Climate change

Maybe get out of your car and on yer bike!
That'd help!

 

I used to think this, but unfortunately this is not the case.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

 

Or purchase an electric car and carbon offsets. We don't need to go backwards in quality of life to fix this pretty simple problem.

 

Except those very things will take you backwards in quality of life as they are more expensive to the bottom line. Bike riding is way way cleaner, cheaper and more affordable. let alone controlled by the user at the "coal" face.

How do you charge an electric car?
Carbon offsets? what happens with that money?

 

Electric cars are expensive. But so were mobile phones and call plans.

You charge an electric car with electricity. But I know the question you are asking. But doesn't making electricity produce carbon emissions? Yes.

If you purchase offsets from a verified accredited seller then you are OK. Preferably someone with VCS (Verified Carbon Standard) which is an international standard that ensures carbon reductions meet quality standards and are independently verified, numbered and listed in a central database.

Are we done?

 

Not anymore - I can buy a brand new Toyota Corolla Hybrid for a mere $2,000 more than a petrol (same model) ... and the fully electric, coming out next year, is around the same. Never underestimate a Corolla - they're like a Tardis in the boot

 

Good point, I was thinking more of full EVs. What Tesla is planning is mind bending. A very ambitious business model.

3 Takeaways From Tesla's Autonomy Day Event

 

Perhaps some should study the facts rather than express emotional opinions.
Where is this 98% of scientists figure coming from....?
"Climate change has taken place for thousands of millions of years. Climate change occurred before humans evolved on Earth. Any extraordinary claim, such as that humans cause climate change, must be supported by similarly extraordinary evidence, but this has not been done. It has not been shown that any measured modern climate change is any different from past climate change. The rate of temperature change, sea-level rise, and biota turnover is no different from the past.
In the past, climate has changed due to numerous processes, and these processes are still driving it. During the time the humans have been on Earth there has been no correlation between temperature change and human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Past global warming have not been driven by an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Without correlation, there can be no causation."
...
The underpinning assumption is that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming and, in order to arrest the warming trend, human emissions of CO2 must therefore be reduced. But it yet has to be shown that the human emissions of CO2 actually do dive global warming, despite decades of generous research funding and hundreds of years of science.
Emissions of CO2 from human activities - such as the production of metals, energy and cement; land, air and sea transport; and heating and cooling - account for about 3% of total annual emissions.
If it could be shown that the human emissions of CO2 do drive global warming, then it would have to be shown that natural emissions of CO2, which amount to 97% of the total annual emissions, do not drive global warming. But this has not been done. In fact, there is very strong evidence from many disciplines of science, especially geology, to show CO2 emissions have driven global warming.
As I said previously too, some will be open minded and some are just emotionally following...like a religion.

 

The figure of 97% comes from detailed analysis of previous research. We call this meta-analysis. And you have the insulting obnoxious gaul to say "emotionally following...like a religion", when what underlies this is cold hard evidence. Show me your research. You are a prime example of the "Dunning–Kruger effect".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Similar figures were found by:

• Oreskes, 2004, 100%
• Doran, 2009, 97%
• Anderegg, 2010, 97%
• Cook, 2013, 97%
• Verheggen, 2014, 91%
• Stenhouse, 2014, 93%
• Carlton, 2015, 97%

Again, I ask, show me your formal research.

 

with the carbon emissions used to manufacture the new electric car and the battery's ,plus the carbon emission's to charge the car


you would be better off to buy/recycle an 10 year old existing petrol car
for less carbon emissions .
But , then you couldn't virtue signal to your friends by buying a brand new electric car

which is all a load of bupkis any-way because there is no such thing as
"climate change "

Yes....... now we are done !

 

Petrol cars require no emissions to build but EVs do? Really? Because that is what you are implying.

 

If you recycle an old car , you dont need to build a new car

 

But it still needs carbon emissions to run. And given that it is an old car it would be quite inefficient.

 

... and why can't you recycle an EV car? Don't need ongoing emissions when charged by renewables either

What a load of bupkis - history will be unkind to those that were in denial

 

Climate Myth Number 4 on Skeptical Science:-

The 97% consensus on global warming

"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming."

"1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming."

"That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%"

 

This one? "Climate Change The Facts 2017" Institute of Public Affairs."

No thanks, I did a bit of Googling about it, its largely regarded as completely flawed:-

Why the IPA's claim global warming is natural is 'junk science' | Graham Readfearn

Plus I'd rather look at independent science, stuff that isn't funded by vested interests:-

"Billionaire and Australia’s richest person Gina Rinehart, who owns Hancock Prospecting, donated $4.5 million to the climate change-denying Institute of Public Affairs throughout 2016 and 2017. Rinehart, a climate change denier herself, also supported the speaking tour of British climate change denier Lord Christopher Monckton. Geologist and climate change denier Ian Plimer sits on the board of Hancock Prospecting."

Understanding climate change denial: Australian Ethical

 

If we assume this is true, we also know that human population is growing exponentially, then even if we reduce per capita emissions significantly, all it will achieve is a marginal delay (at best) of the long term trend unless that other exponential growth trend is addressed... So what is really being advocated below the surface of the climate change debate is something very very very controversial & historically abhorrent....

Unless you address the root cause, no lasting change is achieved..... contemplate that chestnut....

 

I would be happy to drive a small EV to work every day. My car sits in the sun for at least 6 hours a day there. When can we expect to see self-charging vehicles? It's not much use to me if my solar-powered (through the house) charger is at home.

 

Second question.
How does paying carbon offset do anything to reduce emissions in my household or my local community? I see it in correlation to a rich person paying a bribe to the police officer to get out of a speeding fine. The unpleasant behaviour continues but the person doing it doesn't see any real life consequence.

 

This is why some conservative groups have ignored the pleas of the climate change brigade. We were told by conspiracy theorists several decades ago that this is the big "excuse" to introduce something "else"