Has buying a Tesla changed your mind about Climate Change?

[tigerade]

Here is another good video:

Even though many of us consider ourselves rational thinkers, we do have to realize our brains are a product of evolution (more focused on personal interest and survival). We are steered much more by our emotions and personal biases than we think. It really does take training to be able to look at evidence in a dispassionate and objective manner. I like the analogy of the cowboy and the elephant. We think we are cowboys, but we are much more an elephant. And with that, climate change could be an unsolvable problem.

 

[EV-lutioin]

Unless you totally disregard all data and science (which would be odd for a Tesla supporter), you have to admit that levels of CO2 and the temperature of the planet are both increasing; I don't think anyone refutes this data. The next piece of the puzzle is to find solid evidence to support the connection between increasing greenhouse gases and global temperature increases. This connection is easily reproducible in the lab and, of course, there is an abundance of evidence that the planet was historically warmer during periods of increased greenhouse gases. Now the last piece of the puzzle (and this is where your Tesla becomes important) it to make the connection between increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and human activity. While there are many factors that can cause greenhouse gases to increase on Earth, there is solid evidence that humans add tremendous amounts of these gases to the atmosphere each day (just look at the tailpipe of your ICE). So if you are able to charge your Tesla with solar or wind energy then you are decreasing your greenhouse gas output and you are leading the way toward a lower greenhouse gas future. I just looked at my July power bill and it was -$60 last month, so I was able to produce more solar power than my Model X and my home uses in month. I know a tremendous amount of energy went into producing my solar panels and my Tesla, but I am confident that the same scientific expertise that created this amazing technology and is informing us about climate change will lead us to a brighter future.... if we listen.

 

[heysteveh]

The warming effect of CO2 is "settled science" but the large positive feedback models are not.

I am trying to keep an open mind about climate change. The above statement should be heeded by both sides as they discuss/debate. If you want to convince me of "climate change", don't hit me over the head with "the warming effect of CO2" because that's not what I question. Instead, talk to me about the accuracy of climate models, what role natural sources of warming play, and the relevancy of different climate feedbacks... and do it in layman's terms

I still think the feedback mechanisms are not well understood and that the point where the temperature change becomes catastrophic is a long way down the road.

For me, the above statement is where the discussion should be focused. Thanks to Tony8489 for his study/graphs that help bring that focus.

 

[Earlian]

1. A.S.S. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acro...elon-musk-nathan-tanner?trk=pulse-det-nav_art

CC: Climate Change, etc.

2. On topic:
For me, It is an ongoing mind shift, from a careless guy, to a caring guy in all parts of my life. And buying a tesla was a HUGE catalyst to a sustainable mindset. But that is only one field you can develop yourself.

So, it's great Elon gets all the petrol heads into his trap.

 

[adiggs]

... I just looked at my July power bill and it was -$60 last month, so I was able to produce more solar power than my Model X and my home uses in month.....

I understand the sense of what you're getting at, and I agree with it. However, you're conflating financial cost with energy production, and the two are not necessarily the same. A big factor is what state you're in, and what program you are participating in.

I don't have my specific numbers handy, but my example is directionally accurate.

We're in Oregon and have a 10kw system in PGE's Solar Payment Option program (feed-in tariff). We've got about 12 years left on a 15 year contract that pays us .39/kwh we produce. We buy electricity from PGE at ~0.11 / kwh. Over the course of the year, we'll generate about 12,000 kwh, while consuming about 20-22,000 kwh.

Financially, we'll generate about $4800 worth of electricity, where we would have been spending about 1/2 of that if we were just buying the power. July is one of our best months, with probably $400 coming back to us in addition to an effectively 0 electric bill (free electricity AND a check in the mail!)

Energy production wise, we overproduce in some months (but not by much), and underproduce our consumption by a lot in most months. Overall, the system will generate about 50-60% of our total household and Roadster energy consumption for the year (I wanted to get closer to net zero, but the program limit is 80% or 10kw - we couldn't go bigger).

Over the course of the year, we'll take more money in from the power company than we send out, and our energy production is maybe 60% of our usage. Having a net negative electric bill doesn't necessarily mean you're net zero or similar on the production side, and where that lands is VERY dependent on your state and utility programs that encourage or discourage this.

 

[adiggs]

For me, the above statement is where the discussion should be focused. Thanks to Tony8489 for his study/graphs that help bring that focus.

I'm in agreement that research needs to continue into the feedback loops, to better understand how this will level out. The question is what one is arguing for in terms of behavior today.

