What if Greta Thunberg woke up to her perfect world?

originally posted by: Annee
About 97% of scientist support that it is a real thing endangering future earth and its inhabitants.

I lean in the general direction of agreeing with them.

IF Greta (and company) provide information and opportunities people can plug into (by their own actions) -- I'm all for it.

I think of Greta and "Stop Oil" as Climatocracy Fundamentalists, the heretical equivalent of ISIS. The over-over-over-the-top reaction of forcing battery EV's on the public and business is the most ridiculous answer to appease the fundamentalists. By some estimates, the Ford F-150 Lightning causes 6x the pollution to bring to the showroom as a standard IC F-150.

How does it work here in the Northeast, where it gets cold, when I need a 300 AMP electric service to be able to run both my cold weather heat pump AND my EV charger? And surprise, my electric provider can't give me a 300 AMP service with the current infrastructure. The best they can do is 240 AMPS -- slow charing and cold home, with 60% range of my EV when it's cold out.

originally posted by: TheSkepticGuy23

originally posted by: Annee
About 97% of scientist support that it is a real thing endangering future earth and its inhabitants.

I lean in the general direction of agreeing with them.

IF Greta (and company) provide information and opportunities people can plug into (by their own actions) -- I'm all for it.

I think of Greta and "Stop Oil" as Climatocracy Fundamentalists, the heretical equivalent of ISIS. The over-over-over-the-top reaction of forcing battery EV's on the public and business is the most ridiculous answer to appease the fundamentalists. By some estimates, the Ford F-150 Lightning causes 6x the pollution to bring to the showroom as a standard IC F-150.

How does it work here in the Northeast, where it gets cold, when I need a 300 AMP electric service to be able to run both my cold weather heat pump AND my EV charger? And surprise, my electric provider can't give me a 300 AMP service with the current infrastructure. The best they can do is 240 AMPS -- slow charing and cold home, with 60% range of my EV when it's cold out.

I agree.

Probably more needs to be done for alternative energies -- but ya can't have an "iffy" vehicle in Siberia (or equivalent).

I'm against motorized sports -- I'd be crucified by fans of Nascar or military air shows.

Are these things really needed? Do they measure their emissions like cow farts?

originally posted by: Annee
Probably more needs to be done for alternative energies

Just a small, but BIG thing... you can't mine the materials needed for EV vehicles without expending TONS of diesel fuel. Estimates range from 10x to 20x that of materials needed for IC vehicles.


Don't get me started on what to do when all those big batteries reach end-of-life.

I've walked for over eighteen years and when I'm able to buy in another ten I don't want a goddamn EV.

I'll be living 45 miles from town and can't afford the cost care and upkeep of a EV.

Gas and oil or I'm gonna die of starvation in the sticks for lack of transportation for bimonthly grocery runs.

originally posted by: TheSkepticGuy23

originally posted by: Annee
Probably more needs to be done for alternative energies

Just a small, but BIG thing... you can't mine the materials needed for EV vehicles without expending TONS of diesel fuel. Estimates range from 10x to 20x that of materials needed for IC vehicles.


Don't get me started on what to do when all those big batteries reach end-of-life.

My daughter drives a truck in a gold mine.

I have listened to a show in the past that went through the whole process and cost of just getting materials needed to build a certain type of "environmental engine."

Back to the drawing board.

a reply to: TheSkepticGuy23

My mama lived in a time/place where petroleum products weren’t used. Life was hard but simple.
When she was close to death she said that things are very convenient and easy now but people have lost their way.
She said back then everyone knew all their neighbors, and they were considered family and everyone shared and helped.
She said the work was hard but they didn’t know any better because they were so used to it.

Also a lot of what was portrayed in that meme was incorrect. Cold floors? People have known how to warm floors for hundreds of years. WOOL rugs, Fur Rugs anyone? Some countries even had under house heat.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

Also a lot of what was portrayed in that meme was incorrect. Cold floors? People have known how to warm floors for hundreds of years. WOOL rugs, Fur Rugs anyone? Some countries even had under house heat.

Exactly. What about just good old fashioned wood floors? About as sustainable as you can get if properly managed.

Let us not forget flax and hemp too. And bamboo. That stuff can be made into pretty much anything it seems too.

And, personally, given energy costs, I have realised the utter genius of the hot water bottle.

Heat the person not the building

a reply to: TheSkepticGuy23

Technology moves onward. Same as the buggy whip manufacturers when the autocar was first on the scene. Laws will be passed and society as a whole will move onward.

Thats just my opinion.

originally posted by: Waterglass
Technology moves onward. Same as the buggy whip manufacturers when the autocar was first on the scene.

Funny analogy. One of the benefits of "horseless carriages" at the time was cleaner/safer roadways without all the piles of horse crap.

