|
CommieGIR posted:Gearing makes even some of the largest vehicles more efficient. I’m not in anyway shape or form arguing that car are good, we should make more or any such thing. What makes you think I think that?
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Continued electrification of vehicles will be helpful. Especially if we can electrify semi trucks fully. that would double our fossil fuel efficiency and concentrate emissions in battery charging infrastructure instead of cars.
WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What about a 5-Series or bigger land yacht? It's really going to depend on everything from the engine to the transmission. Years and years ago I had a '98 540i, which was a heavy (for the time) land yacht with a V8. On long road trips I would average 33-34mpg without even really trying and it wasn't much worse than 22ish around town. I could also get it down to single digits if I felt like just rolling around in 1st gear everywhere with my foot to the floor. Nowadays you can get 5-series with turbocharged four cylinder engines that are getting combined mileage ratings in the high 20s that still make like 250hp. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
Know what's loving stupid? Grandfathered non-smog cars. we need to go door to door and literally confiscate them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Know what's loving stupid? Grandfathered non-smog cars. we need to go door to door and literally confiscate them. Didn’t they have a program to get rid of them during Obama or something similar? And how bad is a non-smog exactly? What was everyone driving in the 60s and 70s?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Didn’t they have a program to get rid of them during Obama or something similar? Cash for Clunkers was more of a  bailout for car companies more than it was an environmental program.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Didn’t they have a program to get rid of them during Obama or something similar? Yes but there are commercial vehicles in operation by small businesses all over the country that is pre emission standard aswell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Yes but there are commercial vehicles in operation by small businesses all over the country that is pre emission standard aswell. Wait what? How? Literally every bus I’ve seen in some parts of the Midwest is a hybrid and the drivers keep wearing out the rear tires because that electric motor is too powerful and fun. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Wait what? Not only are they still out there, you can do a simple search and then buy pre-emission standards trucks right now, used, for pretty cheap. Literally all I had to do was google "pre emission semi trucks for sale" which was an auto-complete after typing in pre emission semi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:
Tab8715 posted:
Natural gas is actually worse than coal because it releases methane directly (less long term effect, catastrophic short term) also https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197 WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Continued electrification of vehicles will be helpful. Especially if we can electrify semi trucks fully. that would double our fossil fuel efficiency and concentrate emissions in battery charging infrastructure instead of cars. We really need to steer away from thinking electric cars can do any good. SA_Avenger fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
Complications posted:Good news, it's probably not the clathrate gun but the expected year-to-year methane concentration increase we've seen for the last two decades. Yeah, more info in this thread https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1172947818069352451?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Continued electrification of vehicles will be helpful. Especially if we can electrify semi trucks fully. that would double our fossil fuel efficiency and concentrate emissions in battery charging infrastructure instead of cars. Electrification of vehicles can help, but there are huge problems with it. First and foremost, manufacturing lithium-ion batteries is extremely environmentally damaging, to the point that that insane scheme to strip-mine the ocean floor and kill every marine animal that was recently proposed was mainly being done to get more lithium to make batteries. There's the remote possibility that the billionaires' vanity space projects pay off and we mine an asteroid full of lithium to not do environmental damage here on Earth, but lmao if that's what we're relying on to save us. Producing the vehicles themselves is also environmentally damaging, just like all heavy industry. Second, batteries are only better than ICE vehicles if they're getting their electricity from a zero-carbon source. In the US right now 63.5% of electricity generation is fossil fuels (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3), including 27.4% that's still coming from burning coal. The rest is mostly nuclear, then hydro, then wind, with like 1% of solar on top. Even if you somehow electrify every semi truck on the road, if 64% of them are getting that electricity from burning coal and natural gas, you haven't actually solved the problem at all. What could be much more helpful than trying to just keep the insane transport truck economy alive is to build rail lines everywhere, and use much more efficient electric trains to move goods around in massive quantities to reduce the need for semi trucks clogging every interstate on the continent. Then use electric vehicles for last-mile delivery from the producer to the train station and from the train station to the store. There is no way we're going to succeed at slowing climate change if our plan is to just replace every personal and commercial vehicle with an electric one and carry on as usual. It's even less politically feasible to say no, we're not going to be able to keep doing that, we have to drastically reduce the number of vehicles on the road permanently, and have the few vehicles left be electric and charged solely from renewable sources, but at least that's in line with the kinds of drastic measures necessary to slow climate change. The other option is a fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Wait what? Drayage, some of those trucks are old and lovely as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
e: nm
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Drayage, some of those trucks are old and lovely as poo poo. But I see why they’re still around. It’s affordable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:The issue is that the work in progress is kinda adding more "bad news" to the existing models so it's not going to get better. I posted a conference video a few pages ago about the numbers I brought up That video by Steffen was great. Seriously good stuff. Excellent presentation skills and you don’t need to be a genius to understand to understand the problem shown. I wish we had presentations like this years ago. The upcoming issue that I foresee that we’ve missed or likely will miss 2C and with the potential of feedback effects I don’t get how that’s going to motivate anyone to do anything. I guess a different analogy is that the more we emit the worse it gets. The less the better. Natural Gas drilling does release methane assuming it isn’t burnt off before its released into the atmosphere hence all the flaring but there technically ways to cap it which is done in the US although not perfect but some countries don’t do it at all. I can’t remember but there was a big thread on Twitter how many methane emissions could be drastically reduced with just simple technical solutions but I was surprised to see how much it was from farming or fertilizer production. The NY Times also had this same problem on the front page a few weeks back but the good thing is methane only lasts about a decade. Of course, Trump relaxed methane emissions rules! The sheer volume of carbon along with lead and mercury is astoundingly high with coal. It’s still bad but it’s like going from unfiltered cigarettes to an ecig. The same goes for electric vehicles. Yet, I understand and get that we will still need to stop emitting but we’ve created a world where it’s incredibly difficult to stop which gets into deep adaptation arguments that climate change is a hyper problem for humanity and there just isn’t a off button for capitalism because all off our reductions in emissions are later overtaken by economic growth! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:But I see why they’re still around. It’s affordable. Port Authorities can put pressure on them by setting standards for emissions for gate entry. But it's a slog with push back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Electrification of vehicles can help, but there are huge problems with it. First and foremost, manufacturing lithium-ion batteries is extremely environmentally damaging, to the point that that insane scheme to strip-mine the ocean floor and kill every marine animal that was recently proposed was mainly being done to get more lithium to make batteries. There's the remote possibility that the billionaires' vanity space projects pay off and we mine an asteroid full of lithium to not do environmental damage here on Earth, but lmao if that's what we're relying on to save us. Producing the vehicles themselves is also environmentally damaging, just like all heavy industry. Kaizan is required to make this poo poo work. We arent going full communist and stopping emissions. We need to concentrate emission sources so we can trap or loop them easier. I mean heres a problem we have a billion cars of various emission levels all driving around. How will we capture these emissipns easily? Electrifying cars is part of the solution but its not thee solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Kaizan is required to make this poo poo work. We arent going full communist and stopping emissions. We need to concentrate emission sources so we can trap or loop them easier. I mean heres a problem we have a billion cars of various emission levels all driving around. How will we capture these emissipns easily? Electrifying cars is part of the solution but its not thee solution. I’m kind in the same boat as well. What matters at the end of the day is that emissions go down and everything else is secondary. But the moment there’s a political candidate that says we’re going to flip into a command economy I’ll vote and volunteer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
The main point I fee like we're missing is ending cars and AC etc etc is just not going to loving fly. The play is efficiency then transition. We're hosed. The best thing we can do is to engineer a more efficient world so we go back to not going extinct quickly. But people need to get it, and most just don't have the intelligence to put together the picture of what climate change is.Telling someone in California that China and India's actions will decide if we can grow grapes anymore is met either confusion or outright anger at the very idea. June of this year is when I really realized we were going to literally loving die in 100 years or less, like the real holy poo poo realization. Even though I've been keeping track of climate change for 15 years starting with inconvenient truth. Honestly i don't even remember anything from that loving movie though, it set me on the right path to at least understand that climate change is a no poo poo big deal. Other things in life made me understand why it's happening and how inevitable it was as a species. Once the first coal fire plant came online and provided lights to people who were using candles we were doomed to experience it. In my home state of California we've changed drastically to combat pollution. I don't say climate change because as I stated previously, we in California don't decide whether climate change happens or not. Our cities have cleaner air now with better emission standards, and this isn't going to stop us from burning to death. Oil is going to be pumped by someone until the pumps all run loving dry. We must concentrate emissions into more centralized locations so they can be combated easily. If no cars or diesel trucks are on the road, if no ones burning logs to keep warm and no coal is being burned above ground we're in a way better position. Imagine pumping coal emissions into the ground instead of into the air. No disruption to people we literally cant disrupt. I think we need to get this point too, our political system isn't going to say "Well folks welcome to full climate change communism no cars no buses we're going to bring the emissions to 1500s levels!" We need to do this in a way that doesn't effect peoples daily lives in a way that will NEVER win. Seriously maybe if you have read Marx's work in the past year it all makes sense, but we have a society that isn't going to loving stop. think about this: communism "lost" but in reality human laziness and consumption desire won over societal progression being maximized. It's not going to happen again. Mcdonalds and big trucks are gonna win. We need to just electrify them. -- Mini nuclear reactor powered cargo ships?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
That attitude is why we're all going to die. Electric car or no if we keep insisting that everyone get their own house and their own car and their own box full of poo poo from Amazon and AliExpress every week or three because they like buying stuff, we're all dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Mcdonalds and big trucks are gonna win. We need to just electrify them. It's going to be an interesting decade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
Until earlier this year I literally believed Climate Change was just sea level rise or some distant problem that could be solved with some tech or what not. Now, I get it after reading this thread, IPCC Reports, books and following all sorts of climate scientists on twitter. It’s makes sense to me know why it’s so difficult. I have the luxury of a higher education and I’m in place where I’m able to sit down for hours and read which is not easy. Many people wouldn’t ever be able to do so and the problem is so much bigger than lovely companies polluting. It’s our whole way of life - globally. But how do we change it? Is it even possible? How are we suppose to tell people in developing countries they can’t industrialize when we’ve got all the benefits?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
We'll be holding a gun to their heads when we tell them. The wealthy will embrace it. The right will do it with glee. The centrists will sigh and half rear end apologize for it but secretly be happy it's happening that way because they'd rather it happen than give up their wealth, and the left will be too fractured from within and deliberately sabotaged from the outside to effectively combat it. The majority of us in the west will eventually need to give up a lot of our current lifestyle but we'll still have a level of wealth and comfort that the rest envy. Also once the climate refugee situation really starts to become dire we're getting slavery again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:How are we suppose to tell people in developing countries they can’t industrialize when we’ve got all the benefits? Your answer is currently bulldozing and setting fire to the Amazon. There's a part in the movie "Lord of War" where Nic Cage's character has two beautiful women sent to his hotel room in Liberia by the country's warlord leader, where, as the movie intones, 1 in 4 people are HIV-positive. The women assure him they're "not sick," and when he belabors the point, they say "why worry about something that can kill you in ten years when there's so much that could kill you today?" The answer is, you *can't* tell people in developing countries they can't industrialize or bend the rules, because to them, it's a question of whether they eat this week. To us, it's a question of whether we eat chicken or steak. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Sep 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
We're doing our very best to combat this especially at the government level. Take this, for example. https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1172592765835915265 Saving the Amazon by opening up the Amazon to US-backed economy development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
So if I wanna
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Your answer is currently bulldozing and setting fire to the Amazon. incidentally, nic cage's best film / the best film nic cage has ever been in EvilJoven posted:We'll be holding a gun to their heads when we tell them. heck yeah, this is the sort of insight and inspiration that keeps me coming back to this thread and working to build a better world
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Elman posted:So if I wanna IPCC SR15 is their most recent report and a good launching point to find areas of interest to jump into further. Start with the summary for policymakers, read the chapters of interest, and citations will typically jump into much more robust groups of research on each chapter. IPCC's Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) should be published at the end of this month and from what I've seen it will probably be a bit spookier than AR5 or SR15.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
I'll check the citations. I was looking at the report and while it's a good starting point it doesn't really drive home the magnitude of the issue. "If 1.5C still seems manageable, surely 3C can't be that bad?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Elman posted:I'll check the citations. I was looking at the report and while it's a good starting point it doesn't really drive home the magnitude of the issue. "If 1.5C still seems manageable, surely 3C can't be that bad?" XKCD has issues, but it's also got an easy to understand way of ramming this point home: 3C is 3/4 of an ice age unit. One Ice Age Unit being sufficient to drop a mile of ice on top of most of the northern hemisphere, which would end most of world agriculture. It's just in the other direction. And there hasn't been thousands of years to make the topsoil for the newly equatorial climates usable for food production.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 07:48
|
|
|
agriculture would't be bad in an ice age. big part of the reason why megafauna like mammoths and poo poo was very successful during ice ages was, since so much water is bound up in ice/glaciers, there's not as nearly as much clouds and photosynthesis can go absolutely loving bonkers, so there's a lot of food for said megafauna. agriculture in an environment where it's not very hot but always sunny, and there's an abundant and constant supply of meltwater from the nearby glacier 3-6 months every year would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
Elman posted:I'll check the citations. I was looking at the report and while it's a good starting point it doesn't really drive home the magnitude of the issue. "If 1.5C still seems manageable, surely 3C can't be that bad?" the way i like to communicate this is by usng the gauss curve and standard deviation. 1,5sd isn't that much, but 3 is a lot. this is understating the severity of either by quite a bit and that has to be qualified, but it's a pretty easy and intuitive way of visualising a non-linear increase in impact which ties into something a lot of people have at least a passing familiarity with
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
Elman posted:I'll check the citations. I was looking at the report and while it's a good starting point it doesn't really drive home the magnitude of the issue. "If 1.5C still seems manageable, surely 3C can't be that bad?" I guess if you want to go from 0 to educated and alarmed, I'd start with some policy and overview of climate dynamics, and then dive into how our ecosystems are already seeing cascades and collapses. Policy Overview: How to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals within Planetary Boundaries: https://www.stockholmresilience.org...20Goals_WEB.pdf The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681 [Add in the IPCC SROCC here when it comes out as an authoritative source on the cryosphere] Ecosystem Impacts: Decline in insect biomass (the only major mass extinction that included significant amounts of insects was the Permian-Triassic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations The end of that article is especially depressing imo: quote:One reason that studies into the decline are limited is that entomology and taxonomy are themselves in decline. At the 2019 Entomology Congress, leading entomologist Jürgen Gross said that "We are ourselves an endangered species" while Wolfgang Wägele – an expert in systematic zoology – said that "in the universities we have lost nearly all experts". Thiamine deficiency in wild animals is a serious threat to biodiversity: https://www.su.se/english/research/...ersity-1.377252 Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines: https://www.researchgate.net/public...es_and_declines And an area that I have personally believe will cause mid-century food crises, euphotic ocean acidification and its impacts on the carbonate cycle: History of Seawater Carbonate Chemistry, Atmospheric CO2, and Ocean Acidification: https://courses.pbsci.ucsc.edu/eeb/bioe159/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Zeebe-et-al.-2012.pdf (this is an absolutely phenomenal primer on carbon cycles in the ocean) Abrupt onset and prolongation of aragonite undersaturation events in the Southern Ocean: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...d3e0347c54f.pdf Ocean Apocalypse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMN3dTvrwY Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Sep 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 09:50
|
|
|
Hopefully anyone that reads all that can appreciate how easily our planet can turn into the anoxic, prokaryotic slime mat that has been our steady state before and can become our steady state again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I guess if you want to go from 0 to educated and alarmed, I'd start with some policy and overview of climate dynamics, and then dive into how our ecosystems are already seeing cascades and collapses. this is an excellent post and i thank you for it
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
Truga posted:agriculture would't be bad in an ice age. But don’t the South Pole, North Pole and Siberia lack topsoil for growing crops well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
key word, ice age.  yeah, in a warm age we're gonna be thoroughly hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines: https://www.researchgate.net/public...es_and_declines I quoted that in my dissertation's abstract and introduction. It's important to note that ecosystem services collapse before species go extinct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:A great post Cataloging for later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 19:38
|
|
