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

SF sues oil companies because of climate change

oneday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2014
1,074
4,740
Bay Area
I can’t count the amount of times I’ve had conversations with people about climate change or ghg’s and their biggest argument is that China and India are the real problem. On a per capita basis we pollute far more than India and China. We also have the resources to begin drastically reducing our carbon footprint and are failing to do so.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: FlatSix911

kort677

Banned
Sep 17, 2015
4,801
2,242
florida.
I can’t count the amount of times I’ve had conversations with people about climate change or ghg’s and their biggest argument is that China and India are the real problem. On a per capita basis we pollute far more than India and China. We also have the resources to begin drastically reducing our carbon footprint and are failing to do so.
is that so? are you suggesting that the tremendous increase of industrial activities in both india and china can be ignored? and as far as I know the US is one of the leaders in the world in decreasing the impacts of industry in the world.
 

TheTalkingMule

Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2012
6,776
24,211
Philadelphia, PA
I can’t count the amount of times I’ve had conversations with people about climate change or ghg’s and their biggest argument is that China and India are the real problem. On a per capita basis we pollute far more than India and China. We also have the resources to begin drastically reducing our carbon footprint and are failing to do so.
They also conveniently ignore that both these countries have committed to ending non-EV cars in short order. China especially is phasing out fossils at a far more rapid pace than was thought possible.

Sure, it makes sense to proceed with some fossil projects that have been in the pipeline. But China's plan is clearly to be energy self sufficient as quickly and cheaply as possible. That means solar and wind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaff

McRat

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2016
5,771
5,414
LA
I can’t count the amount of times I’ve had conversations with people about climate change or ghg’s and their biggest argument is that China and India are the real problem. On a per capita basis we pollute far more than India and China. We also have the resources to begin drastically reducing our carbon footprint and are failing to do so.

I don't know if you are an University of Illinois graduate (Math is only for White Racists), but here's how math actually works.

Global CO2 levels are not measured per capita because not everybody has their own personal planet.

So 'per capita' makes little sense when it comes to global pollution issues. You don't get a pass because you're overpopulated. Pollution laws are national, not per individual.
 

oktane

Active Member
Oct 25, 2016
1,558
1,531
USA
I don't know if you are an University of Illinois graduate (Math is only for White Racists), but here's how math actually works.

Global CO2 levels are not measured per capita because not everybody has their own personal planet.

So 'per capita' makes little sense when it comes to global pollution issues. You don't get a pass because you're overpopulated. Pollution laws are national, not per individual.

Exactly. Per capita pollution means exactly zilch. What a false metric used to promulgate a false narrative. Typical liberal nonsense.

As for SF suing oil companies, what a joke and waste of money. Maybe instead of wasting their money on frivolous lawsuits they should clean up their city that smells like urine. SF streets are disgusting!
 
Last edited:

oneday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2014
1,074
4,740
Bay Area
is that so? are you suggesting that the tremendous increase of industrial activities in both india and china can be ignored? and as far as I know the US is one of the leaders in the world in decreasing the impacts of industry in the world.

Yes. No. Maybe one of, definitely not THE leader, I don’t even think we’d make the podium.

I don't know if you are an University of Illinois graduate (Math is only for White Racists), but here's how math actually works.

Global CO2 levels are not measured per capita because not everybody has their own personal planet.

So 'per capita' makes little sense when it comes to global pollution issues. You don't get a pass because you're overpopulated. Pollution laws are national, not per individual.

Thanks for the snarky math lesson oh wise one.

Yes pollution laws are national which is exactly why it is important to look at per capita (per country) carbon production. It is especially important when people that live in the US try to deflect the importance of US curtailment of ghg’s because “China or “India””. It’s a stupid scape goat, promotes complacency, and isn’t true if you look at the numbers.

Do you not understand how a countries per capita carbon pollution is relevant to any discussion about curtailing global ghg levels?

Claiming over population is once agin just deflection. Should it instead be a calculated as a ratio of ghg emission per area of landmass?
 

oneday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2014
1,074
4,740
Bay Area
Exactly. Per capita pollution means exactly zilch. What a false metric used to promulgate a false narrative. Typical liberal nonsense.

As for SF suing oil companies, what a joke and waste of money. Maybe instead of wasting their money on frivolous lawsuits they should clean up their city that smells like urine.

Ok Alex Jones, what is the right metric?
 

oktane

Active Member
Oct 25, 2016
1,558
1,531
USA
Ok Alex Jones, what is the right metric?

