Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Yes. But energy construction costs for a car are huge compared to a bike so we shouldn't neglect them.
In "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" Mackay
estimates that it takes 76,000 kwh of energy to build an ICE car:
Ch 15 Page 90: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air | David MacKay
Over a 15 year lifespan of the car, that comes to 14 kwh hours per day.
Assuming again electrical energy from natural gas is used for energy (just to get
a ballpark figure) and assuming it takes about as much energy to build an EV
as it does an ICE, construction costs add another 18 pounds of CO2 per day
over the life of the car. You'd have to biking/driving over a hundred miles a day
on a typical diet for the purely renewable powered EV to be the lower carbon option...
bikes are hard to beat.

Of course, if you were biking 100 miles a day, you wouldn't be eating the typical diet. 100 miles (163 km) a day is about six hours of biking for a non-racer. A 300 km randonneur ride takes about 12 hours.

Bear in mind that with the Model S, the battery has a second life as a solar backup battery, so only about 50% goes against the car. Also aluminium has a better recycle factor than the typical ICE car because the aluminium can be recycled to make another car while the recycled steel can't be used as if it was newly made steel. Sure, a bicycle will still beat the Model S in terms of total CO2 usage over it's life, but the Model S is far better than a traditional ICE car when everything is taken into account.
 
Nice to see that this thread has got a high level of quality and specialization.

As long as you don't have to provide a link to support such bland statements :tongue:

On the subject of the biking meat eater, I first encountered it in David MacKay's book mentioned above. Depending on the person bringing it forward, I'd reply that the only humans that solely fed on meat where the Neanderthals and they are extinct today. double tongue.
 
Of course, if you were biking 100 miles a day, you wouldn't be eating the typical diet. 100 miles (163 km) a day is about six hours of biking for a non-racer. A 300 km randonneur ride takes about 12 hours.

Bear in mind that with the Model S, the battery has a second life as a solar backup battery, so only about 50% goes against the car. Also aluminium has a better recycle factor than the typical ICE car because the aluminium can be recycled to make another car while the recycled steel can't be used as if it was newly made steel. Sure, a bicycle will still beat the Model S in terms of total CO2 usage over it's life, but the Model S is far better than a traditional ICE car when everything is taken into account.

Good points on the Model S. By "typical American diet", I meant the typical mixture of foods that Americans eat as detailed in the link, not the typical amount of food. For the biking calculation, I assumed the person would eat an additional 31 cal per day for each mile biked.
 
I guess the "meat only" premise was based on older theories:

The researchers say the starch granules and carbohydrate markers in the samples, plus evidence for plant compounds such as azulenes and coumarins, as well as possible evidence for nuts, grasses and even green vegetables, show a broader use of plants than previously thought.

The real Neanderthal diet: Researchers shed new light on early man's diet - and it turns out they ate their greens (and knew how to use plants as medicine) | Mail Online
 
28 U.S. Senators plan an all-night talk on climate change.

26 of them Democrats, and 2 Independents. Not a single Republican Senator is willing to show some backbone and take a stand on this issue.

28 Senators Will Stay Up All Night Monday To Talk About Climate Change

I am very sorry for this. The matter of Climate Change/Global Warming should concern everybody independently from their political side. Hope that in the USA things will change and also Republican Senators will join the all-night talk on Climate Change.
 
I live in Italy and I don't know very much about the USA, but for instance I know that Arnold Schwartzeneger is very sensible to AGW and is not a denier at all. So I hope that also in the Republican Party there is somebody interested in AGW.

Arnold is what most modern Republicans call a RINO... Republican In Name Only. Most of the party has taken a hard turn to the right, as much as they enjoy idolizing Reagan it's doubtful he would actually be welcome in todays GOP.

- - - Updated - - -

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large.As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures areincreasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with otherglobal dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantialeconomic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, andinfrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in foodcosts. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placingadditional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty,environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enableterrorist activity and other forms of violence." - US DOD



http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
 
I'm not a fan of grandstanding....by anyone. And that is what this is; just as much as if it were (ex-)Senator DeMint and colleagues pulling the same shenanigans about what yanks their chains.
 
I'm not a fan of grandstanding....by anyone. And that is what this is; just as much as if it were (ex-)Senator DeMint and colleagues pulling the same shenanigans about what yanks their chains.

The fact that I see so many climate deniers come out of the woodwork on Twitter is telling me that this is worth it. They must feel worried about something.

There is also something else you might be forgetting. There have been estimated to be about 20-30 Republican congressmen that accept climate science. The problem is, that they wouldn't dare say. I have watched bits and pieces of this and the Dem Senators seem to be coaxing their Republican colleagues to "come out of the closet". I applaud this effort. No Republican should be punished for accepting what is obvious in the scientific world.
 
Last edited: