Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have my doubts about, and seriously distrust the motives of the push for conversion to electric vehicles ("EV's). The goal of the EV movement is to restrict the freedom of movement. The environmental benefits are minuscule. We will not be generating nearly all our electricity by wind and solar in 2035. Europe's approaching disastrous winter shows that you cannot simply decree away hydrocarbon use. In addition, in order to make the required batteries, other major environmental damage is required. See, e.g. Electric Cars Are Not Particularly Green - Blowing Up Mountain Not Environmental Virtue. See also the article, The Lithium Gold Rush: Inside the Race to Power Electric Vehicles in the far from "denier" New York Times (link), points out that there is much environmental damage from manufacturing electric automobiles. The people and powers that are pushing the EV movement are either incredibly dumb, which I do not believe, are childlike, i.e. implicitly saying "we have to do something", or are willfully deceptive.
Academics have long disparaged the "affluent lifestyle" and what they see as over-consumption. This is an excerpt from a summary (link) of The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith, written in 1958, which I am currently reading (the book price was $0.75, which shows how long it has been on my family bookshelf):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summary of The Affluent Society
In The Affluent Society, Galbraith addresses a major problem in American society—overconsumption of goods. Put simply, the American people buy things they don’t need, and things they don’t really want because advertisers tell them that they do need these things. We live in a society where advertisers and marketers control our spending habits.
This foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. This line of thinking from academia has seeped into the culture, and pops up in policy decisions such as recycling of garbage (largely useless for a variety of reasons), suppression of "ozone emissions" by refrigerators and air conditioning, plastic bag bans, (and now even paper bag, see Reusable Bag Glut Creates New Environmental Issue; Solve One Problem, Create Another), and other measures that make life more difficult without much if any offsetting gain.
I have my doubts about, and seriously distrust the motives of the push for conversion to electric vehicles ("EV's). The goal of the EV movement is to restrict the freedom of movement. The environmental benefits are minuscule. We will not be generating nearly all our electricity by wind and solar in 2035. Europe's approaching disastrous winter shows that you cannot simply decree away hydrocarbon use. In addition, in order to make the required batteries, other major environmental damage is required. See, e.g. Electric Cars Are Not Particularly Green - Blowing Up Mountain Not Environmental Virtue. See also the article, The Lithium Gold Rush: Inside the Race to Power Electric Vehicles in the far from "denier" New York Times (link), points out that there is much environmental damage from manufacturing electric automobiles. The people and powers that are pushing the EV movement are either incredibly dumb, which I do not believe, are childlike, i.e. implicitly saying "we have to do something", or are willfully deceptive.
Academics have long disparaged the "affluent lifestyle" and what they see as over-consumption. This is an excerpt from a summary (link) of The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith, written in 1958, which I am currently reading (the book price was $0.75, which shows how long it has been on my family bookshelf):
This foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. This line of thinking from academia has seeped into the culture, and pops up in policy decisions such as recycling of garbage (largely useless for a variety of reasons), suppression of "ozone emissions" by refrigerators and air conditioning, plastic bag bans, (and now even paper bag, see Reusable Bag Glut Creates New Environmental Issue; Solve One Problem, Create Another), and other measures that make life more difficult without much if any offsetting gain.
I have my doubts about, and seriously distrust the motives of the push for conversion to electric vehicles ("EV's). The goal of the EV movement is to restrict the freedom of movement. The environmental benefits are minuscule. We will not be generating nearly all our electricity by wind and solar in 2035. Europe's approaching disastrous winter shows that you cannot simply decree away hydrocarbon use. In addition, in order to make the required batteries, other major environmental damage is required. See, e.g. Electric Cars Are Not Particularly Green - Blowing Up Mountain Not Environmental Virtue. See also the article, The Lithium Gold Rush: Inside the Race to Power Electric Vehicles in the far from "denier" New York Times (link), points out that there is much environmental damage from manufacturing electric automobiles. The people and powers that are pushing the EV movement are either incredibly dumb, which I do not believe, are childlike, i.e. implicitly saying "we have to do something", or are willfully deceptive.
Academics have long disparaged the "affluent lifestyle" and what they see as over-consumption. This is an excerpt from a summary (link) of The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith, written in 1958, which I am currently reading (the book price was $0.75, which shows how long it has been on my family bookshelf):This foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. This line of thinking from academia has seeped into the culture, and pops up in policy decisions such as recycling of garbage (largely useless for a variety of reasons), suppression of "ozone emissions" by refrigerators and air conditioning, plastic bag bans, (and now even paper bag, see Reusable Bag Glut Creates New Environmental Issue; Solve One Problem, Create Another), and other measures that make life more difficult without much if any offsetting gain.
These actions might feel good but not do good.
Or they might do good..........
I read your one-line post. The key word is "might." If you say "is it possible that..." the objection, in Court, is "anything's possible." We are being asked to make massive and expensive lifestyle changes, with little expectation or certainty of result. My argument is that this is really an attack on middle-class affluence.
I read your one-line post. The key word is "might." If you say "is it possible that..." the objection, in Court, is "anything's possible." We are being asked to make massive and expensive lifestyle changes, with little expectation or certainty of result. My argument is that this is really an attack on middle-class affluence.
Certainty/death/taxes.
An attack by whom? To what purpose?
So, in other words, society should engage in a madcap experiment in decarbonization, on the theory that in some conceivable time frame it could make a difference. Invariably, warming alarmists give a list of weather-related horrors, such as massive and devastating hurricanes, droughts, floods, blizzards, cold wave and heat waves. They frankly don't know if a single one of these events would be avoided or mitigated by abandoning electric vehicles. They will only say that they know that such events will occur if we do nothing. I think much more is needed before humans engage in lemming-like madness, economic hari-kari.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey_C_Earwicker
An attack by whom? To what purpose?
An attack on middle-class affluence, by making lifestyles either impossible or unaffordable.
So, in other words, society should engage in a madcap experiment in decarbonization, on the theory that in some conceivable time frame it could make a difference. Invariably, warming alarmists give a list of weather-related horrors, such as massive and devastating hurricanes, droughts, floods, blizzards, cold wave and heat waves. They frankly don't know if a single one of these events would be avoided or mitigated by abandoning electric vehicles. They will only say that they know that such events will occur if we do nothing. I think much more is needed before humans engage in lemming-like madness, economic hari-kari.
An attack on middle-class affluence, by making lifestyles either impossible or unaffordable.
The issue with climate change is that many models show a "tipping point" where the change is completely irreversible and leads to much hotter temperatures, a loss of arable land, and a probable loss of a large percentage of the humans on the Earth. It is impossible to say with certainty whether a specific weather event was made worse by climate change, but you can look at trends and see increases in temperatures, warmer winters, more hurricanes with higher wind speeds, etc.
Much of the middle class lifestyle probably should be attacked as unsustainable. Single use plastic bags are bad, and a waste of resources. They also end up blowing all over the place when disposed of improperly. They also kill marine creatures. Fast fashion is an environmental disaster, with clothes being tossed in the trash after a couple of wearings because they aren't cool anymore. I wear my clothes until the fall apart, but that's not as common as it used to be.
The issue with climate change is that many models show a "tipping point" where the change is completely irreversible and leads to much hotter temperatures, a loss of arable land, and a probable loss of a large percentage of the humans on the Earth. It is impossible to say with certainty whether a specific weather event was made worse by climate change, but you can look at trends and see increases in temperatures, warmer winters, more hurricanes with higher wind speeds, etc.
Much of the middle class lifestyle probably should be attacked as unsustainable. Single use plastic bags are bad, and a waste of resources. They also end up blowing all over the place when disposed of improperly. They also kill marine creatures. Fast fashion is an environmental disaster, with clothes being tossed in the trash after a couple of wearings because they aren't cool anymore. I wear my clothes until the fall apart, but that's not as common as it used to be.
At least you're honest. The problem is that by your own admission there is no certainty that taking any of the advocated steps would make any positive difference.
So, in other words, society should engage in a madcap experiment in decarbonization, on the theory that in some conceivable time frame it could make a difference. Invariably, warming alarmists give a list of weather-related horrors, such as massive and devastating hurricanes, droughts, floods, blizzards, cold wave and heat waves. They frankly don't know if a single one of these events would be avoided or mitigated by abandoning electric vehicles. They will only say that they know that such events will occur if we do nothing. I think much more is needed before humans engage in lemming-like madness, economic hari-kari.
An attack on middle-class affluence, by making lifestyles either impossible or unaffordable.
Madcap is an emotive word this context.
What more do believe is needed?
I'll ask a 2nd time. An attack by whom, to what purpose?
The issue with climate change is that many models show a "tipping point" where the change is completely irreversible and leads to much hotter temperatures, ...
.
Yes, there is a tipping point, but 4.5 Billion yrs of Earth's history says that the tipping point is one where increasing temps leads to a sudden reversal of temps.....A tipping point that leads to accelerated warming would be a positive feedback system, which is not sustainable. The fact that we've cycled from hot to cold repeatedly shows that Earth has a negative feedback system at work. As long as there are oceans and rain clouds, there will never be a climate crisis.
Warmer is better for human health and more co2 is better for photosynthetic plants. ...So where's The Problem?
In regards consumerism--take the longer look. Increased consumerism leads to certain environmental costs, but also to more jobs & better money circulation, which translates to higher standard of living. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs....With higher standard of living, there is more "extra" money available for environmental conservation projects & efforts.
Madcap is an emotive word this context.
What more do believe is needed?
I'll ask a 2nd time. An attack by whom, to what purpose?
I will tell you what you probably already know. Electric vehicles are a lot more expensive than similar I CE‘s. Their driving range is short. There is no guarantee that the grid can supply enough power at all times of the day and night, to provide similar freedom as is provided by 24 hour gas stations.
Basically, this is a form of lockdown.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
