How is it then that PM's and presidents from other large economies can? UK has already sacraficed our 4th place for the largest economy in the world and lots of other countries have too. America needs to get over itself.Mr.Unstoppable wrote:
Hes the president of America. He cares more about his country than anywhere else. Yes it is selfish but presidents from any other place would do the same. I disagree.
Sorry to disappoint you but my dad has worked in the oil tanker business for the past 30 years and ive seen spreadsheets on the amount of fuel used by these tankers is decreasing by incredible rates from their original usage which is what people seem to think they still use. I would also like to point out that there are only a few thousand registered cargo/tankers compared to the billions of cars out there. I think a SUV uses 2x the amount of fuel a normal family car uses, now if everyone had as many SUV's as America the carbon emissions would sky rocket. I will also point out that those cargo ships and tankers are needed, whereas im sure someone can live without the 4x more likely pedestrian killer SUV.S3v3N wrote:
all right, wrap your minds around this;
Please think about those huge fucking cargo ships that travel the oceans from country to country. They all have to be powered by some form of fossil fuel, since nuclear technology is a no-go for these ships. Also those nifty Tractor-tailors (think of how many of these big bastards run freely upon the highways of the US/Canada/Mexico) that transport those cargo containers around and all the railway companys like BNSF and Union Pacific, all burn fossil fuels. Those hippies need to quit whining about SUVs and Pickup Trucks.
China isnt the biggest polluter, its second biggest.DBBrinson1 wrote:
BWAHHAAHAHAHAA. Nice try. Look at China. The US would have to put a lot more Ford ExcurisonsELITE-UK wrote:
With the need to cut carbon emissions, big boy bush decided to pull out..the reason, because if he did it would ruin the american economy..thus further pumping out carbon at a alarming rate...this to me seams so selfish, meaning, why face ruining the world over a fucking economy. so what if the american economy suffers, doesnt the world mean more to him, the selfish bastard!?? anyone else agree here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Excursion
on the road just to try to keep up with them.
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0510-worldbank.html
"Second you say!"
"Whos the biggest then?" - I hear you ask.
Well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … _emissions
I still think all the cargo ships, semi trucks, and railway equipment produce more polution than that of a country full of SUVs, and not every family has one of these vehicles either. The distance one of those ships travels and the time those engines running puts alot of polution out. I do agree about about Mr and Mrs jerkoff is Southern California and their brand new hummer, they don't need it. But where i live try pulling a 3 axel, GooseNeck trailer loaded with square bails of hay, with a family car. In short where I live and the way my family has been making a living since the 1930s, Pick-Up trucks are needed.
And of course an SUV uses twice the fuel consumption, it has twice the engine a family car has. My truck has a 7.4L 454 V-8, i get 12 Miles per Gallon, highway, in town, towing trailers doesn't matter. My wife's car has a 2.4L 4cylinder engine (you do the math) 35 MPG on the highway, 25 in town..
However my mom's brand new shiny SUV. 2006 Chevy Trailblazer gets around 25 MPG on the highway and around 15-20 in town.. and its got a V-6. It consumes half the amount of gas my truck does. my wife's car consumes a third of what my truck does. Of course cars have better emissions.. smaller engines. Now how big is the power plant on your average massive Cargo Ship? I have no doubt the amount of fuel consumed by one voyage from China to the USA could power my truck for the rest of my life.
And of course an SUV uses twice the fuel consumption, it has twice the engine a family car has. My truck has a 7.4L 454 V-8, i get 12 Miles per Gallon, highway, in town, towing trailers doesn't matter. My wife's car has a 2.4L 4cylinder engine (you do the math) 35 MPG on the highway, 25 in town..
However my mom's brand new shiny SUV. 2006 Chevy Trailblazer gets around 25 MPG on the highway and around 15-20 in town.. and its got a V-6. It consumes half the amount of gas my truck does. my wife's car consumes a third of what my truck does. Of course cars have better emissions.. smaller engines. Now how big is the power plant on your average massive Cargo Ship? I have no doubt the amount of fuel consumed by one voyage from China to the USA could power my truck for the rest of my life.
Last edited by S3v3N (2006-09-14 01:28:22)
"Not everyone else is cutting carbon emissions so neither should we" is a lousy excuse.DBBrinson1 wrote:
BWAHHAAHAHAHAA. Nice try. Look at China. The US would have to put a lot more Ford ExcurisonsELITE-UK wrote:
With the need to cut carbon emissions, big boy bush decided to pull out..the reason, because if he did it would ruin the american economy..thus further pumping out carbon at a alarming rate...this to me seams so selfish, meaning, why face ruining the world over a fucking economy. so what if the american economy suffers, doesnt the world mean more to him, the selfish bastard!?? anyone else agree here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Excursion
on the road just to try to keep up with them.
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0510-worldbank.html
The Kyoto protocol in June 2005:
Last edited by DonFck (2006-09-14 01:35:46)
I need around tree fiddy.
See thats the huge difference in Europe we expect a car to do atleast 40-50mpg otherwise its a waste and it costs a hell of a lot more. The reason it needs 2x the engine is because its 2x the size which is unnessacary for the majority of SUV owners, infact SUV's are completely unnessacary, i do agree that people in the country side atleast have an excuse. Btw about the consumtion...S3v3N wrote:
I still think all the cargo ships, semi trucks, and railway equipment produce more polution than that of a country full of SUVs, and not every family has one of these vehicles either. The distance one of those ships travels and the time those engines running puts alot of polution out. I do agree about about Mr and Mrs jerkoff is Southern California and their brand new hummer, they don't need it. But where i live try pulling a 3 axel, GooseNeck trailer loaded with square bails of hay, with a family car. In short where I live and the way my family has been making a living since the 1930s, Pick-Up trucks are needed.
And of course an SUV uses twice the fuel consumption, it has twice the engine a family car has. My truck has a 7.4L 454 V-8, i get 12 Miles per Gallon, highway, in town, towing trailers doesn't matter. My wife's car has a 2.4L 4cylinder engine (you do the math) 35 MPG on the highway, 25 in town..
However my mom's brand new shiny SUV. 2006 Chevy Trailblazer gets around 25 MPG on the highway and around 15-20 in town.. and its got a V-6. It consumes half the amount of gas my truck does. my wife's car consumes a third of what my truck does. Of course cars have better emissions.. smaller engines. Now how big is the power plant on your average massive Cargo Ship? I have no doubt the amount of fuel consumed by one voyage from China to the USA could power my truck for the rest of my life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_consumption
QE2 does 13 litres per 100km per person thats as good as my car... Note that about 40% of the power produced by the ship engines is used for propulsion, the rest being used to generate electricity for heating, lighting, and other passenger comforts. That is one of the most wasteful ships on earth, all passenger ships are they have so much wasted space, unlike tankers/cargos which are designed to pack as much into them as they can.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-09-14 02:49:58)
To be fair, carbon dioxide emmissions are shortened to carbon emissions to keep the masses of carbon in all parts of the carbon cycle standardised.P581 wrote:
You don't even know what you are talking about, it's not carbon emissions; it's freaking carbon dioxide That's Not the same thing at all. Shortening it to "carbon" makes it something else completely.
About these massive tankers, huge trucks, trains etc. being more polluting than SUV's, they aren't.
The way to think about this isn't `how much does an SUV pollute compaired to a tanker?` but `how much pollution per tonne carried/per passenger does it make?` As things get bigger their volume increases to the power 3 while the surface area increases to the power 2. (ie. double the length, the surface area becomes 4X bigger, volume becomes 8X bigger). As friction (what slows the vehicle down and therefore requires the engine to keep running) increases with surface area, larger vehicles can transport things more fuel effectively than lots of small ones.
An SUV carries one to a few people, while a train carries hundreds. Overall it's more fuel effective and therefore less polluting.
This has been the way of things since ... well the first old man that came about once coin was in play.Mekstizzle wrote:
They all don't give a fuck, not just Bush. They're all old men. Got their wages, gonna have a nice retirement before they fuck off somewhere else whilst this place gets messed up.
100 kilometer = 62.137 119 224 mile
13 liter = 3.434 236 666 gallon [US, liquid]
Hmm, my truck uses 5 gallons (18.927 059 liter) to go the same distance. My moms SUV uses about 2.5 gallons (9.463 529 5 liter) Now think of the distance traveled by 2000 of these ships at sea. a straight shot from New York to Beijing China is around 6500 miles, you do the math that would be 280 gallons or 1059.915 304 liters (AARGG.. i'm tired of converting from US to Metric) IMO they are just as bad as the dreaded *SUV* however you can't lump the newest SUVs, what people really need to look at is the vehicles still on the road made before 1985 (before emissions was taken really seriously) We could drone on and on about cargo ships. But i know for a fact Semi-Trucks produce more pollution then every SUV in America. As i sat on the highway looking for speeders, i counted 100 Semi-Trucks and only 20 SUV class vehicles.. and god knows how many passenger cars and maybe 10 light trucks..
The whole SUV concept was: lets take a Minivan and a truck and smash them together. However People lump a Trailblazer and a Ford Excursion into the same group which they aren't. 2 Different sized vehicles..
13 liter = 3.434 236 666 gallon [US, liquid]
Hmm, my truck uses 5 gallons (18.927 059 liter) to go the same distance. My moms SUV uses about 2.5 gallons (9.463 529 5 liter) Now think of the distance traveled by 2000 of these ships at sea. a straight shot from New York to Beijing China is around 6500 miles, you do the math that would be 280 gallons or 1059.915 304 liters (AARGG.. i'm tired of converting from US to Metric) IMO they are just as bad as the dreaded *SUV* however you can't lump the newest SUVs, what people really need to look at is the vehicles still on the road made before 1985 (before emissions was taken really seriously) We could drone on and on about cargo ships. But i know for a fact Semi-Trucks produce more pollution then every SUV in America. As i sat on the highway looking for speeders, i counted 100 Semi-Trucks and only 20 SUV class vehicles.. and god knows how many passenger cars and maybe 10 light trucks..
The whole SUV concept was: lets take a Minivan and a truck and smash them together. However People lump a Trailblazer and a Ford Excursion into the same group which they aren't. 2 Different sized vehicles..
Global Warming FTW!!! If it continues, and the sea continues rising, I will live at the beach! W00t!
Bush must be a puppet of the oil industry...
Look at the Bushfamilys own interest in the oil industry and both presidents start war against a country with a lot of oil.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the real reasons...
Gas is still very cheap in the US!
You just wast it in bad V8's with little power if you compare to the engine volume.
Go TURBO!
Look at the Bushfamilys own interest in the oil industry and both presidents start war against a country with a lot of oil.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the real reasons...
Gas is still very cheap in the US!
You just wast it in bad V8's with little power if you compare to the engine volume.
Go TURBO!
Which explains why he is the only president to do it...................Mr.Unstoppable wrote:
Yes it is selfish but presidents from any other place would do the same.
QFTBubbalo wrote:
Which explains why he is the only president to do it...................Mr.Unstoppable wrote:
Yes it is selfish but presidents from any other place would do the same.
ATG wrote:
{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
wow, another thread bashing Bush.................i decline to comment.