No, I dont know that, but have heard it quoted a number of times.
Cows (and people, for that matter) dont increase carbon based
gases in the ecosphere over the equlibrium which has been established
over the eons. The vegetation they would eat to produce
this flatulence is just part of the recirculating carbon balance.
The serious increases are from carbon sources which have removed
or made unavailable over the millenia in the form of coal deposits,
oil deposits, etc.
Doesnt make any difference. As long as the carbon comes from surface
it can be recirculated without massively upsetting the apple cart. You see,
the "apple cart" is
the climatic system that we are adapted to, after thousands of years of
Over the past millions of years, the climate has been far different, and not
always very pleasant.
Many species went extinct, but some survived.
As long as the carbon is locked away in the ground, as coal or oil, then
everything else on the
surface just recycles, more or less. But as you mine the reserve fossil
deposits and convert them
to CO2 or CH4, you begin to move the "apple cart" out of the realm of human
back to conditions as they were when other species were king.
Cows don't actually contribute any CO2, and humans don't either. Cows, like
humans, can only generate CO2 by eating carbon-containing material. Cows
eat grass. The grass was CO2 in the atmosphere only a week before they eat
it. It's not important. If the grass dies and turns back into CO2 without
the cow, it's just the same. It doesn't matter what the cows eat, because
they don't ever eat petroleum or coal. They always eat something that was
CO2 a little while before, and will be CO2 a little while later if they
don't eat it. People are the same way.
The methane is important, because it wasn't methane before they ate it.
Grass + cows can convert CO2 to CO2, which is dull. It's too dull to talk
about. The important thing is that grass + cows can convert CO2 to methane,
and that is worth talking about. Methane is better insulation than CO2, and
contributes more to global warming.
Maybe we missed your point. We thought you meant US brands of cars have
poorer fuel economy than foreign brands.
Pawlowski's comment is "ratings for domestic and foreign cars of the same
size and there is little, if any, difference". The only accurate conclusion
is that some people in the US buy less economical cars - either foreign or
domestic. OK. So what? I can't change what America buys and your
complaining won't change it either, particularly when you are complaining to
a group that drives Saabs. Have you heard the expression "Preaching to the
choir"? I can only do my small part. My new car gets 35 mpg (6.7 l/100km),
seats 5 comfortably, uses low-cost, regular octane gasoline, and is
classified as an Ultra Low Emissions (II) Vehicle. BTW, it is a US brand:
Did you actually mean that cars sold in the US have poorer fuel efficiency?
That begs the question: Poorer efficiency than what?
Cars in Europe that require more resource consuming and expensive premium
Cars from around the world, including Europe, that emit more than double the
pollution allowed by US standards?
Cars that don't meet US safety standards and would be as bloated with weight
as US cars if the safety equipment is added?
Cars (particularly small ones) that foreign manufacturer's won't ship to or
can't legally sell in North America?
Really? And what sort of factual evidence do you base this factual
conclusion on Grahmam?
You been buzzing around in the states in a bunch of chevys and fords lately?
lemme give you my actual (as in experienced) recent results. I drove a
Chevy (humoungous) Imapala recently from BH to Baltimore (450+ miles)
and back and averaged over 30 mpg. This is a bohemoth sized car and I
was completely astounded at the mileage.
How? My guess i sth extremely high gearing and small displacement 6 cyl
That's only true for a few older designs that few buy.
RWD police models included.
OH yes those truck based SUVs also included, but they aren't cars.
Most NA cars for over a human generation have been very efficient and
well built. In fact they were the first with stainless steel exhausts
and body sheet metal galvanizing for lower priced cars.
I don't agree. Although I own two new Chevy's (Impala and Equinox)... I
previously owned 13 Nissan's..... so it's not like I'm doing the rahrah
American Car sthick. But in looking at the Chevy's line up, you'd be HARD
PRESSED to find any brand that offers better gas mileage in a similarly
sized vehicle. Even the huge Tahoe now delivers amazing mileage - better
than anything else in it's size or class.
I can't speak to the whole lineup, but I have an '05 Chevy Impala as a
company car. This is a very big car and I am not particularly fond of
it, but this is what they give me. It gets over 30 mpg on the highway
doing a steady 75 mph. Last week I drove from Manchester, NH to
Baltimore, MD on a single tank of gas and was flabbergasted to find that
the tank took less than 16 gallons.
It handles like a boat. It really wallows on the road as the suspension
is designed to be ultra soft. The small 6 cylinder engine is gutless.
To pass requires the automatic transmission to downshift 2 gears and is
still not a particlarly blistering acceleration.
The car that *I* own is an '03 SAAB 9^3 Vector. It has lots of power,
snappy acceleration, decent handling, good comfort and gets 32 mpg
(actual) on the highway.
Compared to the Vector, the Chevy is a dog. But it's free and comes
with free gas and maintenance from my company.
Has as much to do with your right foot as the vehicle. With a decent
rear ratio, a wider ratio transmission, good radials, and the old
Quadrajet you could hit the low 20s with a 427 [390 hp] in an older
Impala. With fuel injection that would go up quite a bit even tho the
old Q-Jet wasn't that bad as long as you left the secondaries closed.
Not anymore. You're way behind the times. Traditional U.S. handling has
simply gone out of style. I admit American cars are just a pile of cheap
imported junk, but your description wasn't really very good. You may be
right about the last bastion-ing. There's only one U.S.-made car with a
live rear axle. Can you name it? I wonder if it's the last one in the
world. Might well be.
And as for the G8, I'll take all the Australian cars they will send us.
They have big rear drive cars in Australia, and people here want them. At
least I do.
I was going to respond to the previous poster's statement about only being
patriotic by buying American. I find that comment about 30 years out of
date. Graham's vast overgeneralization about Americans (would that be
North, South or Central Americans?) that "aren't very bright" deserves
While it may be said as a joke, nobody I know still seriously considers
someone un-American if they buy a Toyota or Honda who offer the two most
popular models in the US, made in California and Ohio, respectively. Nor
are they more patriotic if they buy a Ford (which is probably made in
Mexico), GM or Chrysler (either brand likely made in Canada). The only
exception to this are the comments from members of the United Auto Workers
trade union, primarily in Michigan. Don't make the mistake of assuming that
the stupid outcries of one special interest group in one state in the United
States has any meaning or impact to the citizens of the other 49 states.
Graham, your comments about Americans are consistently based on age-old
stereotypes that are obsolete. When was the last time you saw the United
States, and what tiny portion did you see? Or is it just your closed
mindedness that makes your perspective tiny?
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.