There is a lot of hoopla here in Canada about our PM going to Paris and flatulating our commitment to reduce carbon emissions, all the while providing no specific targets nor method of how Canada will get there. Obama has acknowledge the problem and also states the US will be part of the solution.

Let's face it. The US and Canada need to do more about reducing CO2. One very large step is to buy and use an efficient small vehicle, and that defines the Honda Fit.

I know this is preaching to the choir, but we should pat ourselves on the back that we are part of the solution. I cringe when I see the vast number of single driver SUVs on Toronto roads, and I know that with low gas prices this will not change.

I'm not a tree kissing environmentalist, but if large swaths of Vancouver and Florida go under water I'd be shocked. This will be a difficult ship to reverse from our current course and history, but for our kids we need to do it.

 

So you've bought into the Cult of Algore? Look where I'm from, Tennessee, Gore's home state. He's a liar, like his former boss and his wife, the former Sec. of State.

Man-made climate change is a crock of ...well ... bs. Heard our Moral Coward in Chief this morning declare that the sea levels have been rising. Yep, measured in single digit millimeters over about a decade.

The US and Canada, in fact most of the Western nations, have cut carbon emissions significantly over the past two or 3 decades. How about Russia, China, and India? When was the last time you had to wear a filter mask in order to breath?

Even if the Gospel of Gore were true, it is too late to make any real difference. Antarctica is melting ... no, wait, it is having record lows and snow falls. Per Emily Latrile (SNL), "Never mind."

Sheesh, kids now days.

 

Save money on gas and maintenance costs.

 

A set circumstances caused me to buy a lightly used 2008 Suzuki SX4, the best little car no one ever heard of. It was an automatic (a real one not CVT). Then Suzuki pulled out of the US market. There went the resale and the trade-in values One of the local Honda dealers made a Godfather offer ... discount and incentive. At least that was my rational. Honestly, I just wanted the Fit.

I've been a Honda fan since I owned a Civic station wagon. Rugged, spirited, economic, roomy for its small size ... 4 speed manual, A/C, no radio.

Later two Civic copes, an EX and an SI. Both A/C, both 5 speed manuals, good handling, toss-able.

Then comes the FIT with many of the attributes of the Civic coupes and a 6-speed, an infotainment system I've yet to master, back-up camera, flexible seating. It wasn't to "save the world".

Now aren't you sorry you asked? BGG

 

Fuel is from fossils.. means millions of years ago CO2 was taken from the atmosphere and is now locked under ground. Today's plants are struggling for what little CO2 is available in the atmosphere. True environmentalists will realize the real green movement is to restore the locked up carbon from the ground back to the atmosphere. DO IT FOR THE PLANTS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO STRUGGLE FOR WHAT LITTLE CO2 IS AVAILABLE!!

 

Honestly, emissions never entered my mind when I started looking for a new car. I had a list of requirements. The Fit met those requirements and then some.

Will the Fit work for my husband's list of requirements? Absolutely not. He keeps his truck. Will the Fit work for my friend's family and livestock requirements? No. Only a Suburban met those. No matter how you slice it, a Fit is not going to pull a horse trailer. Not everyone lives in an urban environment. Not everyone can afford a second or third "city" car while keeping their SUV/truck at home.

Cars and cars requirements are very much a personal decision with people getting the car that best meets those needs. Sorry, I'm not going to pat myself on the back nor am I going to look down on other's car choices.

 

Fixed that for you.

Same. And it never entered my mind when I installed a catless downpipe either.

 

As I see it, you intentionally misquoted him.

 

Funny enough, my friends and I were in the car the other day, and we agreed it was a great choice for CO2 reduction and the environment, although I bought it for its economy (and therefore its effect on reducing CO2) and its versatility (and its fun).

Hybrids have issues with building and disposing their batteries, not to mention where the electricity comes from. A nice simple gas engine that's getting 36+ mpg in largely suburban driving goes a long way to help reduce global warming.

 

There is a certain irony to our president taking two 747s (one for him, one just in case the first has a mechanical issue) to Paris for this conference, preceded by a C-5 Galaxy carrying the presidential limousine and the multiple SUVs for his entourage.

I hope that the Canadian PM hitched a ride with him, so as to split their carbon footprint!

 

I'd be more concerned about china than North America for emissions. They are still using coal to heat houses and have a smog day every other day.

 

OT:
CO2 Emissions per capita (ton)
US: 16.5
Canada: 15.9
Australia: 17.3

China: 7.6 (If they are telling the truth), 4 times the population of US
India: 1.8

 

Do me a favor, go hug a whale.

 

And why should we believe your source? No American, Canadian or Australian city I know of requires people go around wearing masks to breath.

50 years ago I could see and taste the air here in Nashville. Much of the heating at that time was by soft coal. I sat in traffic less than 2 miles from the tallest building in town (the L&C tower) and could not see the large neon letters on top. Massive pollution can be and should be controlled, but it is not the cause of climate change.

 

The auto manufacturers did an amazing job of cleaning up emissions in the 80s and 90s. Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen dropped to the point where the exhaust of modern vehicles is cleaner than the air going in. That's why the air quality is so good in modern Western cities.

Once the poisonous emissions dragon was slain, those who saw pollution control as a way to control public behavior had to find a new bogieman. This time they chose more carefully, as carbon dioxide is the end product of clean combustion and really cannot be eliminated. The only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to limit our activities, including our freedom of mobility.

The latest thing in the news is that modern "climate scientists" want to invalidate older NOAA stratospheric temperature data that was inconveniently warm. Now they claim that it was supposedly altered by solar heating of the balloons that carried the instrumentation aloft!

Funny how all that data was considered perfectly fine until the numbers turned out to refute the idea they were putting forth and that more recent radiosonde balloons don't have the same issue.

 

You realize this is a result of both geography and man-made activities? That cities in the US have smog issues?

It is pretty ignorant for you to say unless China/India do something, we should not. What happened to the US being a world leader?

Great to see you're a geologist/climatologist/etc., where's your doctorate from? What journals have you been published in?

OP, you would've done better to reduce carbon emissions by purchasing & maintaining an efficient, used vehicle, such as a 2012 or '13 Fit. The manufacture of new vehicles is a very dirty process.

 

Now why would a na older car be better than a newr on?

Why don't you ask Obama what happened to American leadership?
VW is the only mfg. that is purposefully making "dirtier" autos. If you know of others, please name. It has been my experience that Hondas start out "clean" and stay clean even if not well maintained, i.e. my Civic station wagon.

I never said or implied that nothing more should be done by the US to help clean up to improve the situation, but have you ever of the theory of diminishing returns?

Yeah, different cities have different climatic/weather conditions. Nashville, for example,, is built in a bowel. Air sometimes trapped, but bad weather goes around us, except the 1999 tornado.

No, not professionally trained, but I have roughly 60 years of life experience. Now does ignorance trump arogance?

 

Because BUILDING the car takes more energy and causes more pollution than that car will use or emit in its lifetime. You have to consider the ENTIRE system, mining/recycling the steel, smelting the aluminum, molding the plastic, melting the glass, manufacturing all the parts, running the factory. Then there's the cost to the environment of disposing/recycling the vehicle at the end of its life. It ALL counts, not just what comes out of the tailpipe.

 

So we shut down the entire cycle, put people out of work, let them starve to death, all for the sake of Mother Earth. No thanks, and I'm not going to vote for Bernie Sanders.

This thread has gone looney.

 

I don't see anywhere where I remotely suggested that. I'm just pointing out that the system is vastly more complicated than what comes out of a tailpipe. That's all I have to say on this and I'm out of here now.