LATIMES editorial....why California is NOT serious about climate change (how much, live)

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

Either way, concern about world population is not a valid reason for resisting urban density.

My point wasn't really that. It was that population is the stumbling block to meaningful change. You can fill up city after city with high density living, but runaway human growth will still be there.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Many of the older folks won't be alive by the time any future policies get enacted. As the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind. Of course, they also don't think through the implications that their wasteful lifestyles will have on the well-being of their grandchildren.

Laughed at "wasteful lifestyles".
My generation is the anti-consumerism one or did you forget?

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by joosoon

My point wasn't really that. It was that population is the stumbling block to meaningful change. You can fill up city after city with high density living, but runaway human growth will still be there.

And... we've come full circle back to my point. Having those people live in dense cities is far better for the climate than sprawling all over the place. If California is serious about climate change, the number one thing it should do is build high density housing in its cities.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

And... we've come full circle back to my point. Having those people live in dense cities is far better for the climate than sprawling all over the place. If California is serious about climate change, the number one thing it should do is build high density housing in its cities.

Rearranging the existing furniture in your house doesn't make your house bigger. There's a finite number of resources on the planet. People need food, water and power to go along with shelter (high-density or not) from the elements. An enormous amount of energy goes into providing those things no matter where you stack the bulk of humans.


The only way to affect the impact of those necessities, is to actually decrease the necessity. And the only way to do that, is to have less mouths to feed, etc.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by joosoon

The speed a vehicle travels at isn't necessarily proportionate to the amount of work its IC engine is doing, hence the output of all the exhaust. It doesn't work that way. You don't need any course in physics to understand that concept.

The work an ICE does is proportionate to speed, at least at steady state travel. Wind resistance goes up as the cube of speed, so if you go twice as fast, there is 8 times as much wind resistance. That means the engine has to work harder.

[Racer46]

[quote=WRM20;62548790]The work an ICE does is proportionate to speed, at least at steady state travel. Wind resistance goes up as the cube of speed, so if you go twice as fast, there is 8 times as much wind resistance. That means the engine has to work harder.[/QUOTE]

That depends on many things. Shape of the car, size of the car, the tries being used, the air pressure in the tires, the maximum Torque and H.P. point and even the engine size.

I had a V8 engine larger than my current 4cyl and it was getting within 2 miles per gallon to the 4cyl and was older and had more miles and both were easily @25 miles per gallon at 70MPH, and at 55 virtually the same.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by WRM20

The work an ICE does is proportionate to speed, at least at steady state travel. Wind resistance goes up as the cube of speed, so if you go twice as fast, there is 8 times as much wind resistance. That means the engine has to work harder.

Let's review what I said especially since I never brought up drag and/or aerodynamics.
The claim in the original post is that "55 MPH speed limits on highways, 45 MPH speed limits on urban freeways. Europeans are doing it. Reduces CO2 emissions by 10%!!! OVERNIGHT". I called that dubious for a variety of reasons. I was then told to basically go "look it up" and prove it myself instead of being pointed to substantiation.


As for drag/aerodynamic force, not all cars are equal (which I already said). I'm pretty sure a cube van is going to be more affected by drag than a Lambo at any speed. The math isn't the issue here. Also, as I pointed out, things like gearing matters and modern vehicles are set up to be on the threshold of their powerband at existing freeway speeds. If a vehicle no longer can operate in its top gear and be within that range, it's going to perform worse by either being bogged down or having to shift to a lower gear and be working harder both of which would defeat the point. Simply reducing the arbitrary limits to 45mph doesn't mean that all vehicles will suddenly emit 10% less emission volume and certainly not "overnight" (in all-caps).


The point is, there's a lot more to this than simplistic reductions of the speed limit which is why the OP expects me to go find the information myself.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Racer46

That depends on many things.

Not to mention drag is negligible under low freeway speeds unless you drive a brick.

[WRM20]

[quote=Racer46;62548963]

Originally Posted by WRM20

The work an ICE does is proportionate to speed, at least at steady state travel. Wind resistance goes up as the cube of speed, so if you go twice as fast, there is 8 times as much wind resistance. That means the engine has to work harder.[/QUOTE]

That depends on many things. Shape of the car, size of the car, the tries being used, the air pressure in the tires, the maximum Torque and H.P. point and even the engine size.

I had a V8 engine larger than my current 4cyl and it was getting within 2 miles per gallon to the 4cyl and was older and had more miles and both were easily @25 miles per gallon at 70MPH, and at 55 virtually the same.

No, it doesn't. At steady state travel, wind resistance varies as the cube of the change in speed. You can't compare your V8 to your I4. Different engines. However, the wind resistance cube rule still applies. Each engine will work harder as speed increases.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Rearranging the existing furniture in your house doesn't make your house bigger. There's a finite number of resources on the planet. People need food, water and power to go along with shelter (high-density or not) from the elements. An enormous amount of energy goes into providing those things no matter where you stack the bulk of humans.

The only way to affect the impact of those necessities, is to actually decrease the necessity. And the only way to do that, is to have less mouths to feed, etc.

So ... other than world population, there isn't really anything we can do so no use trying. Got it That's certainly one way to not take climate change seriously.