Has buying a Tesla changed your mind about Climate Change?

[Odebek]

Using that same silly argument, one wouldn't want to be in a room filled with 9 supermodels because of all the CO2 they give off (9 supermodels=same CO2 as burning 1 gallon of gas. I don't know how long a car would run idling on one gallon of gas, but that is probably longer than I can entertain 9 supermodels).

Your claims are nothing short of comical. The average human exhales about 2.3 lbs of CO2 in an ENTIRE day. Per AAA, a car on idle burns about a gallon of gas every hour. A gallon of gas releases over 20lbs of CO2. So in the time your idling car released 20 lbs of CO2, your 9 pretty little supermodels only exhaled 0.8625 lbs of CO2. When's the last time you heard of anyone dying in the little scenario you described above? It just doesn't happen. And yet how many people commit suicide every year by turning on their cars in their garages.

Next time, please think before making such a silly arguement.

Um..... people die from carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning: CDC - Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - Frequently Asked Questions not carbon dioxide (CO2)...

 

[ohmman]

This is a very interesting post. If you listen closely to Elon, he is very careful to avoid the Climate Change debate. He just calls it the dumbest experiment that man has ever tried. The reason is exactly evident in this thread. For every for argument there is a a counter. That is why Elon's solution is so clever. He understands that in the end it is all about our pocket book (deny it if you want to but I have seen it in everything from Made in USA vs Made in China to almost everything we buy). So he has designed the best car ever, period. The fact that it is zero emissions is great but as we can see from the thread it's not the only reason everyone is buying them.

I don't get any ambiguity from Elon about climate change. He has come out in favor of carbon tax a number of times. He has defined carbon as a negative externality. In his talk at the COP21 climate summit (yes, he spoke at a climate change summit), he said the following, and a lot more:

It's really quite simple. We're taking billions of tons of carbon that's been buried for hundreds of millions of years and is not part of the carbon cycle, taking from deep underground and adding it to the carbon cycle.

The result is that a steady increase in the carbon in the atmosphere and in the oceans, which doesn't look like much if you look at it on this chart, but when looked at in the context of history, it actually looks like this. So the [06:00] carbon parts per million has really been bouncing around the 300 level for around 10 million years. Then the last few hundred years, it went into a vertical climb. This is the essence of the problem. This is very unusual and a very, very extreme threat as you can see from this rate of growth.

Then this is accompanied by a temperature increase as one would expect. This temperate increase, people talk about 2 degrees or 3 degrees, it's important to appreciate just how sensitive the climate actually is to temperate. It's important to look at it in terms of absolute temperature, not in degrees Celsius relative to zero. We need to say what is the temperature change relative to absolute zero?

 

[Zapped]

No only are we adding to the carbon cycle but we are destroying the Amazon Rain Forest that removes 300 million tonnes of CO2 / year.

Last of the Amazon

In the time it takes to read this article, an area of Brazil's rain forest larger than 200 football fields will have been destroyed. The market forces of globalization are invading the Amazon, hastening the demise of the forest and thwarting its most committed stewards. In the past three decades, hundreds of people have died in land wars; countless others endure fear and uncertainty, their lives threatened by those who profit from the theft of timber and land....
During the past 40 years, close to 20 percent of the Amazon rain forest has been cut down—more than in all the previous 450 years since European colonization began.
Amazon Rain Forest, Deforestation, Forest Conservation - National Geographic Magazine

The amount of carbon that the Amazon rainforest is absorbing from the atmosphere and storing each year has fallen by around a third in the last decade, says a new 30-year study by almost 100 researchers.

This decline in the Amazon carbon sink amounts to one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide – equivalent to over twice the UK’s annual emissions, the researchers say.
Amazon rainforest is taking up a third less carbon than a decade ago - Carbon Brief

I still believe pollution is more of threat to our health and existence.

 

[ggies07]

What it comes down to is simple chemistry......burning fossil fuels releases C02 because combustion is reverse photosynthesis!

We are adding more in the atmosphere than the planet can handle and like it's been said, Elon agrees and has stated such at the climate change summit.

 

[kort677]

one volcano eruption emits more co2 in a few minutes than all the co2 emitted by fossil fuel usage.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-

 

[DFibRL8R]

Um..... people die from carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning: CDC - Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - Frequently Asked Questions not carbon dioxide (CO2)...

Wrong. Certainly CO is very dangerous even at low concentrations but CO2 is a toxic gas at higher concentrations, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen). Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat occurs at higher concentrations. If the CO2 levels are high enough in a confined space, you'll see the Hazmat team in level A HAZMAT suits. The concentration thresholds for health effects are outlined below.

Health effects of respiratory exposure to carbon dioxide
(Baxter, 2000; Faivre-Pierret and Le Guern, 1983 and refs therein; NIOSH, 1981).

Exposure limits (% in air), Health Effects

2-3 Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath
3 Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest
3-5 Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches
5 Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse
7.5 Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears
8-15 Headache, vertigo, vomiting, loss of consciousness and possibly death if the patient is not immediately given oxygen
10 Respiratory distress develops rapidly with loss of consciousness in 10-15 minutes
15 Lethal concentration, exposure to levels above this are intolerable
25+ Convulsions occur and rapid loss of consciousness ensues after a few breaths. Death will occur if level is maintained.

 

[335eye]

Got my Tesla for the fun of owning one and the technology. CC is a gov funded religion and I believe in separation of church and state. Want my tax dollars back. Still would love to see a renewable energy world.

 

[kort677]

Got my Tesla for the fun of owning one and the technology. CC is a gov funded religion and I believe in separation of church and state. Want my tax dollars back. Still would love to see a renewable energy world.

it's just a cause for those who need a cause, a few years ago it was the global cooling scare, when that didn't pan out it became the global warming scare. treaties were signed excepting china which is one of the biggest polluters on the planet. while there is cause for concern, as chicken little said so eloquently "the sky is falling", not.

 

[ggr]

one volcano eruption emits more co2 in a few minutes than all the co2 emitted by fossil fuel usage.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-

Thoroughly debunked:

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

This was from a very quick google search, and is actually a very interesting article that I'd never read before. I think that the US Geological Survey can be considered to be authoritative, whereas "CFACT.org" maybe not so much. Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cardforlife]

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

 

[sillydriver]

Not skeptical. I believe the facts and the science. I just don't care about CC. Not one iota. To me, it's a math problem for a future generation.

My view is a less extreme version of this. Having studied physics I see no doubt that more greenhouse gas equals higher temperatures (without greenhouse gases the world would be an ice cube). But once you admit agreement with the science you are expected to buy into the view that 1) the net effects are horrible and must be prevented at all costs, so that 2) we should harm our economy and economic position in the world, subject ourselves to new forms of taxation (carbon) and allow government regulatory intrusion to reduce our personal freedom, all despite the fact that nations like China and India are to be allowed to ramp up their coal burning.

Well I don't believe the effects of rising temperatures are disasterous: humankind is very adaptable, as is the biosphere. I see no reason to try to halt the rise in temperature below the environmentalists' arbitrary limit of 2 degrees C. Advanced countries have naturally been on a path to reduce the energy intensity of their economies, and I expect this will continue on its own. The government intervention I would favor is 1) support of R&D to further reduce energy intensity and 2) a crash program to build nuclear power plants.

With this said I have done my bit. I put most of my mileage on an electric car (which I bought for its performance) and have changed almost all my lights to LEDs (to avoid changing burnt out bulbs). Solar cells are next, when the cost justifies it.

 

[kort677]

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

there is science and then there is junk science

 

[DFibRL8R]

Solar cells are next, when the cost justifies it.

@sillydriver, I see you are in Middleburg, VA.
Although the State of Virginia does not have any solar tax breaks, did you know about the personal property tax benefit for Loudoun County? You can deduct the value of your solar system (installation cost) from your annual property tax on your home. Nice benefit, mine comes out to about $500 per year reduction.