It still stands, the mandated march toward battery EVs creates MORE carbon/pollution, and places an impossible demand on electricity generation. Bonus points: currently, burning more coal is the only way to increase grid capacity.

originally posted by: TheSkepticGuy23
One of the benefits of "horseless carriages" at the time was cleaner/safer roadways without all the piles of horse crap.

That crap's great for the roses though. And the veggies. Any useful waste products from car emissions? Big No.

You've convinced me, let's go back to horse and cart. It's an excellent, if partial, solution. Use all that # to boost localised food growing initiative. win, win.

SO, you have finally revealed your genius. Thank you.

a reply to: TheSkepticGuy23

Bonus points: currently, burning more coal is the only way to increase grid capacity

I say Hydrogen long term. Could also bring NUKES back. Send nuke waste into sun?

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: TheSkepticGuy23

Bonus points: currently, burning more coal is the only way to increase grid capacity

I say Hydrogen long term. Could also bring NUKES back. Send nuke waste into sun?

I think it's a bad idea to start messing with the sun in that way.

a reply to: quintessentone

Years [decades] ago I read that scientists proposed the sun as it is radioactive

The sun, powered by nuclear fusion, emits radiation that is both necessary and harmful to life on Earth. Light and infrared radiation (heat) are needed by almost all of Earth's life forms.

I personally like the idea of small EVs. But it does depend on where you live, what your lifestyle is, the weather, how much you drive, etc.

So, choices are necessary.

But do I think you need to have a gas guzzling power truck to prove your macho-hood? Not really.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: quintessentone

Years [decades] ago I read that scientists proposed the sun as it is radioactive

The sun, powered by nuclear fusion, emits radiation that is both necessary and harmful to life on Earth. Light and infrared radiation (heat) are needed by almost all of Earth's life forms.

My view is why mess with the sun when it can be buried on the moon or mars? Why mess with our sun which is in a state of nuclear reaction when scientists can only guess what might or might not happen? Why choose the path of most resistance?

What if the super rich woke up not to their perfect world and were finally held responsible for their higher proportion of carbon emissions?

The world’s richest one per cent contributed as much carbon as the five billion people who comprise two-thirds of the globe’s poorest in 2019, which could spell out dire consequences in less than a decade, according to a new report.

The report was published Monday by Oxfam — an independent organization focused on alleviating global poverty — and conducted with the Stockholm Environment Institute.

According to the organization, the size of the emissions from the richest one per cent is enough to cause 1.3 million excess deaths due to heat, with most of these deaths expected to take place between 2020 and 2030.

“(The) report reveals not only are the super-rich getting richer, but they are disproportionately responsible for driving climate change,” Ian Thomson, Oxfam Canada manager of policy, told Global News.

“Not only are they contributing to most of the pollution that’s causing it, but they aren’t bearing the brunt of the climate disasters, the floods, the droughts that are destroying people’s homes, that are causing global hunger.”

But it is more than just personal purchases that impact carbon emissions, as those in this group also hold shares and investments in what Oxfam calls heavy-polluting industries. The report adds that 50 to 70 per cent of their emissions come from these investments. It also says that in 2022, it conducted an analysis of 125 billionaires and found on average they emitted three million tons of carbon dioxide yearly through their investments, more than a million times more than the average for someone “in the bottom 90 per cent of humanity.”

Thomson said Canada is one of the countries Oxfam would like to see the “wealth tax” placed on the richest that would then be used towards green climate solutions.

globalnews.ca...#:~:text=The%20report%20says%20the%20top,billion%20tonnes%2C%20according%20to%20Oxf am.

originally posted by: Annee
But do I think you need to have a gas guzzling power truck to prove your macho-hood? Not really.

Our neighbor across the street has a gas-guzzling-power-truck Ford F-250 super duty diesel. But then he needs it for is big dump trailer for his firewood business.

originally posted by: quintessentone
What if the super rich woke up not to their perfect world and were finally held responsible for their higher proportion of carbon emissions?

Not even a flea-fart in comparison to the emissions from India and China.

originally posted by: TheSkepticGuy23

originally posted by: quintessentone
What if the super rich woke up not to their perfect world and were finally held responsible for their higher proportion of carbon emissions?

Not even a flea-fart in comparison to the emissions from India and China.

The point is that it is an elephant-in-the-room-fart in comparison between the super rich and majority of the poor in the world. Sure let's put blame where blame is due.

originally posted by: TheSkepticGuy23

originally posted by: Annee
But do I think you need to have a gas guzzling power truck to prove your macho-hood? Not really.

Our neighbor across the street has a gas-guzzling-power-truck Ford F-250 super duty diesel. But then he needs it for is big dump trailer for his firewood business.

I have 1977 F350 460V8 C6 automatic.

But I don't "joy ride" it through town trying to prove how important I am.