Some people making this argument (and I don't believe this is you), do so with the intention of freezing action and maintaining the status quo (burn baby burn). Sort of a "do nothing, because we don't know everything today" argument.

Some people making this argument are genuinely interested in further increasing our understanding of the mechanism and feedback loops at work, while simultaneously agreeing with the fundamental premise that assuming all will be well when we know more is poor risk management strategy (at best) - that we need to take action today to minimize our dependence on further research proving out that we were fine all along. They are taking action to the degree they are able to reduce their own contribution to carbon emissions today, while pursuing further understanding. Because we all know - there's more on the frontier to be discovered, always (thus the first argument is really an invitation to never do anything).


One problem is that it can be hard to distinguish between these two people. This is one reason why this topic can be nearly impossible to discuss - it's a topic that inspires passion / scares people, and that can get in the way of dialogue.

 

[EV-lutioin]

I am trying to keep an open mind about climate change. The above statement should be heeded by both sides as they discuss/debate. If you want to convince me of "climate change", don't hit me over the head with "the warming effect of CO2" because that's not what I question. Instead, talk to me about the accuracy of climate models, what role natural sources of warming play, and the relevancy of different climate feedbacks... and do it in layman's terms



For me, the above statement is where the discussion should be focused. Thanks to Tony8489 for his study/graphs that help bring that focus.

Well, I see your point, but while the actual effects of rising global temperatures involve many complex models, one thing is certain, rising global temperatures will cause changes to Earth systems. Some places will be drier, some wetter, some more windy, some less. In some places the ocean will rise in others it will not. I would not get to caught up in the accuracy of any particular model.... they are models after all, but I would consider that any significant change to Earth systems can be catastrophic for the people on the ground. For example, in my valley we grow 80% of the worlds almonds because we happen to be in the narrow sweet spot where it is economically feasible to grow them, but any significant change in temperature or precipitation and... bam! we are out of business.... no more almonds, billions of dollars of investments down the drain. And a couple degrees average annual temperature change is all it takes to make things wacky in the agricultural world. Stability is what keeps markets healthy and keeps people confident in the future... uncertainty is poison to prosperity.

 

[Mknac]

I don't understand why more people don't support global warming. Warm weather is great. When the icecaps melt who knows what we'll find there ancient civilizations, alien bases, or minerals! ;-)

 

[fallen888]

For me it's the other way around actually - global warming/climate change, etc. is what prompted me to go electric/green and choose Tesla.

Something about leaving this planet in better shape for my kids. You know.. that nonsense.

 

[ohmman]

For me it's the other way around actually - global warming/climate change, etc. is what prompted me to go electric/green and choose Tesla.

Something about leaving this planet in better shape for my kids. You know.. that nonsense.

Me too. I have an ex-girlfriend who lives in Greenland and hates the cold. I bought a Tesla to make sure she stays cold*.


*This is a joke. I don't have an ex from Greenland, nor am I that petty. Just in case you're reading this more literally than I intended...

 

[N5329K]

Most discussions about climate change (except on a Tesla-focused site) follow a similar trajectory.
1. Global warming (or weirding) doesn't exist, or remains unproven, or dependent on fallible models of complex stuff we poor little humans could not possibly comprehend.
2. Then, as data accumulate, "OK, the climate is changing but the climate is always changing and we humans had nothing to do with those changes, and probably not this one, either."
3. Followed by, "OK, the jury is still out but if we are responsible, maybe there's enough positives (more arable land in the subarctic) to outweigh the negatives (bye bye Miami).
And when all else fails,
4. It's just a theory!"
These are the same sorts of arguments a little kid makes when mom comes home and discovers the cookie jar is empty.
"It's not empty"
"Maybe it is empty but I didn't do it!"
"It'll be easier to stick to your diet now, mom."
And when all else fails,
"It's just a theory!"
On that subject, there's this:

Robin

 

[Shock-On-T]

It cracks me up when people talk about climate scientists "lining their pockets with grant money".
Hello?!
Saudi Sheikh vs Climate Scientist, which do you think has the Bentley?
Oil Company vs University, which do you think can buy the most TV time?

 

[335eye]

It cracks me up when people talk about climate scientists "lining their pockets with grant money".
Hello?!
Saudi Sheikh vs Climate Scientist, which do you think has the Bentley?
Oil Company vs University, which do you think can buy the most TV time?

