Steps you can take to combat climate change

  • 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for sonicare
#1 Posted by sonicare (56798 posts) -

So reading through some articles today. Was not aware of this, but the chemicals in refrigerators are about 1400 times worse than carbon dioxide as a green house gas. Makes, sense since they are designed to insulate. Apparently, leaky refrigerators and poor disposal contributes a significant amount to the impending climate crisis. World is moving on this to ban the specific chemicals - should not impact most people. An easy target to help combat global warming.

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/when-refrigerators-warm-the-planet/

Wind energy. I was not aware of how much energy we actually got from it. Not bad, and becoming cheaper and more efficient. Push your utility companies to make more investment.

https://environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/more-wind-less-warming

Some interesting ideas for individuals as well

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/stopglobalwarming.php

Avatar image for Master_Live
#2 Posted by Master_Live (19656 posts) -

As I see it, if saving the planet requires (big) sacrifices, then the planet won't be saved.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#3 Posted by Master_Live (19656 posts) -

By saved I mean hospitable for humans as currently conceived, but the planet will go on with or without us (of course), it doesn't care.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#4 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10874 posts) -

Eat less meat, live in a smaller home. Apartments and denser living arrangements help when compared to a larger house. The cubic volume to heat or cool it is far less. Like you mentioned, phasing out older devices and chemicals over time needs to be instituted. Everyone always balks at the idea but I still think we need to think about eating for 'bugs'. They're healthy, lean, and less resource intensive to farm. But that is a hard thing to sell people.

Avatar image for sonicare
#5 Posted by sonicare (56798 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

As I see it, if saving the planet requires (big) sacrifices, then the planet won't be saved.

That's the thing, though. Some of the sacrifices are quite small or not sacrifices at all.

Avatar image for heirren
#6 Posted by Heirren (2216 posts) -

@sonicare:

People dont care. Its simple.

Avatar image for sonicare
#7 Posted by sonicare (56798 posts) -

@heirren said:

@sonicare:

People dont care. Its simple.

A lot more do than you think. Climate change is actually a concern for a decent amount of US citizens, and globally, for a large amount of people in industrialized nations.

Avatar image for heirren
#8 Posted by Heirren (2216 posts) -

@sonicare:

No, they really dont. People say one thing but do another.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#9 Edited by mrbojangles25 (44115 posts) -

I know people as individuals can do a lot, and I know a lot of people do some stuff already, but honestly I think it's up to business and the private sector to make the big, lasting changes. They contribute so much crap into the environment it dwarfs what the general public contributes.

I think if we started seeing the government lead the charge by creating new regulations, and then corporations taking up that mantle as leaders in the fight for the planet, then you'd see people start to follow suit. I still think electric vehicles or vehicles that run on fuel from renewable sources are a good start; if we could get 90% of the cars out there converted into vehicles that don't pollute, that'd be a start. I don't think that's too crazy an idea, either. You c an make some pretty hot electric vehicles, just look at some of the stuff Audi, Porsche, and Tesla are coming up with. If you want to spend 150k USD on a car that can go 0-60 mph in 2.5 seconds, you can spend it on an electric car if you want.

I don't think people mind sacrifice that much, what they don't like is inconvenience. I would happily give up my truck that gets 10 miles per gallon if I got a free electric car in return (or only had to pay 10% of it); it would not be as fun to drive, probably would not be as comfortable, wouldn't go as fast, and I probably would not like it as much--all sacrifices I'd have to give up--but it would not be an inconvenience.

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Eat less meat, live in a smaller home. Apartments and denser living arrangements help when compared to a larger house. The cubic volume to heat or cool it is far less. Like you mentioned, phasing out older devices and chemicals over time needs to be instituted. Everyone always balks at the idea but I still think we need to think about eating for 'bugs'. They're healthy, lean, and less resource intensive to farm. But that is a hard thing to sell people.

My friend did a report on that for his doctorate, it's pretty crazy how much protein you can get from bugs. I think cows are like 1 lb of product for 10 pounds of feed, chickens are 3 lb, but insects are like 9 lb of protein for 10 lb of feed, they're that efficient.

Furthermore they can be processed into meal and formed into protein bars, meat-substitutes, and they are far more easily digested than red meat, pork, and poultry.

I don't know if I could straight-up eat a bug, you know like a big bulbous abdomen that pops in your mouth when you bite into it, but I could certainly eat a product made from bugs.

@heirren said:

@sonicare:

No, they really dont. People say one thing but do another.

Fair enough, but the question is if people could do more--i.e. they weren't limited by financial restrictions, maybe even they were rewarded for their efforts--would they?

I think yes.

If owned a house and was told that there is a program in place that would buy my solar panels for me, but I had to give my excess energy back into the grid for free in return, I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat. If I collected grey water, and there was a program in place that said for every ten gallons I put back into the watershed I get a credit for such-and-such, that'd be cool. If

Avatar image for Master_Live
#10 Posted by Master_Live (19656 posts) -

Oh well, getting a free a car in exchange for your old one, sure that would work. Who's paying for that? Right, "it pays for itself", "it is necessary so we have to find the money", "can't if there's no planet left to drive on", "GOP isn't worried too much about tax cuts" yada yada yada.

I didn't know we where in propose whatever you want land.

Outside of a quantum leap in technology soon enough this whole "we have 10 years to avert the 2.5C threshold" is a fantasy.

Countries, governments, people, nature will simply adapt, they already are and will continue to do so.

The truth is that when people are inside that cardboard box and no one is watching they show you who they truly are and what they value. Some people, many in fact, won't lift one finger to avert disaster. Inconvenience?, you haven't seen a thing. That's why the Republican party won't die. People like having a safety valve if the Democrats go too cray cray (and vice versa). Democrats may win the WH in 2020, keep the House and even flip the Senate and the very moment after the networks call election on that 1st Tuesday after November 1 the clock starts ticking away. Anything close to a Green New Deal means the House goes back to the GOP. And the game starts anew.

Free cars, right.

Avatar image for n64dd
#11 Posted by N64DD (11968 posts) -

Nobody will do anything of significance because climate change is only taken seriously when it’s convienant.

Avatar image for horgen
#12 Posted by Horgen (120889 posts) -

I thought the 134A gas was already phased out many places. Airconditions in newer car in EU doesn't use it anymore I think.

The 35 things you can do yourself. Some of them are really easy to do. Personally riding my bike to work. Electric one, just a small 250W engine, but that alone provides plenty of help. Compared to driving I spend perhaps 3 minutes more to work, and 5-10 minutes more home. It's all uphill on the way home. Compared to public transport, I save some 10 minutes or more. Moneywise I think I will save about 100$ a month.

@n64dd said:

Nobody will do anything of significance because climate change is only taken seriously when it’s convienant.

When many of these things become convenient it is to late I think.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#13 Posted by Solaryellow (5089 posts) -
@mrbojangles25 said:

I think if we started seeing the government lead the charge by creating new regulations, and then corporations taking up that mantle as leaders in the fight for the planet, then you'd see people start to follow suit. I still think electric vehicles or vehicles that run on fuel from renewable sources are a good start; if we could get 90% of the cars out there converted into vehicles that don't pollute, that'd be a start. I don't think that's too crazy an idea, either. You c an make some pretty hot electric vehicles, just look at some of the stuff Audi, Porsche, and Tesla are coming up with. If you want to spend 150k USD on a car that can go 0-60 mph in 2.5 seconds, you can spend it on an electric car if you want.

My friend did a report on that for his doctorate, it's pretty crazy how much protein you can get from bugs. I think cows are like 1 lb of product for 10 pounds of feed, chickens are 3 lb, but insects are like 9 lb of protein for 10 lb of feed, they're that efficient.

Furthermore they can be processed into meal and formed into protein bars, meat-substitutes, and they are far more easily digested than red meat, pork, and poultry.

I don't know if I could straight-up eat a bug, you know like a big bulbous abdomen that pops in your mouth when you bite into it, but I could certainly eat a product made from bugs.

Just a few things caught my attention:

1.) The electricity for electric cars comes from where? Renewable resources are great, in theory, but how we put that into everyday life is a task.

2.) Bugs. Asians love creepy crawlers and if you can get past the "eating with your eyes first" apparently some are very tasty. I hate spiders, especially Tarantulas, but seeing the Vietnamese, Cambodians, etc.., prepare these things is crazy and from what some say they taste like soft shell crab. Other bugs? I'm not sure. I guess if I was starving.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#14 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10874 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

Bugs. Asians love creepy crawlers and if you can get past the "eating with your eyes first" apparently some are very tasty. I hate spiders, especially Tarantulas, but seeing the Vietnamese, Cambodians, etc.., prepare these things is crazy and from what some say they taste like soft shell crab. Other bugs? I'm not sure. I guess if I was starving.

We already eat bugs, we just call it sea food. Apparently bugs from the water = good. Bugs from the land = bad. It's a hard sell but people need to put it into perspective.

What do we think, crayfish, lobster, clams, oysters, squid, crabs, scallops are? Just bunch of 'bugs' (generalities included).

