(04-25-2019, 09:48 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(04-24-2019, 11:57 PM)TJBender Wrote: 1. Anyone who says that they're driving a Tesla to save the environment is full of it. They're driving a Tesla because they have more dollars than sense and they want to drive a Tesla.


2. Well, no, that's pretty much totally wrong, but even if we pretend that batteries are the devil, hydrogen fuel cell technology would more than solve that problem. I'd say let's fund it, but when the EPA is totally made of fossil fuel lobbyists, I'll forgive you for having the Trump-level understanding of how energy works.


3. Not necessarily. It's a critical mass thing, and the reason it won't work in America anytime soon is that it relies heavily on public transit. This country hasn't done all that great a job of setting up public transit systems that can actually take a sizable number of cars off the road. If you can shift most of your commuters over to using public transit for all or part of their journey on a daily basis, you'll get closer and closer to the point where the economic and environmental savings are significant. "A Prius in every driveway" isn't going to do anything but make Toyota shareholders rich.


4. ...aaaaaaaaaaaand we got there.

1. Yeppers! Government subsidized toys for rich people. What's not to like?

2. A hydrogen fuel cell is a pipe dream. Hydrogen is a [BLEEP] to contain. And even if someone could create a battery with the power density of gasoline, it would be a lot more dangerous than gasoline.

3. Public transit doesn't work in most of the US because people and jobs are just too spread out. Why take a bus/train that takes twice as long to get near your workplace but still dumps you out a mile or two away?

4. There is some warming from CO2. Not nearly as much as the media claim, and the warming is beneficial (90% or more of the warming is in cold climates, most of the rest is at night), as is the CO2 itself (low levels of CO2 during the last glaciation came close to killing off all C3 plant life). The big "LIE" is in the gross exaggeration of impending disaster. Scientists (other than a few activists) are not claiming a disaster, but they also won't refute press releases that claim disaster because the alarm is fueling their careers to the tune of billions of $$ per year in research funds (the entire NSF budget in the 1980's before the Global Warming religion was founded was about 1% of that). 

And yes, anything the US or Europe can do to cut down on CO2 is Marty's "bucket of water in the ocean" as far as affecting the global temperature.

You're correct that the warming or change up to this point has been beneficial and seems to correlate to more pleasant temperatures in high latitudes and higher crop yields.
However, it's also led to more frequent intense hurricanes. And more frequent intense, multi-year droughts.
But if the warming trend continues the ice caps will melt significantly and sea levels will rise significantly.
North America will lose Miami and maybe New Orleans and Houston too.
Half of Bangladesh will be underwater.
Other areas will be abandoned because their heat and humidity will literally kill. the west coast of India is likely to be first, but other areas will follow.

---