Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
  • The final cut of TMC Podcast #34 is available now with topics timestamped. We covered Tesla's rollercoaster prices, Toyota pushing junk science, Mike's new Model 3, Optimizing track mode for snow driving, FSD V11 apparently coming by the end of this week, and more. You can watch and check out the chat replay on YouTube.

Climate change

wipster

Meanwhile I was still thinkin'...
Supporting Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,820
26,626
Kennewick, WA
"Solve" climate change. I see a lot of people talking about "solving" climate change. Yeah right. Climate change is real and it's happening, the best mankind can do is delay it and hopefully reduce the temperature increase, but we're not going to "solve" climate change. We may be able to reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere by eliminating the sources through use of electric vehicles, using renewable energy, and hopefully reducing the crap manufacturing companies put into the air; however that will take decades. And while we might find a method to capture the methane cows and other domesticated animals pump into the atmosphere, the fact that temperatures are rising means that the tundra in Siberia and across the northern hemisphere is melting rapidly and that means that substantial amounts of methane will be emitted, causing temperatures to rise even quicker.

Plus the temperature rise is causing oceans to rise much quicker than anticipated, making huge swathes of land uninhabitable and the polluted air causes them to acidify and kill off coral and a lot of fish population, many of which we didn't even know existed.

And the biggest thing is, which most people don't even consider, is that the risen temperatures will be here for centuries. While there are methods to actually capture CO2 out of the atmosphere being studied, none of them are currently viable at the quantity needed to influence the rising temperature. To bring things back to even current levels we'd also need a way to reduce ocean temperatures and refreeze a good portion.

So climate change that we can't even envision today is inevitable. The storms and ensuing destruction of life and property, plus the rising temperature and sea levels are what we truly need to be building toward. Renewable energy is a good start, especially that impervious to weather. Puerto Rico is a good example of what can and will happen unless we take action now.

Sorry to be downcast, but the effects of climate change will be with the human race for the foreseeable future. We can either accept that, anticipate the changes, and build towards surviving it or bury our heads in the sand and die as a species.

I really feel for the next generation.
 
Last edited:

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
3,936
23,251
QLD Australia
"Solve" climate change. I see a lot of people talking about "solving" climate change. Yeah right. Climate change is real and it's happening, the best mankind can do is delay it and hopefully reduce the temperature increase, but we're not going to "solve" climate change. We may be able to reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere by eliminating the sources through use of electric vehicles, using renewable energy, and hopefully reducing the crap manufacturing companies put into the air; however that will take decades. And while we might find a method to capture the methane cows and other domesticated animals pump into the atmosphere, the fact that temperatures are rising means that the tundra in Siberia and across the northern hemisphere is melting rapidly and that means that substantial amounts of methane will be emitted, causing temperatures to rise even quicker.

Plus the temperature rise is causing oceans to rise much quicker than anticipated, making huge swathes of land uninhabitable and the polluted air causes them to acidify and kill off coral and a lot of fish population, many of which we didn't even know existed.

And the biggest thing is, which most people don't even consider, is that the risen temperatures will be here for centuries. While there are methods to actually capture CO2 out of the atmosphere being studied, none of them are currently viable at the quantity needed to influence the rising temperature. To bring things back to even current levels we'd also need a way to reduce ocean temperatures and refreeze a good portion.

So climate change that we can't even envision today is inevitable. The storms and ensuing destruction of life and property, plus the rising temperature and sea levels are what we truly need to be building toward. Renewable energy is a good start, especially that impervious to weather. Puerto Rico is a good example of what can and will happen unless we take action now.

Sorry to be downcast, but the effects of climate change will be with the human race for the foreseeable future. We can either accept that, anticipate the changes, and built towards surviving it or bury our heads in the sand and die as a species.

I really feel for the next generation.
Check out Tony Seba's last video. posted here a few days ago:-

Tony predicts we may be carbon negative by 2040.

Tony is perhaps overly optimistic about some aspects.

But the limiting factor of solving climate change isn't technology, it is human ability to adapt to change and accept change.

The relevance for Tesla is that the mission is just as important and urgent as ever, we need clean energy and transport off the table before we start dealing with the disruption of agriculture. That is because the disruption of agriculture is be biggest change with the most fundamental implications. Humans will struggle to adapt, and the associated push back and politics may delay Tony's timeframe.

Carbon negative by 2060 might be too late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saniflash
"Solve" climate change. I see a lot of people talking about "solving" climate change. Yeah right. Climate change is real and it's happening, the best mankind can do is delay it and hopefully reduce the temperature increase, but we're not going to "solve" climate change. We may be able to reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere by eliminating the sources through use of electric vehicles, using renewable energy, and hopefully reducing the crap manufacturing companies put into the air; however that will take decades. And while we might find a method to capture the methane cows and other domesticated animals pump into the atmosphere, the fact that temperatures are rising means that the tundra in Siberia and across the northern hemisphere is melting rapidly and that means that substantial amounts of methane will be emitted, causing temperatures to rise even quicker.

Plus the temperature rise is causing oceans to rise much quicker than anticipated, making huge swathes of land uninhabitable and the polluted air causes them to acidify and kill off coral and a lot of fish population, many of which we didn't even know existed.

And the biggest thing is, which most people don't even consider, is that the risen temperatures will be here for centuries. While there are methods to actually capture CO2 out of the atmosphere being studied, none of them are currently viable at the quantity needed to influence the rising temperature. To bring things back to even current levels we'd also need a way to reduce ocean temperatures and refreeze a good portion.

So climate change that we can't even envision today is inevitable. The storms and ensuing destruction of life and property, plus the rising temperature and sea levels are what we truly need to be building toward. Renewable energy is a good start, especially that impervious to weather. Puerto Rico is a good example of what can and will happen unless we take action now.

Sorry to be downcast, but the effects of climate change will be with the human race for the foreseeable future. We can either accept that, anticipate the changes, and built towards surviving it or bury our heads in the sand and die as a species.

I really feel for the next generation.
There is no solving climate change for the simple reason that despite the humongous amount of hubris the modern man has, the climate will change despite what we do, don't do, whether we exist here etc.
 

aGreenGuy

TSLA long
Supporting Member
Oct 14, 2021
32
621
Norway
There is no solving climate change for the simple reason that despite the humongous amount of hubris the modern man has, the climate will change despite what we do, don't do, whether we exist here etc.
Please understand that it is the unprecedented speed of climate change induced by fossil fuel emissions that is the problem for humanity, not the slow, steady change of climate that is there despite what we do, don’t do etc.
 
Please understand that it is the unprecedented speed of climate change induced by fossil fuel emissions that is the problem for humanity, not the slow, steady change of climate that is there despite what we do, don’t do etc.
I agree that we should, through reducing, via negativa, reduce our impact on the planet. One part of that is getting rid of fossil fuels. However, new interventions through "refreezing" is nothing but a path towards even worse problems. This is simply because despite what you, or some climate scientists might think, we cannot predict the impacts of our actions on the climate system to any meaningful degree of accuracy. It is the via positiva types of interventions that in the first place put us on the way of harm.
Also, there are plenty of events that are abrupt and have nothing to do with people's actions. People have witnessed climate changes that have been much faster than what we are so far witnessing today. 10 of C within the span of decades. The climate solution is not to solve climate change, but to prepare for ANY volatility of the world around us.
 
Last edited:

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
3,936
23,251
QLD Australia
I agree that we should, through reducing, via negativa, reduce our impact on the planet. One part of that is getting rid of fossil fuels. However, new interventions through "refreezing" is nothing but a path towards even worse problems. This is simply because despite what you, or some climate scientists might think, we cannot predict the impacts of our actions on the climate system to any meaningful degree of accuracy. It is the via positiva types of interventions that in the first place put us on the way of harm.
Also, there are plenty of events that are abrupt and have nothing to do with people's actions. People have witnessed climate changes that have been much faster than what we are so far witnessing today. 10 of C within the span of decades. The climate solution is not to solve climate change, but to prepare for ANY volatility of the world around us.
The ultimate aim would be to get the world's climate back to something like it was in 1900. That isn't refreezing the planet, it is leaving a small amount of warming in place, but it is good enough.

