A Modest Proposal (Automotive) - Page 2 - LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community
 40Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 06:41 AM
Registered User
 
XHILR8N!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 2 laps down
Posts: 6,829
Garage
Nice find. Remarkable.

Anyone can make something complicated. It takes genius to make it simple. Einstein.
2011 Evora S Racing Heritage Edition (#3 of 4) (Now with alexsharkeyross)
2005 Elise LRG, track prepped ,
1974 Lotus Europa Special 3841R in JPS livery
2007 Toyota Tundra (about 10 cup holders), traded for 2015 Tundra TRD PRO
2007 Audi S4 DTM (RIP) 1980 Rover SD1 (new home) 2015 Honda Civic Si
2016 370Z Nismo
2013 Bentley Continental GT Speed 2019 Lexus LC500
XHILR8N! is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 10:17 AM
Registered User
 
brgelise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 6,034
1. We are at the end of an ice age. The environmentalists never mention that. Shame because including all the facts will strengthen the argument. That is a pet peeve.
2. Using a 5000-7000lb pickup truck as personal transportation is, IMHO, the #1 most wasteful thing we do in America. Pickups are far larger than 90++% of the SUV's out there. Point the finger at the source that can have the greatest influence on the problem. The US is completely overrun with them. Put a HUGE tax on all of these vehicles not SPECIFICALLY being used for WORK. Immediately you have gone after the largest vehicular polluters, wasters ///GLUTTENS!!!
3. We need to learn to convert coal to a different energy source if if want to continue to use it.
4. Yachts and other pleasure vessels that use astronomical amounts of fuel should also be hit with HUGE taxes. You can afford to own one....pay for it and the damage it causes the environment. That is a way of going after that top tax bracket specifically for their most gluttonous habits.
3. I agree about CATs and that is why I left the primaries on the headers of my Evora...where they do the most good by lighting off early in a combustion cycle.

Feel free to add to this list but go after the BIG targets.
XHILR8N! likes this.

16 Maserati GranTurismo Sport Ext Campio /Grigio Chronos w/full MC Carbon Fiber interior trim, Stock for now
18 Alfa Romeo Stelvio Visconti Verde/Brown Leather Remus Catback,Eurocompulsion Phase 2 V2 intake, 390HP/443ft-lb Tq!
16 Range Rover Sport HSE, Montalcino Red w/Ivory Leather-[/COLOR]- 456HP/412ft-lb Tq
12 Maxda MX-5 Miata GT PRHT True Red/Black leather
11 Lotus Evora "S" Persian Blue, Grey/Black Suedetex/Leather

Last edited by brgelise; 03-02-2019 at 07:46 AM.
brgelise is offline  
post #23 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 11:05 AM
Illegal Alien
 
Julian73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Longview, TX
Posts: 4,492
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeLotus View Post
I'm no scientist, and I'm even less of an expert on climate change, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question, but if a diesel generator is used to charge the battery in a car, isn't it more efficient to just drive a diesel-powered car? I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I'm honestly asking because I want to know if it makes sense to use a diesel generator for this purpose.
This process is embarrassing, but it is not terrible. A diesel genset is able to run at its most efficent operating point whereas car truck engines most vary the rpm range, this is why big ships convert the diesel power to electricty rather than drive the props directly.

'17 Evora Sport 410 GP (No. 1 of 9) Lotus MS alloy pan, SSC harness bar
'12 Evora S GP (No. 1 of 14) BOE Prototype Stage 2 - 420+bHp **SOLD**
Julian73 is offline  
 
post #24 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 11:14 AM
Illegal Alien
 
Julian73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Longview, TX
Posts: 4,492
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by brgelise View Post
4. Yachts and other pleasure vessels that use astronomical amounts of fuel should also be hit with HUGE taxes. You can afford to own one....pay for it and the damage it causes the environment. That is a way of going after that top tax bracket specifically for their most gluttonous habits.
And now we have the race for producing supersonic business jets up to mach 2.2

Quote:
3. I agree about CATs and that is why I left the primaries on the headers of my Evora...where they do the most good by lighting off early in a combustion cycle.

Feel free to add to this list but go after the BIG targets.
I was one to take off my header cats, but upsize the secondary and convert to o2 sensing .. I agree that the primaries are now located as close as practical to the exhaust ports from quick light off so as to reduce emission's during the dirty warm up period, however I also acknowledge that my Evora and RX-7 are not daily drivers or grocery store runners so warmup is a very short portion of the duty cycle. I don't like Catless cars I don't like the burning eyes.

'17 Evora Sport 410 GP (No. 1 of 9) Lotus MS alloy pan, SSC harness bar
'12 Evora S GP (No. 1 of 14) BOE Prototype Stage 2 - 420+bHp **SOLD**
Julian73 is offline  
post #25 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 11:37 AM
Registered User
 
4380r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by brgelise View Post
1. We are at the end of an ice age. The environmentalists never mention that. Shame because including all the facts will strengthen the argument. That is a pet peeve.
2. Using a 5000-700lb pickup truck as personal transportation is, IMHO, the #1 most wasteful thing we do in America. Pickups are far larger than 90++% of the SUV's out there. Point the finger at the source that can have the greatest influence on the problem. The US is completely overrun with them. Put a HUGE tax on all of these vehicles not SPECIFICALLY being used for WORK. Immediately you have gone after the largest vehicular polluters, wasters ///GLUTTENS!!!
3. We need to learn to convert coal to a different energy source if if want to continue to use it.
4. Yachts and other pleasure vessels that use astronomical amounts of fuel should also be hit with HUGE taxes. You can afford to own one....pay for it and the damage it causes the environment. That is a way of going after that top tax bracket specifically for their most gluttonous habits.
3. I agree about CATs and that is why I left the primaries on the headers of my Evora...where they do the most good by lighting off early in a combustion cycle.

Feel free to add to this list but go after the BIG targets.
Ok.

4. Put HUGE taxes on all vehicles used solely for recreation: race cars, bikes, boats and planes. All off road vehicles not used for agricultural or rural law enforcement. Those are totally frivolous uses that in no way contribute to the public good. Every ounce of fuel burned in this capacity is 100% a waste.
5. Place HUGE taxes on all vehicular activity that is other than basic transportation: track days, auto cross, etc.
6. Put HUGE taxes on any vehicle that seats less than 4 adults. They are an extremely inefficient form of transportation. Exception: motorcyles. Equally inefficient, but they take up far less space and use less fuel. Tax them, just less.
7. Put HUGE taxes on consumable supplies and materials used in high performance cars that wear quickly: R compound type of tires, racing brake pads, etc.
8. Strictly forbid all households, at all income levels, from owning more than one street licensed motor vehicle per resident licensed driver. Exception is a work vehicle registered for commercial business use.

I assume the sarcasm is apparent, but it's always the OTHER guy's interests and hobbies that are the ones that need to be controlled and taxed. Saying 'go only after the BIG targets' is just a deflection away from one's own sacred cows. It's kind of like a smoker being righteous because he smokes low tar..while deriding the Camel smoker.

It's the thought that only the big targets are the ones that count that's stymied any effort at reducing the national debt...the only BIG target that would make a significant impact are the entitlements...and again...sacred cows.

Speaking of cows, seems they ARE the primary source of methane gas...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samlemo.../#5eb44b9078a9

9. Oh...and require all private homes with lots of half acre or less to use a rotary style lawn mower: no gas powered mowers for moderate/small lots. AND will contribute to addressing the obesity problem. Oh, and no skirting this requirement by permitting lawn care companies to care for smaller lots as part of their business. Small/medium lots need to be cut with rotary mowers. Period.

10. Next up? What to do about the use of unnecessary barbecue grills. They burn meat, which we need to do away with, and throw off lots of noxious gases. Millions of times every weekend across the country.

But, back to the sarcasm. Is it? You think what you're hearing from The Dancing Congress Child and her ilk isn't the camel just starting to get its nose under the tent flap?

Was reading in the current issue of Classic Motor Sports that the top 100 collectors own around 3500 of the most important classic cars in the world, with a current total value of about $8 billion. The average age of these collectors is 72, and around 20 percent of them are 80 or older. This raises the question of what happens to these cars once these older collectors pass on. Younger people are skewing less towards the automotive culture, and not only is it likely the value of collector cars will diminish, but these collections will be disbursed.

It's going to happen fast. It won't be just big pickup trucks, SUV's and yachts that are going to outlawed or taxed into extinction, the enthusiast car hobby's days are numbered.

Owned, loved, enjoyed, and now gone:
1969 Europa S2 Blue
1970 Europa S2 White
1974 Europa Twin Cam Blue
1974 Europa Twin Cam Blue
1984 Turbo Esprit Calypso Red
2005 Elise Starlight Black
2005 Elise Saffron Yellow
2005 Elise Ardent Red
2006 Exige Graphite Grey
2007 Exige Canyon Red

Other:
1970 MGB GT
1970 Datsun 510
1984 Honda CRX Si
1984 Pontiac Fiero
2004 Chrysler Crossfire
2009 Pontiac Solstice Coupe

Last edited by 4380r; 02-17-2019 at 01:00 PM.
4380r is offline  
post #26 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 01:21 PM Thread Starter
glb
Registered User
 
glb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chester, NJ
Posts: 11,187
Friends, if I could convince large companies to reduce their emissions, I would.

But, we can act on our own to help a bit. This is why I posted this stuff.

Especially when our actions increase emissions for no good reason.

OK?

05 elise (BOE Rev300 supercharged, SSRs, shift tower mods, Multivex; HID hi/low beams); 05 Corolla XRS. Past '72 Elan Sprint (I restored), Lotus 7 w/X-flow, TT Supra, Bugeye Sprite, BMW 2002 & 2002tii, '65 GTO.

Driving Tips-https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...art-1-a-49665/
Moss Emergency Line-https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...cy-line-36631/
Bleeding Brakes- https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...-brakes-241138
glb is offline  
post #27 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 03:10 PM
Registered User
 
Obeisance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SE MI
Posts: 603
my response borders on the 'don't post if it's not constructive' adage, perhaps this isn't helpful, but i post because after-treatment is near and dear to me:

the catalyst is simply one component in after-treatment. if someone really cares about minimizing emissions from any given vehicle, then the entire system must be maintained as delivered from the oem. this includes all of the sacrifices in power and sacrifices in the smoothness of power delivery.

this includes retaining the oem calibration too. the system is designed to manage the oxygen storage in the catalyst in order to reduce NOx, and to oxidize CO and hydrocarbons. similarly, extra fuel is carefully used to cool the exhaust at times of high load to protect the catalyst from overheating. this is tricky because incorrect delivery of fuel to the catalyst can lead to exotherms that can cause damage.

the system is designed to last for a certain amount of time too. when it has aged beyond allowable regulatory limits, the system can detect failed components (P0420).

when the engine control calibration is changed, or the obd systems modified, the system can no longer function properly.

while i agree that retaining a catalyst is better than removing it for non-existent power gains, i am not convinced that it maintains appreciable function or that its lifetime is unaffected after other parts of the system have been modified.

in this case, id love to see some emissions data from some modified cars.

do any of our aftermarket suppliers certify their ecu recalibrations with the epa or carb?
Obeisance is online now  
post #28 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 04:54 PM Thread Starter
glb
Registered User
 
glb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chester, NJ
Posts: 11,187
Good points. I can test only CO.

My then 156 hp Elan was at 2% on highway.

05 elise (BOE Rev300 supercharged, SSRs, shift tower mods, Multivex; HID hi/low beams); 05 Corolla XRS. Past '72 Elan Sprint (I restored), Lotus 7 w/X-flow, TT Supra, Bugeye Sprite, BMW 2002 & 2002tii, '65 GTO.

Driving Tips-https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...art-1-a-49665/
Moss Emergency Line-https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...cy-line-36631/
Bleeding Brakes- https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...-brakes-241138
glb is offline  
post #29 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-17-2019, 05:07 PM
Registered User
 
Motard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,416
Garage
I'm certain to lose points for this...

My part of the country has no emissions testing, 50 miles to the west, yes, 70 to the east yes., but here in Bartertown, nope...

You would not believe the madmax style engine swaps I see at the local weekend meets... ( Think Blown V8's in 240z's)

So, all I can say is, I love the decat sound, it wails, plus pops and gurgles are much more pronounced.

2bular header,flexi decat, 2bular 8"X24" ( I think) stock exit exhaust.



My actual thoughts about carbon footprint goes like this, I no longer travel around the world nonstop like I used to, but most importantly, I did not have any children, I read something like having one child increases ones carbon footprint by a multiple of x40 to those who do not, plus I have been a vegetarian since 1988. I sleep well at night!

One of the last places in the country that, if it rolls it can be registered, My red watery eyes!
Lotusxs likes this.

L O T U S

Last edited by Motard; 03-15-2019 at 08:52 AM.
Motard is offline  
post #30 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-18-2019, 09:00 AM Thread Starter
glb
Registered User
 
glb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chester, NJ
Posts: 11,187
Time to Panic

The planet is getting warmer in catastrophic ways. And fear may be the only thing that saves us.


The age of climate panic is here. Last summer, a heat wave baked the entire Northern Hemisphere, killing dozens from Quebec to Japan. Some of the most destructive wildfires in California history turned more than a million acres to ash, along the way melting the tires and the sneakers of those trying to escape the flames. Pacific hurricanes forced three million people in China to flee and wiped away almost all of Hawaii’s East Island.

We are living today in a world that has warmed by just one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s, when records began on a global scale. We are adding planet-warming carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate faster than at any point in human history since the beginning of industrialization.

In October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released what has become known as its “Doomsday” report — “a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen,” as one United Nations official described it — detailing climate effects at 1.5 and two degrees Celsius of warming (2.7 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). At the opening of a major United Nations conference two months later, David Attenborough, the mellifluous voice of the BBC’s “Planet Earth” and now an environmental conscience for the English-speaking world, put it even more bleakly: “If we don’t take action,” he said, “the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

Scientists have felt this way for a while. But they have not often talked like it. For decades, there were few things with a worse reputation than “alarmism” among those studying climate change.

