Judge orders NEVI Funding restored

[mkhuffman]

I just have to make one more comment about this topic, and then truly I will let you guys have the last word. It seems I am in the minority on this forum, or at least on this topic. That is OK, as long as you guys are OK with it. Diversity of ideas is good, IMO.

Here is my main point:

There are many, many climate scientists who do not believe human caused global warming is a crisis. Within that group there are some who feel there is no human caused global warming (I understand that is a small number).

I agree with those very smart scientists who think it is NOT a crisis.

I do not think driving a BEV is having any impact on the climate. It moves the pollution away from me, but there are still pollution and environmental impacts as a result of making, driving and disposing of a massive, heavy truck.

That's it. My opinion is not crazy, because there are some very smart people who agree with me.

Unfortunately, those who scream "the end is near" and "we better act now or our children will all die" seem to get the publicity, and the attention of our politicians.

It is almost like the news media likes a crisis so they can get more viewers/clicks, and politicians like it because a crisis lets them spend and regulate more than they could without one. Huh. Imagine that. Seems like there is a pretty good incentive to promote something that is not true.

Now you guys can have the final word. Thanks again for the civil debate.

Sponsored

 

[BigSkies]

This is true, when I moved to the LA basin in the mid 80s there were between 225 and 300 unhealthy air quality days a year. Very unhealthy/hazardous days were between 120 and 145.

With the new emissions and moving to hybrid/EVs over the years it is so much better. From 2021-2024 the number of unhealthy days were between 87 and 133 days and only 2024 was over 100 at 133. The number of unhealthy/hazardous days were between in that time was between 1 and 9.

Over the last few years EV/hybrid/fuel cell sales in California are hovering around 25%.

I really appreciate this benefit too. There are many parts of the world with really bad air quality. I happen to live in one, with my part of Colorado being a persistent severe violator of EPA air quality standards.

While the mechanics of climate change and local air quality are different, there is major overlap in the causes of both. It's mostly combustion of hydrocarbons. Reducing the use of hydrocarbons is good all around.

For a few examples, the closure of a coal plant in PA, led to an immediate 20% decline in ER visits for respiratory issues and a 40% decrease in visits for childhood asthma. That's huge. People in the area are now living longer, and that's a non-material reduction in health care costs for the region.

Another study was able to directly correlate increase in EV adoption with lower air pollution at a local level.

It doesn't mean we can get to zero hydrocarbons. But every reduction in use improves air quality and slows the progress of climate change. There is no downside outside of the threat to oil companies margins.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

The process that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere operates along geological timescales. This is the process where ancient plants and animals died, with biomatter being covered by dirt, and eventually turning into oil, coal, etc. That's how the CO2 got out of the atmosphere in the first place. There will be no natural CO2 removal from the atmosphere on a timescale that is relevant to the human experience. What we add today will be there for thousands of years.

Thanks, @BigSkies, for this tutorial. I would suggest another, and much faster, method by which CO2 leaves the atmosphere.

CO2 dissolves in water. Once it's in water, it makes the ocean water more acid -- but it also becomes available to complex with calcium ions to make calcium carbonate (limestone). Given enough decades, and if we stopped adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, this could significantly reduce CO2 concentrations and global mean temperature.

***

I hadn't thought of water vapor as a greenhouse gas, @mkhuffman. Clouds reflect LOTS of sunlight and keep it from warming the planet, but I suppose high humidity without clouds or fog could trap heat.

Adding more water vapor to the atmosphere, though, has strong limits -- because excess water vapor falls as rain. I don't think we could possibly combust enough fossil fuels to change global water vapor concentrations significantly. But, because there are no physical limits on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, carbon dioxide -- which is not the most potent greenhouse gas, but potent enough -- keeps increasing and increasing without ever reaching equilibrium in our lifetimes.

***

If you justify your preferred opinions by the fact that "smart scientists" agree with you, I promise you that you may be among the last smart people to realize that human activity is warming the planet and causing widespread harm. There is always a market for smart people whose work benefits the wealthy -- so, as long as pollution is profitable, there will be smart apologists for pollution.

One of the solutions is to make pollution UNPROFITABLE. A united population can do that, and so can a wise government. But that may be a matter for another thread.

***

Thanks, everyone, for showing how to express disagreements, even strong ones, without attacking each others' character. We need a lot more of that.

Best to all!

 

[captainjp]

There is always a market for smart people whose work benefits the wealthy

“Smart” is subjective.

 

[emoore]

I just have to make one more comment about this topic, and then truly I will let you guys have the last word. It seems I am in the minority on this forum, or at least on this topic. That is OK, as long as you guys are OK with it. Diversity of ideas is good, IMO.

Here is my main point:

There are many, many climate scientists who do not believe human caused global warming is a crisis. Within that group there are some who feel there is no human caused global warming (I understand that is a small number).

I agree with those very smart scientists who think it is NOT a crisis.

I do not think driving a BEV is having any impact on the climate. It moves the pollution away from me, but there are still pollution and environmental impacts as a result of making, driving and disposing of a massive, heavy truck.

That's it. My opinion is not crazy, because there are some very smart people who agree with me.

Unfortunately, those who scream "the end is near" and "we better act now or our children will all die" seem to get the publicity, and the attention of our politicians.

