2008 Woodie Awards
letters
Global warming skeptics aren't off the mark
Brady Turley
Issue date: 3/13/08 Section: Opinion
Finally, the debate begins.
I must thank Keith David Smeltz for his guest column ('Skeptics should re-examine global warming,' 3/6/08), and feel it is my duty to respond.
First, Bob Lutz is not a random CEO. He may not be known to everyday people, but those in the automotive world know him well. When someone of that magnitude, who is in the process of developing a more fuel-efficient fleet of cars says he's not trying to build cars to help the environment, but to reduce dependency of foreign oil, it's a big step away from what other auto manufacturers are doing. Mr. Lutz is not caught up in the global warming hype; rather he's more focused on something more realistic.
The C02 content has been rising, but that's not the issue. Rather, why it is rising? Five hundred thousand years ago, even just 10,000 years ago, there was an ice age. It's kind of hard for nature to release C02 when it is covered in ice. Ignoring other factors such as fire, solar radiation, the Earth's orbit, and even that global temperature stopped rising in 2005 is not a good way to support global warming. The human population is ever growing, and so has deforestation. Put 20 people in a sealed room with standing room only and you would get a room that not only gets warmer, but depletes its store of oxygen and fills with C02. Add a plant and you get a little less C02, but you still get warmth. So, until they can determine it is exactly the fault of C02 emissions by automobiles and industry, I can't follow the herd because someone "thinks" automobiles and industry are to blame. From your NOAA source, you forgot to mention that the spike in CO2 level was a temporary phenomenon, and that most of the variability in the C02 uptake is due to natural processes. This all comes from NOAA.gov. As for a mass extinction, if all ancient calendars are right, we are done for in 2012 anyway, but I'm no doomsday theorist.
To say it cost nothing for fleet-wide mileage to reach 35 mpg is a major misstatement. There are cars that can currently get 35 mpg or more, but that's only a car, not the entire line of cars. For the fleet of vehicles to reach 35 mpg, every car and truck would need a model that gets 35 mpg. Take, for example two of the largest auto manufactures in the world, General Motors and Toyota. For Toyota to reach 35 mpg fleet-wide - that means cars, trucks, SUV's and vans - they would need to bump overall fuel economy 28.48 percent, with extremes being as little as 1.63 percent for their cars and 40 percent for their trucks. For General Motors, they would need a 32.17 percent increase in fuel mileage with the extremes of 12.4 percent for cars and 38.57 percent for trucks. You find a way to raise fleet-wide fuel economy 28 to 38 percent for free and you will be forever idolized.
I must thank Keith David Smeltz for his guest column ('Skeptics should re-examine global warming,' 3/6/08), and feel it is my duty to respond.
First, Bob Lutz is not a random CEO. He may not be known to everyday people, but those in the automotive world know him well. When someone of that magnitude, who is in the process of developing a more fuel-efficient fleet of cars says he's not trying to build cars to help the environment, but to reduce dependency of foreign oil, it's a big step away from what other auto manufacturers are doing. Mr. Lutz is not caught up in the global warming hype; rather he's more focused on something more realistic.
The C02 content has been rising, but that's not the issue. Rather, why it is rising? Five hundred thousand years ago, even just 10,000 years ago, there was an ice age. It's kind of hard for nature to release C02 when it is covered in ice. Ignoring other factors such as fire, solar radiation, the Earth's orbit, and even that global temperature stopped rising in 2005 is not a good way to support global warming. The human population is ever growing, and so has deforestation. Put 20 people in a sealed room with standing room only and you would get a room that not only gets warmer, but depletes its store of oxygen and fills with C02. Add a plant and you get a little less C02, but you still get warmth. So, until they can determine it is exactly the fault of C02 emissions by automobiles and industry, I can't follow the herd because someone "thinks" automobiles and industry are to blame. From your NOAA source, you forgot to mention that the spike in CO2 level was a temporary phenomenon, and that most of the variability in the C02 uptake is due to natural processes. This all comes from NOAA.gov. As for a mass extinction, if all ancient calendars are right, we are done for in 2012 anyway, but I'm no doomsday theorist.
To say it cost nothing for fleet-wide mileage to reach 35 mpg is a major misstatement. There are cars that can currently get 35 mpg or more, but that's only a car, not the entire line of cars. For the fleet of vehicles to reach 35 mpg, every car and truck would need a model that gets 35 mpg. Take, for example two of the largest auto manufactures in the world, General Motors and Toyota. For Toyota to reach 35 mpg fleet-wide - that means cars, trucks, SUV's and vans - they would need to bump overall fuel economy 28.48 percent, with extremes being as little as 1.63 percent for their cars and 40 percent for their trucks. For General Motors, they would need a 32.17 percent increase in fuel mileage with the extremes of 12.4 percent for cars and 38.57 percent for trucks. You find a way to raise fleet-wide fuel economy 28 to 38 percent for free and you will be forever idolized.
Be the first to comment on this story