Avatar image for Serraph105
#15 Posted by Serraph105 (33961 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

As I see it, if saving the planet requires (big) sacrifices, then the planet won't be saved.

I actually agree with this. It will be technological innovations and government regulations that will end up making the difference. People collectively making sacrifices won't work, not because it's right or wrong, but because it goes against human nature and you can't make global plans that goes against human nature and expect it to work.

Avatar image for Maroxad
#16 Posted by Maroxad (15272 posts) -

@heirren said:

@sonicare:

No, they really dont. People say one thing but do another.

Except they really do.

Over here it is the norm to recycle in around 8 different categories, not using plastic bags, and a lot of other smaller things, that are actually listed here.

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Eat less meat, live in a smaller home. Apartments and denser living arrangements help when compared to a larger house. The cubic volume to heat or cool it is far less. Like you mentioned, phasing out older devices and chemicals over time needs to be instituted. Everyone always balks at the idea but I still think we need to think about eating for 'bugs'. They're healthy, lean, and less resource intensive to farm. But that is a hard thing to sell people.

That sounds interesting.

I have already dropped the red meat from my diet. It didnt taste that great anyways.

Avatar image for kadin_kai
#17 Posted by Kadin_Kai (513 posts) -

There are quite a few things we can do already. But not all of it applies to everyone of course.

1. Bring a reusable bag(s) for your grocery shopping.

2. Drive less and walk/cycle more. If you do drive to work, buy a smaller electric car. Or take turns in picking up your colleagues. Drive slower!

3. Take a train instead of a plane

4. Eat local food rather than imported food

5. Cook your food with an induction cooker

6. Don’t leave your electronics on standby

7. Stop buying physical media and accept streaming.

8. Use less air conditioning or don’t turn it on super cold (this is the most painful for me)

9. Use your phone for an extra year

10. And the stuff already mentioned above installing solar panels, eat less meat and etc.

Just a few thoughts....

Avatar image for joebones5000
#18 Posted by joebones5000 (2619 posts) -

Want to make the biggest impact to the environment in the quickest, easiest way? Stop voting Republican. I know it's difficult for some because they are so impressionable, but as soon as you start to think critically about the things they say and do it becomes easy. If you are not sure if you are thinking critically, you aren't alone. Most people don't do it. YouTube - how to think critically.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#19 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36467 posts) -

Makes me glad I don't have a car (but if I did drive, I'll take an electric vehicle), let alone learn to drive.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#20 Edited by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

@sonicare said:

So reading through some articles today. Was not aware of this, but the chemicals in refrigerators are about 1400 times worse than carbon dioxide as a green house gas. Makes, sense since they are designed to insulate. Apparently, leaky refrigerators and poor disposal contributes a significant amount to the impending climate crisis. World is moving on this to ban the specific chemicals - should not impact most people. An easy target to help combat global warming.

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/when-refrigerators-warm-the-planet/

Wind energy. I was not aware of how much energy we actually got from it. Not bad, and becoming cheaper and more efficient. Push your utility companies to make more investment.

https://environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/more-wind-less-warming

Some interesting ideas for individuals as well

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/stopglobalwarming.php

All renewables are viable only in very specific geographical climate conditions. Don't be fooled about how good solar panels and wind turbines can be just because they can and do work very well in certain places.

And the vast majority of those 35 points are either inconsequential (tupperware lunch, water conservation), nonsensical (#33 to 35...) or too expensive/inconvenient. Do them if you think it'll make you feel better but don't for a second assume you'll make any difference by hanging your towels to dry when you're outside the house so you can wash them two less times a year. The biggest contribution americans could do to cut down their CO2 emissions overnight would be to get rid of all the SUVs you guys have and replaced them with lightweight vehicles but good luck with that, most people buy SUVs to be annoying in the first place lol

Avatar image for npiet1
#21 Posted by npiet1 (2474 posts) -

I wonder how much the greenhouse difference between people and business compare?

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#22 Posted by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

@npiet1 said:

I wonder how much the greenhouse difference between people and business compare?

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=environment_where_ghg_come_from

20% of CO2 comes from residential consumption, 28% from transportation, 18% from shops, malls and markets, 31% from industrial complexes, no idea about the remaining 3%

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#23 Posted by foxhound_fox (98011 posts) -

The biggest step that we as general citizens can do is vote. One person's impact on CO2 emissions by buying a gasoline-electric hybrid car is microscopic compared to the government outlawing the use of fossil fuels as a source of electricity.

Avatar image for horgen
#24 Edited by Horgen (120889 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

The biggest step that we as general citizens can do is vote. One person's impact on CO2 emissions by buying a gasoline-electric hybrid car is microscopic compared to the government outlawing the use of fossil fuels as a source of electricity.

As long as we keep buying fossile fueled cars, the lobbying will go towards keeping them.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#25 Posted by Jacanuk (18714 posts) -
@horgen said:
@foxhound_fox said:

The biggest step that we as general citizens can do is vote. One person's impact on CO2 emissions by buying a gasoline-electric hybrid car is microscopic compared to the government outlawing the use of fossil fuels as a source of electricity.

As long as we keep buying fossile fueled cars, the lobbying will go towards keeping them.

And that is not a problem

Until you can have a car like a fossil fueled car where you can feel and hear the engine and also refuel it quick and easy then there is no idea in buying a different fueled car.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#26 Posted by foxhound_fox (98011 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

And that is not a problem

Until you can have a car like a fossil fueled car where you can feel and hear the engine and also refuel it quick and easy then there is no idea in buying a different fueled car.

That's where hydrogen comes in. HICEV motors run just like a gasoline- or diesel-powered engine, but emit only water as exhaust.

Too bad the big oil corporations have been stifling it's development for 30 years. We've even got an easily transportable source of hydrogen now in anhydrous ammonia.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#27 Posted by Jacanuk (18714 posts) -
@foxhound_fox said:
@Jacanuk said:

And that is not a problem

Until you can have a car like a fossil fueled car where you can feel and hear the engine and also refuel it quick and easy then there is no idea in buying a different fueled car.

That's where hydrogen comes in. HICEV motors run just like a gasoline- or diesel-powered engine, but emit only water as exhaust.

Too bad the big oil corporations have been stifling it's development for 30 years. We've even got an easily transportable source of hydrogen now in anhydrous ammonia.

Which is a shame and it´s a shame that we seem to so insanely focus on Electic cars instead of as you say use hydrogen.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#28 Posted by foxhound_fox (98011 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Which is a shame and it´s a shame that we seem to so insanely focus on Electic cars instead of as you say use hydrogen.

But there's big money in electric cars. From the mining of cobalt and lithium and shipping it around the world to different manufacturing faculties, using fossil-fueled transports, to up-charging environmentally-minded people thinking they are making a difference by buying one.

Gas- and diesel-electric hybrid cars and trucks are an appropriate stop-gap until a proper hydrogen distribution infrastructure can be installed in North America. All-electric is a dead-end so long as the US government continues to use coal-burning power plants.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#29 Posted by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

The biggest step that we as general citizens can do is vote. One person's impact on CO2 emissions by buying a gasoline-electric hybrid car is microscopic compared to the government outlawing the use of fossil fuels as a source of electricity.

Please explain to us how exactly do you plan to generate the 79MWh per capita that the average US citizen consumes in a year without using fossil fuels.

No in fact don't explain it to us, go to a university's energy or physics department and explain it to them. I'm sure there are at least half a century's worth of Nobel prizes waiting just for you to illuminate the world with your wisdom

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#30 Posted by foxhound_fox (98011 posts) -

@N30F3N1X said:

Please explain to us how exactly do you plan to generate the 79MWh per capita that the average US citizen consumes in a year without using fossil fuels.

No in fact don't explain it to us, go to a university's energy or physics department and explain it to them. I'm sure there are at least half a century's worth of Nobel prizes waiting just for you to illuminate the world with your wisdom

Oh, I don't know... nuclear fission, hydro-electric, wind turbines and solar panels? All the "evil" alternative energy sources that conservatives feel are destroying their "traditional way of life". The rest of the world is making strides to cut out fossil fuel-powered electricity, so what's the US's problem?

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#31 Posted by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
@Jacanuk said:

And that is not a problem

Until you can have a car like a fossil fueled car where you can feel and hear the engine and also refuel it quick and easy then there is no idea in buying a different fueled car.

That's where hydrogen comes in. HICEV motors run just like a gasoline- or diesel-powered engine, but emit only water as exhaust.

Too bad the big oil corporations have been stifling it's development for 30 years. We've even got an easily transportable source of hydrogen now in anhydrous ammonia.

Oil corporations really don't give a shit. The only real competition they could have is nuclear but the entirety of the world is scared of it because of those dumb **** communists and their mishandling of the Chernobyl disaster. There are no other viable energy sources that can be exploited as much as oil can so whether it's power plants or cars buying from them it doesn't make a difference.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#32 Posted by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
@N30F3N1X said:

Please explain to us how exactly do you plan to generate the 79MWh per capita that the average US citizen consumes in a year without using fossil fuels.

