Climate Change

[Eagle7]

I mean, one expects new, low-volume things to be more expensive at first, then for mass production and competition to drive the price downwards as the years go on, no? I'm sure motorcars were initially more expensive than horse-drawn carriages.

Not necessarily in this case, because the cost of batteries is really going up fast, with no indication that they're going down due to the rapidly rising cost of their materials, in particular lithium which has already seen a price increase of 470% in the last year.

There's also the cost of mining. I saw this image and thought the fuel consumption figure seemed awfully high. I checked into it and believe it's a typo. The actual fuel consumption of a 994H seems to be about 65-70 gallons per hour, so for a 12 hour shift it would be about 800 gallons of fossil fuel used, not 1800. Still it's shockingly non-green if every one of these machines required to mine the minerals is using 800 gallons every 12 hours. With the rising price of gas, that's going to add to the cost of making batteries. Even if the price of gas is just $5 per gallon, that's $4,000 a day per machine just in fuel costs. Then transportation costs to the plants that make the batteries.

They really need to rethink this whole 'renewable' energy thing. There has to be a balance point between fossil fuels and electric, but going all electric is actually looting the planets resources faster than just using fossil fuels. They're using large quantities of fossil fuels to remove the finite amount of mineral resources which produce the batteries (and solar cells) that have limited lifespans, then have to be disposed of.

I think we'd be better served if they slowed this whole thing down, and took some time to seriously think through everything carefully to find the best balance between using the two resources. They shouldn't be pushing this on the basis of emotion, drama and delusional fantasy.

 

[eriegz]

Not necessarily in this case, because the cost of batteries is really going up fast, with no indication that they're going down due to the rapidly rising cost of their materials, in particular lithium which has already seen a price increase of 470% in the last year.

There's also the cost of mining. I saw this image and thought the fuel consumption figure seemed awfully high. I checked into it and believe it's a typo. The actual fuel consumption of a 994H seems to be about 65-70 gallons per hour, so for a 12 hour shift it would be about 800 gallons of fossil fuel used, not 1800. Still it's shockingly non-green if every one of these machines required to mine the minerals is using 800 gallons every 12 hours. With the rising price of gas, that's going to add to the cost of making batteries. Even if the price of gas is just $5 per gallon, that's $4,000 a day per machine just in fuel costs. Then transportation costs to the plants that make the batteries.

View attachment 6525

They really need to rethink this whole 'renewable' energy thing. There has to be a balance point between fossil fuels and electric, but going all electric is actually looting the planets resources faster than just using fossil fuels. They're using large quantities of fossil fuels to remove the finite amount of mineral resources which produce the batteries (and solar cells) that have limited lifespans, then have to be disposed of.

I think we'd be better served if they slowed this whole thing down, and took some time to seriously think through everything carefully to find the best balance between using the two resources. They shouldn't be pushing this on the basis of emotion, drama and delusional fantasy.

You cite many data points in your post, and none of them are wrong. However, you miss the bigger picture:

First of all, there is almost nothing in our current "Western lifestyles" that is sustainable. That photo you pasted above could just as easily be a photo of a tractor on its way to extract the minerals that went into your smartphone or computer. Or, it could be mining the gold that's in your wedding ring. Hell, it could even be digging up the metals that will eventually go into our Emiras! Or, it could be generating the plastic that goes into an artificial limb.

Point being: it doesn't matter what the end result is, whether it's a bomb or a new kitchen sink; the end result is fundamentally unsustainable.

And I agree with you that humanity seriously needs to "pump the brakes" on all of this expansion, in order to buy us more time to figure out all of the bugs of our modern civilization. And believe me, there are MANY bugs:

• Destruction of wildlife and biodiversity
• Microplastics leaching out into every part of the globe
• Factory farming and degradation of topsoils
• Global warming, increased wildfires, and rising sea levels
• etc.

I argue that the ONLY way to achieve this is to immediately reduce our human population across the board — through completely voluntary, non-violent, and ethical methods, of course! (I've had this discussion enough times by now to know how people tend to interpret such a statement without that disclaimer ) We're in the "everything crisis", and we won't make it out alive just by switching to paper straws.

However, if people don't like the above suggestion, then here's an alternative: immediately cut your energy use by 90%, take no more than one flight every 3 years, and live in a 640 sq.ft. home. But of course, nobody's going to do that. We all want someone else to fix all of our problems without any impact on our lifestyles.

And so, if people don't like THAT answer, then here's one last alternative: human civilization will collapse.

 

[frazzer]

I argue that the ONLY way to achieve this is to immediately reduce our human population across the board

This suggests there is a uniform distribution of resources, whereas as we all know it is not even close to uniform. a very small number of people are responsible for disproportionate use of resources. Reducing the population will do nothing, since those people who are driven to maximise their wealth and resources at any costs will simply take up the slack. They see the world in terms of opportunities for personal wealth and power maximisation, that's all, it has no other purpose. The issue is not the number of people, the issue is what is in their heads.

 

[Eagle7]

You cite many data points in your post, and none of them wrong. However, you miss the bigger picture:

First of all, there is almost nothing in our current "Western lifestyles" that is sustainable. That photo you pasted above could just as easily be a photo of a tractor on its way to extract the minerals that went into your smartphone or computer. Or, it could be mining the gold that's in your wedding ring. Hell, it could even be digging up the metals that will eventually go into our Emiras! Or, it could be generating the plastic that goes into an artificial limb.

Point being: it doesn't matter what the end result is, whether it's a bomb or a new kitchen sink; the end result is fundamentally unsustainable.

And I agree with you that humanity seriously needs to "pump the brakes" on all of this expansion, in order to buy us more time to figure out all of the bugs of our modern civilization. And believe me, there are MANY bugs:

• Destruction of wildlife and biodiversity
• Microplastics leaching out into every part of the globe
• Factory farming and degradation of topsoils
• Global warming, increased wildfires, and rising sea levels
• etc.

I argue that the ONLY way to achieve this is to immediately reduce our human population across the board — through completely voluntary and ethical methods, of course! (I've had this discussion enough times by now to know how people tend to interpret such a statement without that disclaimer ) We're in the "everything crisis", and we won't make it out alive just by switching to paper straws.

However, if people don't like the above suggestion, then here's an alternative: immediately cut your energy use by 90%, take no more than one flight every 3 years, and live in a 640 sq.ft. home. But of course, nobody's going to do that. We all want someone else to fix all of our problems without any impact on our lifestyles.

And so, if people don't like THAT answer, then here's one last alternative: human civilization will collapse.

Well this certainly wasn't a response I was expecting lol.

I agree with your bullet point list except for number 4, I don't buy into the global warming, increased wildfires, and rising sea levels jazz. Those things have always been in play since the earth was created. Though you didn't list it specifically, as for climate change, the climate has always been changing, and will continue to do so with or without us.

To me, the "reduce human population across the board" ideology is another extreme reaction like "we need to go all electric now to save the planet", etc. There's always a panic emergency of some kind, and it's always predicated on saving the planet. The planet is much more robust than we give it credit for.

As far as reducing the population, surprisingly there isn't a big stampede to be the ones to sacrifice themselves. Who knew. The focus there needs to be on developing the understanding of the importance of growth reduction among those groups who are the least able to feed and take care of themselves, because unfortunately those are the groups with the biggest growth rate right now.

It isn't feasible to cut energy use by 90%. If somehow magically everyone actually managed to do that, the electric companies, gas companies, oil industry would pretty much collapse. That big of a reduction would bankrupt all of them. So now you have a huge economic panic with all the loveliness that brings.

Same thing with taking only 1 flight every 3 years. Airline industry would collapse and go bankrupt. They wouldn't be able to sustain being in business with that few flights. Now we have a transportation crisis.

Living in a 640 sq ft home? Sure, the developers and construction industry wouldn't be able to make any money doing that, so now they're going out of business. Who brings in the materials to build those things? Using what fuel? Transporting them how? All the manufacturing industries that would support all that, have gone out of business due to the lack of people buying anything. No gas, no flights, no vehicles, using only 10% of the energy they were using....

We need to get out of panic mentality, and start carefully and thoroughly examining the entire system, and figuring out what we have, what we need, and how to adjust everything to something that is practical, realistic and livable. This is what I mean when I say intelligent people who can see things in a balanced way, need to sit down and seriously think things through. Dramatic changes in any one sector ripple like an earthquake through other sectors and usually cause more problems than they were supposed to fix. Things just compound from there.

What you need more than anything when things are out of balance, is to figure out what the balance would actually be, and how to achieve it. Then start doing it.

 

[frazzer]

this thread has been so derailed

 

[MCS]

 

[eriegz]

Well this certainly wasn't a response I was expecting lol.

I agree with your bullet point list except for number 4, I don't buy into the global warming, increased wildfires, and rising sea levels jazz. Those things have always been in play since the earth was created. Though you didn't list it specifically, as for climate change, the climate has always been changing, and will continue to do so with or without us.

To me, the "reduce human population across the board" ideology is another extreme reaction like "we need to go all electric now to save the planet", etc. There's always a panic emergency of some kind, and it's always predicated on saving the planet. The planet is much more robust than we give it credit for.

As far as reducing the population, surprisingly there isn't a big stampede to be the ones to sacrifice themselves. Who knew. The focus there needs to be on developing the understanding of the importance of growth reduction among those groups who are the least able to feed and take care of themselves, because unfortunately those are the groups with the biggest growth rate right now.

It isn't feasible to cut energy use by 90%. If somehow magically everyone actually managed to do that, the electric companies, gas companies, oil industry would pretty much collapse. That big of a reduction would bankrupt all of them. So now you have a huge economic panic with all the loveliness that brings.

Same thing with taking only 1 flight every 3 years. Airline industry would collapse and go bankrupt. They wouldn't be able to sustain being in business with that few flights. Now we have a transportation crisis.

Living in a 640 sq ft home? Sure, the developers and construction industry wouldn't be able to make any money doing that, so now they're going out of business. Who brings in the materials to build those things? Using what fuel? Transporting them how? All the manufacturing industries that would support all that, have gone out of business due to the lack of people buying anything. No gas, no flights, no vehicles, using only 10% of the energy they were using....

We need to get out of panic mentality, and start carefully and thoroughly examining the entire system, and figuring out what we have, what we need, and how to adjust everything to something that is practical, realistic and livable. This is what I mean when I say intelligent people who can see things in a balanced way, need to sit down and seriously think things through. Dramatic changes in any one sector ripple like an earthquake through other sectors and usually cause more problems than they were supposed to fix. Things just compound from there.

What you need more than anything when things are out of balance, is to figure out what the balance would actually be, and how to achieve it. Then start doing it.

It gives me no joy to tell you that unfortunately, you're wrong about climate change. I WISH that climate change wasn't a problem, but it is. And today there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this (100 years ago that wasn't the case). But make no mistake, I'm not saying that we can solve the problem with electric vehicles. Hell, even cars themselves might be fundamentally unsustainable (chemicals widely used in the production of car tires kill wildlife). I just think it's important for opponents to realize that electric vehicles are no worse than any other parts of our modern Western lifestyles today.

Reducing populations might seem like some big conspiracy, but if anything, there's a conspiracy to not talk about overpopulation, not the other way around. Also, I'm not advocating for people to kill themselves (great, now I have to re-word my disclaimer AGAIN! ); I'm advocating for people to have fewer children, and reduce — not stabilize, reduce — our population numbers, globally. I just don't see any other way. And yes, I'm personally leading by example by not leaving any children after I die.

this thread has been so derailed

It's not my fault! Eagle started it.

Tl;dr:

I love the Evija, and I love EVs.

 

[Leonard]

It gives me no joy to tell you that unfortunately, you're wrong about climate change. I WISH that climate change wasn't a problem, but it is. And today there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this (100 years ago that wasn't the case). But make no mistake, I'm not saying that we can solve the problem with electric vehicles. Hell, even cars themselves might be fundamentally unsustainable (chemicals widely used in the production of car tires kill wildlife). I just think it's important for opponents to realize that electric vehicles are no worse than any other parts of our modern Western lifestyles today.

Reducing populations might seem like some big conspiracy, but if anything, there's a conspiracy to not talk about overpopulation, not the other way around. Also, I'm not advocating for people to kill themselves (great, now I have to re-word my disclaimer AGAIN! ); I'm advocating for people to have fewer children, and reduce — not stabilize, reduce — our global population numbers, globally. I just don't see any other way. And yes, I'm personally leading by example by not leaving any children after I die.


It's not my fault! Eagle started it.

Tl;dr:

I love the Evija, and I love EVs.

Basically we have a population boom because there is no hardship. Because there is no hardship we have a consumerism boom. Until we know some pain as a species I cannot see anything changing.
We like to talk the talk, partly to make us feel better about that next unnecessary purchase, partly for the right moral reasons, but any changes we do make are not enough to reverse the damage we are doing.

 

[NicolasB]

Just accept that we're all F'dn and we might as well enjoy the peak of civilization while we can. Get an amazing car and drive the hell out of it. When civilization collapses, we will all be helpless and the overpopulation issue will start to take care of itself in a drastic way.

 

[Leonard]

Just accept that we're all F'dn and we might as well enjoy the peak of civilization while we can. Get an amazing car and drive the hell out of it. When civilization collapses, we will all be helpless and the overpopulation issue will start to take care of itself in a drastic way.

Maybe I should buy a Hummer

 

[Green]

I really find it hard to believe people still do not believe in global warming. How can the science and data be disregarded? It is a scientific fact that it is real. I guess there are still people that do not believe in evolution despite science My friend I grew up with was very religious and did not believe in dinosaurs

 

[Eagle7]

I really find it hard to believe people still do not believe in global warming. How can the science and data be disregarded? It is a scientific fact that it is real. I guess there are still people that do not believe in evolution despite science My friend I grew up with was very religious and did not believe in dinosaurs

Because science has compromised itself badly. It's now a business and business concerns are more important than integrity. They can now claim anything, and call it science, and count on the fact that the average person will believe it because you know, it's science.

The planet had an ice age, and warmed all by itself without us having any influence. No explanation for that. You know how you can tell if it's a con or not? If the 'solution' is to take all our money so they can 'study' the issue by flying in their fleets of personal jets, to stay at the finest resorts in the world and shmooze with each other. Meanwhile they use the media they own and control, to create the illusion that they're the most important people on the planet, so you better not disagree with them, or you'll be mocked and laughed at!

Most of it's a crock, with fake science, fabricated 'evidence', and if anybody shows anything different, they try and prevent them from saying or showing anything. If they were truly interested in actual science, they'd welcome all information, but they don't. They want to censor free speech, and prevent anybody from questioning them in any way about anything. If you haven't read it, read George Orwell's 1984, you'll be amazed at what you recognize.

At any rate, this should all be put in a separate thread so we don't destroy the original subject of this thread.

 

[switchlanez]

My quick comment: The truth is somewhere in the middle of these pollution/global warming arguments I'm seeing. Earth undergoes cyclical warming/cooling periods independent of human input. Humans undeniably add a positive offset to that cycle. The real debate is whether that offset can be substantiated and/or has a permanent, perpetual effect on cycles moving forward. Empirical data collected over centuries would be useful for deduction but we don't have that. So we can only project and approximate. And data science is making us increasingly (even exponentially) better at that than ever.

Credible facts/scientific claims can be challenged and defended in an arena of academic rigor. Less credible ones are more easily corrupted. Ones that don't stand the test of rigor get cherry picked by biased political or news media (often inherently capital driven) to manipulate public opinion. They often lack expertise in a field far outside their depth as editors/reporters (in a COVID debate among friends today, one referenced medical journals and another friend referenced Politifact, a left leaning political publication, and the convo ended there). What's troublesome is when respected scientific claims contradict. Need to back test them against each other and their sources then see which ones stick.

In these arguments I usually throw up my hands and say, "I'm no climatologist [or virologist or insert -ologist here]. Are you?" Because I don't see the point in making claims like you are one when you really aren't.

 

[eriegz]

Because science has compromised itself badly. It's now a business and business concerns are more important than integrity. They can now claim anything, and call it science, and count on the fact that the average person will believe it because you know, it's science.

The planet had an ice age, and warmed all by itself without us having any influence. No explanation for that. You know how you can tell if it's a con or not? If the 'solution' is to take all our money so they can 'study' the issue by flying in their fleets of personal jets, to stay at the finest resorts in the world and shmooze with each other. Meanwhile they use the media they own and control, to create the illusion that they're the most important people on the planet, so you better not disagree with them, or you'll be mocked and laughed at!

Most of it's a crock, with fake science, fabricated 'evidence', and if anybody shows anything different, they try and prevent them from saying or showing anything. If they were truly interested in actual science, they'd welcome all information, but they don't. They want to censor free speech, and prevent anybody from questioning them in any way about anything. If you haven't read it, read George Orwell's 1984, you'll be amazed at what you recognize.

At any rate, this should all be put in a separate thread so we don't destroy the original subject of this thread.

Out of curiosity, which books or articles have you read on the topic of climate change? Which specific theories or findings do you disagree with?

-------

Totally on-topic:

 

[NicolasB]

Climate change is an old thing, no doubt, but what people don't get, is that the "gradual warming" that has occurred before, took thousands and thousands of years. In the last 100 year or so, things have warmed as much as they would have over several millennia, and it coincides with us cutting the forests, industrializing and burning every type of fossil fuel we could find. Something like 95% or more of the scientists in the world agree on this and accept it as fact, aka, not something that is debatable. There's also people that still think the earth is flat, Trump won by millions of votes, and the vaccines have microchips.

Sometimes you do have to just throw your hands up, look the other way, and just live your own life knowing that not everybody gets it, and that'll have to do.

PS- I like the EviJa, and did you notice in the Lotus promotional videos, they flip the logo backwards, and it spells "ALive"? Like an ambigram.

 

[Eagle7]

This would feel wrong to me. Having the freedom to go on tangents now and again keeps threads exciting, and makes this forum a fun place to be! If this one turned into a 10 page debate, ok then I would agree with you. But it looks like Eagle has stopped replying to me anyhow, so it's pretty much petered out on its own.

I haven't stopped replying, I've been waiting for this topic to have it's own thread so we don't totally go off the rails for this thread. It's a complex and complicated subject that covers a wide range of issues. If we're going to discuss it intelligently, we need to do it in its own thread so those who aren't interested in reading it don't have to have it forced into their face in this thread. The Evija is too beautiful a car to be pushed aside by something that controversial.

 

[frazzer]

Trouble with climate change is it appears on a backdrop of deception and lies that governments tell their people in order to keep them fearful and legitimise their existence - you need a good story if you're going to extract peoples wealth and enrichen a narrow section of society at the expense of another. Trouble is like the boy that cried wolf, this time there is a wolf, the evidence is substantial and empirically it is clear the climate is changing. But hard to forgot all those false wolves, and I can't blame people who are suspicious of the narrative, it's just that there isn't the time to convince everyone if we stand any chance.

One thing we can all agree on, it's time for a last V6 before we pack it in.

 

[Leonard]

Consumerism is predominantly at fault in regards to CO2
Car pollution is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun) in comparison to cargo vessels shipping predominantly needless tat around the globe #sweepingstatement

 

[Nova]

I have multiple technical degrees so I am not s science denier. I have the capacity to read and understand most papers on the subject of global warming, which tends to be based around data gathering and statistical analysis. That humans have had an impact since the industrial revolution on the climate of Earth is indisputable. What is disputable and herein lies the pitfall, is what we can predict about the future and what can be done about it. Science is not absolute, especially when it comes to data gathering and analytics. Are we gathering the right data, are we using the right analytical method, are there variables we have not considered? These are all unknowns that add a significant measure of uncertainty. Remember, a core tenet of the scientific method is skepticism. Any scientist who is 100% certain about his research findings is not a scientist.

What upsets me is that certain politicians have used science as a weapon against their opponents, claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with the current scientific consensus with 100% capitulation is an anti-science rube. Worse still, we have so called scientists being attracted by 15 minutes of fame, pontificating on behalf of politicians towards an ideological goal that claims too much and cannot be supported by the underlying science. These motivations span political appointees like Fauci, to popular figures like Bill Nye, to previously well respected publications like the Lancet.

I don't claim to be a climate science expert, I don't have any solutions to our problems, I am just someone who understands the limits of how a proper scientist should behave and our current discussions around climate change has been poisoned by bad science.

 

[frazzer]

That humans have had an impact since the industrial revolution on the climate of Earth is indisputable. What is disputable and herein lies the pitfall, is what we can predict about the future and what can be done about it.

Completely agree with you, but within the range of outcomes are very serious consequences. They may not be perfectly accurate predictions, but they deserve our attention due to their implications.

The trouble with science is it begets arrogance, because knowledge of the material world is the highest knowledge in a radically materialist society. So they act like high priests and gatekeepers to higher truths, everyone is expected to bow down. But the reality is human beings are inherently not materialists (which is not the same as not being materialistic) so whilst most of us value the contribution of science and have respect for their work, the expectation we should surrender our intuition to them completely, otherwise be damned, is oppressive.

Morever the independent scientist today only exists in the history books. The way science is funded and scientists careers are progressed means science is never independent of commercial interests. That does not invalidate their findings, but it does limit what they can find and report.