Good MPG Target for Mass Market (Eco Rant)

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by AlexanderB

old cars don't normally come with modern fuel injection and emissions controls

But it's not impossible to retrofit them, either with some cheap TBI or those programmable setups from Fueltech. I've already seen some older engines retrofitted with EFI, even though they were mostly tuned for high-performance.

[mcrews]

in referring to 'older collectable cars', I had bought a 1966 Mustang w a straight 6 200 ci.
I had to replace the entire engine with a rebuilt block.
I took it to get 'smog certified' in California. it tested at less than 10% of the allowed levels for a 66 mustang.
I would guess that the majority of collector cars would produce the same results.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We will be going into anothern ice age in 1,000 to 1,500 years
We have far greater problems then the climate. "Climate change" appeares to be more of a distraction from the real problems then an actual problem that can be solved or fixed.

The greatest threat to humanity is unsustainable population growth.

Reduce population to around 1 billion and most current problems become much more manageable

[Ecky]

Well yes, but they're not held to the same standards (obviously).

I risk playing the devil's advocate here because I'm a huge fan of keeping classic cars on the road, despite their higher pollution - I honestly don't care if it's a tiny minority of cars - but the standards for a '66 are probably very low, considering it wasn't until the mid 70's that catalytic converters became (almost) necessary to pass emissions. I'm curious what the absolute numbers are.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

The greatest threat to humanity is unsustainable population growth.

Reduce population to around 1 billion and most current problems become much more manageable

Sure, but how do you achieve this?

As I understand, most recent models show population stabilizing around 11+/-billion, due to the empowerment of women (relatively speaking) and infiltration of contraception into parts of the world where it isn't available. And, unless there's a major paradigm shift, this is roughly what we're going to need to deal with.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by mcrews

No, it's bogus. it's not a 'little'.
it's a lie.
'mostly true' ?????? wth does that mean!
It's made up.:

There are under 100 "legitimate" scientists recognized as being competent by their piers in the field of climate science.

The error that is made is including people who research such things but have no creditable verifiable work or worse yet have no technical experience in the field at all.

I don't think it's hard to poll 100 guys but it may be hard to decide on and poll the right guys and hold the poller responsible for nonsensical participants

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Sure, but how do you achieve this?

Ending reproducer subsidies would be a good start- Yah, pay people to reproduce in an overpopulated world makes perfect sense. "Baby Steps"

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Well yes, but they're not held to the same standards (obviously).

I risk playing the devil's advocate here because I'm a huge fan of keeping classic cars on the road, despite their higher pollution - I honestly don't care if it's a tiny minority of cars - but the standards for a '66 are probably very low, considering it wasn't until the mid 70's that catalytic converters became (almost) necessary to pass emissions. I'm curious what the absolute numbers are.

Plus the few that are out there don't get anywhere near driven the 15,000 miles per year the average new car does.
Those old cars are loved and kept in better tune then when they were just say 10 years old, and being used by poorer people as daily transportation. kept in top tune a carb does pretty well with emissions, and they aren't driven as much in the dead of winter when they take a long warmup to get them running right.
Pages 4,5,and 6 of this old EPA document shows the average of what a car from a certain year produced. I would argue the current crop of 1964 or whatever year classic is well above those numbers because of what I mentioned above. I don't know what was classified as a greenhouse gas in 1970, but for the average 1970 car, adding all 3 tables together I get 79 gr/mile. Just looking up a 2017 Chevy Equinox on fueleconomy.gov it says 347 gr/mile of just tailpipe CO2, apparently CO2 wasn't even on the radar in 1970, and today we don't list the stuff from 1970, I don't know how to compare them.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/...kPage=x&ZyPURL

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Sure, but how do you achieve this?

As I understand, most recent models show population stabilizing around 11+/-billion, due to the empowerment of women (relatively speaking) and infiltration of contraception into parts of the world where it isn't available. And, unless there's a major paradigm shift, this is roughly what we're going to need to deal with.

We have to use 3% more synthetic fertilizer and 2% more pesticides each year to maintain ag production .
We have "practical" extinctions of many primary ocean based food stocks (since we figure we don't need fish hatcheries for the ocean)

So We will run into a wall in the next decade and we are at risk of outputs falling regardless of our tech due to poor soil conditions and our herbicidal failures.

I think we have a choice, we can allow the environment control our population
Or we can actually talk frankly and critically on this subject without the emotional nonsense and make decisions to control our own actions.

Sometimes society needs to do what the individual can't.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm glad I'm not the only one with the opinion that global warming is low on the threat to humanity list.

Humans directly harming humans does way more damage than GW ever could.

Disease harms humans more than GW ever will.

Poverty harms people more than GW.

Heck, AI poses a greater existential threat to humanity than GW, and I think that's a long shot.

What really worries me is that there is still enough nukes to completely eradicate humans several times over, and some of them are held by crazy leaders. After that, I worry that biological warfare will become cheap, easy, and untraceable. Any crazy could eventually possess the ability to harm millions.

GW is an extremely small and unfortunate outcome of humanity's psychopathy. Until psychopathy is resolved, GW will remain as a distraction.

Humans humans humans- perhaps a bit too human- centric seeing as how humans "share" the ecosystem with other organisms, many of which bear the brunt of human activity more than humans themselves.