Cities Are Scolding Countries at UN Climate Conference To Cut Emissions (vice.com) 159
A reader shares a report: An alliance of major cities including New York, Toronto, and London challenged nation states attending the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany this week "to kick dirty carbon to the curb" and immediately "commit and work straightaway towards carbon neutrality, 100 percent renewable energy, zero-waste and zero-carbon." The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance is a new collaboration of 20 international cities (other members include Washington DC, San Francisco, Oslo, and Sydney). All are striving for carbon neutrality and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. "Dirty fuels and climate disruption are killing and displacing millions of citizens around the world," the Alliance stated in a strongly-worded letter sent to every country's delegation at climate talks, known as COP 23. "Cities are on the frontline of climate impacts. We see the urgency of climate action and need nation-states to be as committed as we are," Johanna Partin, the director of the Alliance and former advisor to the mayor of San Francisco, told Motherboard by phone.
Re:That's nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
The poor counties are not the problem. Its countries like the US and Australia that are causing the major problems.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Or you can measure per-person, and realize that some people are polluting a whole lot more than others. Those high-polluters seem to congregate geographically...
Irrelevant name calling (Score:1)
This is nothing to do with SJWs worried about which toilet you get to use or how many micro aggressions per day you have to put up with. This is about collapse of civilisation.
And if you think it's not about the potential global collapse of civilisation, you just aren't paying any attention.
We need to work harder than now just to avoid total world economic collapse. We need to work much harder than that to avoid major disruption. We need to work much, much harder than that to remain comfortable and secur
Re: (Score:1)
Carbon dioxide emissions and pollution are not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Windmills on skyscrapers (Score:1, Informative)
All those cities the TALL buildings should require the tall buildings to have windmills on them.
Then the power is generated close to where it is being used. Windmills in the countryside are and eyesore.
Perhaps photovoltaic window too.
Get the carbon out of YOUR city before you start trying to run mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Your proposals don't make a lot of sense.
Rooftop windmills are not efficient. They are too small and the skyline is too uneven. I read that they don't even break even in energy. Also, the city landscape changes too quickly compared to the optimal lifetime of a windmill.
The technology for putting them in windows isn't mature enough. Photovoltaics on the roofs make some more sense, at least for buildings not in the shade of taller buildings. But it isn't going to provide nearly enough power to power the build
Re: (Score:2)
I read that they don't even break even in energy.
Buildings don't break even on sprinkler systems, either.
Sometimes doing what is good for others is enough.
Of course that involves regulation(!) since no developer would do that unless forced to.
Photovoltaics on the roofs make some more sense, at least for buildings not in the shade of taller buildings. But it isn't going to provide nearly enough power to power the building.
They don't need to power the whole building.
If they can provide 10% of the building's summer A/C energy cost,
that would be a win for the building's owners and a huge win for the environment.
Every day, more and more (Score:2)
This is why. (Score:2)
This is why I'm not worried about the climate accord Trump pulled the US out of. Cities, states, and people are stepping up to take care of the environment on their own. An that is how it should be.
We need to breed a environmental conscious generation and no try to legislate one into existence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to get in to another debate weather Trump was right or wrong about that. All I'm saying is I have more faith in people and local governments than I do in big government to do the right thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait. I see what you did there. Very nicely done.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? What has the federal government done to harm your life?
If you live in Flint your local government did a lot to harm your life. If you're in any one of dozens of cities in Oklahoma now suffering earthquakes regularly you again have your local government to thank.
Go back in time a little bit to pre-EPA era and you had rivers and lake catching on fire again due to local governments permitting just about anything.
These are all mamby-pamby environmental issues you say? Again, history is not on your side
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're talking about some previous era before Lois Lerner and globalist neo-liberalism. Governments have a terrifying amount of power today, and they are not using those powers for the good of their people.
Funny you should mention Flint, the local government there was so incompetent that their ability to govern themselves was taken away by the adults. All the more reason to govern yourselves, distant rulers don't care about you and never will.
Re: (Score:2)
Flint, the local government there was so incompetent that their ability to govern themselves was taken away by the adults.
Where the "adults" were the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sit... [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
That's like saying when a freeway gets congested, cities along that freeway should step up and widen their portion of it and hope the other cities do the same, instead of depending on the state or federal government to do it for them.
But that's how we get bottlenecks.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's much better to sacrifice everything on the altar of Efficiency. What kind of moron wouldn't want to live in a world where every facet of life is decreed from on high by noble, enlightened bureaucrats? If we don't act now to stop this plague of "self determination", why, the economy might only grow at 3.6% next quarter. This is a travesty, and it shall not be tolerated. Just think of all the heavy handed social policy we're missing out on, all of the minuscule reductions in meaningless sta
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of moron wouldn't want to live in a world where every facet of life is decreed from on high by noble, enlightened bureaucrats?
You're forgetting that "liberty" includes the rights of your neighbours
to fuck you over anytime they want to.
And if there is enough of them, and they are well armed,
then there is sweet fuck all that you can do about it.
That's what life in all failed states (e.g. Somalia, Afghanistan) is like.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh some moderator got his panties in a wad. I wonder why? Because Trump was mentioned with out being condemned? Well good thing I have karma out the ass.
Countries reply (Score:1)
You don't like our record on the environment? Because you have to deal with the inevitable concentration of pollution that results from your population densities?
Fine. Whey don't you grow your own food, mine your own minerals (and process them), and generate your own energy within your city limits. Cities can just STFU as long as they consume all the goodies that everyone else produces. You want carbon neutral food (for example)? We'll stop delivering it. You can just get your butts out to the farm and do
Fun Fact: cutting emissions cuts energy costs (Score:2)
One of the interesting things is that modern appliances designed to reduce emissions use less energy, which drives down utility bills.
New buildings typically use 20-30 percent as much energy as the old buildings they replace. Running factories in the dark and using LED lighting and modern equipment cuts heat buildup, so you spend far far less on heating and cooling buildings. Building modern factories with solar roofs allows you to run ceiling fans, cuts maintenance, and makes you much more competitive than
Driving down utility bills (Score:2)
That's terrible if you're a energy company. What you want is for energy usage to go down but billing to go up. Here in California I feel like I use less energy each year but my power bill goes up a little bit more each year.
Re: (Score:1)
Residential electricity consumption has been going down for more than a decade now.
Your bill goes up because you have wildfires that destroy energy infrastructure from the sources - solar farms in adjacent states, wind from WA/OR/ID, hydro from WA/OR/BC/ID - and you have to replace it.
Put some solar panels on your building and your utility costs will plummet. Most Californians already know that. India is going for a mix of solar and wind too. The world isn't stopping. As the article points out.
Not when policymakers feel nothing. (Score:1)
What is the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance? (Score:1)
I'm tired of this myth too (Score:2)
From TFA:
Itâ(TM)s a tired myth that there is a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth, Partin said.
If we want environmental protection without killing the economy then we need to take a list of what's "green" and what's cheap and see where they overlap, then use those.
What's low on CO2 output? Look here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u... [world-nuclear.org]
(Page 7 has a nice chart BTW)
What's cheap? Look here:
https://www.instituteforenergy... [institutef...search.org]
(Charts and graphs near the bottom of the page.)
Looks to me like the winners are wind, hydro, and nuclear. Of course future developments will shift these numbers around so let
Re: (Score:2)
Looks to me like the winners are wind, hydro, and nuclear.
The biggest and cheapest winner is increased energy efficiency. Get those old energy-wasting buildings, vehicles and appliances to the dump.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. I'm glad you are happy with your solar energy system.
If you think what I've provided is "irrelevant drivel" then perhaps you could provide some relevant drivel? I'd like to see your sources, I gave mine.
I stopped at listing the top three energy sources, somewhat arbitrarily. Would you like to see how solar ranks with maybe the top five? Let's do that.
Let's start with costs in $/MWh, ignoring the fossil fuel sourced energy.
1 - Wind 86.6
2 - Geothermal 89.6
3 - Hydro 90.3
4 -
Mooo! (Score:1)
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
With coal plants being discontinued, I prefer solar and wind to charge electric cars without heavy rare earth batteries (not fully rare earth free but going the right direction): http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/... [fortune.com]
Solar chargers (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting thing about using solar power to charge electric cars is that electric cars inherently include storage. You can, in principle, choose to charge cars when the sun is shining.
This would require somewhat of a change in the timing of when you charge. Instead of going home and charging your car overnight, parking spaces would have solar panel roofs-- you'd charge your car in the daytime (which, for most of us, would mean: at work.)
But that's doable.
http://news.energysage.com/solar-canopy-installations-bring-shade-clean-energy-parking-lot/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/28/the-best-idea-in-a-long-time-covering-parking-lots-with-solar-panels/
http://solarbuildermag.com/news/costs-decline-solar-carports-will-spread-across-country/
https://www.borregosolar.com/news/the-design-basics-for-solar-parking-lots-you-need-to-know-2
Re: (Score:2)
This would require somewhat of a change in the timing of when you charge. Instead of going home and charging your car overnight, parking spaces would have solar panel roofs-- you'd charge your car in the daytime (which, for most of us, would mean: at work.)
OK, so who's paying to install the solar panels, and how do they charge people for using said solar panels?
There's no such thing as a free puppy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Scandinavian countries have hydro and/or geothermal power. They are also suitable for wind and more friendly to nuclear than the US.
Solar isn't the only way to cut emissions. It gets disproportionately high recognition in the US because we have large tracts of land suitable for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Solar is nice and worth talking about because most residential homes can add solar panels at a net savings. But there are a wide variety of viable renewable energy sources, and we will want an infrastructure composed of a good mix of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Treadmills with vodka bottles just out of the users reach are also green energy.
OK, maybe not Finland [Re:Solar chargers] (Score:2)
Not in Finland or any other northern place. Winter charging is no charging.
I would consider Finland a poor latitude for use of electric cars, especially since batteries perform poorly at low temperatures. However, since Finland comprises 0.072% of the population of the world, I think we can survive with the Finns finding a different solution.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A recent study shows that they're still better than typical vehicles. https://electrek.co/2017/11/01/electric-cars-dirty-electricicty-coal-emission-cleaner-study/
Re: (Score:2)
A recent study shows that they're still better than typical vehicles. https://electrek.co/2017/11/01... [electrek.co]
But are they better than my 500cc Yamaha T-Max?
I commute on a scooter. Yes, that's right. A scooter. 28 miles one way, every day. I get to go on the carpool lane, and pass thousands of single-driver cars every day. I do 60mpg, with a bike that's not even 25% of the weight of a Tesla.
Who cares about electric cars. Get out of your damn car.
Re:Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure a scooter could make it to the end of my road in its current condition, much less work. And then contend with both New England weather and New England drivers on a scooter? That's basically suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
We need three-wheeled electric vehicles with cabins to be protected from rain and snow. Think beefed-up electric tricycles. There's already plenty either on the market or in the works.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure a scooter could make it to the end of my road in its current condition, much less work. And then contend with both New England weather and New England drivers on a scooter? That's basically suicide.
While I live in California now, I'm originally from Europe. I would ride my bike to work no matter what. Rine, snow or shine, I'll be fine. The one exception would be when the roads are iced over. But then again, cars don't drive then either.
And I had a different bike, an R1200GS, at the time. But the same thing still applies. Get out of your 5-person car if you only need a 1-person vehicle.
Re:Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
The one exception would be when the roads are iced over. But then again, cars don't drive then either.
You might be surprised to learn that in a significant portion of the U.S. the roads tend to be iced over for several months every winter—and people still need to travel despite the conditions. In warmer climates that rarely see snow and ice people may just stay home for a few days and wait it out, but that isn't practical everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be surprised to learn that in a significant portion of the U.S. the roads tend to be iced over for several months every winterâ"and people still need to travel despite the conditions. In warmer climates that rarely see snow and ice people may just stay home for a few days and wait it out, but that isn't practical everywhere.
In those cases, I cannot blame someone choosing to enjoy a heated four-wheeled can over a 2-wheeled piece of frozen metal.
Re:Solution (Score:5, Informative)
But are they better than my 500cc Yamaha T-Max?
Yeah there are. Some of them are lots better. Did you know pound per pound your scooter probably pollutes more than my car does? You only get better gas mileage because of the weight, not because its necessary a more efficient vehicle. What your scooter lacks is the emission controls that modern cars have. So based on the efficiency for per gallon of gas burned my car has less emissions than you scooter does.
More mile per gallon doesn't necessarily mean less pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I used to have a 125cc scooter back in my college days. Very handy and efficient, to be sure, but it was also lacking in emissions controls. I think it had a very basic catalytic converter in the exhaust system, but nothing near as advanced as a standard car, and so the emissions were considerably greater.
My Honda generator which I use in emergencies is similar: it has no emissions control whatsoever, though it's exempted from even California's strict emissions-control regime because it's a very small
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Solution (Score:4, Informative)
But are they better than my 500cc Yamaha T-Max?
Yeah there are. Some of them are lots better. Did you know pound per pound your scooter probably pollutes more than my car does?
But "pound per pound" is not the criterion. The appropriate criterion would be "pound of pollution per commuter mile".
You only get better gas mileage because of the weight
So? Does it matter why it gets better gas mileage? What matters is that it does get better gas mileage.
...
More mile per gallon doesn't necessarily mean less pollution.
Indeed, there are other forms of pollution. If you get better miles per gallon but worse particulates and carbon monoxide per mile, it's not a desireable trade-off.
Re:Solution (Score:4)
Yeah. I see your point. I actually see the flaws in my own post. What looks good on paper doesn't actually translate to the real world.
Re:Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
But "pound per pound" is not the criterion. The appropriate criterion would be "pound of pollution per commuter mile".
You'll be happy to know the GP was wrong. Scooters are far worse than cars per commuter mile too.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be happy to know the GP was wrong. Scooters are far worse than cars per commuter mile too.
Depends on the car and scooter and what you define as pollution doesn't it?
I know my bike uses less fuel, less road space, causes less damage to the road so requires less maintenance and things it hits if I crash suffer less damage needing less repair etc etc I don't know if this means less net pollution but I'd be cautious about throwing around such claims without some numbers. I found this as a starter: https://rideapart.com/articles... [rideapart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel, road space, and maintenance have nothing to do with pollution. Also by pollution you'd think so, but you'd be wrong on that two. On all metrics a car is better than a scooter, ranging from a bit better (CO2 emissions), to massively better (NOx, PM2.5)
but I'd be cautious about throwing around such claims without some numbers
If you're curious then google it. Due to the differences in regulations (which is primarily the cause here) and differences in comparison methods you'll get a bike being anywhere from 1.5x to 8x worse for the environment than a car depending on which arti
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel, road space, and maintenance have nothing to do with pollution.
Um ok. So fuel use creates no pollution? Building and maintaining roads creates zero pollution?
On all metrics a car is better than a scooter, ranging from a bit better (CO2 emissions),
I think you mean CO. CO2 is directly proportional to fuel burnt, and there's no way a 2 ton vehicles burns less fuel than a 120kg vehicle.
If you're curious then google it.
I did and posted a link. You obviously didn't even read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Um ok. So fuel use creates no pollution? Building and maintaining roads creates zero pollution?
I see you have a problem with causality so let me spell it out for you:
Fuel consumption is not correlated to fuel emissions and environmental damage. Set a litre of petrol on fire and you're close to 2 orders of magnitude worse in environmental emissions than burning a litre of petrol in a modern car engine.
Building and maintaining roads actually creates close to zero pollution. The majority of road materials are made of standard rock and then covered in a thick layer of a byproduct from gasoline refining.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel consumption is not correlated to fuel emissions and environmental damage.
CO2 emissions are, which is why I pointed out the difference. Catalytic converters might help with CO, HC and NOx but CO2 is pretty much proportional to fuel burnt.
Building and maintaining roads actually creates close to zero pollution. The majority of road materials are made of standard rock and then covered in a thick layer of a byproduct from gasoline refining. It is the fuel that creates the road.
Right so the truck that lays the asphalt or concrete doesn't use fossil fuel? The guys who fix roads driving to work don't use any? Transporting materials are all done with zero emission vehicles? You aren't really thinking this through.
