Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 86

Thread: A Clockwork (backward) Orange: The Paris Accord

  1. #41
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Sure, I'll answer it.



    Electric cars do not have exhaust systems, nor do they require the use of carbon for propulsion. Electric cars plug into the energy grid and can run off of renewable energy, such as electricity made from the wind or the sun. Because electric cars run on electricity and not on hydrocarbons, the carbon footprint is less than cars that require gasoline.
    What about the manufacturing of the car.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    What about the manufacturing of the car.
    He keeps ignoring that. Even though lithium ion production is horrible. But it happens in China and India, and other parts of the world, so who cares, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  3. #43
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    He keeps ignoring that. Even though lithium ion production is horrible. But it happens in China and India, and other parts of the world, so who cares, right?
    That's why I keep people to keep their factories in their countries, since china, and probably india, don't care much about environment, and china burns the worst coal on earth, but no one seems to bother much, or understand the point!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  4. #44
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    He keeps ignoring that. Even though lithium ion production is horrible. But it happens in China and India, and other parts of the world, so who cares, right?
    Tesla makes theirs in Nevada don't they? Or soon will. The gigafactory. And they mine the lithium there too.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    What about the manufacturing of the car.
    It's much the same as any other car.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    He keeps ignoring that. Even though lithium ion production is horrible. But it happens in China and India, and other parts of the world, so who cares, right?
    Lithium is mostly harvested from salt brine, in much of the same way sea salt is harvested. The largest source for lithium is in Bolivia, Chile and there are also lithium salt brine harvest in America. Lithium can also be mined from lithium rich clay, which is much like a copper mine. Lithium tends to be prospected from geographical salt flats.

    In comparison to petroleum extraction, whether it's north american tar sands, off shore drilling, deep earth fracking, drilling alaska's wildlife refuge, or buying it cheap from Saudi Arabia. Lithium sourcing is likely much greener.





    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    That's why I keep people to keep their factories in their countries, since china, and probably india, don't care much about environment, and china burns the worst coal on earth, but no one seems to bother much, or understand the point!
    China is actually very serious about pollition these days, there is a real public concern about air quality and the chinese has implemented infrastructure for cleaner travel, electro-magnetic high speed rail, the government has implement numerous charging stations for electric vehicles and china currently uses a fleet of electric commercial trucks and buses. China is ahead of the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Tesla makes theirs in Nevada don't they? Or soon will. The gigafactory. And they mine the lithium there too.
    Yup, the factory is solar powered and near a source for lithium.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...he-new-economy

  6. #46
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    China is actually very serious about pollition these days, there is a real public concern about air quality and the chinese has implemented infrastructure for cleaner travel, electro-magnetic high speed rail, the government has implement numerous charging stations for electric vehicles and china currently uses a fleet of electric commercial trucks and buses. China is ahead of the game.
    because of this stuff, they have to change (This goes to 3 pages, 43 photos)
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  7. #47
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    China is actually very serious about pollition these days
    China is ahead of the game.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    because of this stuff, they have to change (This goes to 3 pages, 43 photos)
    It's true. Environmental activism is seemingly very high in China.

  9. #49
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Tesla makes theirs in Nevada don't they? Or soon will. The gigafactory. And they mine the lithium there too.
    Doesn't matter -- there is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism. You're still contributing emissions this way, just less than the other way.

    We need to radically rethink our social and economic systems if we want to actually avoid the worst impacts of climate change at this point. We're beyond tweaking around the edges. It's too late to switch to electric cars -- if we want to avoid disaster, we need to radically rethink private car ownership altogether.

    But, most people who pretend to care about the climate seem not to be willing to actually make any real changes to their lifestyles. Reason #37 that Liberals are awful.

  10. #50
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Doesn't matter -- there is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism.
    You work for the state, you simple ****.

  11. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Doesn't matter -- there is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism. You're still contributing emissions this way, just less than the other way.

    We need to radically rethink our social and economic systems if we want to actually avoid the worst impacts of climate change at this point. We're beyond tweaking around the edges. It's too late to switch to electric cars -- if we want to avoid disaster, we need to radically rethink private car ownership altogether.

    But, most people who pretend to care about the climate seem not to be willing to actually make any real changes to their lifestyles. Reason #37 that Liberals are awful.
    I disagree.

    Electric cars and renewable energy is barely making a foothold in transportation and energy, but it has the potential to get better. Factories can become cleaner by being powered by renewable energy and consumables can be recycled, such as cradle to cradle thinking. It's a balence between industrialism and ecology, limiting driving is not a viable solution as transportation is a necessity in the modern world.

    And what you see as tweaks around the edges actually makes a major impact. In California, pollution levels have decreased, even though there are more people, there are also more cars on the road than ever before. California regulates gasoline and vehicle emmisions, and vehicle makers, these regulations have led to cleaner air and California remains a large economy.
    Last edited by Summer; 06-04-2017 at 08:41 PM.

  12. #52
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Electric cars and renewable energy is barely making a foothold in transportation and energy, but it has the potential to get better. Factories can become cleaner by being powered by renewable energy and consumables can be recycled, such as cradle to cradle thinking. It's a balence between industrialism and ecology,
    Ok, but in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we need to start dramatically reducing emissions 5 years ago. What you're arguing for should affectionately be called a "dramatic underreaction."
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    limiting driving is not a viable solution as transportation is a necessity in the modern world.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_se...terary_device)

    Also, the double standard. The argument for EVs is largely based on potentiality and changing the system, but the feasibility of that is not being questioned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    And what you see as tweaks around the edges actually makes a major impact.
    You're right, car ownership does have a major impact. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, battery electrics produce 144g of co2 per mile driven, and let's generously assume you'll drive the car 150k miles before it's dead. That's about 24 tons of carbon dioxide. Plus, you've got to add in the carbon dioxide from producing the cars. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, which did its study on Teslas, the manufacture of electric cars is about as carbon expensive as gasoline powered cars, plus 15% for the battery. (In most cases that adds around an extra ton of CO2). Manufacture of a Ford Mondeo costs 17 tons of CO2, and that's a pretty standard car. Even if I take a low guess of 10 tons at production, I'm at an emissions cost of 34 tons of CO2.

    So we agree, car ownership does have a major impact, and tweaking around the edges also does.

    TL;DR, you get 53% less pollution from an electric car over its life than a nonelectric, according to the UCS, which is admittedly partisan for electric cars.

    While if you scrap the private automobile and use public transportation -- or even just create a robust system of ridesharing -- you can end up with a much more significant reduction. (Not owning a car is a 100% reduction in carbon emissions over owning a car. Fun fact.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    In California, pollution levels have decreased, even though there are more people, there are also more cars on the road than ever before. California regulates gasoline and vehicle emissions, and vehicle makers, these regulations have led to cleaner air and California remains a large economy.
    Meh -- CA's decrease in emissions is driven mostly by efficiencies in electricity production, not in switching to electric cars, according to CA's latest trend report. You're arguing that the effect is attributable to that cause when at absolute best, that cause is worth a quarter of the effect. This is relevant because if the world followed CA's example, we'd still experience the worst impacts of global warming because the reductions are too little too late.

  13. #53
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    While if you scrap the private automobile and use public transportation -- or even just create a robust system of ridesharing -- you can end up with a much more significant reduction.
    Shocking, a communist wants to take everyone's car away.

  14. #54
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Can't we just give everyone teslas?
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  15. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Ok, but in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we need to start dramatically reducing emissions 5 years ago. What you're arguing for should affectionately be called a "dramatic underreaction."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_se...terary_device)

    Also, the double standard. The argument for EVs is largely based on potentiality and changing the system, but the feasibility of that is not being questioned.

    You're right, car ownership does have a major impact. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, battery electrics produce 144g of co2 per mile driven, and let's generously assume you'll drive the car 150k miles before it's dead. That's about 24 tons of carbon dioxide. Plus, you've got to add in the carbon dioxide from producing the cars. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, which did its study on Teslas, the manufacture of electric cars is about as carbon expensive as gasoline powered cars, plus 15% for the battery. (In most cases that adds around an extra ton of CO2). Manufacture of a Ford Mondeo costs 17 tons of CO2, and that's a pretty standard car. Even if I take a low guess of 10 tons at production, I'm at an emissions cost of 34 tons of CO2.

    So we agree, car ownership does have a major impact, and tweaking around the edges also does.

    TL;DR, you get 53% less pollution from an electric car over its life than a nonelectric, according to the UCS, which is admittedly partisan for electric cars.

    While if you scrap the private automobile and use public transportation -- or even just create a robust system of ridesharing -- you can end up with a much more significant reduction. (Not owning a car is a 100% reduction in carbon emissions over owning a car. Fun fact.)

    Meh -- CA's decrease in emissions is driven mostly by efficiencies in electricity production, not in switching to electric cars, according to CA's latest trend report. You're arguing that the effect is attributable to that cause when at absolute best, that cause is worth a quarter of the effect. This is relevant because if the world followed CA's example, we'd still experience the worst impacts of global warming because the reductions are too little too late.
    A shift towards electric vehicles is entirely feasible, battery technology and charging infrastructure is able to replace internal combustion engines and gas stations.

    A future without burning fossil fuels for energy is possible, electric vehicles are helping to bring that change. It's easier for society to transition from gas cars to electric cars than a transition to bicycling and public transit.

    California's better air quality is much due to high emission standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post

    You're right, car ownership does have a major impact. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, battery electrics produce 144g of co2 per mile driven, and let's generously assume you'll drive the car 150k miles before it's dead. That's about 24 tons of carbon dioxide. Plus, you've got to add in the carbon dioxide from producing the cars. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, which did its study on Teslas, the manufacture of electric cars is about as carbon expensive as gasoline powered cars, plus 15% for the battery. (In most cases that adds around an extra ton of CO2). Manufacture of a Ford Mondeo costs 17 tons of CO2, and that's a pretty standard car. Even if I take a low guess of 10 tons at production, I'm at an emissions cost of 34 tons of CO2.

    TL;DR, you get 53% less pollution from an electric car over its life than a nonelectric, according to the UCS, which is admittedly partisan for electric cars.
    edit:

    Your analysis is a bit off.

    You're not considering the amount of co2 that is used to extract oil, to refine it, and then to transport gasoline to gas stations.

    Internal combustion engine cars also require oil changes, so you would need to factor in the co2 cost of producing, refining, and transporting engine oil, to be changed every three months for most cars. You would also need to factor in the cost of manufacturing and shipping and disposal of spark plugs, air filters, timing belts, fuel filters, oil filters, distributor cap, oxygen sensors, PCV valve, and a lot of other things that electric vehicles don't have. Also brakes last longer on electric cars as they only apply when speeds are below ~8 miles per hour, electric cars have regenerative breaking that captures heat from the rotation of the wheels and feeds electricity back into the battery.
    Last edited by Summer; 06-05-2017 at 03:49 AM.

  16. #56
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    You are both wrong and right. We can't change to no additional warming, and we can't reduce it, given the current levels of society and expectation. We can reduce the level or increase, and that of itself is worth doing, because it gives us longer to find a real solution. I suspect the real solution will come from geo-engineering of some sort.

    The part that annoys me most about the US withdrawing from the Paris Accord is not the climate effects - your federal decisions have become meaningless very quickly - it is the dismissal of responsibility. All of we developed nations got where we are, with our nice standards of living, methods of transport, individual and national wealth, by spewing carbon into the atmosphere, and screwing the global climate outlook for billions of people who got very little benefit from it. The only FAIR thing would be for us to take it out again. Obviously that wouldn't happen even if it were possible. The 3 billion fund support little donnie hates, is a very, very, very small gesture towards leveling the field.

    It is not ethical or moral to ask developing nations to just slow their development because of a problem we caused. They MUST be able to aim towards a full stomach and educated children. We MUST let them. Helping them develop with a lower carbon footprint not only benefits them, it benefits us. Climate migration and terrorism is real and will become a major threat.

    $3 billion is 3% of one recent arms deal. It is 0.5% of one years defense spend (or less). It is morally corrupt to act as if it is something a christian nation could even consider withdrawing from. It is the height of hypocrisy, and venality. It is the worst sort of pandering to ignorance that I can imagine, even from someone as ethically bankrupt as the bloated peach. Calling it a slush fund is more of his click bait lies.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  17. #57
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    It is not ethical or moral to ask developing nations to just slow their development
    Poor countries can pollute endlessly?

  18. #58
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Poor countries can pollute endlessly?
    If you are so ignorant, you have to keep asking questions on here, rather than contributing to the conversation, I suggest you go and educate yourself a tiny bit.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  19. #59
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    ignorant
    Poor countries can pollute endlessly?

  20. #60
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    If you are so ignorant, you have to keep asking questions on here, rather than contributing to the conversation, I suggest you go and educate yourself a tiny bit.
    Oh the irony.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  21. #61
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    It's easier for society to transition from gas cars to electric cars than a transition to bicycling and public transit.
    And this is the crux of our disagreement.

    You're only willing to argue for what's easy. I'm actually arguing for what's necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Your analysis is a bit off.

    You're not considering the amount of co2 that is used to extract oil, to refine it, and then to transport gasoline to gas stations.

    Internal combustion engine cars also require oil changes, so you would need to factor in the co2 cost of producing, refining, and transporting engine oil, to be changed every three months for most cars. You would also need to factor in the cost of manufacturing and shipping and disposal of spark plugs, air filters, timing belts, fuel filters, oil filters, distributor cap, oxygen sensors, PCV valve, and a lot of other things that electric vehicles don't have. Also brakes last longer on electric cars as they only apply when speeds are below ~8 miles per hour, electric cars have regenerative breaking that captures heat from the rotation of the wheels and feeds electricity back into the battery.
    It wasn't my analysis -- it was the Union of Concerned Scientists' analysis that concluded that EVs produce 53% less greenhouse gases over their lifetimes than similar gasoline powered models. Since the Union of Concerned Scientists is trying to argue for EVs, I was willing to grant what was probably a rosy view of how effective EVs actually are at being more efficient. If you're more knowledgeable than the Union of Concerned Scientists, then so be it -- give me another % to use. (Though as a disclaimer, unless you can actually show where the UCS report was missing something, I'm more likely to believe them as an authority than you. No offense. It's just that as far as I know, you're not speaking for a nonprofit with lots of resources doing lots of research to answer this question.)

    In response to your point about the supply chain for gasoline -- burning coal for electricity costs emissions, and so does using gasoline-powered equipment and infrastructure to maintain the infrastructure that delivers electricity to "the grid." So does building and maintaining "the grid." (And a mass transition to EVs is bound to require some build-out of the electrical grid to handle the strain.) Offhand, again, I'd imagine that the electrical option is more efficient/will cost less greenhouse gas, but again, it's still an industrial process and will thus still have a planetary cost. There is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 06-05-2017 at 01:05 PM.

  22. #62
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post

    You're only willing to argue for what's easy. I'm actually arguing for what's necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
    ......
    There is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism.
    Burn, there is no way you can get to what you think is necessary, in the short term. Even trying to is likely to put even more people into the "it's all too hard" basket. Society moves in small steps far more easily than great leaps. I don't doubt you are mostly right in concept, but practicality prevents practise. Surely it is better to take steps that can be taken, and slowly move towards what you think needs to be done. I still think that we will engineer an effective response in time.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  23. #63
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Burn, there is no way you can get to what you think is necessary, in the short term. Even trying to is likely to put even more people into the "it's all too hard" basket. Society moves in small steps far more easily than great leaps. I don't doubt you are mostly right in concept, but practicality prevents practise. Surely it is better to take steps that can be taken, and slowly move towards what you think needs to be done. I still think that we will engineer an effective response in time.
    Maybe this is right.

    My concern is this: the "humanity will engineer its way out of this" answer you want to give, or the "look, you can still consume all you want and be green" answer Summer is trying to give have the effect of taking a problem that is created by individual choices to consume and trying to offer only a socialized solution. It avoids the personal responsibility that each of us needs to take individually to solve the problem. Instead of continuing to ask "what can I change about my life to help," someone who already has an electric car (Summer) can turn and tell other people what they need to do, pay no attention to the fact that that electric car also contributes to the problem.

    Each of us has the ability to make individual consumptive choices, and my worry is not only that offering easy ways to reduce isn't enough, it's that by marketing this as a solution more than implies that if you're doing that easy thing, that's enough. After all, it's the solution.

    But it isn't. It's a half-measure, at best. (It's like a quarter-measure.)

    In my view, it's more important to get people to take individual responsibility for their consumptive choices and the costs of those choices than it is to get them to make an insufficient reduction without changing their consumptive habits. Just getting a prius doesn't really solve the problem. Not maintaining a personal vehicle would be better. Not eating meat, not flying, not using air conditioning in the summer, ... making all sorts of changes to the way you live your life is ultimately going to be necessary to get us out of the problem. My view is that selling a technological solution is a mental evasion -- you get to think "I've done my part; I have an electric car," and then you ignore the bare fact that all your other consumptive choices are contributing to the problem, because at the end of the story, there is no ethical consumption under late-stage capitalism.

    Maybe you're right, and people can't be convinced to actually take actions in their lives for the sake of stopping global warming. Maybe people will look at the magnitude of suffering that human-caused climate change will bring (and is currently bringing) and say "meh, I'll just keep consuming everything I do now, but I will get an electric car, even though that won't really solve the larger problem and that's good enough."

    But maybe that gives up on individual responsibility too much.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 06-05-2017 at 02:42 PM.

  24. #64
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Maybe people will look at the magnitude of suffering that human-caused climate change will bring
    I love fear mongering based upon wishcating.

  25. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    And this is the crux of our disagreement.

    You're only willing to argue for what's easy. I'm actually arguing for what's necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

    It wasn't my analysis -- it was the Union of Concerned Scientists' analysis that concluded that EVs produce 53% less greenhouse gases over their lifetimes than similar gasoline powered models. Since the Union of Concerned Scientists is trying to argue for EVs, I was willing to grant what was probably a rosy view of how effective EVs actually are at being more efficient. If you're more knowledgeable than the Union of Concerned Scientists, then so be it -- give me another % to use. (Though as a disclaimer, unless you can actually show where the UCS report was missing something, I'm more likely to believe them as an authority than you. No offense. It's just that as far as I know, you're not speaking for a nonprofit with lots of resources doing lots of research to answer this question.)

    In response to your point about the supply chain for gasoline -- burning coal for electricity costs emissions, and so does using gasoline-powered equipment and infrastructure to maintain the infrastructure that delivers electricity to "the grid." So does building and maintaining "the grid." (And a mass transition to EVs is bound to require some build-out of the electrical grid to handle the strain.) Offhand, again, I'd imagine that the electrical option is more efficient/will cost less greenhouse gas, but again, it's still an industrial process and will thus still have a planetary cost. There is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism.
    First off. Why are you arguing against renewable energy and electric cars?

    Changing the transportation infrastructure to electric vehicles is not in any way easy. And you're not making it any easier. The auto industry prefers gasoline cars because they are cheaper to produce and gasoline cars return a nice profit, the big auto-makers lobby hard to get rid of California's emission standards and Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, and Trump and Scott Pruitt are working towards that aim. Electric cars could be killed (again - see the story of the EV1s). Certain states such as Georgia and Ohio have instated or in the legislative process to instate a fee for electric vehicle - their argument is that EVs do not pay gas taxes and should therefore pay an electric vehicle tax of hundreds of dollars a year. The oil industry is huge, and they also do not like the idea of electric cars, they fund myths that EVs are not really green, are unreliable, and battery technology is just not there yet. Electric vehicles have a major uphill battle, and you're inadvertently siding against EVs.

    I like the Union of Concerned Scientists, it's one of the groups I donate too. They write, quite extensively about the benefits of electric cars and renewable energy. I'm not arguing against their numbers, I'm arguing against your conclusion.

    Their findings are to debunk a myth, that EVs are dirtier than gas cars. Their numbers show that even if EVs plugged in a nationwide grid, including coal, the overall carbon use is still much less than gas cars and hybrids and plug in hybrids. You're attempting to use their findings to produce an argument that EVs are only slightly more greener, when in fact EVs are much better for the environment, the reason for that is because they are able to function without gasoline or fossil fuels.

    It takes more energy to produce a gallon of gasoline than it does to fully charge an electric car. And that alone, is substantial.

    Oil requires energy to be extracted from wells and/or cleaned from sand and minerals, then crude is shipped and pumped over long distances, then stored, then refined, then pumped and shiped again to gas stations, gas stations require energy to stay up and running and gas pumps require energy.

    The myth that electric cars use more energy or slightly less needs to be put to rest.

  26. #66
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    First off. Why are you arguing against renewable energy and electric cars?
    I'm arguing against cars in general, because personal ownership of cars is wasteful, unnecessary, and harms the planet.

    I haven't said a word about renewable energy. All I have been arguing for is a minimal level of self-crit on the part of people who correctly believe that human-caused climate change is a problem worth confronting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Changing the transportation infrastructure to electric vehicles is not in any way easy. And you're not making it any easier.
    This is funny because
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    A shift towards electric vehicles is entirely feasible,
    You need to pick a position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    The auto industry prefers gasoline cars because they are cheaper to produce and gasoline cars return a nice profit, the big auto-makers lobby hard to get rid of California's emission standards and Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, and Trump and Scott Pruitt are working towards that aim. Electric cars could be killed (again - see the story of the EV1s). Certain states such as Georgia and Ohio have instated or in the legislative process to instate a fee for electric vehicle - their argument is that EVs do not pay gas taxes and should therefore pay an electric vehicle tax of hundreds of dollars a year. The oil industry is huge, and they also do not like the idea of electric cars, they fund myths that EVs are not really green, are unreliable, and battery technology is just not there yet. Electric vehicles have a major uphill battle, and you're inadvertently siding against EVs.
    I'm quite advertently siding against private ownership of vehicles of any kind, whether they're powered by coal or oil. I'm unsure what bearing this has on the discussion about climate change. I thought we were talking about measures that could be taken to solve the problem -- it looks like the options on the table are to replace private ownership of vehicles with private ownership of less bad vehicles (EVs), or to replace private ownership of vehicles with a robust system of public transit.

    There should be no doubt about which solution is more efficient overall, or about which solution results in more social equality.

    And it's not a political zero sum game, but if I do have a limited amount of political capital, I know where I'd use it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I like the Union of Concerned Scientists, it's one of the groups I donate too. They write, quite extensively about the benefits of electric cars and renewable energy. I'm not arguing against their numbers, I'm arguing against your conclusion.
    The conclusion that the production and use of EV's produce greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change? Oh. I thought that was pretty clear from the UCS report. Maybe you should read it again?
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Their findings are to debunk a myth, that EVs are dirtier than gas cars. Their numbers show that even if EVs plugged in a nationwide grid, including coal, the overall carbon use is still much less than gas cars and hybrids and plug in hybrids. You're attempting to use their findings to produce an argument that EVs are only slightly more greener, when in fact EVs are much better for the environment, the reason for that is because they are able to function without gasoline or fossil fuels.

    It takes more energy to produce a gallon of gasoline than it does to fully charge an electric car. And that alone, is substantial.

    Oil requires energy to be extracted from wells and/or cleaned from sand and minerals, then crude is shipped and pumped over long distances, then stored, then refined, then pumped and shiped again to gas stations, gas stations require energy to stay up and running and gas pumps require energy.

    The myth that electric cars use more energy or slightly less needs to be put to rest.
    Well, as a matter of actual fact, most electricity is still coal-generated, so the idea that they function without "fossil fuels" is not the case. They are better, though, in that they theoretically could function without fossil fuels (since electricity can be generated by wind, the sun, etc.).

    The issue you're having is that you're used to arguing with people who falsely believe that EVs are no better than gas powered cars, not people who correctly believe that EVs, while better than gas powered cars, are not a sufficient enough change to solve the problem posed by capitalist consumption. And against the "myth" you're arguing against, you've constructed your own "myth" -- namely the myth that the ownership of an electric vehicle frees you from responsibility for the environmental degradation combustion engines contribute to.

    It doesn't. Yes, they're a better alternative. But there's a space between "better alternative" and "acceptable alternative" that has yet to be crossed.

    You told a pretty story about the harm caused by the refining of oil. You're right. But what about the harms of mining and disposing of lithium batteries? What about the harm caused by the burning of coal? What about the harm caused by the construction and upkeep of the electrical infrastructure that allows you to plug in your expensive piece of machinery and draw that coal-created electricity? Those are all carbon-reliant industrial processes, too.

    The TL;DR of all that is still that there is simply no way to ethically consume under late-stage capitalism.

  27. #67
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Shocking, a communist wants to take everyone's car away.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm quite advertently siding against private ownership of vehicles of any kind
    Like fish in a barrel.

  28. #68
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm arguing against cars in general, because personal ownership of cars is wasteful, unnecessary, and harms the planet.
    What's your communist views on personal ownership in general

    I would like to see you in living in a soviet based communal apartment
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  29. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post

    The conclusion that the production and use of EV's produce greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change? Oh. I thought that was pretty clear from the UCS report. Maybe you should read it again?
    That's true.

    Electric vehicles are made in factories, electric cars require energy from power plants to build and require materials such as metals, plastics, and materials for batteries including lithium.

    A suitable way to manufacture EVs is to run the factories on renewable energy, like Telsa's plant that runs on solar. Many of the materials can be made from recycled material, plastics, metals, and lithium can be recycled.

    Walking may sound like the best alternative, but you must realize that people generally live more than walking distance from school or work, and walking frequently becomes more difficult as people age. And if your answer is trains and public transit, trains and rail are also built in factories.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You told a pretty story about the harm caused by the refining of oil. You're right. But what about the harms of mining and disposing of lithium batteries? What about the harm caused by the burning of coal? What about the harm caused by the construction and upkeep of the electrical infrastructure that allows you to plug in your expensive piece of machinery and draw that coal-created electricity? Those are all carbon-reliant industrial processes, too.
    Lithium?
    Lithium can be mined, it can also be harvested from salt brine. Lithium is not a common element and has a value post battery life and is often recycled. Batteries can also be made out of nickel, lead, magnesium etc. Lithium even when mined is likely cleaner than petroleum.

    Coal?
    There are many alternatives to energy derived from coal. EV drivers can plug into a renewable energy source and charge their car through solar power, wind, hydrogen etc.

    Electrical infrastructure?
    Much of this infrastructure is already developed. There is nothing special about the electricity to run a car on, they can plug into any outlet. Installing car charging stations are quite simple actually, just relay electricity to a parking space.

    Coal again.
    Yeah, just transition coal energy to renewables and problem solved.
    Last edited by Summer; 06-05-2017 at 11:16 PM.

  30. #70
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    And if your answer is trains and public transit, trains and rail are also built in factories.
    The efficiency difference between a car of any stripe and public transit is much more staggering than that 53% reduction you get for going electric. That's why I said that there's a huge space between personal ownership of EV's being a better alternative and an acceptable alternative.

    Here's one that's acceptable, since you ignored my point about ridesharing -- think about all the cars that sit in a parking lot/garage/driveway for 90% of their temporal lifespans. Why do we produce so many more cars than we need? Because each one is privately owned.

    What if cars were (1) electric and (2) shared the same way city bikes are?

    Now you've got a reasonable level of efficient use of resources. The number of cars we'd actually need to build (which accounts for, as you may recall in a previous post I linked, a significant amount of CO2 tonnage) drops dramatically. We can do with like 30% of the vehicle production per year we do now.

    Especially if the public transit infrastructure is also well-developed, this is starting to sound efficient.

    But you've got to be willing to sacrifice a little bit of your consumptive lifestyle to want a solution like that. I'm game for that solution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Yeah, just transition coal energy to renewables and problem solved.
    Long way to go. If, as you suggest elsewhere in this post, you just plug in at any old outlet, most of your electricity running your electric car is coal-produced. Sorry.

    https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

    Also, again, pick a story.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Changing the transportation infrastructure to electric vehicles is not in any way easy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Yeah, just transition coal energy to renewables and problem solved.
    Sounds easy with no federal assistance in the forseeable future!

    You know what would make transitioning to renewables easier? If it came along with people changing their lifestyles. Using less AC. Using less hot water (shorter showers). Setting their heat on a colder temperature in the winter and wearing more clothes instead.

    Less energy to produce, less work to do.

    But again, this is something that's actually going to require you to admit your personal responsibility for the emissions you generate. I'm sorry if that's asking too much of you.
    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    What's your communist views on personal ownership in general
    Complicated question -- simple answer is that personal property is OK, but private property isn't. You can own things that don't produce value, just have value. For example, your toothbrush, your toothpaste, your breakfast, etc. When it comes to things that produce value, such as factories or trains or cars, those should be shared. There's a lot of grey area there, which is why it gets complicated, but that's whole threadworthy and would distract from the thread topic, which is climate change.

  31. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    The efficiency difference between a car of any stripe and public transit is much more staggering than that 53% reduction you get for going electric. That's why I said that there's a huge space between personal ownership of EV's being a better alternative and an acceptable alternative.

    Here's one that's acceptable, since you ignored my point about ridesharing -- think about all the cars that sit in a parking lot/garage/driveway for 90% of their temporal lifespans. Why do we produce so many more cars than we need? Because each one is privately owned.

    What if cars were (1) electric and (2) shared the same way city bikes are?

    Now you've got a reasonable level of efficient use of resources. The number of cars we'd actually need to build (which accounts for, as you may recall in a previous post I linked, a significant amount of CO2 tonnage) drops dramatically. We can do with like 30% of the vehicle production per year we do now.

    Especially if the public transit infrastructure is also well-developed, this is starting to sound efficient.

    But you've got to be willing to sacrifice a little bit of your consumptive lifestyle to want a solution like that. I'm game for that solution.

    Long way to go. If, as you suggest elsewhere in this post, you just plug in at any old outlet, most of your electricity running your electric car is coal-produced. Sorry.

    https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

    Also, again, pick a story.


    Sounds easy with no federal assistance in the forseeable future!

    You know what would make transitioning to renewables easier? If it came along with people changing their lifestyles. Using less AC. Using less hot water (shorter showers). Setting their heat on a colder temperature in the winter and wearing more clothes instead.

    Less energy to produce, less work to do.

    But again, this is something that's actually going to require you to admit your personal responsibility for the emissions you generate. I'm sorry if that's asking too much of you.

    Complicated question -- simple answer is that personal property is OK, but private property isn't. You can own things that don't produce value, just have value. For example, your toothbrush, your toothpaste, your breakfast, etc. When it comes to things that produce value, such as factories or trains or cars, those should be shared. There's a lot of grey area there, which is why it gets complicated, but that's whole threadworthy and would distract from the thread topic, which is climate change.
    San Diego's electricty doesn't come from coal.

    https://www.sdge.com/newsroom/2014-0...ean-power-grid

    In 2013, 24 percent of the electricity the utility supplied to the region came from renewable energy; a number that is anticipated to reach 33 percent well in advance of the state mandated 2020 target. 67 percent of San Diego’s power came from natural gas, which is twice as clean as coal. Unlike much of the nation that relies on coal, SDG&E, as of 2014, has no coal in its power generation mix.
    Your electricity probably comes from coal, if you're so concerned about coal, stop using electricty.
    Last edited by Summer; 06-06-2017 at 12:34 AM.

