Trump Pushing Carbon Bubble That Is Bound To Burst

[grasping the after wind]

All the Tesla models have ranges of at least 200 miles, with some getting over 350-400, depending on certain factors. That's comparable to the range from a tank of gas on many passenger cars and more than enough for most commuters. The Chevy Bolt EV is in the lower end of that range, too, and while the BMW i3 and Nissan Leaf have shorter ranges, they're still enough for most people to get back and forth to work.

I'm not aware of anybody saying that we could completely eliminate the need for fossil fuels any time soon, but EV's have the potential to reduce our usage by a significant amount.

Eletric Vehicles do not significantly reduce fossil fuel use. They use electricity generated by fossil fuels. They simply allow those that pay an exorbitant amount for a product to deceive themselves into thinking they are "making a difference " for the environment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This video highlights one of the most confounding things (there are a few other biggies) to me about American conservatism and most recently, the Trump administration, that is the obsession with fossil fuels.

Lot of assumptions (and hysteria).

 

[Douger]

Eletric Vehicles do not significantly reduce fossil fuel use. They use electricity generated by fossil fuels. They simply allow those that pay an exorbitant amount for a product to deceive themselves into thinking they are "making a difference " for the environment.

That may have been true many years ago, I don't know the data. But even then, it's not nice to criticize the folks who put their money where their mouths were to invest in technology that is now becoming affordably available to everyone. Someone had to be the first to buy it and I applaud (clap, clap, clap) the people who bought hybrids and early EVs.
Right now, we're just a few years from the point where having an EV is more cost effective than an internal combustion vehicle.
And if you're talking about fuel efficiency, then EVs surpassed internal combustion vehicles many years ago.

 

[Douger]

Lot of assumptions (and hysteria).

It takes a lot of assumptions and hysteria to keep pumping up technology that is fast being outdated and replaced. Unfortunately, the US will fall behind in technology as a result.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I actually think we are doing that already (have been for some time).

Then maybe wake up from that stupor and care about the environment? As a Christian that seems like the sane thing to do, to care about the world which God made, and to love my neighbor enough to make sure he has clean drinking water and a future for his children, grand children, and great grand children.

This notion of "Meh, who cares" is, frankly, antichrist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It takes a lot of assumptions and hysteria to keep pumping up technology that is fast being outdated and replaced. Unfortunately, the US will fall behind in technology as a result.

High tech won't solve the problem, only low tech will. High tech will ensue that only the few will benefit, having priced most out of the clean energy market. A good example is the health care/health insurance problem. The (low tech) answer is simply better health, but such an approach is unthinkable today.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then maybe wake up from that stupor and care about the environment? As a Christian that seems like the sane thing to do, to care about the world which God made, and to love my neighbor enough to make sure he has clean drinking water and a future for his children, grand children, and great grand children.

This notion of "Meh, who cares" is, frankly, antichrist.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't know how concerned the average Christian is about the environment but I don't think our efforts would make much of a difference in the bigger picture of the environmental damage being done. I agree that we do have an obligation to preserve, conserve, etc.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't know how concerned the average Christian is about the environment but I don't think our efforts would make much of a difference in the bigger picture of the environmental damage being done. I agree that we do have an obligation to preserve, conserve, etc.

One of the great benefits of living in a society where our government representatives are elected into office is that we get to participate in the democratic process. And while I may have no power beyond my own small life choices, I can be part of an effort to voice my concerns to my government and expect my representatives to do the right things--and they actually can affect change, by establishing regulations which help protect the environment and help ensure that future generations will have clean drinking water, a breathable atmosphere, etc.

If I lived, for example, under an autocratic rule of which I had no participatory power then you might have a point; but I live instead in a rather amazing period of human history where many of the world's governments are democratic and give the people a voice through representation and vote. It would seem, then, like no better time than the present to actually use that voice for the betterment of others--and as Christians we should regard it as a religious and moral obligation and even privilege to serve God and neighbor as best we can with the tools available to us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FredVB]

One of the great benefits of living in a society where our government representatives are elected into office is that we get to participate in the democratic process. And while I may have no power beyond my own small life choices, I can be part of an effort to voice my concerns to my government and expect my representatives to do the right things--and they actually can affect change, by establishing regulations which help protect the environment and help ensure that future generations will have clean drinking water, a breathable atmosphere, etc.

If I lived, for example, under an autocratic rule of which I had no participatory power then you might have a point; but I live instead in a rather amazing period of human history where many of the world's governments are democratic and give the people a voice through representation and vote. It would seem, then, like no better time than the present to actually use that voice for the betterment of others--and as Christians we should regard it as a religious and moral obligation and even privilege to serve God and neighbor as best we can with the tools available to us.

The political process works as well as there is a real democracy in action. But the electorate system has different results possible from what there would be from the popular vote. And there isn't assurance that the real democratic vote will go the right way for some things such as global and environmental issues.

Rather than leaving such to political processes even with us taking part in that, it should not be dismissed that an individual's changes can have significant effect. Indeed Christians generally need to become aware that responsible living for the sake of the the world's environments of Yahweh God's creation should be understood and acted on, and not dismissed. But at this time it is well beyond where we can do something substantial for such issues with token actions. We can act for lessening the worsening conditions, if all did so there would be no worsening to the world's environments still, but there are drastic changes needed, and called for, even with godliness.

Vehicles of any kind for personal use won't work for this. The drastic change means if you really have to travel such distance use shared transportation, and basically use public transportation and such communal means. Use what is local over anything else as much as possible. Grow what you need, for food and such, as much as you can, avoid what has animal products and what comes from use of animals as completely as you can too.

There are scriptures for showing such great changes are called for with regard to issues.

Agreed, as Christians we should regard it as a religious and moral obligation and even privilege to serve God and neighbor as best we can with the tools available to us.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Eletric Vehicles do not significantly reduce fossil fuel use. They use electricity generated by fossil fuels. They simply allow those that pay an exorbitant amount for a product to deceive themselves into thinking they are "making a difference " for the environment.

That isn't true. While EV's aren't perfect, they're estimated to produce roughly half the emissions of a gas-powered car over the course of their lives (including the manufacturing phase). And the more electricity is generated from renewable sources, the more those numbers skew in favor of EV's.

Tesla’s Electric Cars Aren’t as Green as You Might Think

 

[ViaCrucis]

The political process works as well as there is a real democracy in action. But the electorate system has different results possible from what there would be from the popular vote. And there isn't assurance that the real democratic vote will go the right way for some things such as global and environmental issues.

In the United States we directly vote for our Congressional representatives, we also vote directly for our State legislature, and for other state and county and municipal elected officials. Some of the best democracy happens not at the federal level, but at the local and state level; and and--yes--we have the ability to have our Congressional leaders listen to us, but it would mean taking a more active role.

But as long as we vote in leaders whose interests do not align with our own, or with what actually matters, then largely nothing will be done. There is little incentive, at present, for politicians to do what we the people want rather than what Mr. Moneybags wants, unless of course we actually use our vote where it matters. They can't get re-elected unless we vote them in.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In the United States we directly vote for our Congressional representatives, we also vote directly for our State legislature, and for other state and county and municipal elected officials. Some of the best democracy happens not at the federal level, but at the local and state level; and and--yes--we have the ability to have our Congressional leaders listen to us, but it would mean taking a more active role.

But as long as we vote in leaders whose interests do not align with our own, or with what actually matters, then largely nothing will be done. There is little incentive, at present, for politicians to do what we the people want rather than what Mr. Moneybags wants, unless of course we actually use our vote where it matters. They can't get re-elected unless we vote them in.

-CryptoLutheran

The worst possible people are the ones who run for office, so by voting them in we are guilty of allowing the fox into the henhouse. The difference between what we/they are doing here on earth and what we/they should be doing is night and day. There is no middle ground in which to apply political pressure for any meaningful changes. We might as well eat, drink, and be merry.

 

[dgiharris]

I would love to have peace on earth, and clean oceans and rivers, no pesticides or GMOs.

All of what you mentioned is possible if we human beings would be reasonable, data driven, logical, and compassionate...

Free energy and no pollution. We have to deal with reality at the moment, which means solar is more expensive than coal, and wind even more expensive, not to mention it kills way too many birds.

Solar is more expensive but that is just an economic reason that can be overcome with technology, manufacturing and in and of itself isn't a death sentence for solar. Solar can be competitive in the right markets and areas. Especially if it is "part" of an overall solution. As for bird deaths, that is not even remotely a consideration given the amount of species we obliterate from the planet in our search and production of fossil fuels.

Hydroelectric is not a good option, as seen in California recently..

You don't understand science or technology very well. Please do some research. Hydroelectric is a SUPERIOR method for producing electricity. In fact, there are some great proposals out there that use Ocean Currents that could generate all the power we would need to power the entire US. If we took what we spent on the Iraq War (literally a trillion dollars) we could have built up "underwater wind farms" along the Eastern and Western shores and have more than enough electricity to meet the ENTIRE NATION'S energy needs.

It would be an enormous engineering feat, but it is doable. And I don't mean pie-in-the-sky dreamy doable, I mean actually plausible and achievable based on our current levels of technology and manufacturing ability.

Maybe we can change over in five or ten years as the technology for batteries and solar panels gets better and cheaper.

Please take a second and think about the technological progression mankind has underwent in the last 120 years.

120 years ago there was no car, no airplane, no telephone, no electric devices.

In the span of 120 years we literally went from riding on horses and steam trains and boats to landing on the freaking moon.

THe computing power in a typical phone you can buy for $20 is a million times (yes one million) more powerful than the computers used to land a craft on the moon. We've built buildings that almost touch the sky, boats the size of small cities, we've done so much....

So this notion that our current energy problems are somehow too hard to solve is ludicrous and absolutely ridiculous.
The reason is simple, we are economically addicted to oil and fossil fuels in much the same way a heroin addict is strung out on drugs. The solution isn't hard, in fact the solution is known... but much like a heroin addict we just can't quit and so we make excuses.

