban of Coke – pepsi – 7up and all those type drinks because Co2 in the soft drink industry is destroying the atmosphere some guy said that my car on 1 drive to work releases more Co2 that the coke machine I relly doubt it this machine is venting into the air pure Co2… 24/7 the place I work @ sells about 200 an hour from 10 am to about midnight THATS ALOT
    References :

Leave a Reply

No trackbacks yet.

No post with similar tags yet.

Posts in similar categories
Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE