Merrill
Merrill
Good luck with this, there are to many people that could make this happen but they are all making lots of money from the fossil fuel industry. Plus they control the government.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It's looking at actual use practices. That's the problem with hybrids which doesn't exist with EV's.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You're grasping at straws. What do almonds have to do with anything? Do city folks not eat almonds or drink almond milk? Do they not consume food? Do you think food just magically appears in cities, or maybe is it trucked from rural areas, at higher CO2 costs?
Most people don't water their lawns, especially if there are local water concerns.
When faced with actual data about Cornell students you moved the discussion into absurdity.
The Charleston lawsuit – which targets a clutch of oil companies including Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron...
What to do about the petrostates like SA and Russia?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam
The wealthiest 1% of the world’s population were responsible for the emission of more than twice as much carbon dioxide as the poorer half of the world from 1990 to 2015, according to new research.
Carbon dioxide emissions rose by 60% over the 25-year period, but the increase in emissions from the richest 1% was three times greater than the increase in emissions from the poorest half.
The report, compiled by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, warned that rampant overconsumption and the rich world’s addiction to high-carbon transport are exhausting the world’s “carbon budget”.
Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000.
He pointed to transport as one of the key drivers of growth in emissions, with people in rich countries showing an increasing tendency to drive high-emitting cars, such as SUVs, and take more flights. Oxfam wants more taxes on high-carbon luxuries, such as a frequent-flyer levy, to funnel investment into low-carbon alternatives and improving the lot of the poor.
The wealthiest 1% of the world’s population were responsible for the emission of more than twice as much carbon dioxide as the poorer half of the world from 1990 to 2015, according to new research.
Carbon dioxide emissions rose by 60% over the 25-year period, but the increase in emissions from the richest 1% was three times greater than the increase in emissions from the poorest half.
The report, compiled by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, warned that rampant overconsumption and the rich world’s addiction to high-carbon transport are exhausting the world’s “carbon budget”.
Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000.
He pointed to transport as one of the key drivers of growth in emissions, with people in rich countries showing an increasing tendency to drive high-emitting cars, such as SUVs, and take more flights. Oxfam wants more taxes on high-carbon luxuries, such as a frequent-flyer levy, to funnel investment into low-carbon alternatives and improving the lot of the poor.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
oh sure, I know you keep up with this subject just as much as myself, so have you seen this site? I found it years ago through my own research with going down this rabbit hole...
Smoke & Fumes
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I meant that water use had to do with food and almonds probably are the absolute worst for aquifer depletion. Everyone needs food. You were saying that cities were worse for aquifers and I just don't see that. I was making the point that food consumption/production is the issue - certainly not that city folks were eating less. Why the hostility?
I think the real transportation issue with food is not the last 100 miles. It is that most nuts/fruits etc come from CA or Mexico or even further. That last 100 miles is relatively easy to decarbon. And I would argue that living in the North probably requires more transportation for food on average than living a bit further south.
In parts of the country, including near me, people water their lawns. More of a suburban issue that a rural one for sure.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Any aquifer is a finite resource. More people in one area drawing from it will deplete it faster. In places where the aquifers are healthy and quickly replenished it may not be an issue but in other areas it certainly is.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Actually, meat production is the absolute worst for water depletion. Meat production (grazing land, hay, soy, corn, etc.) takes up about 70% of the water used in agriculture. A single hamburger uses 2463 gallons of water. 1/4 pound of almonds (same as a burger) takes about 10 gallons.
Of course, people only eat about 2 pounds of almonds a year whereas they eat about 200 pounds of meat.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Climate and Urban Forests
The ways we plan our urban areas matter, and how we landscape our cities has a direct link to climate change, climate stability, and livability of our communities.
Join us Thursday, September 24th at 4PM to hear about the work Philip Zawarus with UNLV has done on assessing the urban forest of Las Vegas- where we are, what are the possibilities, and how a landscaping could protect us in a changing climate. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A period and discussion. Hope to see you there!
The ways we plan our urban areas matter, and how we landscape our cities has a direct link to climate change, climate stability, and livability of our communities.
Join us Thursday, September 24th at 4PM to hear about the work Philip Zawarus with UNLV has done on assessing the urban forest of Las Vegas- where we are, what are the possibilities, and how a landscaping could protect us in a changing climate. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A period and discussion. Hope to see you there!
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Emphasizing that California must stay at the forefront of the fight against climate change, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday issued an executive order to restrict new car sales in the state to only zero-emission vehicles by 2035 and threw his support behind a ban on the controversial use of hydraulic fracturing by oil companies.
Under Newsom’s order, the California Air Resources Board would implement the phase-out of new gas-powered cars and light trucks and also require medium and heavy-duty trucks to be zero-emission by 2045 where possible. California would be the first state in the nation to mandate 100% zero-emission vehicles, though 15 countries already have committed to phasing out gas-powered cars.
Newsom did not take executive action to ban the controversial oil extraction method known as fracking but called on the state Legislature to do so, setting up what could be a contentious political fight when lawmakers reconvene in Sacramento next year.
https://www.latimes.com/california/...-ban-california-zero-emissions-cars?_amp=true
Under Newsom’s order, the California Air Resources Board would implement the phase-out of new gas-powered cars and light trucks and also require medium and heavy-duty trucks to be zero-emission by 2045 where possible. California would be the first state in the nation to mandate 100% zero-emission vehicles, though 15 countries already have committed to phasing out gas-powered cars.
Newsom did not take executive action to ban the controversial oil extraction method known as fracking but called on the state Legislature to do so, setting up what could be a contentious political fight when lawmakers reconvene in Sacramento next year.
https://www.latimes.com/california/...-ban-california-zero-emissions-cars?_amp=true
Should be 2030 for all new passenger vehicles, 2035 for medium duty, and 2040 for heaviest duty, but this is one of a few significant solid steps in the right direction. Hopefully many other states will follow suit.
Last edited:
You would be surprised with trucking... If Tesla Semi is for real, it is much better ROI esp if you can throw in some level of self driving, means very fast adoption. Don't buy electric, ok spend more, be non-competitive and go out of business. Simple as that.
Short term investors were so busy with their nearsightedness today, not seeing some immediately available product come out of battery day.
The long term investors, however, may see how the announced 4860 cells effectively mean double the range at half the cost/kWh, and just a few years away. Pair this with Governor Newsom's order above, and the person who builds the most EVs and electric grid batteries with the lowest manufacturing price/kWh stands to make hundreds of billions to trillions in profit.
The long term investors, however, may see how the announced 4860 cells effectively mean double the range at half the cost/kWh, and just a few years away. Pair this with Governor Newsom's order above, and the person who builds the most EVs and electric grid batteries with the lowest manufacturing price/kWh stands to make hundreds of billions to trillions in profit.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The end of new ICE sales should be no later than 2025. 2035 should be the last year it's legal to register an ICE. Maybe they can add a tax on fools fuel for the next 15 years then buy any remaining ICE at fair market value with the fund. Crush 'em and stack 'em into a wall on the southern border so everyone gets a little bit of a win....
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Melting Antarctic ice will raise sea level by 2.5 metres – even if Paris climate goals are met, study finds
The melting is likely to take place over a long period, beyond the end of this century, but is almost certain to be irreversible, because of the way in which the ice cap is likely to melt, the new model reveals.
The melting is likely to take place over a long period, beyond the end of this century, but is almost certain to be irreversible, because of the way in which the ice cap is likely to melt, the new model reveals.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It's time to get serious about food waste in fight against global heating | Dave Lewis
As a society, we are converting more and more land to food production, with massive consequences for wildlife, water and forests. Yet one third of all food produced is thrown away and food waste is responsible for a staggering 8% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, more than any country in the world bar the US and China. This is an environmental disaster but it is a social and economic one, too, when more than 800 million people are undernourished and food waste costs the global economy $940bn (£737bn) each year.
As a society, we are converting more and more land to food production, with massive consequences for wildlife, water and forests. Yet one third of all food produced is thrown away and food waste is responsible for a staggering 8% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, more than any country in the world bar the US and China. This is an environmental disaster but it is a social and economic one, too, when more than 800 million people are undernourished and food waste costs the global economy $940bn (£737bn) each year.
Similar threads
