I'm sorry that you don't understand the relationship between CO2 and large SUVs, despite the controls on "pollution." It is a critical issue that even Ford Motor Company has addressed even as it pushes Expeditions and Excursions on the American consumer. Oil companies are keenly aware of the issue as well. Shell Oil, for example, has a "zero CO2" policy under which all of it refineries and other operations have voluntarily reduced their CO2 emissions to nil. Of course, Shell is a major supplier of fossil fuels so, like Ford, it is aware of the issue as it provides the means for increased CO2 to flourish. Some people might with some strength argue that Ford and Shell are hypocrites. I have an open mind on the issue.
Burning a fossil fuel creates CO2, period. The bigger the engine, the more CO2 is produced, whether you like it or not. Governmental controls on automobile emissions do little to control CO2. The emissions controls are a good thing, of course, but they are not the panacea you would like to think they are.
The nature of CO2 is what makes it dangerous. It takes a century for plants to process it. The most effective processors are found in tropical forests, which are being denuded. There is no protection from excess levels as it takes very little time for CO2 produced in any part of the world to reach any other part. Automobiles are by far the biggest producers of CO2 in the First World. The bigger the engine, and the lower the mpg, the more CO2 is emitted.
All of this is known internationally. It has been the focus of diplomatic attempts to control the burning of fossil fuel. The Third World countries want to develop their economies, naturally, so they resent the rich First World's attempts to impose upon them restrictions which, in the final analysis, allowed the economic development of the First World. They see it as a neo-colonialist attempt to maintain the status quo.
Any idiot who tells you that increased CO2 will not result in global warming is too stupid to talk to. |
