Global Warming: Extreme Heat In Europe
- Thread starter shufan199_3
- Start date
What can we do about it? I'm all ears. Give me real ideas, not federal government power grabs.
What is the Heartland Institute?
I'd have no issue taking action to combat the changing climate, and any damage we may be doing to it, that didn't destroy the economy. Otherwise, to me the better approach is to adapt rather than go too drastic or "overcorrect" in the other direction.
I have some friends who have EVs. They like them. They are also expensive for the average person. And while I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford them if I wanted to go that direction, I have real concerns about the charging capabilities and what that means practically. I've seen charging stations by me and understand there is a device you can have at your house, but what happens if I'm driving in a remote area without them?
Putting that aside, EVs need to get their power from electricity, and most of that will still come from traditional sources. So what "dent" is that really putting into climate change in a meaningful way?
Beyond that, it seems the biggest proponents of the "green movement" are adverse to nuclear power. From what I've read, nuclear is easily our most ready made source for a practical alternative to traditional fuel. But if nuclear isn't going to be a big part of the discussion and transition, such that wind and solar are the principal drivers, what then?
And if we decide to "lead" on this, despite economic consequences, what effect does that really have in solving this problem if other countries like China, India, etc are not. Do we end up in a situation where any "dent" we try to make on climate change is nullified by other countries who don't go that route, and so the net effect is a weaker and problematic US economy. Which right now is already wrestling with issues like historical inflation and increased costs of everyday goods that hit most everyone in some way of significance.
I think these are all real concerns if you are having an honest discussion about the topic.
I have some friends who have EVs. They like them. They are also expensive for the average person. And while I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford them if I wanted to go that direction, I have real concerns about the charging capabilities and what that means practically. I've seen charging stations by me and understand there is a device you can have at your house, but what happens if I'm driving in a remote area without them?
Putting that aside, EVs need to get their power from electricity, and most of that will still come from traditional sources. So what "dent" is that really putting into climate change in a meaningful way?
Beyond that, it seems the biggest proponents of the "green movement" are adverse to nuclear power. From what I've read, nuclear is easily our most ready made source for a practical alternative to traditional fuel. But if nuclear isn't going to be a big part of the discussion and transition, such that wind and solar are the principal drivers, what then?
And if we decide to "lead" on this, despite economic consequences, what effect does that really have in solving this problem if other countries like China, India, etc are not. Do we end up in a situation where any "dent" we try to make on climate change is nullified by other countries who don't go that route, and so the net effect is a weaker and problematic US economy. Which right now is already wrestling with issues like historical inflation and increased costs of everyday goods that hit most everyone in some way of significance.
I think these are all real concerns if you are having an honest discussion about the topic.
you said we cant do anything about the climate. thats proof that people did. are you playing dumb now?
Good post. The problem is, very few want to have that honest discussion about it. It’s a hot button topic that politicians just want to scream about and cater to their bases. They could care less, because if they did they would lead by example. And the MSM props up Greta Thornberg…lol…a child being manipulated by her parents.
There is no long-term plan to address the environment, energy, in a fiscally responsible manner… it’s all noise and not worth spending time on beyond what I can do as an individual.
It's disheartening to read stuff like this because it shows that fossil fuel companies have won. This is like when auto manufacturer-funded PSAs blamed the "nut behind the wheel" for crash death rates until they were finally compelled by law to make vehicles safer in the event of an accident.
But maybe the more relevant example here is the "Crying Indian" ad that scolded people for littering, but it was funded by beverage and packaging corporations who were trying to shift blame from their use of harmful and non-biodegradable materials.
What you or I do as individuals has no impact at all on the environment or the climate. It takes actual policy to make a real difference, but most policymakers are indifferent, too timid, or openly hostile to climate activists and will do nothing about climate change. And that will continue as long as they're well-compensated by energy companies.
A similar statement was probably made when people started using cars instead of horses. I’m sure people were worried about not having gas stations in remote areas.
If you plan on spending a lot of time riding around very remote areas. An EV really just isn’t for you... yet. If most of your driving is a commute to work around a 100 miles a day or under and you have access to charge at home, an EV would work very well for you.
I lease 2, and was cost sensitive when getting them. The cost was the same or less than a comparable to their gas counterparts.
Plenty of studies on this topic and EVs are always "cleaner" even when getting their power from coal.
As we transition away from using fossil fuels, the benefit of EV vs internal combustion will only get better as well. Also, if this is a route you're considering and plan on staying in your current house for the next 10 years or so, you can get solar panels and a battery backup system and further lessen your environmental impact and it could be close to paying for itself at that point.
Nuclear will be a part of our energy policy for the foreseeable future. Even some of the loudest voices acknowledge that. Wind and Solar will certainly be principal drivers though because the technology keeps getting better and cheaper.
Our carbon output per capaita is greater than any other country in the world. China has made huge investments in renewable energy and produces almost as much electricity from renewables as the US produces from coal and oil.
and you can charge your car at your house overnight in a remote area. a huge difference than those who wanted a car in the same area back in the day. it clearly worked itself out
No... Individuals on their own will not make a dent.
It has to come from government.