 

[sillydriver]

@sillydriver, I see you are in Middleburg, VA.
Although the State of Virginia does not have any solar tax breaks, did you know about the personal property tax benefit for Loudoun County? You can deduct the value of your solar system (installation cost) from your annual property tax on your home. Nice benefit, mine comes out to about $500 per year reduction.

Thanks for letting me know. But although I say I'm from Middleburg, it's the closest town, and my postal box is there, my farm is over the line in Fauquier county. Separately, I discovered that Solar City doesn't do business in Virginia because it seems that Dominion Virginia Power has managed to get the state to legislate against their business model. I'm not 100% sure of the details, but I believe only the utility can sell power in its area, so Solar City can't sell power to homeowners when Solar owns the panels. Solar City does do business in neighboring Maryland. It's an unfortunate political problem for solar power.

 

[DFibRL8R]

Thanks for letting me know. But although I say I'm from Middleburg, it's the closest town, and my postal box is there, my farm is over the line in Fauquier county. Separately, I discovered that Solar City doesn't do business in Virginia because it seems that Dominion Virginia Power has managed to get the state to legislate against their business model. I'm not 100% sure of the details, but I believe only the utility can sell power in its area, so Solar City can't sell power to homeowners when Solar owns the panels. Solar City does do business in neighboring Maryland. It's an unfortunate political problem for solar power.

Yes, Virginia's power supply relationships and regulations are interesting for sure!

 

[Jeff N]

Well I don't believe the effects of rising temperatures are disasterous: humankind is very adaptable, as is the biosphere.

We don't live in isolation on this planet. Our stable civilized existence depends upon a reliable, abundant, broad and deep food and natural resources chain which depends upon a wide array of insect, plant, and non-human animal life.

At least in the earlier stages of the new CO2-driven climate change, the biggest effect may come from the speed of the change rather than the absolute temperatures. We are pumping carbon from long-term slowly built up storage underground into the atmosphere and will be causing rates of climate change 10x faster than anything living on the planet now has experienced or evolved to handle. Clusters of highly interdependent life forms are going to have widely different abilities to adapt to the changes and thus food chains are likely to be seriously disrupted.

We can't just deal with it by running the A/C more often or packing up and moving closer to Canada.

 

[jeffro01]

there is science and then there is junk science

If your intending to insinuate that man made climate change is "junk science" then I ask you, just what in the hell do you need to accept the reality that's going on all around you? Perhaps when Florida is mostly underwater? Or you will still sit there with your head in the sand?

I know it's not popular in the scientific community to draw a line in the sand so to speak. However, on this issue, with the overwhelming amount of research and information that we have available to us, there is no room for "I'm just not sure" or "it's a conspiracy" or whatever tin foil hat ideology you want to subscribe to...

Like I said before, the conversation about whether or not it's happening should be over with. The ONLY conversation we should be having about it now is how to address it and potentially reverse the damage we've caused. When we've sufficiently destroyed key natural habitats, such as coral reefs, that play a critical role in the food chain is that when we'll go "gee, I wish we would have known"???... Well, we do know so what's your excuse now?

Jeff

 

[eye.surgeon]

Has it changed my mind regarding man-made climate change being significant enough to dominate the natural climate changes that have been happening for millions of years? No.

 

[tigerade]

Evidence for climate change is there, whether or not you choose to believe it is up to you.

This is a good video that debunks many of the arguments against climate science:

With that said, I am a future Tesla owner (Model 3 reservation). But owning your car should have no bearing on whether or not you believe in climate change, evolution, the moon landings, 9/11, etc. Look squarely at the evidence with objectivity and intellectual honesty. You will be doing yourself a favor.

 

[jeffro01]

With that said, I am a future Tesla owner (Model 3 reservation). But owning your car should have no bearing on whether or not you believe in climate change, evolution, the moon landings, 9/11, etc. Look squarely at the evidence with objectivity and intellectual honesty. You will be doing yourself a favor.

I don't disagree with this premise at all.

Jeff