Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
Yep, TLP. That's total counter productive crap. It's very much like religious nut jobs forecasting the END TIMES!
BAd
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Asia CO2 emissions and energy usage, meanwhile, have at least doubled and make up more than 60% of the world total.
Thank you. Ever tried to breathe in a Delhi or Bangkok traffic jam amongst tens of thousands of two stroke mopeds and cars without catalytic converters?
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
Asia CO2 emissions and energy usage, meanwhile, have at least doubled and make up more than 60% of the world total. Dave, you are entirely correct that the rate of growth in emissions in Asia is a huge concern and may make it pretty much impossible to effectively steer the battleship, but the population of Asian countries combined is about 59.3% of the total, so they'd correctly argue, 60% of world emissions is "fair". US population is less than 4.3% of the total, so it's also a concern that we're responsible for more than double the share of world CO2 emissions that would make sense based on population.
I don't adhere to any of these ways of parsing emissions, but rather I think we need to try to do what's feasible ourselves, making it possible to muster up collective international action by showing some leadership and not mincing a few percent this way or that about some metric or other. As long as a country like the U.S. that has the economic wherewithal to do anything it wants remains a subsidiary that is almost wholly controlled by the fossil fuel industry, the world is utterly screwed. We need to muddle our way out of that condition and accelerate the pace of technological advances and reductions in as many sectors as is feasible, building a foundation from which to take effective action to motivate emissions reductions in Asia. I think the novel idea of taxing stuff based on the emissions it took to create and transport it merits discussion. If that worked across borders, there would be a whole new set of incentives.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2019 - 06:55am PT
|
The entire "argument" about climate change has gone off the rails, it seems to me, and if we (as leaders, wherever they are) were smart, it could be approached differently to get the country back on track without the hate and discontent.
If you could save money at home and at work, would you want to?
I think most people would answer yes to that...
Many large businesses, from Walmart to mining companies are installing renewable energy for the sole purpose of saving money on their power bills... When you pay 25 cents per Kwh, or are operating far from a power supply, it makes sense, eh? So... sell that to thee population, too. Solar is starting to reach parity.
If it is good for the pocketbook, we can get past the hate and denial about climate change...
The arguments about natural gas are similar. It is cheap now. It won't be forever... It really is a bridge fuel...
Use peoples' desire to save money to make change... The whole Green New Deal thing is just going to polarize half the country even more against it...
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2019 - 09:41am PT
|
If the younger segment of the population were really, as a whole, that concerned, then how about voting for politicians who will take strong action?
I have no doubt the individuals quoted in the post above are concerned and want to take action; first thing they could do is motivate their fellow younger-age-class voters about it.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2019 - 09:20pm PT
|
I wouldn't say there's any degree of being uninformed or naive on the part of those, especially those who are going to live their whole lives with the consequences, who are protesting and speaking up and raising a ruckus. And I totally think everyone young or older should join in speaking up about it. I just think that in addition, voting, and voting decisively on this issue, is a really important thing to do. Time to motivate, all of us.
I'm looking to replace a seriously aging work truck, and it's really depressing that there's pretty much no viable alternative that's not ICE that has the needed characteristics to be a work truck. There's supposed to be a Tesla truck at some point, and Rivian supposedly has an electric truck coming out next year, but it's not a work truck: there's no option with a bed even as long as 6 feet, let alone the 8' that used to be a standard pickup truck. Truck, folks, it's not a car with a little bitty trunk. If trucks/SUVs weren't excluded from mileage requirements, and those were made more stringent, there'd be a much bigger incentive for manufacturers to offer a sensible vehicle in this category.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2019 - 06:58am PT
|
The children are "going on strike"?
Ooooo. That should cause significant economic devastation.
I wonder how all those children will react when they find out Mom's Taxi is closed. No more rides for non-essential activities! Say goodbye to all your electronic toys, too.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2019 - 10:25am PT
|
If trucks/SUVs weren't excluded from mileage requirements, and those were made more stringent, there'd be a much bigger incentive for manufacturers to offer a sensible vehicle in this category.
Mandates are better than nothing. But carbon taxes would be more effective and more efficient.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2019 - 02:38pm PT
|
The Toyota rav4 2019 with basic AWD gets 30 MPG Combined, 26 City/34 Highway
The hybrid version AWD is rated 39 MPG Combined, 41 City / 37 Highway
which is 30% higher.
Where is the well designed truck hybrid that gets 30% more mpg?
It might be doable, but is the problem the attitude of most truck buyers?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
Straight Outta Crafton
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2019 - 02:50pm PT
|
Why aren't more people concerned about it?
I don't know, but they're not. Not according to polling. The Climate ranks last - if it shows at all - when people are asked what they think is important. Climate finishes behind the economy, jobs, and "build the wall" when government priorities are polled.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2019 - 03:25pm PT
|
Global Warming = Large hit to economy and jobs, and even causes migration.
These are not separate issues.
https://www.thebalance.com/effects-of-global-warming-on-the-economy-3305692
>> Impact of 2.5 C and 3 C Increase
In 1975, Professor William Nordhaus first warned about the economic impact of global warming. He predicted that doubling carbon dioxide would increase temperatures by 2 C. Temperatures above that level risk hitting a tipping point. A large portion of the polar ice caps would melt, increasing sea levels. This would create a feedback loop that could raise temperature 5 C in the long-term. Instead of heeding Professor Nordhaus's warning, man has allowed temperature increases to accelerate.
In May 2018, Stanford University scientists calculated how much global warming would cost the global economy. If the world's nations adhered to the Paris Climate Agreement, and temperatures only rose 2.5%, then global gross domestic product would fall 15%.
Despite the Paris agreement, most nations aren't doing enough to reduce temperatures by the 2 C target. If they don't improve, scientists predict temperatures will rise to 3 C. If that happens, global GDP would fall 25%.
If nothing is done, temperatures will rise by 4 C by 2100. Global GDP would decline by more than 30% from 2010 levels. That's worse than the Great Depression, where global trade fell 25%. The only difference is that it would be permanent.
>> Impact of a 4 C Increase
In 2014, the World Bank warned that temperatures will increase by 4 C if nothing is done. At that temperature, all the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica would melt. Sea levels would rise 33 feet.
In 2017, the U.S. National Climate Assessment echoed the World Bank's warning. Average temperatures would increase up to 10 F by 2100. The Arctic would see an average temperature increase of 18 F. That would increase sea levels by 8 feet, flooding every major coastal city.
Seas would continue to rise by one foot per decade. That's too fast to allow humans to build anew.
The hot temperatures would dry out the land. As a result, California and the Great Plains would experience a new, permanent Dust Bowl. Some areas would experience 131-degree heat waves. Wildfires would burn 64 times as much as it did in 2018.
The United Nations warned of the worst famine since 1945. It estimates 20 million people will starve to death or die of dehydration. It reported that one in every nine people are already facing hunger. That figure is climbing due to global warming. Drought is killing crops and drying up water sources. This is creating a global security threat, particularly in North Africa. People are migrating to survive. Disengaged youth are particularly vulnerable to radicalization.
The damage would exceed $600 trillion, double the total wealth of everyone on the planet. That would shrink the global economy by 20% from what it is today.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2019 - 08:47pm PT
|
is the problem the attitude of most truck buyers?
No. Maybe some, but an SUV has insufficient cargo capacity (weight, space) for a whole lot of things you use a work truck for. Also, no soccer mom SUV can handle the difficult terrain that many truck users drive on a regular basis. In fact, it's only a limited selection of trucks that can either.
The promising concept is the one used by the Chevy Volt, which also harkens back to heavy mining or earthmoving equipment of decades ago: electric motors, with an on-board fossil fuel generator. This ratchets your mileage up a lot, without sacrificing range or ability to work in remote locations with few or no charging opportunities. All electric or fuel cells or whatever is the longterm solution, but in between, electric with onboard generator is the way. There is a truck built on this concept, but we need a range of them.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2019 - 08:29am PT
|
^^^ years ago?
Still in use... Because battery technology can't handle large loads for more than a couple hours, and costs 2x diesel.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2019 - 08:52am PT
|
Trucks are getting bigger and bigger. Few are used for their designed purpose. They're just large cars. Luxury items.
We should go back to raising CAFE standards and apply those standards to ALL non-commercial vehicles.
|
|
formerclimber
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2019 - 08:59am PT
|
Dave, you are entirely correct that the rate of growth in emissions in Asia is a huge concern and may make it pretty much impossible to effectively steer the battleship, but the population of Asian countries combined is about 59.3% of the total, so they'd correctly argue, 60% of world emissions is "fair". US population is less than 4.3% of the total, so it's also a concern that we're responsible for more than double the share of world CO2 emissions that would make sense based on population.
Well then, clearly, overpopulation in these countries is as much of a problem as US high consumption.
They should start cutting on their overpopulation, for starters.
I don't adhere to any of these ways of parsing emissions, but rather I think we need to try to do what's feasible ourselves, making it possible to muster up collective international action by showing some leadership and not mincing a few percent this way or that about some metric or other. As long as a country like the U.S. that has the economic wherewithal to do anything it wants remains a subsidiary that is almost wholly controlled by the fossil fuel industry, the world is utterly screwed. We need to muddle our way out of that condition and accelerate the pace of technological advances and reductions in as many sectors as is feasible, building a foundation from which to take effective action to motivate emissions reductions in Asia. I think the novel idea of taxing stuff based on the emissions it took to create and transport it merits discussion. If that worked across borders, there would be a whole new set of incentives.
Great, choke already struggling people with more taxes, while jobs keep going away to China/workforce here is no longer cheap enough for globalist business. And you'll get either Hitler or Lenin win the next election here.
|
|
formerclimber
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2019 - 09:12am PT
|
I wonder why people keep buying homes in Southern latitudes/states in increasing numbers.
Phoenix (!) got real estate boom over the last few years.
It's already unbearably hot and not livable anywhere, say, South of close to Northern California border, but people keep relocating to warmer latitudes, not just in the US.
Aren't they concerned with further temperature increases?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2019 - 09:44am PT
|
TLP.
I would say the problem is truck buyers.
The problem isn't that SUVs don't meet their needs.
The problem is that the crowd that buys work trucks isn't interested, for the most part, in electric hybrids. So the market is too small to bring electric hybrid work trucks to market.
A lot of identity politics going on. Another example.
It's not that Toyota can't make a competitive full size truck. But a significant number of full size truck buyers would never even consider buying one.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2019 - 10:37am PT
|
Why not?
I'd buy an electric Tacoma if it was offered, and could charge in a reasonable time.
I'd buy electric fleets for my mine... But right now, and for the foreseeable future they can only run for a couple hours before you need to swap batteries or charge. That is not an option in my world. I need 9-10 hours of run time.
Price is also an issue - 2x the cost of current tech is not incentivizing me to buy electric.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2019 - 02:02pm PT
|
Really useful and relevant points being raised here; I agree with just about all of them even though some seem to be opposite to others.
Former, I agree about the population issue and Asia. It's even a bigger one for Africa, which will be severely affected by climate change (already is). My point is, here we are now, what do we do? Individually, as the various nations, and globally. Any approach that just seizes on one or another parameter about emissions is not going to be effective in steering the battleship away from the iceberg.
Your frantic reaction about taxes is a perfect example: nothing should be off the table. You don't seem to have read my comment very closely: if there were a carbon tax that took into account production and transportation, that would avoid exactly the problem you raise. True, labor cost is lower in Asia. But if the carbon cost is way higher, which is also the case, and the cost of transportation across oceans is included, now it might be possible to make some effective changes in the global manufacturing structure that doesn't tend to create exactly the incentive you oppose. It is not easy, but there is no chance of improvement if we don't address all the major contributing factors. It would also be possible to direct 100% (ideally) of that carbon tax to the sector of the population for which it is regressive: eliminate other taxes, EIC, etc. There are lots of pragmatic ways to make it work.
I'm sure there are truck buyers who will never buy a vehicle that doesn't make loud noise and burn a lot of fuel. But there are way more of them, or at least plenty enough to be a market sector, who would be open to a functional hybrid or electric truck that has bed capacity and rough terrain capability. If that vehicle category had to meet some fleet mileage standards, and/or if there were carbon tax, the cost benefit calculation for a more efficient truck makes it feasible to change behavior, even if they cost more.
There's me, and there's Dave just above, and I'm sure a lot of others. I'm not sure 9-10 hrs run time is necessary for most applications. Even long haul truckers take breaks. People don't work that long without stopping to eat, there's your recharging time.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!