It is because cars are the easiest target most every household has one and in some there are 3 or more - so they represent the highest consumer. I agree that we should be looking at alternative sources for all fueled vehicles but starting with cars will make the biggest impact right now.
2007-06-01 04:45:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Walking on Sunshine 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because cars are the mainstay of the population. In the farm belt there is a lot of interest in alternative fueled tractors. We should be too. The others are mostly luxuries. Look up the "3rd Law of Thermodynamics" on the internet. What you should have asked is, "How are we going to MAKE cars without fossil carbon?" michael
2007-06-01 06:30:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by m_canoy2002 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Probably because the automobile is the most obvious consumer of petroleum. It seems that the easy target, automobiles, is then the forum to blast other easy targets like oil producers and car companies who are not well-loved by environmental groups.
You forgot to mention construction equipment, gas lawnmowers, cruise ships, pleasure boats, container ships that haul all our imports from China and dozens of other vehicles powered by petroleum.
In fact, peoples' HOUSES (yes, houses) probably result in more CO2 emissions than automobiles. That is because of all the electricity and natural gas that is used in a house. Burning coal, oil and natural gas to create electricity puts an abundance of CO2 into the atmosphere.
By reducing electrical consumption at home, we can do a lot to cut CO2 emissions.
2007-06-01 05:35:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by BAL 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
i'm a guy and that i accept as true with you thoroughly. I fee love a lot extra suitable than I do lust. Do issues jointly as pals, then artwork on a romantic relationship. Do you get excitement from a similar meals, pursuits, concert activities, song and theater? It takes time and attempt to ensure in case you have compatibility or no longer. in my view, i admire the wonderment and anticipation of a accessible romantic relationship.
2016-11-24 21:47:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well because it is hard enough to change cars to alternative fuels eerything else will wait besides most people only own cars so theres nothing they can do about everything else.
2007-06-01 04:46:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tony 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
We being with cars, and auto buses, as those are uses most for transportation. As progression is made though research and testing, the fuel will be used more widely.
2007-06-01 08:30:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I find this rather interesting.
We put out 30,000,000,000 tons of CO in the atmosphere every year.
To put that in perspective, that's 38 molecules of CO for every 100,000 molecules of air. It would take 5 years to change that 38 molecules to 39 molecules at the above rate.
Interesting, huh?
2007-06-01 04:53:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well the cars are more a quantity thing.
But airplanes release things at the higher altitude so it's a lot more harmful.
2007-06-01 07:03:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ty 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, there is research going on that deals with all internal combustion engines.
It's just that there are WAY more cars than the others.
2007-06-01 04:45:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by No Chance Without Bernoulli 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because thats what is beigh hyped by the media
2007-06-01 04:47:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