[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by fcman

Which carries a bigger risk:
Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

First error: unanimous - Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord. The science is NOT settled. it never is.

[TboneS54]

Originally Posted by fcman

Which carries a bigger risk:

Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

OR

Changing nothing and crossing your fingers that everything's all good? Because change is oh so scary

Faulty logic. You're assuming there are no downsides to the precautions taken. And you're assuming that there will be major (negative) cosequences if no action is taken.

Maybe we should do away with habeus corpus and due process? The guy who looks really guilty probably is guilty (even though we don't have good evidence). Probably safer to put him in prison lest he does do something really bad in the future.

[Car-Addicted]

Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal was a disaster

As I reported to you in this blog last April, the government decided to impose organic farming on the entire country. According to the Journal, “…widespread hunger [occurred] after the agriculture economy collapsed – Sri Lanka’s people have wrought the first contra-organic national uprising in history.”

https://www.farmprogress.com/comment...was-a-disaster

[TboneS54]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal was a disaster

As I reported to you in this blog last April, the government decided to impose organic farming on the entire country. According to the Journal, “…widespread hunger [occurred] after the agriculture economy collapsed – Sri Lanka’s people have wrought the first contra-organic national uprising in history.”

https://www.farmprogress.com/comment...was-a-disaster

Sorry, I take issue with this type of shit.

This is not evidence of any other than how NOT to transition.

Had they implemented the correct farming technique (regenerative farming), there wouldn't have been issues. What they did was simply not use pestisides in a agricultural setup that was built around pesticides (i.e., no natural predators around to kill the bugs).

When you do it correctly, it's a self governing eco system.

Anyway. It's easy to grab attention and and easy to find something that seems to support a certain viewpoint, but when broken down, you see it doesn't mean much at all.

It'd be like an allopath telling an obese person that they can continue living their current lifestyle, they just need to take these certain pills to stay alive. Then taking away those pills (pesticides) and expecting them to get healthier. But you didn't change their diet/lifestyle, and now they may actually die. Then the allopaths will say, "see see, people NEED the pills". The answer was to not reach a state of obesity in the first place.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by TboneS54

Sorry, I take issue with this type of shit.
This is not evidence of any other than how NOT to transition.

I'm sure your righteous indignation comes as a great source of comfort to the people from Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is grappling with a record 90 percent food inflation, making even staples such as rice unaffordable for millions of families. (Indeed, the average monthly cost of a nutritious diet has soared 156 percent since 2018)

My original point was, that driving forward with the green new deal will have massive implications to the poor. Spending Trillions in pursuit of Climate fools gold in first world countries will leave generations with insurmountable debt and a planet with no discernible change other than planetary evolution.

Date: (2016 Apr) Sustaining food self-sufficiency of a nation:
With rice comprising approximately 40 % its total crop production (FAO 2014a), Sri Lanka provides an interesting example of a country with a long-standing, national self-sufficiency policy. Since gaining independence in 1948, agricultural policies in Sri Lanka have generally been aimed at improving its self-sufficiency in all food crops. Particularly, the target for rice production (the staple food of the country) was established at 100 % of domestic demand (Imbulana et al. 2006). Due to a combination of high yielding varieties, paddy expansion, and increased use of irrigation and fertilizer, rice production has steadily risen to meet this target. As a result, Sri Lanka has been almost entirely reliant on its own rice production since 2005 (DCS 2014; FAO 2014a). While the country is currently able to meet domestic demand for rice, it is unclear whether the country can continue to do so under projected population growth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815756/

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

I'm sure your righteous indignation comes as a great source of comfort to the people from Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is grappling with a record 90 percent food inflation, making even staples such as rice unaffordable for millions of families. (Indeed, the average monthly cost of a nutritious diet has soared 156 percent since 2018)

My original point was, that driving forward with the green new deal will have massive implications to the poor. Spending Trillions in pursuit of Climate fools gold in first world countries will leave generations with insurmountable debt and a planet with no discernible change other than planetary evolution.

Date: (2016 Apr) Sustaining food self-sufficiency of a nation:
With rice comprising approximately 40 % its total crop production (FAO 2014a), Sri Lanka provides an interesting example of a country with a long-standing, national self-sufficiency policy. Since gaining independence in 1948, agricultural policies in Sri Lanka have generally been aimed at improving its self-sufficiency in all food crops. Particularly, the target for rice production (the staple food of the country) was established at 100 % of domestic demand (Imbulana et al. 2006). Due to a combination of high yielding varieties, paddy expansion, and increased use of irrigation and fertilizer, rice production has steadily risen to meet this target. As a result, Sri Lanka has been almost entirely reliant on its own rice production since 2005 (DCS 2014; FAO 2014a). While the country is currently able to meet domestic demand for rice, it is unclear whether the country can continue to do so under projected population growth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815756/

"De-carboning" the economy is going to have staggering economic implications. I think as people start feeling the impact the push back is going to be something to see.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

In the context of this discussion I hope you see the irony in your statement.

What risk and to whom? It is all conjecture, unanimous (if you think so) or not. The people currenty generating fear through climate models will not be on the planet when the time they are seeking to fix the climate comes to fruition. They can say anything they want with zero repercussions. There is no risk if you or us are not here on the planet. This is not a movie where a giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane dumps 30 feet of snow on New York City (after it floods...) in the span of 3 days.

You'll not be on the planet, nor will 4 generations of your offspring before there is any discernable change in the climate. Human life on the planet (as you currently understand it) is going to change just like every other species has adapted or gone extinct. Watching the climate in 30-year, 100-year, or 1,000-year increments is microseconds in the span of geological time.

Ok you’re definitely just trolling now

[G30M]

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by fcman

Ok you’re definitely just trolling now

Therein lies the problem. You are not being trolled, Efthreeoh is serving up a truth bomb. We think too much of our minuscule existence in the history of the planet. Our hubris thinking that we can alter the course of planetary evolution by buying EV's. is pathetic, sad and cult like.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

First error: unanimous - Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord. The science is NOT settled. it never is.

Never said the science was settled lol

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Therein lies the problem. You are not being trolled, Efthreeoh is serving up a truth bomb. We think too much of our minuscule existence in the history of the planet. Our hubris thinking that we can alter the course of planetary evolution by buying EV's. is pathetic, sad and cult like.

Strawman, try again

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Never said the science was settled lol

Unanimous:

Def. (of an opinion, decision, or vote) held or carried by everyone involved

If the same opinion is held by everyone involved, then by definition the opinion is accepted by everyone and therefore settled; meaning there is no debate about the opinion left to be had. If the opinion has to do with a scientific principle or theory, then the science is considered "settled".

Strawman:

Def. Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat.

In my post #2949 under discussion regarding "trolling", none of what I wrote is a logical fallacy. You stated there is a risk to ignoring the unanimous scientific consensus the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forces. I simply asked what are the risks and who is at risk. Your answer is "Efthreeoh is now just trolling". Yup, to make the discussion about risk clear, I referenced the plot of the environmental disaster move The Day After Tomorrow. Perhaps you didn't get the reference; though I would think someone so concerned about climate change would be familiar with the work. I found the movie comical, which is why I used it as a reference with comical conjecture. Especially comical was the scene when the Vice President character mimicking (mocking?) Dick Cheney gets sucked out of the White House by the giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane.

Efthreeoh the "Flat Earther" "Luddite" wants to know what is at risk, who is at risk, and when date certain the risk is going to come to fruition.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Unanimous:

Def. (of an opinion, decision, or vote) held or carried by everyone involved

If the same opinion is held by everyone involved, then by definition the opinion is accepted by everyone and therefore settled; meaning there is no debate about the opinion left to be had. If the opinion has to do with a scientific principle or theory, then the science is considered "settled".

Strawman:

Def. Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat.

In my post #2949 under discussion regarding "trolling", none of what I wrote is a logical fallacy. You stated there is a risk to ignoring the unanimous scientific consensus the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forces. I simply asked what are the risks and who is at risk. Your answer is "Efthreeoh is now just trolling". Yup, to make the discussion about risk clear, I referenced the plot of the environmental disaster move The Day After Tomorrow. Perhaps you didn't get the reference; though I would think someone so concerned about climate change would be familiar with the work. I found the movie comical, which is why I used it as a reference with comical conjecture. Especially comical was the scene when the Vice President character mimicking (mocking?) Dick Cheney gets sucked out of the White House by the giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane.

Efthreeoh the "Flat Earther" "Luddite" wants to know what is at risk, who is at risk, and when date certain the risk is going to come to fruition.

It has become predictable that certain groups when faced with facts that refute their position will resort to name calling. I take that as win generally.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by fcman

Never said the science was settled lol

Really?

Originally Posted by fcman

Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

Don't feel bad "The Science is Settled" has always been the fall back position of those that can't defend their position.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

It has become predictable that certain groups when faced with facts that refute their position will resort to name calling. I take that as win generally.

And that's the issue. Such groups who think humans are smart enough to control the climate need to be specific as to why they think so and how they are going to move the climate to a state they deem correct. They need to have a target climate (a corresponding CO2 ratio according to them), and then account for how their solution counter acts all the natural forces that change the climate. The fossil evidence points to all species either adapt to the climate (change) or go extinct from climate change. When a group starts to believe it can manipulate the climate to prolong human existence, then it is axiomatic that they are going to make the climate static.

I'm not trying to win an argument. What I'm trying to find out from such people is how they developed their plan for the climate and how they are going to execute the plan. You are retired and I'm a few years out from retirement. All I've heard about the Plan (i.e. the US Green New Deal) is we have just a few years left of massive carbon output before we "reach the point of no climate change return" and hundreds of trillions of dollars in spending to avoid the point of no return. A "few short years" and "hundreds of trillions of dollars" means printing money in quantities far more than the US GDP (and Canada's GDP) can produce let alone support within the climate catastrophe point of no return timeframe. That means your retirement funds and my retirement funds get devalued; that is the serious shit going on here.

Forcing EV on everyone is just the start with these people.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And that's the issue. Such groups who think humans are smart enough to control the climate need to be specific as to why they think so and how they are going to move the climate to a state they deem correct. They need to have a target climate (a corresponding CO2 ratio according to them), and then account for how their solution counter acts all the natural forces that change the climate. The fossil evidence points to all species either adapt to the climate (change) or go extinct from climate change. When a group starts to believe it can manipulate the climate to prolong human existence, then it is axiomatic that they are going to make the climate static.

I'm not trying to win an argument. What I'm trying to find out from such people is how they developed their plan for the climate and how they are going to execute the plan. You are retired and I'm a few years out from retirement. All I've heard about the Plan (i.e. the US Green New Deal) is we have just a few years left of massive carbon output before we "reach the point of no climate change return" and hundreds of trillions of dollars in spending to avoid the point of no return. A "few short years" and "hundreds of trillions of dollars" means printing money in quantities far more than the US GDP (and Canada's GDP) can produce let alone support within the climate catastrophe point of no return timeframe. That means your retirement funds and my retirement funds get devalued; that is the serious shit going on here.

Forcing EV on everyone is just the start with these people.

My wife and I have worked hard, been responsible with our money and saved for our retirement and our fear is the economic damage the greening of the economy will do will decimate our savings. For a great many others the impact will be much much worse.

[Car-Addicted]

The cost to dispose of an electric car battery is $6,750. That means $4.50 per pound of the Tesla electric car battery. While industry experts say that it costs $90 to process a metric ton of the material coming from batteries.

https://electriccarexperience.com/co...c-car-battery/

The high costs of recycling means that these batteries will find their way into landfills.

"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."

Currently, for example, much of the substance of a battery is reduced during the recycling process to what is called black mass - a mixture of lithium, manganese, cobalt and nickel - which needs further, energy-intensive processing to recover the materials in a usable form.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

Since the car manufactures like Nissan and Volkswagen are undertaking the recycling costs maybe this should be built into the cost of the EV and not shared with the ICE car production?

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Unanimous:

Def. (of an opinion, decision, or vote) held or carried by everyone involved

If the same opinion is held by everyone involved, then by definition the opinion is accepted by everyone and therefore settled; meaning there is no debate about the opinion left to be had. If the opinion has to do with a scientific principle or theory, then the science is considered "settled".