All we need to solve our energy problems in the US is the same commitment and focus we had in WWII or the space race.

Here is a quick and dirty solution:
#1 Create colossal "underwater wind farms" along the Eastern and Western Seabeds utilizing ocean currents
#2 Use electricity generated from #1 to put the entire nation on an electric energy grid
#3 Also use Solar and Wind Technologies
#4 Also use Nuclear reactors (yes, nuclear, that's right)
#5 Electricity from 1-4 can be used to power clean production of hydrogen
#6 Cars will be electric for the most part, only certain vehicles would require traditional fuel (namely construction equipment)

Cost of the above would probably be around $1trillion dollars, but truth is, we spend that much on war and defense and corporate subsidies.

....Gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels are going to be around for a long time to come. We do need to find ways to burn them more efficiently however.

I think that we can reduce our consumption of fossil fuels by 90% - 95%. Aviation and Construction equipment will need to use diesel (or jet fuel equivalent) for the foreseeable future. It might be possible to use nuclear reactors to obtain the same level of power but obviously that generates other problems

High tech won't solve the problem, only low tech will. High tech will ensue that only the few will benefit, having priced most out of the clean energy market. A good example is the health care/health insurance problem. The (low tech) answer is simply better health, but such an approach is unthinkable today.

The mistake I think you are making is not understanding that all high tech eventually becomes low tech over time.

In 1980 one megabyte of memory cost $700.
In 2017 one megabyte of memory costs a fraction of one penny.

In 1925 how many people flew in airplanes for a vacation?
In 1970 how many people flew in airplanes for a vacation?
In 2010 how many people flew in airplanes for vacation? (sorry couldn't dig up data but I'm sure you get my point)

If we seriously and earnestly tried to solve this problem we would solve it inside of 20 years.

But the hard truth is simply that the people in power and the system in place is too strongly tied to fossil fuels. So the truth on this matter has been obfuscated so much that the populace believes this problem is unsolvable when in reality, it is solvable with our existing technology and would take us 20 years to implement a workable and feasible solution in stages and phases.

 

[rambot]

Eletric Vehicles do not significantly reduce fossil fuel use. They use electricity generated by fossil fuels. They simply allow those that pay an exorbitant amount for a product to deceive themselves into thinking they are "making a difference " for the environment.

And I'm sure you have proof of that claim?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The mistake I think you are making is not understanding that all high tech eventually becomes low tech over time.

In 1980 one megabyte of memory cost $700.
In 2017 one megabyte of memory costs a fraction of one penny.

In 1925 how many people flew in airplanes for a vacation?
In 1970 how many people flew in airplanes for a vacation?
In 2010 how many people flew in airplanes for vacation? (sorry couldn't dig up data but I'm sure you get my point)

If we seriously and earnestly tried to solve this problem we would solve it inside of 20 years.

But the hard truth is simply that the people in power and the system in place is too strongly tied to fossil fuels. So the truth on this matter has been obfuscated so much that the populace believes this problem is unsolvable when in reality, it is solvable with our existing technology and would take us 20 years to implement a workable and feasible solution in stages and phases.

Of course there are good solutions out there, but they won't be implemented in time to save us. People generally just don't care. Those who do are just to few to matter.

 

[USincognito]

120 years ago there was no car, no airplane, no telephone, no electric devices.

{pedant}

Cars, telephones and electric lights existed in 1897.

{/pedant}

 

[pat34lee]

Wow. those goal posts moved faster than a windmill turbine.

No matter. As given in the first post, birds are just an afterthought. That doesn't mean that all of the above couldn't be made safer, except for the cats, that is.

 

[pat34lee]

Economically speaking, the math is against what you're saying. Use of renewables is lowering the cost of electricity all over the world.
Environmentally, of course there are problems with things like dams and wind turbines, but surely you aren't suggesting that those problems are greater than the use of fossil fuels, are you?
For example, a dam might stop the run of migratory fish to their headwater breeding grounds. But coal mining simply removes those headwaters along with the entire watershed from the face of the earth.

Hydroelectric is one of the best options in the world as has been seen for decades.

Wow! You're most optimistic than even a lot of ardent greenies are. But that's good, I like your attitude. So you must agree with the point of this video then, that it's a bad idea to pump up investment in fossil fuels when the changeover is on the verge of happening, no?

Starting with hydroelectric, we're running out of large enough rivers and lakes to run large dams. We'd be better off redoing some of the older dams once the technology is advanced enough to make it worthwhile.

Windmills may need a complete rethink on how they are made.

I think our best bet for most is individual power, small windmills and solar power, plus solar water heating.

 

[pat34lee]

The bigger problem is the energy input needed to produce it. If nuclear produced electricity were used it might be economical.

It doesn't take that much energy on a small scale, which is what would be inside a car, either to stretch the mileage or replace gasoline altogether.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It doesn't take that much energy on a small scale, which is what would be inside a car, either to stretch the mileage or replace gasoline altogether.

Lot's of problems with hydrogen. Production, distribution, and storage are big hurdles; never mind the sheer cost of hydrogen vehicles.

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/20/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-will-costly/