This is a bit strange. You don’t typically hear from public health experts about the need for circumspection in describing the risks of carcinogens, for instance. The climatologist James Hansen, who testified before Congress about global warming in 1988, has called the phenomenon “scientific reticence” and chastised his colleagues for it — for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat actually was.

That tendency metastasized even as the news from the research grew bleaker. So for years the publication of every major paper, essay or book would be attended by a cloud of commentary debating its precise calibration of perspective and tone, with many of those articles seen by scientists as lacking an appropriate balance between bad news and optimism, and labeled “fatalistic” as a result.

In 2018, their circumspection began to change, perhaps because all that extreme weather wouldn’t permit it not to. Some scientists even began embracing alarmism — particularly with that United Nations report. The research it summarized was not new, and temperatures beyond two degrees Celsius were not even discussed, though warming on that scale is where we are headed. Though the report — the product of nearly 100 scientists from around the world — did not address any of the scarier possibilities for warming, it did offer a new form of permission to the world’s scientists. The thing that was new was the message: It is O.K., finally, to freak out. Even reasonable.

This, to me, is progress. Panic might seem counterproductive, but we’re at a point where alarmism and catastrophic thinking are valuable, for several reasons.

The Difference a Degree Makes

The number of people projected to experience heat waves, water stress and other climate events by 2050 rises sharply as the global mean temperature increases.




[Please see article for chart]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/o...unday%20Review

The first is that climate change is a crisis precisely because it is a looming catastrophe that demands an aggressive global response, now. In other words, it is right to be alarmed. The emissions path we are on today is likely to take us to 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming by 2040, two degrees Celsius within decades after that and perhaps four degrees Celsius by 2100.

As temperatures rise, this could mean many of the biggest cities in the Middle East and South Asia would become lethally hot in summer, perhaps as soon as 2050. There would be ice-free summers in the Arctic and the unstoppable disintegration of the West Antarctic’s ice sheet, which some scientists believe has already begun, threatening the world’s coastal cities with inundation. Coral reefs would mostly disappear. And there would be tens of millions of climate refugees, perhaps many more, fleeing droughts, flooding and extreme heat, and the possibility of multiple climate-driven natural disasters striking simultaneously.

There are many reasons to think we may not get to four degrees Celsius, but globally, emissions are still growing, and the time we have to avert what is now thought to be catastrophic warming — two degrees Celsius — is shrinking by the day. To stay safely below that threshold, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, according to the United Nations report. Instead, they are still rising. So being alarmed is not a sign of being hysterical; when it comes to climate change, being alarmed is what the facts demand. Perhaps the only logical response.

This helps explain the second reason alarmism is useful: By defining the boundaries of conceivability more accurately, catastrophic thinking makes it easier to see the threat of climate change clearly. For years, we have read in newspapers as two degrees of warming was invoked as the highest tolerable level, beyond which disaster would ensue. Warming greater than that was rarely discussed outside scientific circles. And so it was easy to develop an intuitive portrait of the landscape of possibilities that began with the climate as it exists today and ended with the pain of two degrees, the ceiling of suffering.

In fact, it is almost certainly a floor. By far the likeliest outcomes for the end of this century fall between two and four degrees of warming. And so looking squarely at what the world might look like in that range — two degrees, three, four — is much better preparation for the challenges we will face than retreating into the comforting relative normalcy of the present.

The third reason is while concern about climate change is growing — fortunately — complacency remains a much bigger political problem than fatalism. In December, a national survey tracking Americans’ attitudes toward climate change found that 73 percent said global warming was happening, the highest percentage since the question began being asked in 2008. But a majority of Americans were unwilling to spend even $10 a month to address global warming; most drew the line at $1 a month, according to a poll conducted the previous month.

Last fall, voters in Washington, a green state in a blue-wave election, rejected even a modest carbon-tax plan. Are those people unwilling to pay that money because they think the game is over or because they don’t think it’s necessary yet?

This is a rhetorical question. If we had started global decarbonization in 2000, according to the Global Carbon Project, we would have had to cut emissions by only about 2 percent per year to stay safely under two degrees of warming. Did we fail to act then because we thought it was all over already or because we didn’t yet consider warming an urgent enough problem to take action against? Only 44 percent of those surveyed in a survey last month cited climate change as a top political priority.

But it should be. The fact is, further delay will only make the problem worse. If we started a broad decarbonization effort today — a gargantuan undertaking to overhaul our energy systems, building and transportation infrastructure and how we produce our food — the necessary rate of emissions reduction would be about 5 percent per year. If we delay another decade, it will require us to cut emissions by some 9 percent each year. This is why the United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, believes we have only until 2020 to change course and get started.

A fourth argument for embracing catastrophic thinking comes from history. Fear can mobilize, even change the world. When Rachel Carson published her landmark anti-pesticide polemic “Silent Spring,” Life magazine said she had “overstated her case,” and The Saturday Evening Post dismissed the book as “alarmist.” But it almost single-handedly led to a nationwide ban on DDT.

Throughout the Cold War, foes of nuclear weapons did not shy away from warning of the horrors of mutually assured destruction, and in the 1980s and 1990s, campaigners against drunken driving did not feel obligated to make their case simply by celebrating sobriety. In its “Doomsday” report, the United Nations climate-change panel offered a very clear analogy for the mobilization required to avert catastrophic warming: World War II, which President Franklin Roosevelt called a “challenge to life, liberty and civilization.” That war was not waged on hope alone.

But perhaps the strongest argument for the wisdom of catastrophic thinking is that all of our mental reflexes run in the opposite direction, toward disbelief about the possibility of very bad outcomes. I know this from personal experience. I have spent the past three years buried in climate science and following the research as it expanded into ever darker territory.

The number of “good news” scientific papers that I’ve encountered in that time I could probably count on my two hands. The “bad news” papers number probably in the thousands — each day seeming to bring a new, distressing revision to our understanding of the environmental trauma already unfolding.

I know the science is true, I know the threat is all-encompassing, and I know its effects, should emissions continue unabated, will be terrifying. And yet, when I imagine my life three decades from now, or the life of my daughter five decades now, I have to admit that I am not imagining a world on fire but one similar to the one we have now. That is how hard it is to shake complacency. We are all living in delusion, unable to really process the news from science that climate change amounts to an all-encompassing threat. Indeed, a threat the size of life itself.

How can we be this deluded? One answer comes from behavioral economics. The scroll of cognitive biases identified by psychologists and fellow travelers over the past half-century can seem, like a social media feed, bottomless, and they distort and distend our perception of a changing climate. These optimistic prejudices, prophylactic biases and emotional reflexes form an entire library of climate delusion.

We build our view of the universe outward from our own experience, a reflexive tendency that surely shapes our ability to comprehend genuinely existential threats to the species. We have a tendency to wait for others to act, rather than acting ourselves; a preference for the present situation; a disinclination to change things; and an excess of confidence that we can change things easily, should we need to, no matter the scale. We can’t see anything but through cataracts of self-deception.

The sum total of these biases is what makes climate change something the ecological theorist Timothy Morton calls a “hyperobject” — a conceptual fact so large and complex that it can never be properly comprehended. In his book “Worst-Case Scenarios,” the legal scholar Cass Sunstein wrote that in general, we have a problem considering unlikely but potential risks, which we run from either into complacency or paranoia. His solution is a wonky one: We should all be more rigorous in our cost-benefit analysis.

That climate change demands expertise, and faith in it, at precisely the moment when public confidence in expertise is collapsing is one of its many paradoxes. That climate change touches so many of our cognitive biases is a mark of just how big it is and how much about human life it touches, which is to say, nearly everything.

And unfortunately, as climate change has been dawning more fully into view over the past several decades, all the cognitive biases that push us toward complacency have been abetted by our storytelling about warming — by journalism defined by caution in describing the scale and speed of the threat.

So what can we do? And by the way, who’s “we”? The size of the threat from climate change means that organization is necessary at every level — communities, states, nations and international agreements that coordinate action among them. But most of us don’t live in the halls of the United Nations or the boardrooms in which the Paris climate agreement was negotiated.

Instead we live in a consumer culture that tells us we can make our political mark on the world through where we shop, what we wear, how we eat. This is how we get things like The Lancet’s recent dietary recommendations for those who want to eat to mitigate climate change — less meat for some, more vegetables — or suggestions like those published in The Washington Post, around the time of New Year’s resolutions. For instance: “Be smart about your air-conditioner.”

But conscious consumption is a cop-out, a neoliberal diversion from collective action, which is what is necessary. People should try to live by their own values, about climate as with everything else, but the effects of individual lifestyle choices are ultimately trivial compared with what politics can achieve.

Buying an electric car is a drop in the bucket compared with raising fuel-efficiency standards sharply. Conscientiously flying less is a lot easier if there’s more high-speed rail around. And if I eat fewer hamburgers a year, so what? But if cattle farmers were required to feed their cattle seaweed, which might reduce methane emissions by nearly 60 percent according to one study, that would make an enormous difference.

That is what is meant when politics is called a “moral multiplier.” It is also an exit from the personal, emotional burden of climate change and from what can feel like hypocrisy about living in the world as it is and simultaneously worrying about its future. We don’t ask people who pay taxes to support a social safety net to also demonstrate that commitment through philanthropic action, and similarly we shouldn’t ask anyone — and certainly not everyone — to manage his or her own carbon footprint before we even really try to enact laws and policies that would reduce all of our emissions.

That is the purpose of politics: that we can be and do better together than we might manage as individuals.

And politics, suddenly, is on fire with climate change. Last fall, in Britain, an activist group with the alarmist name Extinction Rebellion was formed and immediately grew so large it was able to paralyze parts of London in its first major protest. Its leading demand: “Tell the truth.” That imperative is echoed, stateside, by Genevieve Guenther’s organization End Climate Silence, and the climate-change panel’s calls to direct the planet’s resources toward action against warming has been taken up at the grass roots, inspiringly, by Margaret Klein Salamon’s Climate Mobilization project.

Of course, environmental activism isn’t new, and these are just the groups that have arisen over the past few years, pushed into action by climate panic. But that alarm is cascading upward, too. In Congress, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has rallied liberal Democrats around a Green New Deal — a call to reorganize the American economy around clean energy and renewable prosperity. Washington State’s governor, Jay Inslee, has more or less declared himself a single-issue presidential candidate.

And while not a single direct question about climate change was asked of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential debates, the issue is sure to dominate the Democratic primary in 2020, alongside “Medicare for all” and free college. Michael Bloomberg, poised to spend at least $500 million on the campaign, has said he’ll insist that any candidate the party puts forward has a concrete plan for the climate.

This is what the beginning of a solution looks like — though only a very beginning, and only a partial solution. We have probably squandered the opportunity to avert two degrees of warming, but we can avert three degrees and certainly all the terrifying suffering that lies beyond that threshold.

But the longer we wait, the worse it will get. Which is one last argument for catastrophic thinking: What creates more sense of urgency than fear?
Gradenko likes this.

05 elise (BOE Rev300 supercharged, SSRs, shift tower mods, Multivex; HID hi/low beams); 05 Corolla XRS. Past '72 Elan Sprint (I restored), Lotus 7 w/X-flow, TT Supra, Bugeye Sprite, BMW 2002 & 2002tii, '65 GTO.

Driving Tips-https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...art-1-a-49665/
Moss Emergency Line-https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...cy-line-36631/
Bleeding Brakes- https://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f10...-brakes-241138
glb is offline  
post #31 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-18-2019, 04:18 PM
Registered User
 
gray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by glb View Post
What creates more sense of urgency than fear?
Windfall profits.
robo60 likes this.

Drives a Prius (clearly knows nothing about cars).

Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious
Leave Out The Unnecessary Stuff
gray is offline  
post #32 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-18-2019, 05:29 PM
`08 Elise-SC-220
 
3carmonte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 493
In keeping with this thread and what I've read in LT about the modest WHP gains gotten with even de-cat exhaust systems, I submit this system for your review. It works with my existing cat?
I'm considering this for an upgrade to my bone stock OEM exhaust.
https://www.2bular.co.uk/elise-sc-2z...e-4-1-manifold
Attached Images
 

Shhh...Secret Squirrel
3carmonte is offline  
post #33 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-21-2019, 05:08 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 38
I wouldn't normally reply, but I think you've gone out of the box here. If we want to be brutally honest about the cause of global warming, and its only possible solution:
- its caused by population explosion and the industrialization of billions of people in China and India
- its impossible to slow by reducing CO2 emissions. We simply have too many sources of CO2 emissions, even with "carbon neutral" solutions. If you want to slow climate change, you need to trap and sequester CO2, just as nature does, as well as somehow reduce and manage methane emissions from a diversity of things like defrosting tundra, and cows, goats, etc.

As nice as it feels to discuss all of this with cars, the real culprit is probably Monsanto and engineered crops that have allowed the world population to explode from ~3Billion when I was a kid to 7.5Billion now. Their used to be famines all the time, but now their aren't. Metropolitan Shanghai, in China, has a similar population to California, or Canada. And they produce a lot of coal emissions. If you want to solve the problem, you should really look at the cause, and see if there is anything that can be done. Did you know that the air blowing into California over the ocean from asia has some pollutants higher than the regulated limit in California ? And still we try to meet the limits.
brgelise and KCZ like this.
robo60 is offline  
post #34 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-22-2019, 03:42 AM
Registered User
 
Mobius0034's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 145
So many scientists in here... lol
You guys save the world.
Al Gore loves you, maybe since you are so busy saving the world you could stop the horn posts for a while lol
Mobius0034 is offline  
post #35 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-22-2019, 05:29 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by glb View Post
I have a simple request. Really easy, frankly, and it will save you money.

Please stop polluting our air by removing your catalytic converters.
Agree 100%
Gradenko is offline  
post #36 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-22-2019, 05:32 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by robo60 View Post
I wouldn't normally reply, but I think you've gone out of the box here. If we want to be brutally honest about the cause of global warming, and its only possible solution:
- its caused by population explosion and the industrialization of billions of people in China and India
Is this really the time to start laying blame? We need to work together to solve this.

BTW, these developing nations aren't doing anything that weren't taught to them by developed nations. We started polluting and burning coal to produce power a long time before they did. And now you're saying they are to blame? Please. Perhaps we should lead by example and start the change with us.
Gradenko is offline  
post #37 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-23-2019, 03:33 PM
Registered User
 
Lotusxs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 279
This is a great thread and people aren't getting upset so I'll post some thoughts in love. Most of us live in civilized areas and have great wealth as compared to history and the rest of the world. With this wealth comes responsibility and the need to act in restraint. With education comes an understanding. As an example, I now recycle all of used motor oil versus using it for dust control. This is because I became educated on the impact on the water supply. I was ignorant but the issue was pointed out to me and I made a change (30 years ago).

It is hard for us to understand the ways in which we are manipulated by a popular narrative. An example is the misunderstanding of the difference between Carbon dioxide and Carbon Monoxide.

In my short time paying attention and being aware I've learned to not be afraid. Here are things I've learned to not be afraid of: acid rain, Global cooling, rising sea levels, hole in the ozone, killer bees, terrorism, peak oil, overpopulation..... Most of these headlines were designed to make us afraid and to be a means of control. Fear drives irrational action and life is too short and precious to be afraid.

Removing a cat in a vehicle that sees less than 2k miles a year (mostly "off-road") has zero impact on air quality. It does remove significant heat from the engine compartment and can reduce the amount of axle grease squirting past the boots;}
robo60 likes this.
Lotusxs is offline  
post #38 of 79 (permalink) Old 02-24-2019, 02:57 AM
krn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 42
I think that even if a few cats are a just a drop in the bucket for global pollution, it's still worthwhile to do what we can as individuals. In the end it's the collection of all our individual actions that got us here.

However, I agree with the article posted by glb that politics is probably the more important factor. My local gov't pushed for adding composting to our waste system, for example. I can already recycle and now have the option to divert food waste from landfill (which produces a lot of methane). But many places I've travelled to don't even offer recycling as an option, let alone composting. Same thing with other services and regulations, such as public transport and emissions standards. Without a gov't that pushes for greener options, a lot of people don't have much opportunity to do their part.

So I think voting is one of the most important things we can do to make changes happen. A lot of people don't vote at all.
krn is offline  
post #39 of 79 (permalink) Old 03-02-2019, 08:50 AM
Registered User
 
brgelise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4380r View Post
Ok.

4. Put HUGE taxes on all vehicles used solely for recreation: race cars, bikes, boats and planes. All off road vehicles not used for agricultural or rural law enforcement. Those are totally frivolous uses that in no way contribute to the public good. Every ounce of fuel burned in this capacity is 100% a waste.
5. Place HUGE taxes on all vehicular activity that is other than basic transportation: track days, auto cross, etc.
6. Put HUGE taxes on any vehicle that seats less than 4 adults. They are an extremely inefficient form of transportation. Exception: motorcyles. Equally inefficient, but they take up far less space and use less fuel. Tax them, just less.
7. Put HUGE taxes on consumable supplies and materials used in high performance cars that wear quickly: R compound type of tires, racing brake pads, etc.
8. Strictly forbid all households, at all income levels, from owning more than one street licensed motor vehicle per resident licensed driver. Exception is a work vehicle registered for commercial business use.

I assume the sarcasm is apparent, but it's always the OTHER guy's interests and hobbies that are the ones that need to be controlled and taxed. Saying 'go only after the BIG targets' is just a deflection away from one's own sacred cows. It's kind of like a smoker being righteous because he smokes low tar..while deriding the Camel smoker.

It's the thought that only the big targets are the ones that count that's stymied any effort at reducing the national debt...the only BIG target that would make a significant impact are the entitlements...and again...sacred cows.

Speaking of cows, seems they ARE the primary source of methane gas...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samlemo.../#5eb44b9078a9

9. Oh...and require all private homes with lots of half acre or less to use a rotary style lawn mower: no gas powered mowers for moderate/small lots. AND will contribute to addressing the obesity problem. Oh, and no skirting this requirement by permitting lawn care companies to care for smaller lots as part of their business. Small/medium lots need to be cut with rotary mowers. Period.

10. Next up? What to do about the use of unnecessary barbecue grills. They burn meat, which we need to do away with, and throw off lots of noxious gases. Millions of times every weekend across the country.

But, back to the sarcasm. Is it? You think what you're hearing from The Dancing Congress Child and her ilk isn't the camel just starting to get its nose under the tent flap?

Was reading in the current issue of Classic Motor Sports that the top 100 collectors own around 3500 of the most important classic cars in the world, with a current total value of about $8 billion. The average age of these collectors is 72, and around 20 percent of them are 80 or older. This raises the question of what happens to these cars once these older collectors pass on. Younger people are skewing less towards the automotive culture, and not only is it likely the value of collector cars will diminish, but these collections will be disbursed.

It's going to happen fast. It won't be just big pickup trucks, SUV's and yachts that are going to outlawed or taxed into extinction, the enthusiast car hobby's days are numbered.
Actually I was 100% SERIOUS. You can add up ALL your other issues and you won't put a drop in the bucket compared to the one I stated as the BIG target. They are the most populous vehicles in the USA. Your 4 person concept doesn't work as humans do not operate in groups of 4 all the time. The amount of fuel I use in an entire season is easily consumed by a yacht in a day. So, in the big picture of life, my sacred cow is an extremely minor contributor the problem.

There will always be a car collector in the world. Hell, people collect oil cans!

Finally, I only eat beef 1-2x/week.
My favorite one was not having kids so all you RC folks pluking like bunnies have got to go!!! I have no kids so I have done my part x40 already!!! That should more than cover (think carbon credit type BS) my track days. God I hope they don't find beer to be an issue!!!

Don't get me going on Californication and building everywhere with known histories of natural periodic fires etc.

I blame it all on the cave men that learned to build fire! Now that is sarcasm to be clear.

This is actually a great thread even if a novel was inserted in the middle of it. Fortunately, not having any kids has not altered my "relative" conservation throughout my life. We all make choices. I choose small, light, relatively efficient vehicles like the Lotus v 500HP V8 gas suckers. I have always abhored muscle cars for the very reason that they are ecological nightmares. I hate pickup trucks. I do not own a yacht even those I passed my Boating?? squadron license at age 9. I don't run outdoor propane heaters. I recycle. I throw things out when worn out, not because fashion has changed........................................... .....don't you dare take my milk!!!

16 Maserati GranTurismo Sport Ext Campio /Grigio Chronos w/full MC Carbon Fiber interior trim, Stock for now
18 Alfa Romeo Stelvio Visconti Verde/Brown Leather Remus Catback,Eurocompulsion Phase 2 V2 intake, 390HP/443ft-lb Tq!
16 Range Rover Sport HSE, Montalcino Red w/Ivory Leather-[/COLOR]- 456HP/412ft-lb Tq
12 Maxda MX-5 Miata GT PRHT True Red/Black leather
11 Lotus Evora "S" Persian Blue, Grey/Black Suedetex/Leather

Last edited by brgelise; 03-03-2019 at 05:38 AM.
brgelise is offline  
post #40 of 79 (permalink) Old 03-02-2019, 09:30 AM
Registered User
 
brgelise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 6,034
On another extremely serious note. If ,indeed, offspring increase your carbon footprint by 40x (I would love to see this), the solution to the problem is VERY simple.. Population control. Maybe the Vatican just needs to finally tell us birth control is OK. or they won't admit that stupid mindset either! In that case, China has been way ahead of the curve and India has been WAY behind.

Back on topic. I don't pull cats . Evora is only CAT I've pulled in years and only because it had 3 and I only removed the least effective one because of the heat issues. I have gone to high flow better than OE CATS before.

To be clear , the issue is CHINA,INDIA REMEMBER HOW BAD THE AIR QUALITY WAS AT THAT OLYMPICS!!!!!!!!!!!

16 Maserati GranTurismo Sport Ext Campio /Grigio Chronos w/full MC Carbon Fiber interior trim, Stock for now
18 Alfa Romeo Stelvio Visconti Verde/Brown Leather Remus Catback,Eurocompulsion Phase 2 V2 intake, 390HP/443ft-lb Tq!
16 Range Rover Sport HSE, Montalcino Red w/Ivory Leather-[/COLOR]- 456HP/412ft-lb Tq
12 Maxda MX-5 Miata GT PRHT True Red/Black leather
11 Lotus Evora "S" Persian Blue, Grey/Black Suedetex/Leather

Last edited by brgelise; 03-03-2019 at 05:40 AM.
brgelise is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community > Community > Other

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What happened to Monkey Wrench Racing's Dry Sump proposal? sleepe Powertrain (Engine, Transmission, etc) 2 05-08-2009 09:03 PM
SCCA Solo Proposal - Affects Exige S, Elise SC, and Evora for 2010 Randy Chase Solo timed events 23 09-05-2008 03:32 PM
P.J. O' Rourke's "Car Enthusiast National Park" proposal AdamT Other 2 02-27-2008 02:44 PM
New F1 Proposal Vangman Other 14 10-25-2005 01:08 PM
COOP proposal to get the car here in bigger lumps babak Other 2 07-27-2004 12:13 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome