@ 2:56 "gas can evaporate straight through the metal without even being burned." - not true in any way since 1970! This is why your car has a "charcoal canister."
8Lbs of fuel can become 19Lbs of CO2 because the gas only supplies the Carbon. The gas is mixed at a ratio of 14.7:1 air to gas. The ATMOSPHERIC AIR supplies the Oxygen (the missing weight). see: "Stoichiometric Combustion"
@nickfranky Actually the video states that burning it yields 19lbs (the other 6 were from extraction, transportation, refining, etc.).
I'm guessing when gasoline is burned, the carbon and hydrogen atoms combine with oxygen in the air (producing CO, CO2, H2O, etc.), adding to the overall weight.
Another in a long history of ignorant just price theories.
Not to mention that oil spills aren't an externality, since they have the potential to pollute the environment and people's property firms have to have huge insurance policies, cover the costs to anyone whose property is damaged and pay for the clean up. That BP spill was cleaned up in less than 6 moths, mostly because natural bacteria of the gulf where natural spills occur eat it up quickly.
Don't fall for this...watch what's happening in Europe with their debt crisis. "Green Taxes" are raised to pay the bankers, not stop pollution. Slow consumption by getting rid of America's complicated and ineffectual CAFE rules and simply raise license costs on vehicles by weight, exponentially.
“Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world. Fiat
money, in extremis, is accepted by nobody. Gold is always accepted.”
- Alan Greenspan "Gold is money, and nothing else. J.P. Morgan
When measured in Gold, the price of gas has been CUT IN HALF from 1950 to present. Adjusting for inflation has nothing to do with it. The value of your "money" has been decimated. Only a moron would fail to see that, and you fill those shoes most perfectly.
I followed the 19 pounds you think a driver produces per pound to your 'cited' PDF. That number doesn't appear in the PDF at all, and quite frankly this entire discussion is disingenuous if you leave out all of the good byproducts of gasoline - kerosene, asphault, plastic, pharmaceuticals, paraffins, jet fuel, tar, motor oil, etc. Gasoline is only about 46% of a barrel of crude oil. The other 54% isn't waste - it goes to use, too.
@nathanj37 Your understanding is disingenuous. It takes oxygen to burn gasoline. That's why cars have carburetors, ask any auto mechanic. The gasoline combines with the O2 and creates CO2, at a rate of about 19 pounds per gallon of gasoline. Just ask any high school chemistry student to explain it to you.
Almost all of the other byproducts are environmentally unfriendly toxins and carcinogens, and thus greatly add to the expense of gas.
@RawFoodKevin It isn't all CO2, water is produced as well. You don't take 8 pounds of fluid and create 19 pounds of gas. If I have to explain to you that matter isn't magically created from nothing we'll get nowhere. Plastic, asphault, pharmaceuticals, paraffins, motor oil, and kerosene are all byproducts of petroleum. Quite frankly our world runs on petroleum byproducts, so I'd be careful about making generalizations - lest you look like a tofu eating hippie named "RawFoodKevin." Oh wait.
@nathanj37 First of all, your comment is uncivil, presumptuous and, worst of all incorrect.
I know H2O is also produced, but it's not a greenhouse gas, and so is irrelevant to the discussion.
Also, you must have flunked high school chemistry class, because my numbers are correct.
Anything that can be produced with petroleum byproducts can be produced with algae, including motor fuel. Algae is the superior organic material for producing biofuels, and the wave of the future.
@nathanj37 Here is the scientific answer from the Air Resources Board's Low Carbon Fuel Standard staff: "The fact that 1 gallon of gasoline only consists of 6 pounds of mass, yet produces about 20 pounds of CO2, is due to the fact that the gasoline is basically a chain of 8 carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms. Each carbon has about 2 hydrogen atoms attached to it, so each link in this chain has a mass of about 14 grams/mole.
@nathanj37 (continued from above) However, when it is burned for fuel, this “link” of CH2 is converted into CO2 and H2O. The O2 in the CO2 comes from the air the gasoline is burned in. So each CH2 “link” of the gasoline converts into a CO2 molecule. CO2 weights about 44 grams/mole. So you ends up converting a fuel that has components each weighing 14 grams/mole into molecules of CO2 each weighing 44 grams/mole. Thus you increase the mass by 44/14 = about 3.14 times.
Just pointing out the distraction. If you want to get real the price of gas is not going up. The value of the dollar is going down. In terms of gold, the price of gas has been cut in half over the last 60 years. 1950 1 ounce gold was $35, gas was .25cents a gallon which would purchase 140 gals gas. 2011 gold is $1500 gas is 5 bucks a gallon and will purchase 300 gals gas. Thats reality. The vid is pointless, imo
@anolmec Calling attention to planet destroying greenhouse gasses and toxic, carcinogenic fossil fuel pollution is pointless? In what alternative universe?
@anolmec Let me know when you find a country where they pay for their gas with gold. Meanwhile, the correct way to determine the price of gas in 1950 vs. today's price is to simply adjust the price to inflation.
In 1950, the inflation adjust price of gas was about $2.40.
@RawFoodKevin Thanks for making my point. Adjusting for inflation does in fact adjust for the decline in value of the currency. Two countries that come to mind in the exchange of gold for oil would be Iraq and more recently Libya. Both turned out to be terrorist and will be exterminated. It has nothing to do with the method of exchange. Ignore the man behind the curtain nitz. Man made carbon output is DWARFED by that of the ocean. Stop watching Al Gore's movie. It is directed towards simpletons
@anolmec Your point was that gas prices are lower now, but I proved you wrong. So what did you do in return? Come up with some other point that you never were trying to make!
Again, the price of gold has nothing to do with the price of gas! Gold and gas are both commodities! You mistake the coincidental with causality. That means there are fundamental forces at work that affect the prices of all commodities.
@anolmec Finally, claiming "Man made carbon output is DWARFED by that of the ocean", is just another idiotic, pseudoscience attempt to discredit Global Warming
To do that you must use the scientific process to disprove thousands of papers written by credible climate scientists who agree that Global Warming is real and is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests
The only controversy is, are the deniers just plain idiots or are they complete morons?
@RawFoodKevin First, your "adjsmt for inflation" is in error. Kinda like adding when you s/b subtracting. You will get a number, just the wrong number. Secondly I never said climate doesnt change, indeed it changes every day. As far as "scientific process" shall i use the emails from the University of East Anglia nitz? You also fail to address gold exchange for oil in Iraq or Libya, which is curious silence from one who enjoys displaying their brainwashed opinion. I 'll allow you the last word
@anolmec Making false claims will do you know good. Anyone can google inflation adjusted gas prices and see the price of gas did indeed go up when you compare 1950 prices to today's prices
Again, gold prices have nothing to do with causing oil prices to rise or fall, as I previously explained. Your ignorance in economics is truly profound
The emails have been proven to have nothing to do with disproving Global Warming & you are truly ignorant of the scientific process. You fail, again, & again
@anolmec I find your comments to be not only ignorant of a basic understanding of economics and the scientific process, but also intentionally dishonest.
You have discredited yourself in every comment you have made in this thread.
While no one likes to pay high prices for fuel, gas prices in the US and Canada are MUCH lower than in the rest of the world except for countries where gas is subsidized.
@shmuli9 You missed the whole point of the movie. The price of gasoline IS subsidized in America. If we added the true cost shown in the film along with the cost of imperialist war mongering to steal Middle East oil, the price of gasoline would be over $15.00 a gallon!
Here we have an amazing gift to make our world grow so that we may one day become super technologically advanced and pollution-free. But we use this oil instead to make trips to McDonalds and Walmart. What a waste.
Add the cost to people stress level from all the noise and horn blowing (Car alarms each time a person enters or leaves the car) - the stress of walking to the store, having to cross streets like that video came frogger - and add the cost of wear on roads, on heavy traveled bike only trials roads last much longer.. - and breathing brake dust.. - and on and on..
I honestly belive the total cost of "GAS" is closer to $40 a gallon... that means people who don't drive pickup $36 for each gallon.
THe part 2 of this video ought to consider the cost of the Navy who protects the tanker from piracy, the Army, Air Force and Marines that must be there to assure that the crude makes it to the port and the other hidden costs.
@ShyGuy1919 I'm sure you are 100% wrong about everything in your comment. Natural temperature fluctuations that occur over hundreds or thousands of years is one thing. But what we have now are man made fluctuations that are occurring over decades, which is killing off species at an alarming rate.
The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists throughout the world is that climate change is real and is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests.
@vaidota86 Well no shit Sherlock, I would have never guessed without incite from captain obvious. Geez can’t make simple jokes or comments anymore because people have to attack one another, and no one opens with a joke anymore, I miss Danny DeVito
There is no scientific study that proves "socialism is a failure" or "communism is a failure". You cannot prove that socialism and communism are what "caused" any nations to fail. All nations and empires rise, fall, and die. They are all cyclical.
Only extreme rightwing ultra-conservative political ideology says with any certainty that socialism or Karl Marx "caused" anything to fail.
Look, soldiers cause nations to fail, because of war!
@mphello I like how you refer to my comment, but don't link me by using an @. On top of that, you failed to read and understand my entire comment. Socialism/Communism as a concept is a perfect system. Capitalism as a concept is also a perfect system. However, the part you failed to see was my line which read: "Both of these ideas fail as the result of one thing - human greed. " This desire to be better than one's neighbor is the downfall of us all.
On the far right of the political spectrum is capitalism, which has been proven to be a complete failure. Millions in prison. A police state in the United States and South America.
Care about pollution and/or global warming? Go vegan.
Care about starvation and wasted crops? Go vegan.
Vegans and animal rights activists have pushed media to cover this story for 40+ years: half our crops are wasted feeding livestock that could feed people directly.
More anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denying morons on this channel, I see, regurgitated the same internet memes. "CO2 not a pollutant!" Stick your head in a plastic bag and see if it is. Secondly, so WTF does it matter whether you call it a pollutant or not? You can call it a birth control gas for all I care. FUNCTIONALLY, CO2 is STILL increasing global avg temp and doing all the other things the IPCC has predicted.
yep those greenhouse gasses sure are dangerous.........funny how the tons of depleted uranium being deposited in iraq,afghanistan yemen etc are not part of the discussion
@anolmec I bet you go onto any video and just bring up unrelated things. You know that certain videos and people like to address certain, specific topics, right? Can't cover everything, especially in one YouTube video that is addressing the impact of gasoline consumption. Get real, man.
Claiming that gas vapor evaporates "straight through the metal" hoods of cars is forgivably bizarre since it just makes this seem like a spoof, but "decreased crop yields" from increased plant food is simply delusional. Real greenhouses use CO2 generators to make plants happier.
@NikFromNYC No one made that claim. That is you delusion. The vapors evaporate out of the gas tank and engine.
Also delusional is your claim that climate changing CO2 emissions are fertilizer, (this Koch sponsored propaganda was debunked years ago) when in fact, the climate changes that are taking place right now are beginning to kill off you "happier" plants because they cannot cope with increasing global temperatures.
@RawFoodKevin Destroy yourself, purposefully, might ye? Ouch. Your cry for help cannot supplicate. I don't give blow jobs. I don't even accept them. I like what is real, instead.
@NikFromNYC Making obscene and childish comments and attacking me personally instead of addressing the substance of my comment only proves you have nothing intelligent to say, again, and proves you are indeed delusional, again.
This is a very serious issue.....even more serious than most of us even realize. If we take away the oil Everything Stops, "EVERYTHING" the pollution agenda is a sideshow to the main event. Until we realize how much developed countries rely on oil, we will miss the truth. Oil is not just about driving our cars, it’s about driving "EVERYTHING" manufacturing "EVERYTHING" feeding "EVERYONE" If we do not find and alternative, about 6 billion people will starve to death, and that’s the truth.
@cobra60six And that is why I and many anti-overpopulation activists have strongly advocated mandatory vasectomies for males to reduce world human population, and going vegan (a huge, unnecessary amount of oil goes into growing crops to feed pigs and cows and chickens who wouldn't have to be if everyone went vegan). And, yes - working feverishly on alternatives for oil.
Japanese guy invented a machine to turn trash back into oil. (for feedstock, not energy, of course)
I believe the greatest need to replace petrol with something else is not related even remotely to "It’s creating greenhouse gas that’s destroying our environment" That’s just US Propaganda. It’s because it's running out!!!!!!! No one understands that better than the US. That’s why they are invading every major oil producing country on the planet, that either doesn't support the US dollar for oil, or are planning to leave it. US wants total control and dominance of oil reserves....period.
@cobra60six Oil is not running out. There is no such thing as "Peak Oil". We have reached Peak Cheap Oil and Peak Oil Usage
Oil is continuously produced underground. That's what the oil gusher in the gulf proved. It is impossible for oil that deep to have existed on the planet's surface hundreds of millions of years ago
A similar deep find in Saudi Arabia 70 yrs ago still produces at the same rate as when it was first tapped
A true fossil fuel is coal, which lies very close to the surface.
@cyranodeluk So what you are saying is the vast majority of credible climate scientists, including Noble Prize winners, are all wrong, and an armchair scientifically illiterate like you is right.
@cyranodeluk Actually, there are several types of "greenhouse gas pollution" that we are referring to in the video. Yes, carbon dioxide is one, but we are also referring to methane (23 times more potent in the atmosphere than CO2) and nitrous oxide (300 times more potent than CO2). Even though it is not technically a "regulated" GHG, we are also referring to ground level ozone (O3), which is very harmful and creates smog.
Thanks everyone for your comments. Glad to see such a passionate discussion about the topic. If you follow the link listed above in the caption text you'll see an article and an annotated script with links to all source documents and studies.
Yes kiddies, who failed high school chemistry, it is actually estimated to be 20 lbs per gallon of carbon dioxide (CO2). The other 5 lb includes other pollutants and additives. Gas is mostly C8H18 C9 H20 C11H24 C6H6 C7H8 C8H7 & less that 2% C8H10. There is about 2,500 grams of carbon in a gallon of gas. When it reacts (burns) with oxygen, 1 carbon molecule joins with 2 oxygen increasing its mass. Now you have about 9,000 grams of CO2 (atomic mass of O 16 to C 12). 9,000 grams is approx. 20 lbs.
Well now I know where the left wing supporters get their information.
This video has zero citations and only a few "special thanks" to some university professors. None of these "facts" are backed up by supporting information either; for example, "a single gallon of gas produces 25 pounds of greenhouse pollution," oh really?
This video is nothing but propaganda: it switches images fast to give the impression of knowledge, and uses silly metaphors to distract you from false information.
I'd like to source my information, unlike this video; however, it seems Youtube doesn't like people to post links. I found my information from the first link on the Google list: the EPA website itself.
I would've loved to stick that little fact in my first post; however, Youtube only allows for just so many characters.
@ShyGuy1919 Clearly, it's not "25 lbs of CO2/gallon", there's no need to point that out.
Rather, my point was that your claims of "None of these 'facts' are backed up by supporting information" and "This video is nothing but propaganda" committed the same sin as the video by having no "supporting information" and therefore is "nothing but propaganda".
It's easy for the video to be cavalier about its "facts"; you need to be more rigorous if you want to convince people otherwise.
@aqnaqnaqn So your argument is because the video is not 100% exactly correct, it is 100% wrong and is propaganda. That is called quibbling, which is a logical fallacy, which ironically means your argument is 100% wrong and is indeed propaganda!
@ShyGuy1919 And finally: the calculations found when google'ing for "co2 per gallon" are highly simple minded, serving only to illustrate that 19 lbs CO2/gallon and 25 lbs CO2/gallon are all in the same ball park.
It's not like the video cites "x lbs CO2/gallon" while it's actually only "x/100 lb CO2/gallon".
@ShyGuy1919 Its probable an estimate, but gasoline is not healthy for the environment, or for us as a people. But alternatives are not available now that would not impact society as much.
If you're talking about bio fuel, such as fuel made from corn, you're forgetting about the impact on the environment growing corn has. You need a lot of land, fertilizer, and (probably) insecticide. Either way you look at it, the environment is being altered.
Same thing with those electric cars you people drive, they're good in that they reduce our dependence on foreign oil; however, most of the electricity you're using to charge them comes from coal. ;)
@ShyGuy1919 I agree with you on the corn squeezings...lol. Studies have even shown that it would compete with land for other crops driving up the overall price of food. Let's face it, corn ethanol fuel was pushed by the corn subsidies lobby. It is not even as efficient as they initially tried to claim. The government thought it would be a good way to offset the tax money that already subsidizes corn; the same reason all our sweetners and several other food products are now corn based.
@ShyGuy1919 I was a little disappointed in the hybrids, but I am actually more encouraged by the new pure electrics. If they had made the hybrids fulltime electric drive with a gas powered generator, like a diesel train engine, they would get even better gas mileage. Although most of the electricity for charging full electrics comes from coal, studies show the coal burned to run the electric car still pollutes less than the gasoline car because gasoline engines are so very inefficient.
@ShyGuy1919 We still need to find a better way that won't hinder us socially and environmentally. Like creating better batteries to store long term environmentally acquired energy. Which does not exist, yet. I don't really know the answer, but I know the way we are operating now is not the answer.
@RawFoodKevin ohhhhhh so it takes 4 times as much energy to make that one gallon worth of energy?
Hint: I get stoichiometry and the concept of production costs. the resulting value vs production costs for gasoline (including crude oil production, refinery production, and transportation) is .85. you simply don't get 25 lbs of greenhouse gas from 6lbs of gasoline.
@JAROSLAVAGINA I was wrong about what produces 25lbs of CO2.
Actually, production of one gallon of gasoline produces about 6lbs of CO2, which is about the same weight as the gasoline produced. However, the burning of that one gallon produces about 19 lbs of CO2.
Of course, your reference to "stoichiometry" is still irrelevant, which means you are still wrong. Most likely that is because you don't understand high school chemistry. Perhaps you are not getting enough oxygen when you breath.
Here's your high school chemistry class of the day:
The carbon from the gasoline mixes with OXYGEN FROM THE AIR IN ORDER TO BURN (elementary school science review).
Gasoline consists mostly of hydrocarbons—chains of carbon encircled by atoms of hydrogen. When the hydrocarbons burn, they break apart and recombine with the air. This reaction produces heat, as well as two chemical byproducts, harmless water and 19 lbs of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
Octane consists of 8atoms of carbon and 18 atoms of hydrogen, written as C8H18. If you break down the octane and mix it with enough O2, you have the atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen—to make 8 molecules of CO2 and 9 molecules of H2O. The 8 molecules of CO2 weigh about 3 times more than the 1 molecule of octane you started with. That doesn't mean you've violated Stoichiometry; instead, you've added the weight of the O2 from the air to the weight of gasoline.
@RawFoodKevin except that your using the average C/H ratio for gasoline (gasoline is comprised of carbon chains usually containing between 4 and 12 carbon atoms).
I'm getting rather bored with this topic. your not going to believe me. I'm not going to believe you (due to vast amounts of research into the science of "climatology", and other global warming... excuse me... climate change related topics.) so i'm gunna go do something more productive like read a book.
Yes, please read a book. I suggest Science for Second Graders.
It's not my fault you are bored, delusional, and anti science.
I don't have to "believe" you, I know science, and I know you are wrong. Even if you use 4 carbon atoms instead of 8, the amount of CO2 in pounds is still much larger than what you falsely claim.
@RawFoodKevin no. you don't know science. you know what you are told and have spent absolutely no time researching those claims which are sold to you as truth. you do not know the very numerous statistical issues which plague the research of those claiming climate change is anthropogenic in nature, or the various flaws in their data gathering. further, you see nothing wrong with the way "peer review" is performed in climatology circles.
@JAROSLAVAGINA Actually YOU DON'T KNOW SCIENCE, since you claim to know better than Noble Prize winners and over 99% of credible climate scientists. If you are sooooooo smart, then why can't you prove them wrong? Where is your proof? All you offer is illogical, unscientific straw man stupidity. Oh that's right, in your deluded mind, all you have to do is BELIEVE they are wrong
But you can't even get high school chemistry right, as I proved, so who in their right mind would want to believe you?
@RawFoodKevin tell me, which climate change reports have you critiqued?
yeah... that's what i thought.
tell me, what comment was found in the "climate gate" e-mails which explained how "those opposed to the idea of man made climate change" were being silenced and censored in the climatology journals?
@JAROSLAVAGINA Talking to yourself like an angry homeless wino, again? You must use the computer at the public library.
I have no need to peer review (not "critique") scientifically factual reports. As for the climate denying reports, they have all been scientifically discredited numerous times, so I won't waste my time beating a dead jackass.
By the way, the climate gate emails were found to be inconsequential in disproving climate change. Also, real science is never censored.
@RawFoodKevin "I have no need to peer review (not "critique") scientifically factual reports"
hahahaha wow...
Thanks for proving my point. You know Religion. Not science. I couldn't have done a better job explaining that myself.
"Also, real science is never censored." that's exactly my point (you know religion, not science) as the e-mails word for word, spelled out how they were denying access to journals unless the papers support AGW, skewing the "scientifically factual reports" one way
@JAROSLAVAGINA By your own words, you prove you just don't know science, or religion! Better take a course in logic too, and learn exactly what "peer review" means. I don't believe these scientists are correct, I know they are correct because I have examined their work and found it to be sound.
I have also examined the work of the deniers and have come to the conclusion that the only controversy over global warming is this, are the deniers just plain idiots or are they complete morons?
@RawFoodKevin Science is the open questioning of how the universe works. Religion is taking some one elses word for it, with out question.
Yes a course in logic to learn exactly what "peer review" is. how cute. your trying to sound smart after being blatantly put in your place. if you want to keep this going we can. i find the willfully ignorant entertaining.
@JAROSLAVAGINA Please stop with the delusional comments. You just can't make claims without proof. End of story. You still can't accept the fact that six pounds of gasoline can produce 25 pounds of CO2 pollution.
@RawFoodKevin it has been explained why the system of "peer review" that most of the climatology journals are using is heavily defective.
If you have come to the conclusion that the only controversy over global warming is that the deniers are, as you conclude, stupid, then you need to head over to the Blogg "Watts up with that?" He explains why some of the global temperature data is incorrect due to poor data gathering practices. continued...
@JAROSLAVAGINA You can explain all you want, when are you going to prove anything you say is factual?
And when are you going to stop referring to discredited pseudoscience?
'As long as Anthony Watts keeps a website “hits” counter on his sidebar and keeps bragging that his hits are evidence of his blog’s popularity, that will provide the most irrefutable evidence of his innumeracy and his willful statistical deception'
Further proof that deniers are either just plain idiots or complete morons
@RawFoodKevin such problems such as the temperature data gathering stations being consumed by urban sprawl (which causes temperatures to rise due to the heat island effect, and are in no way related to atmospheric or climate events) and others such as stations being moved to distances of 20 miles or more, with no break in the data pattern.
@JAROSLAVAGINA More discredited pseudoscience. Temperature data gathering stations are not the only means of measuring rising temperatures, and you know it. Or maybe you really are that scientifically illiterate!
@RawFoodKevin judging by the, for lack of a better word, depth of your conclusion, I am forced to conclude that you haven't really looked into any of this at all. much like a religion, you take someone's word as truth with out any questioning. "well, scientists say it so it is true!"
you probably didn't even notice that the chief investigator of the climate gate scandal was closely linked to the CRU. that's like having the pope hold an investigation on if God is real? no bias at all right?
@JAROSLAVAGINA You have discredited your self a long time ago, as well as posted several widely discredited arguments, so I could care less about what you "conclude".
Again, the so called climate gate scandal does nothing to disprove the accuracy of global warming or the fact that it is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests.
If you work for the Koch sucker propagandists, they should ask for their money back, because you are completely unbelievable!
This is all bullshit. It doesn't even give a citation as to which scientific studies they are getting their "facts" from, let alone the details from their studies.
@Itsdakinebrah So where are your citations proving that the burning of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions are beneficial to humans and the environment?
Oh, that's right, they don't exist, but you believe in them anyway because it is you who is "drinking the cool-aid [sic] folks."
So, drill in Anwar or other US locations, reduce the greenhouse gas from the 11000 mile trip from Saudi Arabia, move the poor, underachieving out of the city near the train stations and other dangerous locations where most created their own "condition." That makes reduction in ER care a bonus. This would resolve over half of the issue. Then we could work on the rest. Lots of "approximations" in this video and even more "variables" as they stated.
@aioffa Better yet, take away all of the big oil corporate welfare and give it to alternative energy like solar and wind to reduce their costs of operation.
So what do we take away from this video? That the government should tax $10 per gallon and drive the country into a depression worse than that in the 40's? Government involvement in anything makes a system less efficient. Unregulated free market is the most efficient, but allows many negative things to happen to the individual. As a country we must strike a balance between leaving the little guy in the dust and a failing socialist agenda.
@tsunchoo On the far left of the global spectrum we have complete socialism/communism, which has been proven time and time again to fail. On the far right we have a complete unregulated free market system, which although somewhat unproven, will fail as a result of monopolies being formed. Both of these ideas fail as the result of one thing - human greed. The balance must be struck between these two concepts. Please note that I was not referring to any current or past US administration.
@JAROSLAVAGINA I believe you are referring to government created monopolies which are actually a result of simplifying a system. For example, a city only allows for a single provider of water, as having multiple providers in competition would result in multiple piping systems and therefore be more inefficient than a single provider. However, what I'm actually referring to are Laissez-faire economics. In this, government intervention is non-existent and the efficiency results in monopolies.
except that large businesses are by very nature, inefficient, and only able to sustain due to regulation and market intervention which stunts or prohibits entrepreneurship.
Why did the Federal Government rush to save two of the "Big 3"? Because the system is so jerry-rigged, nothing can form to take their place. Startups have almost been completely regulated out of the market.
@vlnplyr5 Nothing like creating a ridiculous straw man argument! Please prove who exactly in the government wants to "tax $10 per gallon".
If you believe in an "unregulated free market", then I am sure you will have no problem with eliminating corporate welfare and tax loopholes for the fossil fuel industries so alternative energy can be more competitive. Also, we can end the oil wars in the Middle East, and use the money saved to help increase alternative energy usage.
@RawFoodKevin Please show me where I said someone "wants to tax $10 per gallon." I never said such a thing. I also do not believe in unregulated free market, only that there are two ends to the spectrum and that we must find a balance. I do think many of the tax loopholes need to be eliminated - we are suffering as a nation due to the financial state we are in. Please do not be so defensive toward my comments, as I have made an effort to be as diplomatic as possible.
@vlnplyr5 About six comments above my last comment you said:
"So what do we take away from this video? That the government should tax $10 per gallon and drive the country into a depression worse than that in the 40's?"
The main argument of the video is that we pay a very high hidden price of gasoline, not that the government should heavily tax the use of gasoline. A higher tax may only have been implied.
Unfortunately, it doesn't also mention the costs of defending the sources and transportation of oil. Our military ground actions (think Desert Shield) and our Navy patrolling the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf, etc. The military costs for that gallon of gas are astronomical!
@robhoneycutt, I just posted a similar observation on HuffPost. If we factored in military spending gas would be, what, $10 a gallon? More?
Not to mention the concept of environmental redress being the responsibility of the seller and included in the cost of gas. I thought it was well done and quite fair. It's not that oil and gas or this industry is wrong or bad; it's that it is built on an outdated and unsustainable model and as a society we're mired in the inertia of the status quo.
factor in how many yuppie wannebe commie hippies starve cause the food trucks can't get to the whole foods parking lot and its not worth it to you people.
Why does the announcer sound so smarmy? The whole tone of it, the writing and constant use of "you" makes it seem like an attack on the viewer: "Hey buddy, look what you're doing to destroy the world just by living your life."
It doesn't come across like an investigation at all as information is stated as settled fact. Not a typical format for "investigative reporting." It all seems a bit disingenuous and produced by someone with an agenda.
@ 2:56 "gas can evaporate straight through the metal without even being burned." - not true in any way since 1970! This is why your car has a "charcoal canister."
8Lbs of fuel can become 19Lbs of CO2 because the gas only supplies the Carbon. The gas is mixed at a ratio of 14.7:1 air to gas. The ATMOSPHERIC AIR supplies the Oxygen (the missing weight). see: "Stoichiometric Combustion"
jburdman7 4 days ago
Lady I don't give FUCK what the other costs are all I care for is what I lose from my wallet!
TankCop 5 days ago
Gas only weighs about 8lbs per gallon. How does burning that yield 25lbs?
nickfranky 2 months ago
@nickfranky Actually the video states that burning it yields 19lbs (the other 6 were from extraction, transportation, refining, etc.).
I'm guessing when gasoline is burned, the carbon and hydrogen atoms combine with oxygen in the air (producing CO, CO2, H2O, etc.), adding to the overall weight.
hounddog1413 6 days ago
Another in a long history of ignorant just price theories.
Not to mention that oil spills aren't an externality, since they have the potential to pollute the environment and people's property firms have to have huge insurance policies, cover the costs to anyone whose property is damaged and pay for the clean up. That BP spill was cleaned up in less than 6 moths, mostly because natural bacteria of the gulf where natural spills occur eat it up quickly.
EFBauer21 3 months ago
Another in a long history of ignorant just price theories.
EFBauer21 3 months ago
Don't fall for this...watch what's happening in Europe with their debt crisis. "Green Taxes" are raised to pay the bankers, not stop pollution. Slow consumption by getting rid of America's complicated and ineffectual CAFE rules and simply raise license costs on vehicles by weight, exponentially.
sammolloy1 3 months ago
fucking hippies. ever notice how ALL hippies live in big cities? because they're fucking hypocrites.
ibeleaf 4 months ago
What a LIE how can something that weighs less than 8lbs make 25lbs of anything. Who made the BS AL GOREE
judale54 6 months ago
@judale54 How much do you think 25Ibs of CO2 weighs?
BucksheeRounds 3 months ago
“Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world. Fiat
money, in extremis, is accepted by nobody. Gold is always accepted.”
- Alan Greenspan "Gold is money, and nothing else. J.P. Morgan
When measured in Gold, the price of gas has been CUT IN HALF from 1950 to present. Adjusting for inflation has nothing to do with it. The value of your "money" has been decimated. Only a moron would fail to see that, and you fill those shoes most perfectly.
anolmec 7 months ago
I followed the 19 pounds you think a driver produces per pound to your 'cited' PDF. That number doesn't appear in the PDF at all, and quite frankly this entire discussion is disingenuous if you leave out all of the good byproducts of gasoline - kerosene, asphault, plastic, pharmaceuticals, paraffins, jet fuel, tar, motor oil, etc. Gasoline is only about 46% of a barrel of crude oil. The other 54% isn't waste - it goes to use, too.
nathanj37 7 months ago
@nathanj37 Your understanding is disingenuous. It takes oxygen to burn gasoline. That's why cars have carburetors, ask any auto mechanic. The gasoline combines with the O2 and creates CO2, at a rate of about 19 pounds per gallon of gasoline. Just ask any high school chemistry student to explain it to you.
Almost all of the other byproducts are environmentally unfriendly toxins and carcinogens, and thus greatly add to the expense of gas.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin It isn't all CO2, water is produced as well. You don't take 8 pounds of fluid and create 19 pounds of gas. If I have to explain to you that matter isn't magically created from nothing we'll get nowhere. Plastic, asphault, pharmaceuticals, paraffins, motor oil, and kerosene are all byproducts of petroleum. Quite frankly our world runs on petroleum byproducts, so I'd be careful about making generalizations - lest you look like a tofu eating hippie named "RawFoodKevin." Oh wait.
nathanj37 7 months ago
@nathanj37 First of all, your comment is uncivil, presumptuous and, worst of all incorrect.
I know H2O is also produced, but it's not a greenhouse gas, and so is irrelevant to the discussion.
Also, you must have flunked high school chemistry class, because my numbers are correct.
Anything that can be produced with petroleum byproducts can be produced with algae, including motor fuel. Algae is the superior organic material for producing biofuels, and the wave of the future.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@nathanj37 Here is the scientific answer from the Air Resources Board's Low Carbon Fuel Standard staff: "The fact that 1 gallon of gasoline only consists of 6 pounds of mass, yet produces about 20 pounds of CO2, is due to the fact that the gasoline is basically a chain of 8 carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms. Each carbon has about 2 hydrogen atoms attached to it, so each link in this chain has a mass of about 14 grams/mole.
sarahterrycobo 7 months ago
@nathanj37 (continued from above) However, when it is burned for fuel, this “link” of CH2 is converted into CO2 and H2O. The O2 in the CO2 comes from the air the gasoline is burned in. So each CH2 “link” of the gasoline converts into a CO2 molecule. CO2 weights about 44 grams/mole. So you ends up converting a fuel that has components each weighing 14 grams/mole into molecules of CO2 each weighing 44 grams/mole. Thus you increase the mass by 44/14 = about 3.14 times.
sarahterrycobo 7 months ago
@nathanj27 ...(continued)...So 6 pounds of gasoline x 3.14 is about 19 pounds of CO2, pretty close to the 20 mentioned above."
sarahterrycobo 7 months ago
Just pointing out the distraction. If you want to get real the price of gas is not going up. The value of the dollar is going down. In terms of gold, the price of gas has been cut in half over the last 60 years. 1950 1 ounce gold was $35, gas was .25cents a gallon which would purchase 140 gals gas. 2011 gold is $1500 gas is 5 bucks a gallon and will purchase 300 gals gas. Thats reality. The vid is pointless, imo
anolmec 7 months ago
@anolmec Calling attention to planet destroying greenhouse gasses and toxic, carcinogenic fossil fuel pollution is pointless? In what alternative universe?
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin I stand corrected.........if the "point" is to distract and bullshit, then the vid does a good job
anolmec 7 months ago
@anolmec Comments like yours that make assertions without a shred of evidence to back them up is BS, and a distraction.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@anolmec Let me know when you find a country where they pay for their gas with gold. Meanwhile, the correct way to determine the price of gas in 1950 vs. today's price is to simply adjust the price to inflation.
In 1950, the inflation adjust price of gas was about $2.40.
OOPS! That's over $1.00 less than today's price!
Looks like you are wrong! That's the reality.
The vid has a very good point.
That's not my opinion, that's a fact!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin Thanks for making my point. Adjusting for inflation does in fact adjust for the decline in value of the currency. Two countries that come to mind in the exchange of gold for oil would be Iraq and more recently Libya. Both turned out to be terrorist and will be exterminated. It has nothing to do with the method of exchange. Ignore the man behind the curtain nitz. Man made carbon output is DWARFED by that of the ocean. Stop watching Al Gore's movie. It is directed towards simpletons
anolmec 7 months ago
@anolmec Your point was that gas prices are lower now, but I proved you wrong. So what did you do in return? Come up with some other point that you never were trying to make!
Again, the price of gold has nothing to do with the price of gas! Gold and gas are both commodities! You mistake the coincidental with causality. That means there are fundamental forces at work that affect the prices of all commodities.
You flunk Econ 101, again!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@anolmec Also, by definition inflation is a "decline in value of the currency".
Big duh for you on that one too, Econ 101 flunkie.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@anolmec Finally, claiming "Man made carbon output is DWARFED by that of the ocean", is just another idiotic, pseudoscience attempt to discredit Global Warming
To do that you must use the scientific process to disprove thousands of papers written by credible climate scientists who agree that Global Warming is real and is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests
The only controversy is, are the deniers just plain idiots or are they complete morons?
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin First, your "adjsmt for inflation" is in error. Kinda like adding when you s/b subtracting. You will get a number, just the wrong number. Secondly I never said climate doesnt change, indeed it changes every day. As far as "scientific process" shall i use the emails from the University of East Anglia nitz? You also fail to address gold exchange for oil in Iraq or Libya, which is curious silence from one who enjoys displaying their brainwashed opinion. I 'll allow you the last word
anolmec 7 months ago
@anolmec Making false claims will do you know good. Anyone can google inflation adjusted gas prices and see the price of gas did indeed go up when you compare 1950 prices to today's prices
Again, gold prices have nothing to do with causing oil prices to rise or fall, as I previously explained. Your ignorance in economics is truly profound
The emails have been proven to have nothing to do with disproving Global Warming & you are truly ignorant of the scientific process. You fail, again, & again
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin lol he's a purestrain idiot.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 6 months ago
@anolmec I find your comments to be not only ignorant of a basic understanding of economics and the scientific process, but also intentionally dishonest.
You have discredited yourself in every comment you have made in this thread.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
While no one likes to pay high prices for fuel, gas prices in the US and Canada are MUCH lower than in the rest of the world except for countries where gas is subsidized.
shmuli9 7 months ago
@shmuli9 You missed the whole point of the movie. The price of gasoline IS subsidized in America. If we added the true cost shown in the film along with the cost of imperialist war mongering to steal Middle East oil, the price of gasoline would be over $15.00 a gallon!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin Apperently I DID miss the point of the video...
shmuli9 7 months ago
Basic data falsifies claims of surging seas, Ts and ice melt.
NASA: k.min.
us/idFxzI.jpg
Thermometers: i.min.
us/idAOoE.gif
Earth: k.min.
us/ibtB8G.gif
Ice: k.min.
us/ibBgw2.jpg
NikFromNYC 7 months ago
I just hope this video encourages more people to walk. This way when I have to fill up my truck it costs me less.
iansloguy 7 months ago
Here we have an amazing gift to make our world grow so that we may one day become super technologically advanced and pollution-free. But we use this oil instead to make trips to McDonalds and Walmart. What a waste.
underthebox 7 months ago
I can't believe they left out the cost of our imperialist oil wars in the Middle East! So add at least another trillion dollars to the cost.
By my calculations, that puts the true price of gas over $10.00 per gallon!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
Add the cost to people stress level from all the noise and horn blowing (Car alarms each time a person enters or leaves the car) - the stress of walking to the store, having to cross streets like that video came frogger - and add the cost of wear on roads, on heavy traveled bike only trials roads last much longer.. - and breathing brake dust.. - and on and on..
I honestly belive the total cost of "GAS" is closer to $40 a gallon... that means people who don't drive pickup $36 for each gallon.
cyclenut 7 months ago
Excellent video.
THe part 2 of this video ought to consider the cost of the Navy who protects the tanker from piracy, the Army, Air Force and Marines that must be there to assure that the crude makes it to the port and the other hidden costs.
Oh and then there's anthropogenic global warming.
bobster451 7 months ago
Meh. If someone wants to buy me an electric car, im game.
Interference69 8 months ago
Trees.
bmx406 8 months ago
Three Cheers for giving a care!
mminto86 8 months ago
I'd also like to point out that I am still eagerly awaiting the Ice Age they promised us in the 1970's
I'm sure we'll go back to the Ice Age theory at some point ;)
ShyGuy1919 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 What makes you so sure?
Oh, that's right gut feeling beliefs, instead of facts, logic and real science.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
So no one here believes the Earth ever goes through natural temperature fluctuations?
Of course not; however, supporters also cannot tell me how much the Earth has "warmed" over the past 200 years, either.
There is clearly only a single variable impacting the Earth at any given time, too, so it MUST be the humans. OH NO! The humans!
I'm sure it was the humans that ended the Ice Ages too, right?
I'm sure we'll all be laughing at how crazy you all sound 30 years from now.
ShyGuy1919 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 I'm sure you are 100% wrong about everything in your comment. Natural temperature fluctuations that occur over hundreds or thousands of years is one thing. But what we have now are man made fluctuations that are occurring over decades, which is killing off species at an alarming rate.
The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists throughout the world is that climate change is real and is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@vaidota86 Well no shit Sherlock, I would have never guessed without incite from captain obvious. Geez can’t make simple jokes or comments anymore because people have to attack one another, and no one opens with a joke anymore, I miss Danny DeVito
Gatsomaru2 8 months ago
so sad this has only 20k views.
jhallthird 8 months ago
There is no scientific study that proves "socialism is a failure" or "communism is a failure". You cannot prove that socialism and communism are what "caused" any nations to fail. All nations and empires rise, fall, and die. They are all cyclical.
Only extreme rightwing ultra-conservative political ideology says with any certainty that socialism or Karl Marx "caused" anything to fail.
Look, soldiers cause nations to fail, because of war!
That makes as much sense.
mphello 8 months ago
@mphello I like how you refer to my comment, but don't link me by using an @. On top of that, you failed to read and understand my entire comment. Socialism/Communism as a concept is a perfect system. Capitalism as a concept is also a perfect system. However, the part you failed to see was my line which read: "Both of these ideas fail as the result of one thing - human greed. " This desire to be better than one's neighbor is the downfall of us all.
vlnplyr5 8 months ago
@mphello The fact is, in the past 100 years, it was fascism that caused most of those failed countries to fail.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
On the far right of the political spectrum is capitalism, which has been proven to be a complete failure. Millions in prison. A police state in the United States and South America.
mphello 8 months ago
Care about pollution and/or global warming? Go vegan.
Care about starvation and wasted crops? Go vegan.
Vegans and animal rights activists have pushed media to cover this story for 40+ years: half our crops are wasted feeding livestock that could feed people directly.
mphello 8 months ago
@mphello You forgot to add:
Care about your health and want to live a long, happy, relatively pain free life without diminished mental abilities? Go vegan.
The healthiest diet there is
TheGardenDiet com
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
More anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denying morons on this channel, I see, regurgitated the same internet memes. "CO2 not a pollutant!" Stick your head in a plastic bag and see if it is. Secondly, so WTF does it matter whether you call it a pollutant or not? You can call it a birth control gas for all I care. FUNCTIONALLY, CO2 is STILL increasing global avg temp and doing all the other things the IPCC has predicted.
mphello 8 months ago
Pay your carbon Tax to banks& green house credits so they can cut down trees ,10 Trillion $ in derivative scam
louis12346 8 months ago 7
yep those greenhouse gasses sure are dangerous.........funny how the tons of depleted uranium being deposited in iraq,afghanistan yemen etc are not part of the discussion
anolmec 8 months ago 3
@anolmec I bet you go onto any video and just bring up unrelated things. You know that certain videos and people like to address certain, specific topics, right? Can't cover everything, especially in one YouTube video that is addressing the impact of gasoline consumption. Get real, man.
theblackout27 7 months ago
@anolmec maybe because their health risks are not very severe and also in no way related to the use and production of petroleum
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 6 months ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat ESL???
anolmec 6 months ago
I present A Global Warming Digest Part A:
Denial: bit.
ly/m6xySt
Oceans: oi52.tinypic.
com/x3e0es.jpg
Thermometers: oi52.tinypic.
com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: oi53.tinypic.
com/wmav6g.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
I present A Global Warming Digest Part B:
Earth: oi56.tinypic.
com/2reh021.jpg
Authority: oi52.tinypic.
com/wlt4i8.jpg
Prophecy: oi52.tinypic.
com/30bfktk.jpg
Psychopathy: oi52.tinypic.
com/1zqu71i.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
I present A Global Warming Digest Part C:
Icon: youtube.
com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY
Thinker: youtube.
com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
Claiming that gas vapor evaporates "straight through the metal" hoods of cars is forgivably bizarre since it just makes this seem like a spoof, but "decreased crop yields" from increased plant food is simply delusional. Real greenhouses use CO2 generators to make plants happier.
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
@NikFromNYC No one made that claim. That is you delusion. The vapors evaporate out of the gas tank and engine.
Also delusional is your claim that climate changing CO2 emissions are fertilizer, (this Koch sponsored propaganda was debunked years ago) when in fact, the climate changes that are taking place right now are beginning to kill off you "happier" plants because they cannot cope with increasing global temperatures.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin Destroy yourself, purposefully, might ye? Ouch. Your cry for help cannot supplicate. I don't give blow jobs. I don't even accept them. I like what is real, instead.
NikFromNYC 7 months ago
@NikFromNYC Making obscene and childish comments and attacking me personally instead of addressing the substance of my comment only proves you have nothing intelligent to say, again, and proves you are indeed delusional, again.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
This is a very serious issue.....even more serious than most of us even realize. If we take away the oil Everything Stops, "EVERYTHING" the pollution agenda is a sideshow to the main event. Until we realize how much developed countries rely on oil, we will miss the truth. Oil is not just about driving our cars, it’s about driving "EVERYTHING" manufacturing "EVERYTHING" feeding "EVERYONE" If we do not find and alternative, about 6 billion people will starve to death, and that’s the truth.
cobra60six 8 months ago 2
@cobra60six And that is why I and many anti-overpopulation activists have strongly advocated mandatory vasectomies for males to reduce world human population, and going vegan (a huge, unnecessary amount of oil goes into growing crops to feed pigs and cows and chickens who wouldn't have to be if everyone went vegan). And, yes - working feverishly on alternatives for oil.
Japanese guy invented a machine to turn trash back into oil. (for feedstock, not energy, of course)
mphello 8 months ago
Comment removed
cobra60six 8 months ago
I believe the greatest need to replace petrol with something else is not related even remotely to "It’s creating greenhouse gas that’s destroying our environment" That’s just US Propaganda. It’s because it's running out!!!!!!! No one understands that better than the US. That’s why they are invading every major oil producing country on the planet, that either doesn't support the US dollar for oil, or are planning to leave it. US wants total control and dominance of oil reserves....period.
cobra60six 8 months ago
@cobra60six Oil is not running out. There is no such thing as "Peak Oil". We have reached Peak Cheap Oil and Peak Oil Usage
Oil is continuously produced underground. That's what the oil gusher in the gulf proved. It is impossible for oil that deep to have existed on the planet's surface hundreds of millions of years ago
A similar deep find in Saudi Arabia 70 yrs ago still produces at the same rate as when it was first tapped
A true fossil fuel is coal, which lies very close to the surface.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
Comment removed
cobra60six 8 months ago
Comment removed
cobra60six 8 months ago
What a load of marxistic horseshit.
martinbelmont 8 months ago
The video talks about "green house gas pollution"... what you are referring to is...
CARBON DIOXIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carbon Dioxide is NOT NOT NOT POLLUTION!!!!
I repeat...
CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!!
For crying out loud, you greenies have it all wrong!
cyranodeluk 8 months ago
Comment removed
cobra60six 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cyranodeluk Correct, its a plant food and a natural part of our planets life cycle.
cobra60six 8 months ago
@cyranodeluk So what you are saying is the vast majority of credible climate scientists, including Noble Prize winners, are all wrong, and an armchair scientifically illiterate like you is right.
For crying out loud!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@cyranodeluk Actually, there are several types of "greenhouse gas pollution" that we are referring to in the video. Yes, carbon dioxide is one, but we are also referring to methane (23 times more potent in the atmosphere than CO2) and nitrous oxide (300 times more potent than CO2). Even though it is not technically a "regulated" GHG, we are also referring to ground level ozone (O3), which is very harmful and creates smog.
sarahterrycobo 7 months ago 5
CO2 is not a pollutant.
TheAndyadair 8 months ago
Comment removed
cobra60six 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a crock!!! "Greenhouse gases" CO2 is not a pollutant! More Socialist BS propaganda!
d878138 8 months ago
Comment removed
d878138 8 months ago
Thanks everyone for your comments. Glad to see such a passionate discussion about the topic. If you follow the link listed above in the caption text you'll see an article and an annotated script with links to all source documents and studies.
CIRvideos 8 months ago
Yes kiddies, who failed high school chemistry, it is actually estimated to be 20 lbs per gallon of carbon dioxide (CO2). The other 5 lb includes other pollutants and additives. Gas is mostly C8H18 C9 H20 C11H24 C6H6 C7H8 C8H7 & less that 2% C8H10. There is about 2,500 grams of carbon in a gallon of gas. When it reacts (burns) with oxygen, 1 carbon molecule joins with 2 oxygen increasing its mass. Now you have about 9,000 grams of CO2 (atomic mass of O 16 to C 12). 9,000 grams is approx. 20 lbs.
byron2521 8 months ago
I like the smell of Benzene,
UltraEpicLoser 8 months ago
Well now I know where the left wing supporters get their information.
This video has zero citations and only a few "special thanks" to some university professors. None of these "facts" are backed up by supporting information either; for example, "a single gallon of gas produces 25 pounds of greenhouse pollution," oh really?
This video is nothing but propaganda: it switches images fast to give the impression of knowledge, and uses silly metaphors to distract you from false information.
ShyGuy1919 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 google: "co2 per gallon"
aqnaqnaqn 8 months ago
@aqnaqnaqn
It's 19.4 pounds
19.4 =/= 25
Congratulations ;)
I'd like to source my information, unlike this video; however, it seems Youtube doesn't like people to post links. I found my information from the first link on the Google list: the EPA website itself.
I would've loved to stick that little fact in my first post; however, Youtube only allows for just so many characters.
ShyGuy1919 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 Clearly, it's not "25 lbs of CO2/gallon", there's no need to point that out.
Rather, my point was that your claims of "None of these 'facts' are backed up by supporting information" and "This video is nothing but propaganda" committed the same sin as the video by having no "supporting information" and therefore is "nothing but propaganda".
It's easy for the video to be cavalier about its "facts"; you need to be more rigorous if you want to convince people otherwise.
aqnaqnaqn 8 months ago
@aqnaqnaqn nope, just about 20 lbs. the other 5 lbs is other pollutants and unburned gas.
byron2521 8 months ago
@aqnaqnaqn So your argument is because the video is not 100% exactly correct, it is 100% wrong and is propaganda. That is called quibbling, which is a logical fallacy, which ironically means your argument is 100% wrong and is indeed propaganda!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 And here is an example of how to get around the characters limit: "Reply" several times.
aqnaqnaqn 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 And here's an example of how to provide references:
Google: "co2 per gallon"
and how to include URLs:
epa.gov_slash_oms_slash_climate_slash_420f05001. h t m
aqnaqnaqn 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 And finally: the calculations found when google'ing for "co2 per gallon" are highly simple minded, serving only to illustrate that 19 lbs CO2/gallon and 25 lbs CO2/gallon are all in the same ball park.
It's not like the video cites "x lbs CO2/gallon" while it's actually only "x/100 lb CO2/gallon".
aqnaqnaqn 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919
Try this.
tiny dot cc slash WfTGLobalTempsMeansCO2
I'll PM you about posting links
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 Its probable an estimate, but gasoline is not healthy for the environment, or for us as a people. But alternatives are not available now that would not impact society as much.
UltraEpicLoser 8 months ago
@UltraEpicLoser
Such as?
If you're talking about bio fuel, such as fuel made from corn, you're forgetting about the impact on the environment growing corn has. You need a lot of land, fertilizer, and (probably) insecticide. Either way you look at it, the environment is being altered.
Same thing with those electric cars you people drive, they're good in that they reduce our dependence on foreign oil; however, most of the electricity you're using to charge them comes from coal. ;)
ShyGuy1919 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 I agree with you on the corn squeezings...lol. Studies have even shown that it would compete with land for other crops driving up the overall price of food. Let's face it, corn ethanol fuel was pushed by the corn subsidies lobby. It is not even as efficient as they initially tried to claim. The government thought it would be a good way to offset the tax money that already subsidizes corn; the same reason all our sweetners and several other food products are now corn based.
byron2521 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 I was a little disappointed in the hybrids, but I am actually more encouraged by the new pure electrics. If they had made the hybrids fulltime electric drive with a gas powered generator, like a diesel train engine, they would get even better gas mileage. Although most of the electricity for charging full electrics comes from coal, studies show the coal burned to run the electric car still pollutes less than the gasoline car because gasoline engines are so very inefficient.
byron2521 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 We still need to find a better way that won't hinder us socially and environmentally. Like creating better batteries to store long term environmentally acquired energy. Which does not exist, yet. I don't really know the answer, but I know the way we are operating now is not the answer.
UltraEpicLoser 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 Kinda like Fox News, right?
revm3up97 8 months ago
@ShyGuy1919 Kinda like Fox News, right?
revm3up97 8 months ago
Sorry, but how does one gallon of gasoline, create 25 lbs of green house gasses? (HINT: somebody better check their stoichiometry)
JAROSLAVAGINA 8 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA That's not what the video said!
The video said the PRODUCTION of one gallon of gasoline creates 25 lbs of green house gasses.
Farming produces greenhouse gasses too, but the greenhouse gasses come from operating gas powered engines, not from the produce itself.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin again, check your stoichiometry. (HINT: gasoline weighs approximately 6 pounds).
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA
Hint, the 25 lbs of green house gasses don't come out of 6lbs of gasoline. I don't know how to explain it any simpler for a simple mind to understand
How can you comprehend the concept of "stoichiometry", yet be completely retarded when it comes to understanding a simple concept as production costs?
"Stoichiometry" is irrelevant when it comes to producing 25 lbs of greenhouse gasses from producing 6 lbs of gasoline
Perhaps you understand the concept of "DUH"?
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin ohhhhhh so it takes 4 times as much energy to make that one gallon worth of energy?
Hint: I get stoichiometry and the concept of production costs. the resulting value vs production costs for gasoline (including crude oil production, refinery production, and transportation) is .85. you simply don't get 25 lbs of greenhouse gas from 6lbs of gasoline.
Do you understand the Concept of "DUH"?
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA I was wrong about what produces 25lbs of CO2.
Actually, production of one gallon of gasoline produces about 6lbs of CO2, which is about the same weight as the gasoline produced. However, the burning of that one gallon produces about 19 lbs of CO2.
Of course, your reference to "stoichiometry" is still irrelevant, which means you are still wrong. Most likely that is because you don't understand high school chemistry. Perhaps you are not getting enough oxygen when you breath.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA
Here's your high school chemistry class of the day:
The carbon from the gasoline mixes with OXYGEN FROM THE AIR IN ORDER TO BURN (elementary school science review).
Gasoline consists mostly of hydrocarbons—chains of carbon encircled by atoms of hydrogen. When the hydrocarbons burn, they break apart and recombine with the air. This reaction produces heat, as well as two chemical byproducts, harmless water and 19 lbs of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
DUH!
Class dismissed!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin cute... but i've explained why your wrong in another post.
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA First of all, the word is "you're" not "your".
So you're wrong about that.
Second, I'm not wrong about the amount of CO2 produced.
You provided an incorrect explanation, while I provided a scientifically accurate explanation.
So you're wrong about that too!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA
Chem 101
Octane consists of 8atoms of carbon and 18 atoms of hydrogen, written as C8H18. If you break down the octane and mix it with enough O2, you have the atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen—to make 8 molecules of CO2 and 9 molecules of H2O. The 8 molecules of CO2 weigh about 3 times more than the 1 molecule of octane you started with. That doesn't mean you've violated Stoichiometry; instead, you've added the weight of the O2 from the air to the weight of gasoline.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin except that your using the average C/H ratio for gasoline (gasoline is comprised of carbon chains usually containing between 4 and 12 carbon atoms).
I'm getting rather bored with this topic. your not going to believe me. I'm not going to believe you (due to vast amounts of research into the science of "climatology", and other global warming... excuse me... climate change related topics.) so i'm gunna go do something more productive like read a book.
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA
Yes, please read a book. I suggest Science for Second Graders.
It's not my fault you are bored, delusional, and anti science.
I don't have to "believe" you, I know science, and I know you are wrong. Even if you use 4 carbon atoms instead of 8, the amount of CO2 in pounds is still much larger than what you falsely claim.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin no. you don't know science. you know what you are told and have spent absolutely no time researching those claims which are sold to you as truth. you do not know the very numerous statistical issues which plague the research of those claiming climate change is anthropogenic in nature, or the various flaws in their data gathering. further, you see nothing wrong with the way "peer review" is performed in climatology circles.
you know religion, not science.
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA Actually YOU DON'T KNOW SCIENCE, since you claim to know better than Noble Prize winners and over 99% of credible climate scientists. If you are sooooooo smart, then why can't you prove them wrong? Where is your proof? All you offer is illogical, unscientific straw man stupidity. Oh that's right, in your deluded mind, all you have to do is BELIEVE they are wrong
But you can't even get high school chemistry right, as I proved, so who in their right mind would want to believe you?
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin tell me, which climate change reports have you critiqued?
yeah... that's what i thought.
tell me, what comment was found in the "climate gate" e-mails which explained how "those opposed to the idea of man made climate change" were being silenced and censored in the climatology journals?
Yeah... that's what i thought.
Who said I haven't proved them wrong already?
yeah... that's what i thought.
good day.
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA Talking to yourself like an angry homeless wino, again? You must use the computer at the public library.
I have no need to peer review (not "critique") scientifically factual reports. As for the climate denying reports, they have all been scientifically discredited numerous times, so I won't waste my time beating a dead jackass.
By the way, the climate gate emails were found to be inconsequential in disproving climate change. Also, real science is never censored.
Good day!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin "I have no need to peer review (not "critique") scientifically factual reports"
hahahaha wow...
Thanks for proving my point. You know Religion. Not science. I couldn't have done a better job explaining that myself.
"Also, real science is never censored." that's exactly my point (you know religion, not science) as the e-mails word for word, spelled out how they were denying access to journals unless the papers support AGW, skewing the "scientifically factual reports" one way
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA By your own words, you prove you just don't know science, or religion! Better take a course in logic too, and learn exactly what "peer review" means. I don't believe these scientists are correct, I know they are correct because I have examined their work and found it to be sound.
I have also examined the work of the deniers and have come to the conclusion that the only controversy over global warming is this, are the deniers just plain idiots or are they complete morons?
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin Science is the open questioning of how the universe works. Religion is taking some one elses word for it, with out question.
Yes a course in logic to learn exactly what "peer review" is. how cute. your trying to sound smart after being blatantly put in your place. if you want to keep this going we can. i find the willfully ignorant entertaining.
Google "peer review vs pal review". continued....
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA Please stop with the delusional comments. You just can't make claims without proof. End of story. You still can't accept the fact that six pounds of gasoline can produce 25 pounds of CO2 pollution.
Better seek help, and fast!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin it has been explained why the system of "peer review" that most of the climatology journals are using is heavily defective.
If you have come to the conclusion that the only controversy over global warming is that the deniers are, as you conclude, stupid, then you need to head over to the Blogg "Watts up with that?" He explains why some of the global temperature data is incorrect due to poor data gathering practices. continued...
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA You can explain all you want, when are you going to prove anything you say is factual?
And when are you going to stop referring to discredited pseudoscience?
'As long as Anthony Watts keeps a website “hits” counter on his sidebar and keeps bragging that his hits are evidence of his blog’s popularity, that will provide the most irrefutable evidence of his innumeracy and his willful statistical deception'
Further proof that deniers are either just plain idiots or complete morons
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin such problems such as the temperature data gathering stations being consumed by urban sprawl (which causes temperatures to rise due to the heat island effect, and are in no way related to atmospheric or climate events) and others such as stations being moved to distances of 20 miles or more, with no break in the data pattern.
continued...
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA More discredited pseudoscience. Temperature data gathering stations are not the only means of measuring rising temperatures, and you know it. Or maybe you really are that scientifically illiterate!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin judging by the, for lack of a better word, depth of your conclusion, I am forced to conclude that you haven't really looked into any of this at all. much like a religion, you take someone's word as truth with out any questioning. "well, scientists say it so it is true!"
you probably didn't even notice that the chief investigator of the climate gate scandal was closely linked to the CRU. that's like having the pope hold an investigation on if God is real? no bias at all right?
JAROSLAVAGINA 7 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA You have discredited your self a long time ago, as well as posted several widely discredited arguments, so I could care less about what you "conclude".
Again, the so called climate gate scandal does nothing to disprove the accuracy of global warming or the fact that it is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests.
If you work for the Koch sucker propagandists, they should ask for their money back, because you are completely unbelievable!
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
wow a lot of people don't think this is real on here - keeping your head in the sand won't help.
well done - good video - i ride a bike every day of the week and yes, i'm saving the planet.
tsunchoo 8 months ago 2
This is all bullshit. It doesn't even give a citation as to which scientific studies they are getting their "facts" from, let alone the details from their studies.
Just keep drinking the cool-aid, folks.
Itsdakinebrah 8 months ago
@Itsdakinebrah So where are your citations proving that the burning of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions are beneficial to humans and the environment?
Oh, that's right, they don't exist, but you believe in them anyway because it is you who is "drinking the cool-aid [sic] folks."
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
gas is $3.15 in my area..
AngryAtTechnology75 8 months ago
So, drill in Anwar or other US locations, reduce the greenhouse gas from the 11000 mile trip from Saudi Arabia, move the poor, underachieving out of the city near the train stations and other dangerous locations where most created their own "condition." That makes reduction in ER care a bonus. This would resolve over half of the issue. Then we could work on the rest. Lots of "approximations" in this video and even more "variables" as they stated.
aioffa 8 months ago
@aioffa Better yet, take away all of the big oil corporate welfare and give it to alternative energy like solar and wind to reduce their costs of operation.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
ONLY in America?
Really?
Or is that just what someone told you?
kwacka222 8 months ago
I like how it 's America's responsability to save the enviroment while the rest of the world has little or no regulations!
Slicric13 8 months ago
@Slicric13 - what are you talking about? - that's not what the video says - try again.
tsunchoo 8 months ago
@Slicric13 I like how you just make stuff up.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
So what do we take away from this video? That the government should tax $10 per gallon and drive the country into a depression worse than that in the 40's? Government involvement in anything makes a system less efficient. Unregulated free market is the most efficient, but allows many negative things to happen to the individual. As a country we must strike a balance between leaving the little guy in the dust and a failing socialist agenda.
vlnplyr5 8 months ago
@vlnplyr5 'failing socialist' agenda - please explain which 'failing socialist agenda' you are talking about? - thanks
tsunchoo 8 months ago
@tsunchoo On the far left of the global spectrum we have complete socialism/communism, which has been proven time and time again to fail. On the far right we have a complete unregulated free market system, which although somewhat unproven, will fail as a result of monopolies being formed. Both of these ideas fail as the result of one thing - human greed. The balance must be struck between these two concepts. Please note that I was not referring to any current or past US administration.
vlnplyr5 8 months ago
@vlnplyr5 except that monopolies have historically only arisen after help from government regulation, and market intervention.
you were saying?
JAROSLAVAGINA 8 months ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA I believe you are referring to government created monopolies which are actually a result of simplifying a system. For example, a city only allows for a single provider of water, as having multiple providers in competition would result in multiple piping systems and therefore be more inefficient than a single provider. However, what I'm actually referring to are Laissez-faire economics. In this, government intervention is non-existent and the efficiency results in monopolies.
vlnplyr5 8 months ago
except that large businesses are by very nature, inefficient, and only able to sustain due to regulation and market intervention which stunts or prohibits entrepreneurship.
Why did the Federal Government rush to save two of the "Big 3"? Because the system is so jerry-rigged, nothing can form to take their place. Startups have almost been completely regulated out of the market.
JAROSLAVAGINA 8 months ago
@vlnplyr5 Nothing like creating a ridiculous straw man argument! Please prove who exactly in the government wants to "tax $10 per gallon".
If you believe in an "unregulated free market", then I am sure you will have no problem with eliminating corporate welfare and tax loopholes for the fossil fuel industries so alternative energy can be more competitive. Also, we can end the oil wars in the Middle East, and use the money saved to help increase alternative energy usage.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
@RawFoodKevin Please show me where I said someone "wants to tax $10 per gallon." I never said such a thing. I also do not believe in unregulated free market, only that there are two ends to the spectrum and that we must find a balance. I do think many of the tax loopholes need to be eliminated - we are suffering as a nation due to the financial state we are in. Please do not be so defensive toward my comments, as I have made an effort to be as diplomatic as possible.
vlnplyr5 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vlnplyr5 About six comments above my last comment you said:
"So what do we take away from this video? That the government should tax $10 per gallon and drive the country into a depression worse than that in the 40's?"
The main argument of the video is that we pay a very high hidden price of gasoline, not that the government should heavily tax the use of gasoline. A higher tax may only have been implied.
RawFoodKevin 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I will never pay 15 a gallon for some bull shit polution tax
zack1921a 8 months ago
All i heard was bla bla bla science info, I never got a straight answer on how much gas really cost in Texas.
Gatsomaru2 8 months ago
@Gatsomaru2 idiots cant see the numbers. Because they cant understand that.
vaidotas86 8 months ago
Unfortunately, it doesn't also mention the costs of defending the sources and transportation of oil. Our military ground actions (think Desert Shield) and our Navy patrolling the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf, etc. The military costs for that gallon of gas are astronomical!
WeimaranerTX 8 months ago 15
@robhoneycutt, I just posted a similar observation on HuffPost. If we factored in military spending gas would be, what, $10 a gallon? More?
Not to mention the concept of environmental redress being the responsibility of the seller and included in the cost of gas. I thought it was well done and quite fair. It's not that oil and gas or this industry is wrong or bad; it's that it is built on an outdated and unsustainable model and as a society we're mired in the inertia of the status quo.
caramedia 8 months ago 8
Great Video. Good Information. Sharing it on Twitter & facebook.
BarkhaDhar 8 months ago 4
great vid !
YaBaDji 8 months ago 3
factor in how many yuppie wannebe commie hippies starve cause the food trucks can't get to the whole foods parking lot and its not worth it to you people.
chrisfrmchi312 8 months ago
Disingenuous!? It only presents very straightforward, unbiased and candid facts.
vaultc 8 months ago 3
@vaultc unbiased? more like gay liberal bullshit.. Al gore cock sucking bull shit.
AngryAtTechnology75 8 months ago
@AngryAtTechnology75 Thanks for your well formed and articulated comments... you must have a lot of knowledge on this topic!
vaultc 8 months ago
Very informative. and an eye-opener to boot. =]
brightblackdawn95 8 months ago 2
Why does the announcer sound so smarmy? The whole tone of it, the writing and constant use of "you" makes it seem like an attack on the viewer: "Hey buddy, look what you're doing to destroy the world just by living your life."
It doesn't come across like an investigation at all as information is stated as settled fact. Not a typical format for "investigative reporting." It all seems a bit disingenuous and produced by someone with an agenda.
bendix5 8 months ago