Strawman:

Def. Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat.

In my post #2949 under discussion regarding "trolling", none of what I wrote is a logical fallacy. You stated there is a risk to ignoring the unanimous scientific consensus the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forces. I simply asked what are the risks and who is at risk. Your answer is "Efthreeoh is now just trolling". Yup, to make the discussion about risk clear, I referenced the plot of the environmental disaster move The Day After Tomorrow. Perhaps you didn't get the reference; though I would think someone so concerned about climate change would be familiar with the work. I found the movie comical, which is why I used it as a reference with comical conjecture. Especially comical was the scene when the Vice President character mimicking (mocking?) Dick Cheney gets sucked out of the White House by the giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane.

Efthreeoh the "Flat Earther" "Luddite" wants to know what is at risk, who is at risk, and when date certain the risk is going to come to fruition.

Hey good job, you looked up the correct definitions. Unfortunately you still didn’t understand them.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

The cost to dispose of an electric car battery is $6,750. That means $4.50 per pound of the Tesla electric car battery. While industry experts say that it costs $90 to process a metric ton of the material coming from batteries.

https://electriccarexperience.com/co...c-car-battery/

The high costs of recycling means that these batteries will find their way into landfills.

"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."

Currently, for example, much of the substance of a battery is reduced during the recycling process to what is called black mass - a mixture of lithium, manganese, cobalt and nickel - which needs further, energy-intensive processing to recover the materials in a usable form.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

Since the car manufactures like Nissan and Volkswagen are undertaking the recycling costs maybe this should be built into the cost of the EV and not shared with the ICE car production?

You make a good point, when you buy electronics like a TV you get charged a recycling fee when you pay. Maybe the same should be attached to EV's.

[David70]

Originally Posted by g21

You're point is we need to force change & better working conditions for the people working in these industries? Or what?

Like sweat shops in SE Asia, blood diamonds in Africa, dirty/polluting oil extraction technics (Chevron Ecuador, or anywhere there wasn't regulations), gold mines all over the world, Palm Oil in Malaysia, the answer isn't to move a giant industry out of poor country but instead force regulations and changes by the companies buying these products.

A 3rd world country with a new industry isn't helped by closing the industry, instead needs to be forced to by the buyers to meet certain requirements. All the people that are suddenly against EV's because of the social problems and wanting to be "green", is a joke.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Hey good job, you looked up the correct definitions. Unfortunately you still didn’t understand them.

Ever get the idea everyone else knows the definitions of words and uses them correctly in a sentence or paragraph to convey thoughts accurately and you don't?

[David70]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

The cost to dispose of an electric car battery is $6,750. That means $4.50 per pound of the Tesla electric car battery. While industry experts say that it costs $90 to process a metric ton of the material coming from batteries.

https://electriccarexperience.com/co...c-car-battery/

The high costs of recycling means that these batteries will find their way into landfills.

"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."

Currently, for example, much of the substance of a battery is reduced during the recycling process to what is called black mass - a mixture of lithium, manganese, cobalt and nickel - which needs further, energy-intensive processing to recover the materials in a usable form.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

Since the car manufactures like Nissan and Volkswagen are undertaking the recycling costs maybe this should be built into the cost of the EV and not shared with the ICE car production?

I don't have a problem with forcing manufacturers or consumers to pay for the processing or recycling. I think we will find that similar to building the first EV batteries, the cost will go down significantly with efficiencies/scale as time goes on. I also believe if they were forced to recycle/reuse the battery at the end of life they would do things to make it simpler when building the battery. They would also find ways to repair damaged batteries to delay the recycle cost.

While we are sticking the recycle cost on the EV, we should add a cost to all other major purchases for the parts that are difficult to recycle and force the industry to deal with them. TV's, computers, phones, car parts that aren't recycled, probably a long list.

One thing I have heard as a good suggestion is reusing the battery as a stationary power storage device. Your EV battery still has 40-50% of its capacity or the car is totaled, the battery gets put in a house to be used when the power goes out or as storage when you produce more solar than you are currently using. Doesn't get rid of the ultimate problem of eventual disposal but uses up more of the battery potential before it is done.