I fill my cart. I go 200 plus miles before I fill up. I never worry about running out of juice for a week or two. Just my choice.

Gas vehicles do not emit Carbon...

HC + O2 -> H2O + CO2

Plants consume CO2 + H2O and emit O2 for the Meatsacks.

Of course this is oversimplified and neglects the effects of nitrogen in the air and inefficient/incomplete burning of the fuel in the engine.

But that aside, do you see that "C" in CO2 on the right hand side? In chemistry that represents carbon and being on the right hand side shows that it is a product of the reaction. Sure, it is bound with O2 in your oversimplified equation but that could arguably be worse for the environment.

Carbon is not Carbon Dioxide....How do you not know that? What is your CV?

Is Hydrogen water?

Modern cars actually scrub the natural air of CO and NOx...Mother Nature doesn't wear a catalytic converter and has been spuing them for billions of years.

Environmentalism is a religion of nihilistic 5th grade dropouts...Their Sky-mommy is Gaia and their Daughter of Gaia is a mentally ill Swedish teenager named Greta.

I kid you not!

CO2 is plant fertilizer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOwHT8yS1XI

As the planet naturally warms...Atmospheric CO2 and H2O increases.

Thank you. It irritates me to no end when we hear about "carbon emissions". Carbon is an element. Carbon Dioxide is a molecular compound.

I think the idea behind conflating the two was to evoke images of graphite which is black. To make people think of carbon emissions as dirty, not as plant food.

Do you think the same message would be conveyed if they said "Diamond emissions?" After all, diamonds are 99.5% carbon and at STP have more carbon in them than CO2.

When you are driving on the street, you're making diamonds. Considering most electricity is not made from renewables, this applies to your Telsa, electric cart or gas vehicle.

There is no "conflating the two," you just don't seem to (be willing to) understand the processes involved.

Rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are the concern. The CO2 is created during the burning of fossil fuels when the C in the fuel combines with O2 to create the CO2. Without burning those fuels, the C in those fuels would still be bound to some Hs and other elements in the form of oil, coal, natural gas deposits, and others. Mining, refining, and burning those fuels moves the C out of the ground, combines it with O, and emits it into the atmosphere as CO2. There is no conflating, just an understanding of the processes.

It's encouraging to see that at least one person in The Villages, has their head screwed on straight and understands basic chemistry. The religious fervor of the faux environmentalists is scary. They've sucked in a political agenda and regurgitated it as science.

Most folks who passed 6th Grade Science class, have some basic understanding of the process.

Most of us also learned CO2 is necessary for life.

Many have forsaken what they knew of chemistry & biology and replaced it a political agenda, that refutes science.

Folks should stop drinking the Kool-Aid ... the Red Fruit Punch is particularly harmful.

And yet....

Volcanoes Cause Balance
 

I wouldn’t worry about any emissions from the newer carts. The earth will warm despite whatever you do. A golf cart’s output is modest at best. Electric carts do consume more energy through the power grid and the actual battery construction, but gas carts also do a comparable contribution to our environment. Whatever floats your boat. Scientifically, a volcano would wipe all efforts of either position to the side anyway. So just enjoy the life you have.

Do you understand that the spectrum of energy that is absorbed and reflected by C02 molecules is already 100% saturated?

Can you process what that means? It means that no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, the ability of C02 is already maxxed out in it's ability to affect the Earth.

Specifically, CO2 molecules absorb energy in several distinct infrared bands, called vibrational modes. The most significant absorption bands of CO2 occur around 2.7 μm(micrometers), 4.3 μm, and 15 μm. These absorption bands are related to the vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule.

How much of the Sun's energy are they currently absorbing in those bands? It's almost 100%.

Get it yet? If 100% of the atmosphere were CO2, it would still be absorbing the SAME amount of energy. 400ppm, 1000ppm, 10,000ppm, would have exactly zero change on the amount of warming that CO2 is doing.

Interesting post and possibly correct as far as it goes.

I have no idea (nor, I imagine, do you) that all the energy from those wavelengths is being absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. If so, the planet would look black in those wavelengths when observed from space. Perhaps that is the case but I have not found the data that shows that.

Regardless of whether 100% of those wavelengths are absorbed, your discussion doesn't continue to discuss what happens next. CO2 does not absorb that energy and just become plump and round, it eventually transfers that energy kinetically or emits that energy in a different IR wavelength. Where that kinetic energy and IR energy goes is greatly dependent on the concentration of CO2.

The lower the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the greater the amount of that energy can reach the upper atmosphere and be released into space. The higher the concentration of CO2 the less energy reaches the upper atmosphere and the more it affects the lower atmosphere and us. Similar to a down-filled blanket - the less dense the blanket the more heat transfers through it while the more dense the blanket the more heat is held close to the body.

Attempting to make the argument that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and does not contribute to warming is a lost cause. The science is clear that CO2 does contribute to warming. The question is whether the amount of CO2 emitted by consuming fossil fuels is a significant factor in global warming and climate change. There seems to be a strong correlation between the rate of warming and the concentration of CO2 contributed by man but so far there does not seem to be proof of causation.


Back to golf carts: There doesn't seem to be any good comparison between the emissions of a newer, efficient, high-mpg golf cart and a car. The car is designed to be efficient and has a catalytic converter to clean up some of the emissions but the golf cart burns less fuel and would therefore generate fewer emissions. At what point do the dirtier emissions generated from a smaller amount of fuel exceed the cleaner emissions generated from a larger amount of fuel? There is information for older lawn maintenance equipment but I haven't been able to find information for newer golf carts.

Howe do you weigh CO2 gas?
 

I can only relate my theory to PROPANE gas.
One full tank of Propane that I use on my grill is 20 lb, in relation that would be 73 tanks of CO2 gas released into the atmosphere. If you burn 1 gallon of gas in 2.5 hrs that would be 52 gallons of gas/year = 436 lb (8.4lb per gallon). With my figures of simple math, gasoline is producing 338% more CO2 than the weight of gasoline.
No wonder the vegetation is growing like crazy.
Please give me guidance.

QUOTE=Kelevision;2227451]A gas-powered golf cart with a 10.5 horsepower engine that operates for 2.5 hours each week emits 1474.2 pounds of CO2 each year, according to a study by Princeton University.[/QUOTE]

I hope the parents who paid close to half a million dollars for their kid’s education are proud that the kid figured that out. Oh wait, the kid probably took out student loans and is waiting for them to be forgiven?

Yet some just keep on beating the drum louder and louder, while sipping the Kool Aid.