Nobody is saying they're lining their pockets. Duh. They are keeping their claim on the swag. They're keeping their jobs going when most should be 86'd. So much of CC funding is welfare for scientists. Not to say there aren't the cream of the crop real good ones, those are the exception. This happens across many govt funded agencies, bloating and voting.

 

[ohmman]

Nobody is saying they're lining their pockets. Duh. They are keeping their claim on the swag. They're keeping their jobs going when most should be 86'd. So much of CC funding is welfare for scientists. Not to say there aren't the cream of the crop real good ones, those are the exception. This happens across many govt funded agencies, bloating and voting.

Do you have researcher friends who giggle about this with you? The ones I know are serious about their work and about their funding.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Nobody is saying they're lining their pockets. Duh. They are keeping their claim on the swag. They're keeping their jobs going when most should be 86'd. So much of CC funding is welfare for scientists. Not to say there aren't the cream of the crop real good ones, those are the exception. This happens across many govt funded agencies, bloating and voting.

They do say that, I'm quoting directly.
If you're a scientist looking to make money you go into:
- biotech
- pharmaceuticals
- geology (mining and petro)
- agro-science
- material science (eg. batteries, plastics)
There's plenty of 'swag' for our brightest minds, we are lucky some of them have an interest in climate science or we'd be going into the future without data, without the ability to estimate risk.

 

[Skotty]

My opinions on climate change didn't change because of Tesla. They changed for a variety of reasons, but there WAS one fact that pushed me across the line.

Scientists had long agreed that volcanoes were the primary drivers of long-term climate change (space mountain impacts notwithstanding). When I found out that volcanoes average 5-6 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, that sounded like a lot. Then you hear that human activity throws SIX TIMES THAT AMOUNT every year and, yeah, that's convincing.

This debunks the "man can't affect nature because nature is so vast" argument in one tidy statistic.

The former Aral Sea is another good example for anyone who questions whether or not man can affect the vastness of nature.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I can't believe no one has posted this yet. Also, seriously this.

 

[callmesam]

At the close of the SolarCity (SCTY) Q2 2016 Results - Earnings Call, Elon Musk's final words were:

I mean there is a lot of focus on this month or that month or this quarter or that quarter, but I think it's worth raising – lifting our gaze a little bit to think longer-term to a year, or two years or several years out and ultimately to where do we – what do we want the world to look like and are we going there as fast as possible. I think really in any rational person would we have reason, science and that it's important for the world to transition to sustainable energy generation and consumption sooner rather than later.

In fact, even if you just assign a probability, instead of saying it's black and white. What is your probability about going to a sustainable energy that non-CO2 generating energy is good versus bad? Even if you think it's like – if you take the position say, well we think it's 1% likely, but hypothetically that massively increasing the CO2 – massively increasing the CO2 in the ocean's atmosphere is bad.

Well, okay we're 1%, but you only have one planet. So even if you think it's highly unlikely, that global warming is real and that there's only a small chance, that it's bad. We should still accelerate the advent of sustainable energy. And anyone who thinks that it is a 100% certain that global warming is fake and that's massively changing the chemical composition of the ocean's atmosphere is fine, is a bloody fool, obviously. So that's what this is all about, this is about trying to accelerate, where we know we need to get to anyway. And not unlike small potatoes, put some pieces away, but in a very big macro scale way.

 

[335eye]

Just throw this out there, it's from a group that doesn't deny CC, they're just studying sun spots and radiation level fluctuations..

Global Warming Extremists Try To Silence Science — Again

EXCERPT
"No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy."

Are these deniers run a muck? Could be.. who knows.. maybe not.. whenever you claim your science is settled you muddy it up for everyone, so a reasonable person can't believe anything anymore.

 

[ohmman]

Just throw this out there, it's from a group that doesn't deny CC, they're just studying sun spots and radiation level fluctuations..

Global Warming Extremists Try To Silence Science — Again

EXCERPT
"No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy."

Are these deniers run a muck? Could be.. who knows.. maybe not.. whenever you claim your science is settled you muddy it up for everyone, so a reasonable person can't believe anything anymore.

I find it interesting that there's no author listed (at least that I could find) on that IBD piece. If it's a collaborative piece, they'll generally say "Editorial Board".

Regardless, that group that "doesn't deny CC" is actually the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Worth reading up on this group before you state that they're just happy scientists. They're sided completely with the Global Warming Policy Forum, which is a lobbying group, and they themselves are pretty dogmatic.

That in itself doesn't make their claims false - but it does make your claim false. As far as sunspots, there's a lot of research that has continued to go into it. And I'll throw this out there.