No in fact don't explain it to us, go to a university's energy or physics department and explain it to them. I'm sure there are at least half a century's worth of Nobel prizes waiting just for you to illuminate the world with your wisdom

Oh, I don't know... nuclear fission, hydro-electric, wind turbines and solar panels? All the "evil" alternative energy sources that conservatives feel are destroying their "traditional way of life". The rest of the world is making strides to cut out fossil fuel-powered electricity, so what's the US's problem?

As I said before, all of those things only work in limited circumstances subject to geographical conditions.

Portugal can reach 100% of its electric energy requirements in March due to the time-cyclical nature of oceanic currents and the wind that comes with them, and that's about it I think. Power generation from wind degrades the further you are from the coast and hills/mountains, so it could work near mountainous areas and near the coast.

Solar has been for decades one of the greatest delusions of the green movement. Leaving aside the fact that its output is completely dependent on atmospheric conditions, making it unreliable in frequently rainy areas, it's also incapable of reaching a capacity factor that is anywhere near satisfactory. Germany went balls deep on solar and on top of the fact that they have a ridiculously expensive energy bill, they had to open up more coal plants because the demand for energy grew faster than they could place solar farms, defeating the purpose of going for solar to begin with.

Both of these sources by their very nature are also sensitive to extreme weather conditions, and hurricanes in the East Coast regularly raze entire wind/solar farms.

Hydroelectric's limits are self evident but it is a satisfactory solution. It's also the most dangerous energy source with the highest body count in the history of humanity, although admittedly I trust american engineers more than I trust italian or chinese ones.

None of these, even combined, can reach the output that fossil fuels can though, so I ask again, where do you get 79MWh per person per year from these?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#33 Posted by foxhound_fox (98011 posts) -

@N30F3N1X said:

As I said before, all of those things only work in limited circumstances subject to geographical conditions.

Portugal can reach 100% of its electric energy requirements in March due to the time-cyclical nature of oceanic currents and the wind that comes with them, and that's about it I think. Power generation from wind degrades the further you are from the coast and hills/mountains, so it could work near mountainous areas and near the coast.

Solar has been for decades one of the greatest delusions of the green movement. Leaving aside the fact that its output is completely dependent on atmospheric conditions, making it unreliable in frequently rainy areas, it's also incapable of reaching a capacity factor that is anywhere near satisfactory. Germany went balls deep on solar and on top of the fact that they have a ridiculously expensive energy bill, they had to open up more coal plants because the demand for energy grew faster than they could place solar farms, defeating the purpose of going for solar to begin with.

Both of these sources by their very nature are also sensitive to extreme weather conditions, and hurricanes in the East Coast regularly raze entire wind/solar farms.

Hydroelectric's limits are self evident but it is a satisfactory solution. It's also the most dangerous energy source with the highest body count in the history of humanity, although admittedly I trust american engineers more than I trust italian or chinese ones.

None of these, even combined, can reach the output that fossil fuels can though, so I ask again, where do you get 79MWh per person per year from these?

If the government can subsidize alternative energy to the point it can be profitable, you'll see a whole bunch of corporations get behind it. Just look at Shi Zhengrong, a man who built a billion-dollar empire on solar power.

It's called being proactive, not reactive. We're past the point where we can just let humanity fulfill the status quo.

Avatar image for horgen
#34 Posted by Horgen (120889 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:
@foxhound_fox said:

The biggest step that we as general citizens can do is vote. One person's impact on CO2 emissions by buying a gasoline-electric hybrid car is microscopic compared to the government outlawing the use of fossil fuels as a source of electricity.

As long as we keep buying fossile fueled cars, the lobbying will go towards keeping them.

And that is not a problem

Until you can have a car like a fossil fueled car where you can feel and hear the engine and also refuel it quick and easy then there is no idea in buying a different fueled car.

For our climate it is a problem.

I honestly prefer the silence of the electric engine. Sure at anything above 20-25 miles the wheels makes more noise. Recharging is improving. The Audi E-Tron can handle something like 375KW at most. That is rather fast and I assume it will be improved further in the next decade.

On the plus side being forced to a 20 minute stop every few hours might keep you more awake when you're driving and thus a lesser risk of accidents. Your body will also appreciate it.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#35 Posted by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
If the government can subsidize alternative energy to the point it can be profitable, you'll see a whole bunch of corporations get behind it. Just look at Shi Zhengrong, a man who built a billion-dollar empire on solar power.

It's called being proactive, not reactive. We're past the point where we can just let humanity fulfill the status quo.

I'm sure it's a very comforting idea believing that you can subsidize away the first two principles of thermodynamics. Too bad it's a delusion. And that guy's company went bankrupt real bad.

I have to say though, I would encourage you to found your own energy company based entirely on renewables. I'm sure that even though you'll have to price your energy at 1 dollar per KWh you could fool enough idiots into believing that it's good for them. I mean, that's the entire premise of the organic and homeopathic medicine industries so it wouldn't be unheard of.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#36 Posted by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

@horgen said:
@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:
@foxhound_fox said:

The biggest step that we as general citizens can do is vote. One person's impact on CO2 emissions by buying a gasoline-electric hybrid car is microscopic compared to the government outlawing the use of fossil fuels as a source of electricity.

As long as we keep buying fossile fueled cars, the lobbying will go towards keeping them.

And that is not a problem

Until you can have a car like a fossil fueled car where you can feel and hear the engine and also refuel it quick and easy then there is no idea in buying a different fueled car.

For our climate it is a problem.

I honestly prefer the silence of the electric engine. Sure at anything above 20-25 miles the wheels makes more noise. Recharging is improving. The Audi E-Tron can handle something like 375KW at most. That is rather fast and I assume it will be improved further in the next decade.

On the plus side being forced to a 20 minute stop every few hours might keep you more awake when you're driving and thus a lesser risk of accidents. Your body will also appreciate it.

375kW is 500 hp. I'll believe it when I see it

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#37 Edited by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

Also, the GHG emission is a globe-wide issue, not a local one. Even if the US were to drop their GHG emissions to zero overnight, it'd only yield a respite in the total emissions of a few years as China and India's quickly rising industrialization would take over the difference in less than a decade.

As much as I'd love to see nuclear plants pop all over the place because I find them extremely fascinating pieces of engineering to visit, we need a different solution than just reducing CO2 emissions.

Avatar image for horgen
#38 Posted by Horgen (120889 posts) -

@N30F3N1X said:

375kW is 500 hp. I'll believe it when I see it

Here is a 350KW one. They have announced chargers up to 475KW or so.

@N30F3N1X said:

Also, the GHG emission is a globe-wide issue, not a local one. Even if the US were to drop their GHG emissions to zero overnight, it'd only yield a respite in the total emissions of a few years as China and India's quickly rising industrialization would take over the difference in less than a decade.

As much as I'd love to see nuclear plants pop all over the place because I find them extremely fascinating pieces of engineering to visit, we need a different solution than just reducing CO2 emissions.

It would certainly help. But with that attitude nothing will ever be done.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#39 Edited by BaelNergal (570 posts) -

@horgen said:

It would certainly help. But with that attitude nothing will ever be done.

We will never achieve zero emissions. Not as long as civilization lasts. We also are going to need to think much bigger in scale; the Earth's climate is very slow to respond to stimulus, unless such stimulus is on a scale to appear suitably catastrophic. Past causes of change in a very short amount of time include large-scale die-offs of entire regions, asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions that effect the entire planet, etc. The amount of impact calculated as necessary to stop the current climate change exceeds the total destructive capacity of humanity's nuclear armament stockpiles.

Basically, nothing is going to help. All of the deadlines have passed. At this point, we need to focus on adapting and surviving what is to come, not wasting resources on trying to prevent something that may require the extinction of our entire species to even slow down.

Ironically, this means that we still need to invest in some form of alternative energy, more advanced recycling programs, etc. Everything we need to do to survive is mostly the same as what we needed to do to prevent the catastrophe to begin with.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#40 Posted by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

@horgen said:
@N30F3N1X said:

375kW is 500 hp. I'll believe it when I see it

Here is a 350KW one. They have announced chargers up to 475KW or so.

@N30F3N1X said:

Also, the GHG emission is a globe-wide issue, not a local one. Even if the US were to drop their GHG emissions to zero overnight, it'd only yield a respite in the total emissions of a few years as China and India's quickly rising industrialization would take over the difference in less than a decade.

As much as I'd love to see nuclear plants pop all over the place because I find them extremely fascinating pieces of engineering to visit, we need a different solution than just reducing CO2 emissions.

It would certainly help. But with that attitude nothing will ever be done.

My attitude comes from stark refusal to give in to the delusion that small changes in your personal habits or god forbid "spreading awareness" of climate change can have meaningful impact in challenging a worldwide issue that has gone unsolved for decades and can only be expected to continue to worsen.

Einstein didn't give us the photoeletric effect explanation, the quantization of light theory or the general relativity theory by drawing "power" from people's "awareness" because scientific progress is not a cartoon and scientists aren't Goku launching a bloody Genki Dama at some random antropomorphic evil dude called climate change.

You want to put a real dent in your carbon footprint? Never buy an electronic device again, only ever use bikes or go on foot to move around, don't turn on the AC or the heating ever again, plant trees in your garden, and convince others, MANY others, to do the same. Are you willing to do those things? Do you know many people who would be willing to do those things?
And would you be willing to tell the 3 billion chinese and indians living on the other side of the Pacific that they have to drop their industrialization efforts because YOU are worried about climate change? You know how much they care about your worries when industrialization means they are just now starting to reach the standard of living that we've been enjoying for the past 50 years?

As I said before, you are absolutely free, in fact I encourage you to do whatever you feel is meaningful to do to reduce your impact on climate change, just don't pretend it's going to help anyone but your own feelings and don't beat yourself up over not having made enough of a change because you'd be vastly overestimating your ability as a human being.

Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#41 Edited by N30F3N1X (8923 posts) -

Also, historically speaking all meaningfully impactful changes in energy have come from the building of large plants and implementation of country-wide well thought and well executed policies. As I and in part foxhound_fox said before, the only real and meaningful solution to curb GHG emissions would be to put nuclear plants all over the place.

In a wicked twist of fate, it is absolutely ironic that the same people who are actively trying to be as annoying and vocal as they can in advocating random and usually nonsensical policy changes against climate change are also some of the most adamantly opposed to the spread of nuclear power.

Avatar image for horgen
#42 Posted by Horgen (120889 posts) -

@N30F3N1X said:

My attitude comes from stark refusal to give in to the delusion that small changes in your personal habits or god forbid "spreading awareness" of climate change can have meaningful impact in challenging a worldwide issue that has gone unsolved for decades and can only be expected to continue to worsen.

Einstein didn't give us the photoeletric effect explanation, the quantization of light theory or the general relativity theory by drawing "power" from people's "awareness" because scientific progress is not a cartoon and scientists aren't Goku launching a bloody Genki Dama at some random antropomorphic evil dude called climate change.

You want to put a real dent in your carbon footprint? Never buy an electronic device again, only ever use bikes or go on foot to move around, don't turn on the AC or the heating ever again, plant trees in your garden, and convince others, MANY others, to do the same. Are you willing to do those things? Do you know many people who would be willing to do those things?

And would you be willing to tell the 3 billion chinese and indians living on the other side of the Pacific that they have to drop their industrialization efforts because YOU are worried about climate change? You know how much they care about your worries when industrialization means they are just now starting to reach the standard of living that we've been enjoying for the past 50 years?

As I said before, you are absolutely free, in fact I encourage you to do whatever you feel is meaningful to do to reduce your impact on climate change, just don't pretend it's going to help anyone but your own feelings and don't beat yourself up over not having made enough of a change because you'd be vastly overestimating your ability as a human being.

So unless 7 billion people go together to do something, nothing can ever be done. Got it.

Sure in a viewing CO2 emissions in a global perspective, if I drop the car and start using the bike instead to work, won't even be a drop in the ocean. In a global perspective though I am not alone in asking myself if I can drop the car and use a bike instead to save some money. In my neighbourhood alone several have already made that switch.

Due to the climate here, AC isn't something people normally have. Although heat pumps have become popular over the last two decades, and they can often work as an AC. Still compared to before people use far less electricity on heating their houses and rarely have need for the AC option during summer.

I know that these few things together won't save the climate. Something as simple as removing about 50 cruise ships would yield a greater effect than if 1/10 of Europe's population did the stuff mentioned above. Although if 1/10 made serious reductions in how much they are driving, the local climate would improve due to all the other emissions cars has. But if we all think that no matter what we do, it won't have an effect and thus I should do nothing, essentially giving up, nothing will change.

@N30F3N1X said:

Also, historically speaking all meaningfully impactful changes in energy have come from the building of large plants and implementation of country-wide well thought and well executed policies. As I and in part foxhound_fox said before, the only real and meaningful solution to curb GHG emissions would be to put nuclear plants all over the place.

In a wicked twist of fate, it is absolutely ironic that the same people who are actively trying to be as annoying and vocal as they can in advocating random and usually nonsensical policy changes against climate change are also some of the most adamantly opposed to the spread of nuclear power.

It's sad that nuclear power has such a bad image. They are safer now than before, but yeah the potential damage is huge, and perhaps been blown up larger than they actually are.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#43 Posted by BaelNergal (570 posts) -

@horgen said:

It's sad that nuclear power has such a bad image. They are safer now than before, but yeah the potential damage is huge, and perhaps been blown up larger than they actually are.

Chernobyl is a great example of how nuclear power is maligned unfairly. That was one of the worst reactor designs in human history, and it still required people doing everything exactly wrong to cause a meltdown.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#44 Edited by KungfuKitten (26733 posts) -

Nuclear fusion reactors are just 30 years away.

On a serious note, China and India are starting to reforest the Earth in serious numbers. That's cool.

From 2013 to 2018, China planted 338,000 square kilometers of forests at a cost of $82.88 billion.
India has planted 66.3 million trees in 12 hours. Although those are mostly dangerous monoculture plantations. There are exceptions like this:

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#45 Posted by Jacanuk (18714 posts) -
@horgen said:
@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:
@foxhound_fox said:

The biggest step that we as general citizens can do is vote. One person's impact on CO2 emissions by buying a gasoline-electric hybrid car is microscopic compared to the government outlawing the use of fossil fuels as a source of electricity.

As long as we keep buying fossile fueled cars, the lobbying will go towards keeping them.

And that is not a problem

Until you can have a car like a fossil fueled car where you can feel and hear the engine and also refuel it quick and easy then there is no idea in buying a different fueled car.

For our climate it is a problem.

I honestly prefer the silence of the electric engine. Sure at anything above 20-25 miles the wheels makes more noise. Recharging is improving. The Audi E-Tron can handle something like 375KW at most. That is rather fast and I assume it will be improved further in the next decade.

On the plus side being forced to a 20 minute stop every few hours might keep you more awake when you're driving and thus a lesser risk of accidents. Your body will also appreciate it.

Not really, the problem is not just cars, it´s also the massive deforestation happening in 3rd world countries to grow corn and other veggies and now weed to feed the growing amount of people and supply the growing amount of marijuana users. And then there is 3rd world countries like China and Asia´s major pollution problem

And I don´t like the electric car, I tried a Tesla and to be fair it´s to much plastic and to silent compared to a normal fossil fuel car and also electric cars could actually be more harmful in the long run since that power consumption have to come from plants since renewable energy is not at a place right now where it would be able to supply the extra demand.

As to the "fuel" you may be correct that a few 20min stops don´t hurt (currently there is no car on the market affordable for a middle-class family with that charging power, most take over 2h to recharge, Bolt gives 90miles pr 30min charge) the problem is that in rural America there are not just 150miles between truck stops there are more, which means that someone has to build all those recharging stations needed.

So right now if you live in a city sure electric may be the way to go but anywhere else, this is a no go and fossil fuel cars are the only way to go.

Avatar image for Maroxad
#46 Edited by Maroxad (15272 posts) -

It is a good thing, solar is getting increasingly viable every year. But there isnt just solar either. 80% of my power grid comes from nuclear and hydroelectricity. Fossil fuels are getting better too, coming to think of it, especially now that coal is being replaced by Natural Gas.

To set our emissions to 0 is almost impossible, but what we can do is try to minimize it as much as we can.

Edit: When it comes to electric cars, it depends mostly on your power grid (as well as how much you use it). Depending on your power grid, using an electric car CAN actually be worse than using a fuel based one for the environment.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#47 Posted by BaelNergal (570 posts) -
@Maroxad said:

It is a good thing, solar is getting increasingly viable every year. But there isnt just solar either. 80% of my power grid comes from nuclear and hydroelectricity.

To set our emissions to 0 is almost impossible, but what we can do is try to minimize it as much as we can.

Edit: When it comes to electric cars, it depends mostly on your power grid (as well as how much you use it). Depending on your power grid, using an electric car CAN actually be worse than using a fuel based one for the environment.

Not just power grid, but infrastructure to support recharging stations. That infrastructure the United States likely won't have for another 150 years, just due to how much of our nation is extremely rural to completely unsettled.

Nation the size of Europe in land mass, people crammed into the coasts.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#48 Edited by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

who in their right mind would want to combat the natural cycles of our planet?

Avatar image for baelnergal
#49 Posted by BaelNergal (570 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire Anyone who wants their species to survive long-term. There's a growing hypothesis that humanity evolved on a Death World and that our planet is a good example of the worst possible combined conditions for any living being to endure.

But, then, what does combating natural cycles have to do with this?

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#50 Edited by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

so, as the earth goes through a natural cycle you disagree with, you want to make permanent, lasting changes to the planet in a desperate attempt to maintain a status quo.. and when the natural cycle dips back the other way, then what?.. since all these delusions are predicated on the erroneous and debunked junk science that CO2 contributes to climate change, when all science has proven its affected by it, and not a cause, attempting to remove excess as the planet goes into a natural warming cycle, what happens when it goes back into a cooling cycle where natural CO2 levels decrease?.. how far will CO2 levels fall then?.. and keep in mind, CO2 is necessary for life on earth to exist

not only are you people grossly misinformed, poorly educated, and highly politicized on the topic, but your delusions are straight up dangerous for all life