When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
yes the question is the cost of adaption - it's expensive to put a sea wall around all of Florida…and when the planet was warmer there was no human population to speak of we aren't saving the earth - we're trying to avoid compounding the moral, social, and financial cost of impact 7,000,000,000 humans the space they currently occupy and the systems they depend on. Doubling down on more emissions is not a recipe for curtailing this effect.
I see, moral relativism - it becomes a concern when there is a price to pay in Florida?
the earth will be fine, it will out live us all by definition - the question is at what rate will we reduce the habitable portions of the earth (due to warming trend accelerated by human activity) and what the total costs in all dimensions will be to adapt to foreseeable and avoidable change. Florida is just one example of the sorts of adaptation we'll have to engage in…and yes putting a seawall around most of Florida is the sort of adaptation we'll have to consider, and it's just one of millions adaptations we're going to have to absorb (or move everyone out of Florida that's another adaptation we could engage in).
it becomes a concern because climate change is reducing the habitable areas of the planet (for all species but lets be honest it's humans we're working on) - the cost (moral, political, social, physiological, financial, etc) to displace human settlements and their infrastructure is beyond expensive or even remotely possible - global climate change _IS_ causing loss of habitats (low lying coast lines as one example) for humans and other species for multiple reasons - much of the world's population is located in sections of the globe that can not suffer sea level rise without vastly expensive adaptations - the cost/scope of these required adaptations are extreme and largely unbounded…
climate change will also affect our ability to reliability produce food to support 7 billion + humans - CO2 adsorption by the oceans is causing food chain changes that have already affected how we harvest food from the ocean and our ability to "farm" the ocean…
we can prove the warming trend is causing change
we can prove the warming trend is accelerating not decelerating
we can prove there is loss of habitats for animals and humans
we can prove there are now areas of the earth that are no longer habitable for humans
we can prove there will be more not less of this trend
we can prove ICE engines emit toxic chemicals (no one wants to be in a closed garage with these beasts)
we can prove the increase in atmospheric concentrations is wholly sourced by human activity
we can prove this is causing change
we can prove adapting to these changes have costs on a vast scale in all dimensions
and yet some people say it's going to fine, and we should keep on doubling down on burning more fossil fuels because CO2 levels were 5 times higher 5 ba-gillion years ago when there were NO human habitats which is what we are trying to protect - when you know something is causing vast devastating change and potential problems you don't keep doing what you've been doing in the past that is causing the problem. Climate change is a problem, fossil fuels are the reason, even the oil companies internally knew this decades ago (they hire smart people to find oil and they figured it out) - much like big Tobacco knew their product was addicting and doubled down on making it more addicting…
I was swayed by one of the original pre-musk Tesla founders who pursued the EV because they saw the trend that people like personal transportation - and that china and India and other areas were coming up and about to start growing personal transportation fleets - they speculated that we do not need another 1,000,000,000 exhaust pipes world wide, and if we're going to have personal transportation, we should build personal transportation that has less impact (not zero impact, less impact) - EV's have less impact than ICE and while they use fossil fuels they use them in vastly lower quantities than ICE vehicles, but they can also not use Fossil Fuels and still function…
we're not saving the planet, we're simply using the most efficient tool for the job and trying to reduce the rate of change to lessen the total cost of the undeniable change we're experiencing - Florida is just one example but is applies everywhere - doing nothing about CO2 emissions and what not has costs…and they are not trivial costs - in fact they nation-state breaking costs beyond the scope of nearly all countries to absorb.
we can prove the warming trend is causing change - yes and it has been going on for more than 10,000 years (since the end of the last ice age)
we can prove the warming trend is accelerating not decelerating - yes it has been going on for more than 10,000 years (since the end of the last ice age)
we can prove there is loss of habitats for animals and humans - yes thats what happens when you kill for meat and farm for food - the megafauna were decimated by hunter gathers more than 60,000 years ago
we can prove there are now areas of the earth that are no longer habitable for humans - yes and this has always been the case and areas that were once uninhabitable will become habitable
we can prove there will be more not less of this trend - the climate has always being dynamic
we can prove ICE engines emit toxic chemicals (no one wants to be in a closed garage with these beasts) - we can prove the production of aluminium involves the emission of toxic chemicals, as do large touch panels, as does the production of tires, we can prove that batteries are difficult to recycle and contain toxic heavy metals - all present in EVs
we can prove the increase in atmospheric concentrations is wholly sourced by human activity - also not true
we can prove this is causing change - change started over 10,000 years ago and was very rapid (end of the last ice age)
we can prove adapting to these changes have costs on a vast scale in all dimensions - the change has been on us for a long time, the crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates was the cradle of civilisation, the northern part of what is now Libya was once the bread basket for the Roman empire - both were deserts before so called man made global warming.
I'm very much of the opinion the major polluters should pay the costs - pro-rata to the pollution they have caused. Job done.
Temperature time diagram (see below) to help you out
yeah ground hog and I disagree on the facts - we'll need a face to face to resolve this. his explanations don't match my data, and we're not to convince either of us.
You may disagree, but you will not find a scientist or anthropologist that is credible that will dispute the diagram I presented or the facts in relation to the megafauna, the Tigris and Euphrates or the bread basket of Rome.
Originally Posted by daveo4porsche we can prove the warming trend is causing change - yes and it has been going on for more than 10,000 years (since the end of the last ice age)
we can prove the warming trend is accelerating not decelerating - yes it has been going on for more than 10,000 years (since the end of the last ice age) but accerlating in the last 50…
we can prove there is loss of habitats for animals and humans - yes thats what happens when you kill for meat and farm for food - the megafauna were decimated by hunter gathers more than 60,000 years ago it also is increased when you burn fossil fuels and pump vast quantities of CO2 in the atomsphere - and dramatically outweighs the other contributions
we can prove there are now areas of the earth that are no longer habitable for humans - yes and this has always been the case and areas that were once uninhabitable will become habitable unclear at best - most of human existence hasn't had the high temps we are now seeing, and will continue to see increase.
we can prove there will be more not less of this trend - the climate has always being dynamic dynamic yes - an accerlating trend no
we can prove ICE engines emit toxic chemicals (no one wants to be in a closed garage with these beasts) - we can prove the production of aluminium involves the emission of toxic chemicals, as do large touch panels, as does the production of tires, we can prove that batteries are difficult to recycle and contain toxic heavy metals - all present in EVs all of which pail in comparison to burning fossil fuels 18 gallons at a time - batteries can be recycled, and toxic materials recovered for less cost than the CO2 emitted during the life time of an ICE vehicle - tires are equal for the two types of transportation, but over the life of an ICE vehicle the emissions from burning fuel vastly outweighs the emissions from production costs and recovery costs.
combustions from ICE engines _IS_ a major contributor to global climate change - and EV's combust LESS fossil fuels - fact - less combustion is less of a problem
we can prove the increase in atmospheric concentrations is wholly sourced by human activity - also not true incorrect true - laws of thermodynamics require it to be true - we can burn fossil fuels for 100's of years and not have this outcome -you're disagreement does not make it untrue - here you are simply wrong - you're welcome to your beliefs but the facts state otherwise.
we can prove this is causing change - change started over 10,000 years ago and was very rapid (end of the last ice age) but not as rapid as the past 50 years and never beyond the levels in which we have developed modern society
we can prove adapting to these changes have costs on a vast scale in all dimensions - the change has been on us for a long time, the crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates was the cradle of civilisation, the northern part of what is now Libya was once the bread basket for the Roman empire - both were deserts before so called man made global warming.
I see you are well versed in the climate denying FUD - I'll go with the 97% of scientist who agree on the broad spectrum of cause and effect - you can hang with your 3%…you're basically saying your the only one smart enough to not be duped - but the rest of us fools and nearly all of the scientific community are simply wrong, and being lead astray - wow it must be wonderful to be you - I didn't realize you knew soooooo much more than everyone else..
I'm not denying anything, the climate is changing - it has been for a long time - I have pointed this out to you. Indeed, good ole planet earth is warming up - it has been since the end of the last ice age and thats a boiler plate fact.
I'm guessing you love the Great Lakes - do you know how and when they formed?
I've presented many facts - the facts you've presented are irrelevant in the time scale of modern human society which is what we're discussing…my assertions are rooted in the peer reviewed scientific results of 10's of thousand of scientist and overwhelming data…where is your population of scientist and those facts that dispute the affects of climate change caused by CO2 (and other) emission
you have presented a graph with a 100 million year time scale that points out things were different in the past...well before humans were present…so it's irrelevant to the conversation.
what aspect of climate change due you dispute?
measure CO2 levels for the past 400 years? dramatic rise since 1880 after 100's of thousand of years of stable range
measure sea level rise - data for that at the NASA website
measure acidity levels of the ocean - data for that the NASA website
global temperatures rise - the video shows a clear pattern
is your argument that burning fossil fuels in greater quantities (as adoption of car continues to grow world wide) will have no measurable effect?
is your argument that driving a car that uses less (not zero less) of these resources is pointless?
the data you have presented doesn't lead to any conclusions - and is in no way related to how the earth is going to behave for the next 100 years…
what is your position? ICE cars are fine and the dramtratic and factual rise in CO2 levels in the past 50 years is nothing to be concern about, so adding more CO2 is going to fine
EV's are not a panacea - but they provably use fewer resources over time vs. the existing state of the art ICE based vehicle
EV's are zero emission in the region they are being driven which removes harmful pollutants from congest metropolitan regions
EV's can be zero emission when powered by zero-emission power sources such as solar, wind, geo-thermal, hydro, tide, nuclear - ICE's can _NEVER_ be zero emission
CO2 rise is root cause of many many issues that we has humans would like to avoid
Continuing to increase CO2 emissions via greater burning of more and more fossil fuels is not a solution I think we should pursue - more fossil fuel consumption is not the solution
97% of the scientific community backs my overall statements with data and evidence that is abundantly available to any who wish to find it.
its not my job to defend the consensus scientific opinion (again 97% agree) - anyone disagreeing with the body of overwhelming evidence has to lay out their arguments as to why all the existing data doesn't general the correct conclusion, and then they need to get some peers to agree with that thesis.
I never consider the eradication of ICE solutions to be viable, but we can reduce their usage to situations where their characteristics/costs are necessary - reducing ICE usage would be a big win overall with out the need to eradicate them (jets will not be electric any time soon for example)
on a personal level - I find it unfathomable that given what we know about the process/costs of burning gasoline/diesel that anyone would want to increase our usage of this technology when there is an alternative for a lot of daily applications that has way way way less impact
does anyone really thing burning more fossil fuel is desirable? would you turn down a solution that could eradicate fossil fuel burning?
let's ignore the visceral aspects of ICE cars - because they are 100% functional but lack "soul" - but it's beyond dispute they function as transportation.
as a functional fact an EV can handle 99% of most everyone's daily transportation needs (acknowledged by most on this forum IN this very thread).
do you honestly object to using less fossil fuels, or potentially no fossil fuels?
Dave, I know the planet is warming - not sure how many times I can say the same thing...........I don't have a position on this because I see it as an inevitable consequence of many factors. Am I worried by it? No, will buying an EV change the outcome? No.
If buying an EV makes you feel better, or that you are doing something positive in your frame of reference. Good for you.
08-23-2018, 02:41 AM