Through out recorded human history, the last 10,000 years, climate has only moved within a narrow 1 degree range.

Anything that quickly varies climate by 10 degrees probably means human extinction.
 
Last edited:
The ultimate aim would be to get the world's climate back to something like it was in 1900. That isn't refreezing the planet, it is leaving a small amount of warming in place, but it is good enough.

Through out recorded human history, the last 10,000 years, climate has only moved within a narrow 1 degree range.

Anything that quckly varies climate by 10 degrees probably means human extinction.
Probably, but those events will happen. Many extraterrestial events can and will cause havoc on our planet, not only the climate changing types. Also there's no static state of climate that we can somehow go back to or stay on. The problem is that we are trying to solve something that is inherently not really solvable, with something (technology and especially at scale) that got us into this trouble in the first place! Our focus should be building a life and society that is robust to changes in the climate, or really any volatility that our planet can and will encounter.
And again, if you go back 12,000 years humans did survive such climate change. Barely, but did nevertheless.
Only by working with nature instead of trying to 'solve' it can we reach a place where we are truly resilient to changes in our environment. Like when some here discussing mass-produced housing and saying how that will be least taxing on the environment, if you don't take into account building with natural materials that are local! Why would we not take into account those solutions? Because they do now accumulate capital past the local scope.
And btw when I say "our focus should be building a life and society..." I don't actually think that we can do anything at scale nor should we. Change should and will only happen if started by individuals, families, communities making their own condition more resilient. I believe the unfortunate reality is that we will go through some very uncomfortable upheavals in the next century or so, due to external volatility as well as the fragility that we have trapped ourselves into through centralization. I take climate change and other risks seriously enough to not work on solving anything other than fresh water, food, safety, and shelter for myself, my family and the community around me.
 

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
3,936
23,251
QLD Australia
Probably, but those events will happen. Many extraterrestial events can and will cause havoc on our planet, not only the climate changing types. Also there's no static state of climate that we can somehow go back to or stay on. The problem is that we are trying to solve something that is inherently not really solvable, with something (technology and especially at scale) that got us into this trouble in the first place! Our focus should be building a life and society that is robust to changes in the climate, or really any volatility that our planet can and will encounter.
And again, if you go back 12,000 years humans did survive such climate change. Barely, but did nevertheless.
Only by working with nature instead of trying to 'solve' it can we reach a place where we are truly resilient to changes in our environment. Like when some here discussing mass-produced housing and saying how that will be least taxing on the environment, if you don't take into account building with natural materials that are local! Why would we not take into account those solutions? Because they do now accumulate capital past the local scope.
A nomadic hunter gather lifestyle adapts best to climate change.

Technology that solves climate change is cheaper, cleaner, more efficient and more abundant. The benefits for human lifestyles and equality are very worthwhile.

All humans deserve adequate housing, transport, energy, food, communications, education and entertainment. and that can be done while rebuilding natural ecosystems.

Tony might not be 100% right, but he is close enough.
 

JRP3

Hyperactive Member
Aug 20, 2007
24,000
67,535
Central New York
People have witnessed climate changes that have been much faster than what we are so far witnessing today.
No humans witnessed anything like this, ever, until now

1669554632756.png


Many extraterrestial events can and will cause havoc on our planet, not only the climate changing types.
Yes and they often lead to extinction events. So? That's like saying I might get hit by lightning so I shouldn't bother to wear a seat belt.
 
No humans witnessed anything like this, ever, until now

View attachment 878733


Yes and they often lead to extinction events. So? That's like saying I might get hit by lightning so I shouldn't bother to wear a seat belt.
I would say, let's use grounding in case we get hit by a lightning. Which ties nicely to another event the electricity dominant modernity has not been exposed to, something similar to a carrington event. Much of our society is very fragile to completely normal, and surprisingly frequent, geological and astronomical events. The current system, which relies on externalizing almost all life-critical functions to other people or to technology, hasn't gone through much stress testing yet.
During Younger dryas period humans endured climate change that was much more severe, and abrupt what we have seen so far in our lifetime. For now, that is.
 

wipster

Meanwhile I was still thinkin'...
Supporting Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,820
26,626
Kennewick, WA

betstarship

Member
Supporting Member
Dec 25, 2021
953
7,473
USA
Honestly, my take, fwiw, is that the mods are trying their best to manage a huge TMC forum site. I ventured outside of the Investors sub-forum to the other ones today and was really impressed by the quality of the posts elsewhere across a myriad of aspects of all things Tesla.

As there's a lot of sustainability advocates here on TMC, the Investors forum has a lot of arguing and low quality posts recently compared to other places. Maybe it has something to do with the lowering in share price to Tesla this year by ~55%. I really don't know why its specific to the investors forum though, but I'm glad the mods are trying to sort everything out to bring back the quality of this sub-forum in TMC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MC3OZ

MC3OZ

Active Member
Jul 25, 2019
3,936
23,251
QLD Australia
Honestly, my take, fwiw, is that the mods are trying their best to manage a huge TMC forum site. I ventured outside of the Investors sub-forum to the other ones today and was really impressed by the quality of the posts elsewhere across a myriad of aspects of all things Tesla.

As there's a lot of sustainability advocates here on TMC, the Investors forum has a lot of arguing and low quality posts recently compared to other places. Maybe it has something to do with the lowering in share price to Tesla this year by ~55%. I really don't know why its specific to the investors forum though, but I'm glad the mods are trying to sort everything out to bring back the quality of this sub-forum in TMC.
Most of us have all been guilty of posting things in the main thread that don't belong there.

And we are more frequently guilty of responding to things in the main thread that don't belong there.

But you are right about the tone, the Twitter thread was a new low for emotional repetitive debate of low quality.

And the share price is probably a big part of the problem. Some posters seem to come with a single issue like Twitter that they constantly hammer

IMO a topic is often best debated in a specific thread, because it is better focused and typically only those with a strong interest in the topic participate.

Bottom line, looking for a specific thread before posting in the main thread, will improve things a lot.

I occasionally try posing in a specific thread and linking to that post in the main thread. The hope is that the debate continues in the specific thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: betstarship

Buckminster

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2018
5,181
27,918
UK
Never knew this:

"It takes more electricity to drive the average gasoline car 100 miles, than it does to drive an electric car 100 miles.

If we simply count the electricity used to make the gasoline that gets burned in a normal vehicle, you need more juice than you do to move an EV the same distance. Of course, then you need to factor in the actual gasoline used (and the resulting CO2 emissions)

Plus, don't forget, it takes a bunch of water to refine gasoline. Put this all together and you've got on hell of an energy efficiency argument in favor of EV.

There is no exact calculation for how much electricity it takes to drill, transport and refine a gallon of gas, but the accepted amount is around 8 kWh. So, for 8 kWh, you can go around 22 miles (using the US. average; we know you can go over twice that if you drive a Model3)

That means that a gasoline car uses just under 40 kWh to go 100 miles. An Tesla Model 3 Long range, on the other hand, uses around 25 kWh to go 100 miles.
Even if the exact numbers need to be shifted a bit one way or the other, we're just comparing electricity use here – not the petroleum that needs to be factored in for the ICE vehicle.

So, if we were able to magically use all the electricity that is currently spent to give us gas and shove it into automotive battery packs instead, we'd use less energy and no gasoline.

So much for the long tailpipe argument. Nissan long ago used this argument when advertising the Leaf, but it's not a commonly used statistic. We wonder why.

(thanks to ThreadReaderApp)
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: JRP3

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top