We're all gonna die (The climate change thread)

[Dicknose]

Heh.

I just have a hard time with one issue parties. Their plan is usually to take something from a group; or there is no plan at all. I am not even against EVs but I do bristle at mandates. I routinely drive 885mi in a sitting in my 2002 BMW, spending 5 minutes to fill up each time. A feat completely impossible for an EV now and for the forseeable future. If EVs are a true ICE replacement the market will provide for that organically. I would much rather have an EV for DD duties, so much less care and maintenance.

Most places that talk about these changes are mostly about new car sales.
So stop ICE sales by 2030, you can still be driving a 20 year old car in 2050.

Ok some places are going to ban them from areas (like city centres eg Paris) but thats probably not a big deal - you keep your old school car for some road trips or fun driving, need to go into the city, take an electric self driving uber.

I havent heard of anywhere that says they will completely phase out the USE of ice vehicles.

[FaultyMario]

In a way you can't really blame those big evil companies. Think about it... imagine our government comes up with a plan to just have all of us breath less so that we can reduce carbon emission... or perhaps ask some folks to just willingly commit suicide... since they want to die anyway, might as well just go and stop emitting carbon dioxide...

Seriously, cuts and bans just won't work. Asking people to stop buying gas and just drive EVs..., well, do we even have enough cheap EVs available for all who want to switch? No we don't.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Thanks for the crash course, but not sure if I learned anything new though.

I don't disagree with the need to reduce carbon emissions and incentivizing renewable tech... CA is doing that and I'm greener and even saving gas money and utility money by having solar and EV thanks to government subsidies and Honda. Every Californian really should've been on board just like me. You're saving not only just the environment, but you're also saving MONEY!!! But guess what? Majority of Californians who could have solar still don't have solar yet. As for the EV, I guess Honda's just not willing to make too many of them. Even Tesla at full capacity probably won't be taking over the market anytime soon... so some Californians are fighting this battle, but it's obvious that we're losing the war at the moment. So you really believe additional pressures from the government will make things better for everybody?

My angle on this is that besides fighting this battle thru reduction of carbon emissions, could we fight carbon by absorbing more of them? What can we do to increase phytoplankton or tree population? There may be more options than just reduction. (Again, I'm not against reductions, just want more ammo to win this war) See this idea from MIT for example: http://news.mit.edu/2015/fertilize-o...ol-planet-0908

There could be a number of different ways to fight this rather than relying on majority of humanity to just wake up and conserve or relying on government to crack down on us because we're just so lame...

You guys tend to see me as the dumbass enemy due to political differences, but we're really on the same side. If this reductionist approach isn't really working, should we double down on it and expect better result? Or should we also try something different?

[Dicknose]

Not everyone can afford the initial capital costs to move greener - how much do solar panels costs? how many years before you break even? Ditto cars - many people dont buy new cars they buy cheap older cars that are not EV - sure the running costs are higher, but they spend a few thousand on a car, not 100k.

As for "just plant more trees" - we are probably still losing trees to land clearing quicker than re-plant. Heck do you think we could even back to the level of trees from say 100 years ago? What about 200 years?
How are we going to reverse the damage if we cant get back to what was already on the wrong side of "stable"

I dont think a single approach is the answer - we need to reduce output and do carbon capture. But its a bit like losing weight, were the diet/input side is more important than the amount of exercise - at the moment the side of the equation that is easier to adjust is how much we output. We should start there, while still working on the other bits.

[Crazed_Insanity]

That’s right, we can’t focus on any single approach. To lose weight, we can’t just focus on restricting dietary intake..., especially if we’re dealing with a ‘growing’ kid. Yeah, human population has been growing pretty rapidly, but surely we won’t continue to grow... most countries have low birth rate now... and China doesn’t even have enough girls... so pretty sure we’ll see a global population drop soon. Then it’ll be much easier to reduce pollution!

You’re also right about solar panels and EVs, so you’re more willing to give consumers passes for their unwillingness to cut down carbon emissions even when Trump isn’t taking away these subsidies for solar panels or EVs...

But if companies were dragging their feet like that, then we need govt to crack down on them? Why the double standard?

It’s okay to inflict pain on companies but not individuals?

If companies were forced into doing business in a more expensive way in the name of saving earth, you don’t think they’ll inevitably find ways to cut cost and then you’ll still be hurting the individuals who end up losing their jobs?

If govt can afford it, for sure they need to incentivize or subsidize green tech or nuclear or cold fusion or whatever. Help develop viable new ways to do away with fossil fuel. That shit is going to run out even if climate change were a hoax. Whatever the situation, we need to wean us off that fossil fuel and it will have to be done using multiple strategies. Reduction is one, but can’t be the only way to go. Unless you really want to crumble global economy. That’ll certainly help save planet earth.

[FaultyMario]

not sure if I learned anything new though

Yeah, I could see that.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Of course you could. Just hope that you won’t be blinded by ideology.

[sandydandy]

I used to be a huge skeptic about climate change. I generally disregard mass hysteria of any kind, but in this case it’s hard to ignore the real science. I don’t know the ins and outs of it, but do believe it’s real. You can feel things changing when you go outside. For example it’s been a LOT more windier around here in recent years. High winds. Stuff I’ve never seen before. Plus thunderstorms are becoming more torrential with more regularity. Is it due to climate change? Could be. Like I said, I don’t fully know all of the facts but I’m not about to dismiss them. I can sense the climate is changing.

The saddest thing around here is the Toronto Islands are flooding every year now as Lake Ontario rises. I fear they may disappear in the next few years. I used to love getting on the ferry and going there, especially as a kid.

I wish I knew what the solution was. I can only regulate my own behavior. Recycle more, pollute less. But is it enough?

Society needs a major paradigm shift. It’s impossible when cash is king and big oil companies are doing their best to suppress clean technology. Even a hundred years ago Tesla was prevented from completing Wardenclyffe Tower, which supposedly could’ve harnessed electricity from the atmosphere, making it free for everyone. Imagine how different the world would be today if JP Morgan didn’t shut him down. I don’t know for sure if the science behind it was solid, or if he was bordering on pseudoscience, but if it was legit then we certainly wouldn’t have this huge problem we’re facing right now.

[Crazed_Insanity]

2 Russian bros Leonid and Sergey Plekhanov were trying to duplicate Tesla’s effort back in 2014, but haven’t heard any new developments...

[sandydandy]

It’s a little tough to replicate without his notes that were confiscated and probably under lock and key, or maybe destroyed.