If concerned about global warming, allegedly it is from "greenhouse gases", only one of which is CO2. Therefore should look at all sources of GHG production, since it is a global problem. Cows via CH4 make 16% of it. China makes 30% of it, USA 15%, and India 7%. Irrelevant if USA makes more per capita, the earth doesn't care about that statistic.
 

arcus

Active Member
Aug 11, 2017
1,301
958
Denton, TX
China makes 30% of it
Which we are all guilty of by conveniently consuming the goods manufactured offshore.

Another food for thought: while CO2 is the main culprit quoted for decades, one should not forget about methane (especially in an advent of natural gas production ramp up).
 

oneday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2014
1,074
4,740
Bay Area
If concerned about global warming, allegedly it is from "greenhouse gases", only one of which is CO2. Therefore should look at all sources of GHG production, since it is a global problem. Cows via CH4 make 16% of it. China makes 30% of it, USA 15%, and India 7%. Irrelevant if USA makes more per capita, the earth doesn't care about that statistic.

In that same vein the earth doesn’t care about what country pollutes more either. Which is exactly my point. People so often deflect that the “real” problem is China and India. Not only do I think it is wrong, it doesn’t matter. Unless of course you live in China or India and can influence and effect change there.

I live in the US, we are the second largest emitters of ghg’s (by country) in the world and there is plenty of work to do here to lower our carbon footprint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bxr140 and Solarguy

oktane

Active Member
Oct 25, 2016
1,558
1,531
USA
In that same vein the earth doesn’t care about what country pollutes more either. Which is exactly my point. People so often deflect that the “real” problem is China and India. Not only do I think it is wrong, it doesn’t matter. Unless of course you live in China or India and can influence and effect change there.

I live in the US, we are the second largest emitters of ghg’s (by country) in the world and there is plenty of work to do here to lower our carbon footprint.

Agreed. I'm not convinced that GHG are the main cause of global warming, but don't mind hedging our bets by cutting excessive GHG production and other types of pollution while scientists duke it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneday

oneday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2014
1,074
4,740
Bay Area
Which we are all guilty of by conveniently consuming the goods manufactured offshore.

Another food for thought: while CO2 is the main culprit quoted for decades, one should not forget about methane (especially in an advent of natural gas production ramp up).

I agree.

Methane is a much stronger ghg. However, the US has been curtailing it’s methane emissions over the last 20 years, although that trend may reverse. The interesting thing about methane that is emitted today will be gone in 10 years. The co2 will stay around almost indefinitely, at least until a plant uses it for photosynthesis or humans start some form of carbon sequestration in the future.

7yljGaY.jpg

cnH9Dw9.jpg

ACspI5p.jpg

JKKtnKn.jpg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: arcus and oktane

skitown

Member
Dec 28, 2015
869
2,255
Central Idaho, U.S.A, Earth
Exxon gives up major climate change fight

After years of resisting, ExxonMobil has agreed to reveal the risks it faces from climate change and the global crackdown on carbon emissions.

It's a major reversal for the world's biggest publicly traded oil company. Exxon (XOM)aggressively fought a shareholder proposal in May to disclose how the changing climate could hurt the company. The proposal wasn't binding, but 63% of shareholders supported it -- a rare rebuke that forced Exxon to rethink its stance.

Exxon said on Monday it has "reconsidered" the proposal following talks with major shareholders and supporters of the idea. Exxon said in an SEC filing that "in the near future" it will "further enhance" its disclosures on climate change.

Those enhancements, Exxon said, will include how the company is positioning for a lower-carbon future, how its business could be hurt by shifting energy demands and the "implications of two degree Celsius scenarios." The 2015 Paris climate accord requires countries to limit global average temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius.

Limiting global warming could have massive implications for Exxon. For instance, Exxon's energy assets could lose value if the world's oil appetite shrinks because of emerging technologies like electric cars and regulations stemming from the Paris agreement.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: FlatSix911

rays427

Member
Dec 3, 2014
444
88
Penn Valley, CA
Their products are designed to cause rising sea levels and stronger storms? WOW. This is gonna be an open and shut case.



No one forced smokers to smoke. Yet the tobacco majors paid hundreds of billions. They manipulated the system and lied to consumers about the dangers of their product. Exactly like the oil companies.
What do you think would happen if the oil companies just stopped selling their products? Unlike smoking society would completely shut down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911

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