It is almost like the news media likes a crisis so they can get more viewers/clicks, and politicians like it because a crisis lets them spend and regulate more than they could without one. Huh. Imagine that. Seems like there is a pretty good incentive to promote something that is not true.

Now you guys can have the final word. Thanks again for the civil debate.

The climate scientists who believe that climate change is not a crisis is in the very very small minority. You have a right to believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it true. I like to believe in science and the science says it's a crisis.

 

[Thedude]

The climate scientists who believe that climate change is not a crisis is in the very very small minority. You have a right to believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it true. I like to believe in science and the science says it's a crisis.

Regardless of which scientists are more correct it doesn’t change the fact that EVs represent only a small contribution to the reduction of global emissions. If we snapped our fingers and overnight the US converted every single passenger vehicle to electric and added sufficient power generation from clean sources to supply that demand we’d see a 20% drop in US CO2 emissions or about a 2.2% global reduction from our efforts. It’s not nothing and is a way for the common citizen to help perhaps but it isn’t the real solution.

 

[BigSkies]

Thanks, @BigSkies, for this tutorial. I would suggest another, and much faster, method by which CO2 leaves the atmosphere.

CO2 dissolves in water. Once it's in water, it makes the ocean water more acid -- but it also becomes available to complex with calcium ions to make calcium carbonate (limestone). Given enough decades, and if we stopped adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, this could significantly reduce CO2 concentrations and global mean temperature.

***

I hadn't thought of water vapor as a greenhouse gas, @mkhuffman. Clouds reflect LOTS of sunlight and keep it from warming the planet, but I suppose high humidity without clouds or fog could trap heat.

Adding more water vapor to the atmosphere, though, has strong limits -- because excess water vapor falls as rain. I don't think we could possibly combust enough fossil fuels to change global water vapor concentrations significantly. But, because there are no physical limits on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, carbon dioxide -- which is not the most potent greenhouse gas, but potent enough -- keeps increasing and increasing without ever reaching equilibrium in our lifetimes.

***

If you justify your preferred opinions by the fact that "smart scientists" agree with you, I promise you that you may be among the last smart people to realize that human activity is warming the planet and causing widespread harm. There is always a market for smart people whose work benefits the wealthy -- so, as long as pollution is profitable, there will be smart apologists for pollution.

One of the solutions is to make pollution UNPROFITABLE. A united population can do that, and so can a wise government. But that may be a matter for another thread.

***

Thanks, everyone, for showing how to express disagreements, even strong ones, without attacking each others' character. We need a lot more of that.

Best to all!

These are all interesting and true points. These are the types of things I'd geek out with you on over a beer.

I've found the most critical thing in talking about climate change is to focus on the major contributors. Climate is such a huge issue that it touches on every facet of life, industry, commercial activity, natural process, etc. The process I described accounts for probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-80% of the problem, with another 10-15% being biological process related (food and biomethane being biggies in this category).

There's multiple ways to look at it, but there is no escaping the fact that the vast majority of the problem is hydrocarbon related. Other topics like land use, climate feedback loops, and methane breakdown are fascinating and worth understanding. They just have to be taken in context of the scale of those issues versus hydrocarbons.

The interesting, factual, and ancillary topics are too often used rhetorically as a distraction from the major contributors.

To mention your specific points:

-Rates of ocean acidification remain one of the scientific question marks in future warming. The oceans have become more acidic over the past decades. Enough so that many coral reefs are dying. Shell-forming creatures (which form a critical part of the ocean food chain) cannot create shells in acidic water. Oceans are currently absorbing roughly 1/3 of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere IIRC. As oceans become more acidic, they will be able to absorb less CO2. That's basic chemistry. The exact rate at which the absorption rate will slow is not precisely known by science. They have some good ideas, but they have to wait for reality to catch up to know for sure. There's no scenario where ocean acid reduces the impact of climate change materially, but it could bend the expected temperature curve somewhat up or down.

-Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but not the scientific "gotcha" internet wizards make it out to be. This is actually a climate change feedback loop. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a rough constant when averaged over season and years. It doesn't go up or down much year-to-year. Except that warmer air holds more moisture. Climate change puts more moisture in the air, accelerating the warming impact. My read is that this is accounted for in climate models at a global level, but there's regional uncertainty.

 

[savethemanual]

The climate scientists who believe that climate change is not a crisis is in the very very small minority. You have a right to believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it true. I like to believe in science and the science says it's a crisis.

Isn't it amazing that these professionals have access to the same data and facts, yet come to very different conclusions....

 

[BigSkies]

Regardless of which scientists are more correct it doesn’t change the fact that EVs represent only a small contribution to the reduction of global emissions. If we snapped our fingers and overnight the US converted every single passenger vehicle to electric and added sufficient power generation from clean sources to supply that demand we’d see a 20% drop in US CO2 emissions or about a 2.2% global reduction from our efforts. It’s not nothing and is a way for the common citizen to help perhaps but it isn’t the real solution.

This is very true. However, it's worth noting that there's no single sector that you can point to and say "this is the problem". It's all sectors.

On a US basis, transportation makes up just shy of 30% of emissions. This includes air travel, heavy transport, rail, etc.

Light automotive is probably one of the easiest sectors to decarbonize along with most (but not all) electricity.

Then we have to start tackling the hard problems.

Sponsored