  32. #72
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    Your electricity probably comes from coal, if you're so concerned about coal, stop using electricty.
    Now you've got it!

    EDIT: most of your electricity does come from fracked gas, though. Something to think about.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 06-06-2017 at 01:07 AM.

  33. #73
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    coal was the most couple of years ago, I guess, but now:

    coal: 30.4%

    gas: 33.8%

    wiki
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  34. #74

    Dan Chak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Syracuse, baby!
    Posts
    8,063

    Default

    Not personally owning cars is not something most of our country can handle just yet. Not all cities have a decent transportation system, and, especially with the poor, not having a car is already an issue when it comes to simple things like maintaining a job or going to a grocery store instead of a corner convenience store.
    Not to mention there are cities where the winters are rough and walking, bicycling and even public transportation are difficult or impossible.
    I love Hunter's response, though. We 'Mericans have the right to own whatever we want!
    Same response the south gave that led to the Civil War...
    Quote Originally Posted by gebne View Post
    St. Chak, glorious atelier, faithful servant and bearer of thong,
    the stain of the troll has caused you to be forgotten by many,
    but the true forum invokes you universally as the patron of things despised of;
    pray for me, that finally I may receive the alterations and the couture of thongs in all my fripperies, ornamentations, and trimmings,
    particularly those of purple hue, and that I may read Chak with the thong throughout Eternity.

  35. #75

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Chak View Post
    Not personally owning cars is not something most of our country can handle just yet. Not all cities have a decent transportation system, and, especially with the poor, not having a car is already an issue when it comes to simple things like maintaining a job or going to a grocery store instead of a corner convenience store.
    Not to mention there are cities where the winters are rough and walking, bicycling and even public transportation are difficult or impossible.
    I love Hunter's response, though. We 'Mericans have the right to own whatever we want!
    Same response the south gave that led to the Civil War...
    Yeah, something that environmentalists in the US need to stress in terms of political action is improved public transit - though I presume they would already be doing that. As you note, it might also help poor people access jobs, goods and services more easily as well.

    I haven't owned a car since moving to Toronto - i haven't needed it, because the transit system worked well. Anywhere I wanted to go, i could go.

    As for the electric car vs no car debate, it's the difference between short-term fixes and long-term solutions. Using an electric car is something that can be done short-term to make a small difference. Redesigning the transit system to vastly reduce the need to drive personal cars at all is a long-term solution.
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  36. #76
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Chak View Post
    We 'Mericans have the right to own whatever we want!
    Same response the south gave that led to the Civil War...
    Haha, you clearly have no idea how the civil war started.

  37. #77
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    DC is still horribly traumatized by all the fake news he believes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  38. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Yeah, something that environmentalists in the US need to stress in terms of political action is improved public transit - though I presume they would already be doing that. As you note, it might also help poor people access jobs, goods and services more easily as well.

    I haven't owned a car since moving to Toronto - i haven't needed it, because the transit system worked well. Anywhere I wanted to go, i could go.

    As for the electric car vs no car debate, it's the difference between short-term fixes and long-term solutions. Using an electric car is something that can be done short-term to make a small difference. Redesigning the transit system to vastly reduce the need to drive personal cars at all is a long-term solution.
    I disagree.

    Electric cars would not make a small difference, electric cars would make a major difference to better air quality.

    Electric cars need roads and electricity - two things that are already in abundance. Public transit would need a major investment to connect every community, and then there is the cost to maintain public transit.

    The reason why the vast majority of the population chooses cars over trains and buses is because they like the privacy of a car and the ability to go wherever they like whenever they like. And if the major concern about cars is how much they pollute, then the option to make cars that don't pollute is the most practical alternative.

    and electric car sales are surging.

    https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timei...3Fsource%3Ddam

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...-in-five-years

  39. #79
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    The reason why the vast majority of the population chooses cars over trains and buses is because they like the privacy of a car and the ability to go wherever they like whenever they like. And if the major concern about cars is how much they pollute, then the option to make cars that don't pollute is the most practical alternative.
    except for cost and mind comfort, private transportation is by far better than public.
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  40. #80
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    except for cost and mind comfort, private transportation is by far better than public.
    Using public transport is as much a mindset as anything. If you grow up using cars, buses seem yucky. If you grow up using buses, cars seem an over reach. In cities with public transport. So until it is built, people don't like it.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •