Germany was supposed to be a model for solving global warming. In 2007, the country’s government announced that it would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by the year 2020. This was the kind of bold, aggressive climate goal scientists said was needed in all developed countries. If Germany could do it, it would prove the target possible.

Continues on the New Republic

 

People shouldn't have cars. It is a simple concept. Live in a city? You don't need a car. Live in the country? You're a problem.

(Trust me, I see the hypocrisy in me owning two cars and saying that)

 

How about the modern oil tanker, semi truck and coal-fired electricity plants?

I can't find a chart showing exactly what I want, but here's an example from Ontario province.
https://www.ontario.ca/sites/default...-en-fig10b.jpg

Long story short: Residential heating, power production and cargo transport (overland and sea) push out waaaay more particulates than passenger cars. Why then we gotta all live with stop-start engines, underpowered Honda Fit 1.5Ls, and other sacrifices to cut out another 0.5% of our auto emissions each year? Oh right: oil, manufacturing and diesel engine companies lobby against sacrifices on THEIR bottom line. Can't have that. Modern cars are incredibly efficient vs other polluters, but we are the stone gets squeezed for more blood.

I was hoping to find a chart showing US particulates by sector. Even if I spent more time tracking it down, usually does not show the breakdown between personal transport and large-truck use. Keep in mind the particulate levels allowed are much higher for trucks than for the tiny cars we all drive. And don't even get me started on ships: They burn bunker fuel over the ocean and switch to cleaner marine diesel when they have to pass through a regulated emissions area. Now I'm not denying car pollution is bad for the environment; but I'm implying that trying to cut it further on the personal auto side is way less likely to be effective than tackling low-hanging fruit elsewhere.

Nobody is going to spoon-feed you this answer; it's against the interests of government officials and their corporate minders. You gotta think critically about it and the data is out there, but it's not going to be on a billboard somewhere.

 

Modern autos are far less a danger than the current POTUS, with his wanting to roll back every sort of environmental regulation in place. .Not to mention he's full of hot air and other shtuff.

 

Both are bad, one being very bad doesn't make things any less worse.

Hitler was worse than Mussolini, doesn't mean Benito should've kept his throne.

 

I'm not quite sure what your definition for "other polluters" is, but I'm betting it's something that does a completely different job than the modern car. Also modern cars are not very efficient. The modern cars out there are about 20% efficient. If cars were new and you were to trying to introduce this out in society today, you'd be shot down in a NY minute.

Really it seems this author is pointing to having a different and more efficient infrastructure out there. I'm thinking an electric powered mode and one where the car owner is taking more of a share in cost of this infrastructure.

 

First measure should target full size heavy SUVs and passenger cars which are used in MOST times to haul only one fat ass or short apron driver to work (instead of carrying medium size cargo). Same for the large size engine vehicles operating in the city. (I call them "hostile vehicles")

 

Most Americans don't need a truck more than once a year, that does not justify owning a five litre V8 and hauling around three tons every day to commute 10 miles to a cubicle.

 

Totally true. Personally we bought quite a small car, with the agreement that should we need a bigger one for example a road trip or home construction project, we'd rent one. I've done that ... maybe twice. Imagine not only the pollution but the cost saved!!

 

I'm personally leaning toward fuelcell vehicles. Hydrogen is only scary to fossil fuel pushers.

 

i agree localized pollution should be controlled and excessive must be fixed. that said these faking tree huggers can try to save the planet all they want, but if the planet decides to erupt yellow stone or mt fuji or watever which probably had ZERO INFLUENCE from wat us tiny humans have done the last thousand yrs, their tunnel vision minds are only trying to convince themselves. its actually laughable thinking humans have so much power..

 

But if they don't erupt & we fail through our own hubris, its actually laughable thinking we don't have an influence over the planet.

 

i never deny dat, per my first sentence. wtf is ur problem?

 

So many people looking at such small picture things.

fujisawa and kenchan are both on the right track. Look at bigger things and stop thinking that "you're" so important.

Just do the right thing and make the right choices, but don't push ridiculous ideas on others.

Oh, and the city comment thing is total BULL CRUD! There is no worse polluters than your average city dweller than doesn't give a care in the world for the actual pollution. I'm talking about wasting water, running chemicals down drains, and lighting up the world with stupid amounts of electricity. Those of us that live in the county learn real quickly to be mindful of such things because of direct impact.

Instead of getting my chlorinated (poisoned) water from the tap and then letting the poison run back into the antiquated city systems, my water comes from my well and goes back into my septic system to be 100% sent back to the earth in a clean form. No poisons added. You also won't find my neighbors wasting electricity on lights at night or anything else. We pay a whole lot more for electricity and learn to respect it. We also have the luxury of not worrying about our families being attacked in the middle of the night. We get to sleep with our A/C off and our windows open.

I'm not saying there is absolutely anything wrong with living in the city, but if you think country people are the problem, you are ridiculously misguided. I grew up in the city and lived most my life there. I can tell you that country folk are 10x more mindful of the planet even if we happen to drive more miles. When your actions directly impact the land surrounding your house, you learn to have more respect than the person that lives in an apartment and doesn't see the impact of their actions.

 

Small picture is all an individual can control.

I can control my individual footprint. I walk places when possible, I recycle, I use LED lightbulbs turn off those not in use, I take rapid showers, etc. My home thermostat is set to 82 in the summer, 62 in the winter and I don't have to drive 25 miles to eat at a decent restaurant.

I grew up in a rural area, if you think the average country folk cares about minimizing anything or being conscious about things, you're mistaken (at least based on my anecdotal evidence against your anecdotal evidence)

 

Maybe I can interest you on studies made..........

City Slicker vs. Country Bumpkin: Who Has a Smaller Carbon Footprint?

If you're not, here's a little bit of it;
"In highly industrialized countries, people living in rural areas do many things people in urban areas do, but they don't have the benefit of services and recreational activities in close proximity," Dodman explained. Most rural people regularly drive to supermarkets, shops, schools and jobs in nearby urban areas, he said. Because driving long distances is so bad for the environment, "proximity is very important for reducing your carbon footprint."

Also;
On average, Americans release more carbon into the atmosphere than anyone else: about 6 tons per person per year.

 

Except I live in the country where 90% of the rednecks that live around me don't care about that because "it won't be their problem" or "It's all a lie". You go up to the north part of the state "more urban" and they have the opposite attitude. I most certainly pollute more then city folk because I have to drive to get anywhere.

 

My vantage point is definitely skewed by the fact that there's a strong artsy/hippy influence where I live combined with a large German Baptist community.

I do fully agree that urban dwellers buy less fuel, but should that be the only measure? My urban friends and family all live in apartments, condo's, and townhome's filled with made in China junk that is less than 5 years old. Few of them even live in a place more than 5 years or own anything as old as my underwear. You want to talk carbon footprint? Consumerism of disposable foreign goods is probably the worst environmental decision. The manufacturing and transporting of all that junk is not a good thing. Meanwhile my neighbors live in older homes furnished with stuff made generations ago and much of it by family members.

Now lets think about the fuel needed to get all that junk to the cities. Guess where my produce comes from. Less than 10 miles away for most of it. My dairy is from a dairy farm about 12 miles away. My wheat and corn products come from a mill that is 4 miles away and is hydro powered by the river behind it. Chicken farms are everywhere and there's plenty of cattle nearby as well. City people seem to forget that ALL of the stuff they consume is trucked in from rural areas or, worse, from foreign countries.

My point is that there's definitely two sides to the coin. Yes, urban people burn less fuel in their personal vehicles. However, they also rely heavily on others to burn fuel to bring things to them.

You want to really analyze full impact then you also have to consider what concreting large sections of the planet has done. The water pollution issues alone are staggering.

It's a more complicated subject than looking at fuel usage alone.

One thing I definitely miss about living in the city was the recycling truck that came by to pick up my junk and make me feel better. Granted it was one of the dirtiest diesel chugging trucks I've ever seen, but it made me feel good and kept me from having to take the stuff to the recycling center myself.

 

Again, you're an exception to the rule here.

Most Americans are TREMENDOUS wasters.

But it is much easier to live a 'comfortable' life, with a small carbon footprint, in an urban area.

The reality is, the thing is we all need to look small picture to make a difference. I need to compost, use recyclable bags to buy in bulk, drive less and take shorter showers. Other folks need to do a whole lot more and others a whole lot less....but we all need to be better.

 

The good news is that, if my Son's school is the norm, the next generation may be better. They have so many conservation and recycling initiatives at his school that, at 7 years old, he's already able to point out my wastefulness and bad habits.