While we're at it and given that I've already postulated a scooter is worse than 1 car, why not extend that concept by putting 4 scooters in the same place since you're so freaked out by the environmental consequence of building a road.
Again you're not thinking it through. My commute to work on my bike takes 30 minutes, the same journey in my ca
Re: (Score:2)
And the environmental focus on emissions go far beyond CO2 which is why governments are focusing on reducing the numbers of scooters and diesels on the road. Still your tiny scooter has only a marginally better fuel efficiency than my 10 year old 1.4tonne car with a far larger co-eff of drag. So your awesome little scooter is actually quite the abomination when it comes to examples of efficient burning of fuel, even when looking at just CO2.
Right so the truck that lays the asphalt or concrete doesn't use fossil fuel?
Sure add some rounding errors in. It doesn't change the argument. M
Re: (Score:2)
Still your tiny scooter has only a marginally better fuel efficiency than my 10 year old 1.4tonne car with a far larger co-eff of drag.
Well that is horse shit. But keep make stuff up if it makes you feel better. Published figures average about 25mpg for a car, 100mpg for a scooter. So 4 x times more fuel efficient. Plus I'm on the road for only half the time due to not being stuck in traffic so we're looking at 6-8x more efficient overall.
There's an example of desperately clutching at anything that is available when you fundamentally change the units being talked about. We were talking about distance, now you're talking about time.
I'm talking about accurately measuring emissions. Time plays a part in that.
I knew this discussion was going to go nowhere before we even started.
Give up when the facts come out. We know the pattern...
Re: (Score:3)
So based on the efficiency for per gallon of gas burned my car has less emissions than you scooter does.
Emissions per gallon is a pointless metric. What's important is emissions per person per mile. If you define efficiency according to how much mass gets moved per gallon, your car might outscore his scooter. But who cares? If you define efficiency according to the emissions from transporting the same number of people (1) the same distance (an obviously more useful metric), his scooter will outscore your car handily.
More mile per gallon doesn't necessarily mean less pollution.
In most situations, yes it does.
Re: (Score:2)
If you define efficiency according to the emissions from transporting the same number of people (1) the same distance (an obviously more useful metric), his scooter will outscore your car handily.
I think you mean the same people and cargo. If it takes three or four trips to the store to carry a week's worth of groceries with the scooter, which the car could have carried in one trip, then that means several times the emissions. Even if the scooter emits half as much per trip it still loses when you consider the entire job, and given the efficiency of modern cars and their tighter emissions controls the margin is probably much smaller. Not every trip will be like that, of course, but it's common enoug
Re: (Score:2)
If you define efficiency according to the emissions from transporting the same number of people (1) the same distance (an obviously more useful metric), his scooter will outscore your car handily.
I think you mean the same people and cargo. If it takes three or four trips to the store to carry a week's worth of groceries with the scooter, which the car could have carried in one trip, then that means several times the emissions. Even if the scooter emits half as much per trip it still loses when you consider the entire job, and given the efficiency of modern cars and their tighter emissions controls the margin is probably much smaller. Not every trip will be like that, of course, but it's common enough to make it impractical to ditch the car—and if you do take the scooter somewhere and later discover that you need the car, any gains you might have otherwise made are more than offset by the extra trip to switch vehicles. That isn't even considering the safety factor, or the risk of inclement weather. Better, IMHO, to have a single reasonably efficient (30+ MPG) enclosed passenger+cargo vehicle that can handle 99% of all trips.
I wasn't trying to defend the scooter as the right idea. I was pointing out that it had lower total emissions than the car when used to commute 56 miles. Obviously, if your trip involves something the scooter isn't suited for, you wouldn't take the scooter.
...if you do take the scooter somewhere and later discover that you need the car, any gains you might have otherwise made are more than offset by the extra trip to switch vehicles...
I'm capable of planning the entire round trip when I leave home almost every time. If I need to run by the store on the way home, I can typically figure that out before I leave. If that's not the case for you, maybe a scooter isn't the right choice. The
Re: (Score:3)
If it takes three or four trips to the store to carry a week's worth of groceries with the scooter, which the car could have carried in one trip, then that means several times the emissions.
In that one example of which there are literally thousands you haven't mentioned.
Not every trip will be like that, of course, but it's common enough
The most common journey is commuting to and from work. If every person driving to work rode a modern scooter CO2 would be halved overnight and congestion would disappear.
Not claiming this is practical, just making the point.
and later discover that you need the car, any gains you might have otherwise made are more than offset by the extra trip to switch vehicles.
What? I have a car and a bike. 99% of my journeys are on the bike, the small time I need to take more than one passenger, or pickup big things then I take the car. There is no going back to get the car, I
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the type of emissions you are looking at. Motorcycles (and I assume scooters) put out a lot more NOx than cars. AFAIK, this is because cars have much more stringent regulations. I don't know why motorcycles are allowed to pollute so much.
Re: (Score:1)
More mile per gallon doesn't necessarily mean less pollution.
It pretty much does mean that. As other people have pointed out: more pollution per pound of vehicle and more pollution per gallon of gas aren't particularly valuable metrics. What matters is what you can transport and how far you can transport it, relative to pollution.
If you're burning significantly more gas over the same distance, you're not going to make up for that with slightly more efficient combustion. Barring some extreme edge cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know pound per pound your scooter probably pollutes more than my car does?
I did but I don't ride 2000kg of scooters every day...
Re: (Score:1)
A recent study shows that they're still better than typical vehicles. https://electrek.co/2017/11/01... [electrek.co]
But are they better than my 500cc Yamaha T-Max?
I commute on a scooter. Yes, that's right. A scooter. 28 miles one way, every day. I get to go on the carpool lane, and pass thousands of single-driver cars every day. I do 60mpg, with a bike that's not even 25% of the weight of a Tesla.
Who cares about electric cars. Get out of your damn car.
You do realize that there are electric scooters that will be way less polluting than your 500cc ...)
if you don't need the amenities of a car (multiple persons, large bagage, weather,
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with electric scooters is they don't have nearly as much range when the air conditioner is turned on.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahah, no. During the summer here I'd wind up going to the office covered in sweat. Not going to happen. and a "scooter" by definition isn't legal to take on a freeway at any time. It's not capable of the speed limit. Doesn't matter if there's a traffic jam, it doesn't fucking belong there.
Re: (Score:2)
During the summer here I'd wind up going to the office covered in sweat.
I live in Norcal, can get pretty crispy here in the summer. We have showers at work. Most of the time, my mesh-jacket cools well enough.
Not going to happen. and a "scooter" by definition isn't legal to take on a freeway at any time. It's not capable of the speed limit. Doesn't matter if there's a traffic jam, it doesn't fucking belong there.
Depends on your definition of scooter. My "scooter" is a 500cc Yamaha T-Max which can do double the speed limit. My other bike is an R1200GS, for those complaining about a guy riding a scooter.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fuck. Why do you hate the environment so much. Get a car man, they are between 2 and 10 times better for the environment for carrying a single person depending on which emission you measure.
MPG does not in any way correlate to emissions.
Sidenote: WTF only 60mpg? That's not much better than what I get in my 10 year old 1.5T gasoline car. Not only do you drive a scooter farting out on the environment, but it sounds like you drive quite a shitty one too.
Re: (Score:2)
Better dress for the slide, not the ride.
Yes. Rain or shine, I'm wearing my gear. I'm not one of those dumb-ass organ donors line-splitting at 80mph in the summer wearing a t-shirt and shorts. Also, I have dashcams on all my vehicles. Cars and bikes.
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Only due to edicts from environmentalists, especially those that are indifferent or hostile to those responsible for mining it.
Most environmentalists aren't hostile to such people, and whether they are hostile to miners or not has nothing to do with whether the environmentalists are correct.
most of the world is behind it.
Well, most of the world is behind jumping off a cliff. The US is not.
This is wrong at multiple levels. First, the rest of the world is trying to prevent us from going over the cliff of catastrophic global warming. Second, the only part of the US that is right now vocally against dealing with global warming are certain parts of the Republican Party (but certainly not even all of it), and the Trump administration. Most Americans are concerned about global warming http://news.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx [gallup.com]. Facts matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
While you were busy trolling, you might have missed this: Electric cars emit 50% less greenhouse gas than diesel, study finds [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Surprisingly it works out to a net benefit. The large coal engine is more efficient than 10000 small gasoline engines.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought Sharknado held that distinction.
Re:Solution (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the West runs on renewables. If you drive across the Western States, you'll see solar panels and wind farms everywhere, in addition to abundant hydroelectric power.
Coal is more expensive. Renewables are cheaper.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Just make shit up. It's what we expect of you.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you seen all those ads on your TV, where they show all those cars driving past windmills? They're usually shot in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
The future is now. We didn't wait for you.
Same goes for India.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You just pulled 'most' out of your ass and everybody knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the Internet yields the same answer as his colon:
California breaks energy record with 80% of state's power generated using renewable methods [independent.co.uk]
Not the majority every day, perhaps, but we're getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
Burn coal to charge electric cars made with rare earth batteries.
The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to Electric Cars do they? ;)
They apply quite well. It's a shame you never learnt them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Those cities are larger than some countries (and US States). Now that heavy manufacturing has been outsourced to the 3rd world, it's those cities that represent the real source of pollution.
This silliness reminded me of LA smog.
Re: (Score:3)
Then those cities should be paying "whatever the cost" instead of smugly telling others to pay for it.
If you read the article, instead of just the summary, you would see: they are.
Switching to LED lights- a "no-brainer" (Score:5, Informative)
The article listed switching to LED lights as an example of some of the things these cities have done, that they consider “no brainers." Note the word "some".
The article also said
'“We’ve proven that cutting emissions is good for the economies of cities.' San Francisco has enjoyed a 78 percent economic gain while reducing greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent since 1990, she said. All of the 20 cities in the Alliance have seen similar results."
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Can you prove that is the Scientific Consensus?
Right now it's just as possible that the lukewarmers are right. E.g. as Matt Ridley put it
http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [rationaloptimist.com]
I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.
As he points out here the lukewarmer case - global warming is real but not catastrophic is compatible with the range of predictions the IPCC made. And in fact looking at satellite and surface data we find that warming has been slower than the best case predictions from models.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The climate models have so far failed to get global warming right. As the IPCC confirmed in its latest report for the period since 1998 - I quote - "111 of the 114 available climate models show a surface warming trend larger than the observations". In other words the models have overestimated warming. And here's a chart that illustrates that point.
https://imgur.com/a/ZNDbY [imgur.com]
That is to say there is actually a consensus - if you like that word - that models are exaggerating the rate of global warming. The warming has so far resulting in no significant changes in the frequency or intensity of storms, tornadoes, floods, droughts or winter snow cover as I said. As two climate scientists, Richard McNider and John Christy put it "We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate. Back in 1990 the first IPCC assessment included this statement forecasting - no predicting - a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees C per decade with an uncertainty of 0.2 to 0.5 degrees C per decade. In fact, in the two and half decades since, even though emissions have risen faster than in the 'business as usual' scenario of that year the temperature has rise at an average rate of 0.15 degrees per decade based on surface measurements or 0.12 degrees based on satellite data. That is less than half as fast as expected and below the bottom of the uncertainty range.
That was a talk at the Royal S
Re: (Score:1)
Does anyone else find it strange that the United States is basically controlled by Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago? And that the UK is controlled by London? And that France is controlled by Paris? And Germany by Berlin?
It's true for the UK, France and Germany. However it's not true of the US. The electoral college is designed so that it is impossible to be elected President without a majority of electoral college votes. Which means you can lose NY, CA and DC and still be POTUS so long as you pick up enough votes elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The current incumbent lost NY, CA, DC and IL. Arguably the purpose of electoral college is to prevent one party monopolizing the presidency but gaining a majority of the
Re: (Score:1)
Trump isn't for much of anything except himself. Trump is Yuge... to Trump.
Trump is a Republican? Trump is actually a RINO. The Republican party was a party of convenience for Trump.
The Trump presidency is little more than TrumpCorp. Trump reminds me (I speak of style only, not policy positions) of Hugo Chavez, or the Perons of Argentina. He is stylish, charismatic (to his followers) and can speak for hours, just as long as he can speak about himself and what he's "going to" do. Also Obama is bad.