"Green car" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "safe poison".

Anonymous, extreme green statements such as these are not helpful to the cause of improving the enviroment and/or lessening our collective impact upon the world. And the kicker is that some pundit will take these sorts of statements bundle them together and present green alternatives as a collection of ideas and experiments by extremist freaks.

Oh and no I don't own a car, I walk, or take the bus, or bike.

If you intended the statment as humour ... perhaps it should have been presented in a different manner.

The american public has been duped into thinking that buying a car that runs on alternative fuels is really doing the earth a favor.
It's hard to simplify, but think about this: where does the power come from that runs the assembly plant that builds the car? What powers the machines that forged the steel, that dugs holes for raw materials? What are those tires made out of on that car? Rubber - isn't that a petroleum product? Isn't the car full of molded plastic? Isn't that a petroleum product? Think about all of the energy and resources that went into producing every single little part of a car.

Was a sustainable resource used in the production of any car, EVER?

Sorry, but a 'green' car IS an oxymoron. Oh yeah, that goes for computers, too. Oops?

Oh get off your high horse. If you want to go live in the stone age then go and do it. If you want modern conveniences then there are unfortunately some compromises that need to be done. Car's may not be "green", whatever the hell that means, but they can be "greener" than the next car.

'Cars may not be 'green', whatever that means, but they can be 'greener' than the next car.'
Very well said. In complete agreement. I personally don't like cars very much. But they are a practical tool that many people need for one reason or other at one time or other. While I want people to use cars less, I do not and will not advocate their elimination. While there are too many and too abused, they are a needed tool in the functioning of modern civilization. What we need to do is push adoption of 'green' cars - meaning the ones that are 'greener' than the next - and push for continous environmental improvements in all aspects of cars. Some car companies take this to heart and some don't.

What a great step Yahoo is taking. This will help promote more awareness as well as just overall change. I love it!

While I want people to use cars less, I do not and will not advocate their elimination.

Yet you want to eliminate planes, even thought they do a slim percentage of the damage cars do.

Not one diesel on the list.

'Yet you want to eliminate planes, even thought they do a slim percentage of the damage cars do.'
I want to eliminate planes? Where exactly in any single one of my posts do I advocate that planes should be eliminated? Please do show me where I have said that I want planes eliminated. If you are the same Mr. Anonymous as the one I have had discussions with regarding air traffic emissions, than your misquoting of my previous statements does not come as a surprise since you have a tendency to say whatever you want and attribute those statements to others. Clear example: You, houston, want to eliminate planes. And then try to make things seem smaller or bigger as fits your fancy. Clear example: They do a slim percentage of the damage cars do.

Shall we begin the quotes and statistics all over again. I had decided to drop it - interestingly enough, based on your recommendation that we drop it. But now you seem intent on re-pushing what I still consider to be an irresponsible and specious attitude regarding air traffic. Fine. As I have already posted before, global air traffics contribution to global warming is about 3.8% of the problem. Global road traffics contribution was some 9.9% in 2002 (based on the source links I provided in our last discussion). This global road traffic incldudes all road vehicles - not just cars. But let us round air traffic to 4% and ALL road traffic to 10% - that is 40%. As you have shown on previous occassions, your view of what is big and small, fat and SLIM is quite different than mine. I do not consider 40% of 100 a slim percentage. Maybe I am in a minority of one in my view that 40% is a rather significant percentage of 100. But I doubt it.

Oh get off your high horse. If you want to go live in the stone age then go and do it.

Still trolling, I see.

As you always do Anonymous Coward. As you just did...

Car's may not be "green", whatever the hell that means, but they can be "greener" than the next car.

Odd. You made the exact opposite argument with respect to the iPod.

But on second thought, that's not odd at all, is it?

Grow up you two.

There is a diesel section but are the ratings based on using biodiesel?

Here's the link to the diesel section.

http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-fuel_biodiesel-cars/

Ratings are based on "commonly available motor fuel (gasoline or diesel)" since that's what most people will use. Diesel cars end up not scoring very well -- while they can get great gas mileage, their emissions can also be quite high.

The diesel numbers are based on dinodiesel. There Green Rating there for is less than 28. WHich is worse than the Monster SUV's that get 15/18 mpg but are flex fuel.

The site definately is discriminatory torwards diesel. They should rate them when burning biodeisel.

With the ultralow sulfer diesel I find it hard to believe that a VW TDI pollutes more than a Monster SUV burning at least 3 times more fuel.

The poor diesel ratings will seem less puzzling if one looks at their tailpipe emissions. Diesel NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions are nearly a factor of 10 more than those of average new gasoline cars. The automakers aren't there yet in terms of cleaning up diesels. The ultra-low sulfur diesel will help, but not until they install reliable NOx-reducing catalyts.