Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[jerry33]

I got around this moral dilemma myself by noting that a Tesla isn't really an American car... it's a Silicon Valley car!

It's not that American cars are bad, it's the big three after WWII that are bad. There were quite a few good American cars before the war.

 

[GoTslaGo]

Vehicles are now America's biggest CO2 source but EPA is tearing up regulations - the guardian Vehicles are now America's biggest CO2 source but EPA is tearing up regulations — the guardian

 

[DragonWatch]

It's not that American cars are bad, it's the big three after WWII that are bad. There were quite a few good American cars before the war.

It boils down to extremely poor management:-(

 

[dhrivnak]

I got around this moral dilemma myself by noting that a Tesla isn't really an American car... it's a Silicon Valley car!

Most American car manufacturers have made great progress in quality. The cars in 2000+ are MUCH better than earlier builds. I fully agree in the 70s and 80s Detroit made a lot of crap. While I do love my Tesla our Volt has been noticeably more reliable and lower maintenance costs.

 

[DragonWatch]

Quote from 350.org; 10Jan18, 12:34 pm

"Just an hour ago we stood with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio as he made two major announcements: New York's pension funds will divest from the big oil and gas companies, and the city is suing the biggest of these corporations for the climate damage they've caused.Just an hour ago we stood with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio as he made two major announcements: New York's pension funds will divest from the big oil and gas companies, and the city is suing the biggest of these corporations for the climate damage they've caused."

Small footprints ~ our nation is no longer a leader. Next step is to ban fossil fuel automobiles. Who will lead that stage? New York or Los Angeles?

Pleases do not ask me to carbon date when our nation lost its leadership role as it may have predated my loss of virginity:-(

 

[beeeerock]

"Just an hour ago we stood with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio as he made two major announcements: New York's pension funds will divest from the big oil and gas companies, and the city is suing the biggest of these corporations for the climate damage they've caused."

I've thought to myself for some time now that we'll eventually reach a tipping point, when society in general wakes up to realize that we are way past the point of panic. That will trigger a serious effort to save what is still salvageable, of our climate and planet. It could be a monumental effort, on the scale of what the military-industrial complex did around the world during WWII. The question is whether we'll be early enough to make any sort of meaningful difference.

Announcements like this are heartening, because every single one of them is a bit more weight on the correct side of the balance. The scales will tip eventually. Hopefully sooner than later. Much sooner.

It's also worth noting that society doesn't seem to be relying on the highest levels of government to begin the work. It will require action at all levels.

 

[ggr]

Mining conglomerate BHP is protesting pro-coal misinformation in Australia. Minerals Council of Australia kicks off coal power campaign despite BHP threat

 

[mspohr]

From Bill McKibben
New York City just declared war on the oil industry

New York City just declared war on the oil industry | Bill McKibben

 

[rays427]

The oil companies could help New York and San Fransisco by just shutting off all their fossil fuels. They would then be the greenest cities in the US.

 

[nwdiver]

The oil companies could help New York and San Fransisco by just shutting off all their fossil fuels. They would then be the greenest cities in the US.

Yes... when you're addicted to something terrible you should keep using it...

 

[mspohr]

The oil companies could help New York and San Fransisco by just shutting off all their fossil fuels. They would then be the greenest cities in the US.

The oil companies continue to do everything in their power to ensure there is no alternative. California is trying to provide an alternative so eventually they can turn off the fossil fuels.

 

[rays427]

What are they doing to ensure there are no alternates (providing cheap energy)?

 

[mspohr]

What are they doing to ensure there are no alternates (providing cheap energy)?

Not sure I understand your question. Are you asking what the oil companies are doing to try to prevent renewable clean energy?
Really, you haven't noticed? Climate change denial and Subsidies for fossil fuels to keep them cheap.
Government Subsidies: Silent Killer Of Renewable Energy
House Tax Bill Throttles Renewable Energy, Hugs Big Oil - WhoWhatWhy

 

[rays427]

Most of the so called subsidies are tax deductions that are the same that companies in other industries get. The major oil companies in general pay higher taxes than companies in other industries. In addition the state and federal taxes per gallon of gasoline is much higher than what the companies earn in profits. The only way you get to the real high numbers is including things like the military costs in the middle east, etc.

 

[mspohr]

Most of the so called subsidies are tax deductions that are the same that companies in other industries get. The major oil companies in general pay higher taxes than companies in other industries. In addition the state and federal taxes per gallon of gasoline is much higher than what the companies earn in profits. The only way you get to the real high numbers is including things like the military costs in the middle east, etc.

Should we subsidize fossil fuel production?
Should we subsidize the health impacts of fossil fuel?
Should we subsidize protection of fossil fuel sources?
Should we subsidize the climate impacts of fossil fuel?

The true cost of fossil fuel is much more than we pay for it.

 

[rays427]

I agree with one of your subsidies and that's protecting fossil fuel sources with our military spending. Not protecting them would actually be good for the major oil companies because they don't have any interest in the Middle East oil. In fact the major oil companies actually control a very small amount of fossil fuel resources. So if we lose the Middle East sources the prices here would spike like they did during the embargoes. Now if you think that would be good then fine but our country would suffer greatly. Now let's say New York and San Francisco, etc are successful on their suites against the major oil companies what do you think would happen? Basically it would drive them out of business. Since we would still need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future we would be at the mercy of countries that are not very friendly with us.

So, if we are not paying enough for fossil fuels what would you suggest the price increase to fix it?

 

[mspohr]

I agree with one of your subsidies and that's protecting fossil fuel sources with our military spending. Not protecting them would actually be good for the major oil companies because they don't have any interest in the Middle East oil. In fact the major oil companies actually control a very small amount of fossil fuel resources. So if we lose the Middle East sources the prices here would spike like they did during the embargoes. Now if you think that would be good then fine but our country would suffer greatly. Now let's say New York and San Francisco, etc are successful on their suites against the major oil companies what do you think would happen? Basically it would drive them out of business. Since we would still need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future we would be at the mercy of countries that are not very friendly with us.

So, if we are not paying enough for fossil fuels what would you suggest the price increase to fix it?

Here's a good article on the effects of fossil fuels use.
The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels
The health and environmental damages are significant but in many cases difficult to quantify depending on the costs and values of health and environment.

 

[ohmman]

I found this really interesting. The entire report is interesting, or just the abstract. But this snippet alone sums up the benefits of not moving heavy liquids around unnecessarily.

The results show that California succeeded in saving 524 000 million gallons (MG) of water (a 24.5% decrease relative to the 2013 baseline) over the mandate period, which translates into 1830 GWh total electricity savings, and a GHG emissions reduction of 521 000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e). For comparison, the total electricity savings linked to water conservation are approximately 11% greater than the savings achieved by the investor-owned electricity utilities' efficiency programs for roughly the same time period, and the GHG savings represent the equivalent of taking about 111 000 cars off the road for a year.

 

[mspohr]

I found this really interesting. The entire report is interesting, or just the abstract. But this snippet alone sums up the benefits of not moving heavy liquids around unnecessarily.

Amazing savings from just not pumping water.

 

[Zaxxon]

In Colorado, a glimpse of renewable energy’s insanely cheap future

"[G]etting energy from new renewable energy projects with storage is cheaper [than] getting it from existing coal plants."

This is awesome news given my state's generally terrible current grid energy mix.