Not that they need to force anything on us, but they need place the right incentives or subsidies to make the "better" options a no brainer for everyone.
Exactly... It works itself out.
Fear or running out of energy in a remote area was a thing 100 years ago. Not so much a few decades later.
Eventually, the same will be said for EVs as we build out the infrastructure to support them and the technology gets better.
It needs to be a public/private/government effort and a long term plan. Individuals acting alone will not make a dent, nor will the government constantly changing policies and legislating things that are not material or not based on comprehensive and accurate information.
Without those actions, I can do what I can do because that's the responsible thing to do.
and if youre that remote youre still sweating out when the last gas station will be. even if youre not that remote you get exit signs that have to twll you how many miles till the next gas station.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles
EV's may only be a transitional step toward Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles anyway. Zero emissions, less impact to the waste stream and less dependent on rare raw materials and damage (strip mining).
EV's may only be a transitional step toward Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles anyway. Zero emissions, less impact to the waste stream and less dependent on rare raw materials and damage (strip mining).
Hydrogen makes a ton of sense for Trucks but less so for personal use.
Much less efficient than electric engines and the most important part of an EV is that you can recharge at home.
and what can people do about the economy that isnt comparable to what they can do to slow climate change?
Right now but lots of research going on to address that. Much less impactful on the environment.
well sometimes no and sometimes yes. i look at this as an ecosystem/environment problem. climate is in there and there are things we as people are doing to speed up that process. there are things we can do to slow it down. the ozone is a good use case on how human behavior can effect the environment both ways. and yes, depending on which later ozone it can have an effect on climate
People can change the economy by deciding where to spend or not spend their money, where they work, how companies are run, etc.
You cannot change Mother Nature. It's really quite simple.
When you're arguing against scientific consensus, bad faith and straw man arguments are all you've got.
I'm not arguing against anything. I am stating a fact that any human attempts to stop supposed global warming are futile and a complete waste of time. You can't change what Mother Nature does.
I'd rather focus on small steps to keep our land and water clean, such as stopping littering, recycling, etc. rather than these big utopian dreams that aren't practical and will never happen.
That "fact" is wrong. If human activity emits excess amounts of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, it changes the climate. It can similarly be curtailed and hopefully reversed.
You claim that you're not arguing, but this fatalistic take is just one of many arguments that denialists throw out to obfuscate the very clear facts on what is, I repeat, scientific consensus.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
If the "case" is as you set forth above, I don't see how the transition won't happen then sooner than later. Customers always want the best option. Quality of product and affordability drive those decisions. It seems from your viewpoint there is a stronger case for EVs. I have to think the market will then lead us there because individual consumers will want what is best for them, which is how people make decisions.
On nuclear, I've read stuff that makes it seem the biggest proponents pander to that source but aren't nearly as interested in it as wind/solar for the obvious risk-related reason. But then I've read stuff which basically says that today nuclear is more reliable and a much better option on a large-scale than either wind or solar.
So, will rolling blackouts "work themselves out" because wind and solar can't provide enough volume? That doesn't seem acceptable to most living in the first world.
I don't share 09's fatalistic view, but have no faith in government moving to accomplish anything meaningful, and the lack of this administration's plan for a transition to EV's, short of disrupting domestic oil supply to the point of forcing most people to seek alternative means of transportation, is a piss poor one.
And reversibility is a hope, not a certainty; I would wager that we're recycling plastics at a higher rate now than at anytime since the widespread use of plastics, and the ocean is apparently full of plastic/micro-plastic.
Exactly, and that's why pretty much every car company is manufacturing EVs.
The technology and pricing caught up to where they are a better option for a large chunk of the population.
Still have a ways to go.
Right. Depends on your framing.
In 100 years, we may not need nuclear energy at all... so forward thinking I think you can say lets not spend a ton of resources in nuclear when can invest more in renewable energy without the potential for catastrophic consequences... but shorter term, we absolutely need nuclear energy and it is a significantly better option than burning coal and oil.
"This is not science," says "Mother Nature" guy.
Well... yes.
That will work itself out because that is not something that is acceptable.
It's not like anyone wants to just turn power off. It's a decades long transition.
you can slow down the increase on climate change that weve already attributed to. its not mutually exclusive.
and i group this into an environment conversation.
he can only understand how it works if you equate it to the economy. or if it came out of trumps mouth maybe.
You said warming will "hopefully" be reversed. That is not science. That is wishful thinking.
Time for a re-programming, Mr. Robot.
Consensus? Is that how science works? Everyone gets together and decides what the science will be? If that’s true my sixth grade elementary school science teacher who explained the scientific method and the need for provable hypothisies owes me an apology.
I am amazed at how gullible people are to groupthink these days. It's sad, really. Independent thinking has gone out the window, in favor of whatever way the political winds are blowing.
I'm not really sure what your point is. All the scientists come to a consensus, yeah. That's scientific consensus. Do you think there's something wrong with GHG emissions hypothesis or something? What's your point?
Anyway, thanks for participating. I hope you will elaborate on what you mean because it sure seems to be irrelevant. I also hope Akok Akok and Corey Floyd Jr. have breakout seasons this year.
