End of the gas engine?

For real. All the light energy(radio and microwave are light based) we're using today is far more concerning. Maybe not as an effect on weather, but to what extent its having on cellular life. Thats not a pun.

 

Let's not turn this into a shit slinging competition; by that logic there would be no flat earthers when you can clearly look at the moon with a naked eye and wonder "why the fuck would anyone think the earth is flat?".

The fact is an EV or even a hybrid could eventually benefit a large portion of the US - i can see that now for my household as a lot of companies allow work from home. They will never compete with an ICE for large portions of rural populations and I think the real fear is regulations will take that option away.

I think that's the real argument here - there is no one size fits all. So the regs being put in place to take away the option of ICE in the future is looked at as hostile because for some/a lot of people, it is

 

I also agree that ICE engines will always be desired. Look at classic cars as an example how many enjoy them, treasure the history and they continue to run. Granted many get restored but the engines and lines are timeless.

I could be wrong but I have a hard time believing that a 25 yo man today in 40 years will say dang I really wish I had my 2023 model year Tesla and need to find a new battery for it.

It’s clear the EV movement is being forced, just like no more gas mowers, shower head water usage restrictions, no more gas stoves, and just recently dishwashers to use only 3.5 gallons per cycle instead of 5 currently.

Plus when you buy the big ticket items you get to pay more with high inflation, and even pay more interest with higher interest rates. I don’t see why everyone does not see all the pluses here.

 

Bro, thats the point. You, me, anybody can test & verify the spherical nature of our world. Thats what science is, the proof without belief that anyone can test. By deduction, a flat-earther is an unreasonable person. Simply because its easy to prove them wrong. Could the climate cult be right? Of course. But until they can prove and show the world how anyone can deduce this knowledge themselves, its all just zealotry. Its like Pascals Wager being forced through legislation. "Just in case they're right we should do these things". Hell no to that. Its the, "we have determined what is best for you. You want proof? Shut up and do what we say, idiot" attitude that is causing problems. Not the other way around. So let the shit fly.

As far as benefit. How does EV or hybrid help in a way that engines don't? Other than in enclosed spaces. Very curious.

 

With terms like climate cult, you don’t seem very open to the possibility that we are part of the problem. Do I have evidence that we are adding to the “problem”, no I don’t, but I don’t think we are helping that’s for sure. So, instead of continuing like we have in the past, let’s move forward in a better way. What that is, I don’t know exactly, but I can make choices that reduce my impact.

As Scouts were taught, Leave No Trace. We can’t do that completely on this planet, but we can try to minimize it.

 

I wonder if all the North Korea testing has any environmental impact, or all the impacts of the Ukraine war, or as mentioned earlier the egregious polluters of China and India with zero regard for pollution?

Yet we are the ones being conditioned that it’s all our fault as consumers driving cars, taking a shower, and personal favorite for eating meat. Those damn cows fart hence polluting hence my fault for wanting a steak. Come on.

If we are really concerned here we should not own a 4Runner or car gas or electric. Maybe we should all get some rickshaws or bicycles to get around.

Unless we as a people cease to exist there will always be some pollution and water usage etal. It’s life all about tradeoffs.

 

They are industrializing nations.
US and Europe went through same thing, when their pollutions were highest.
It is hypocrisy to ask India and China to stop polluting as much.

 

I call BS on that. That’s like saying two wrongs make a right

 

I think EV and/or Hybrids in cities makes a lot of sense. They typically have short stop and go drives where gasoline engines don't make sense.

Even further away from cities in small towns an EV is making sense for my family at the moment. I know they don't work for everyone but our use case, since we work from home and most of our round trips to town are probably 10 miles or less, taking the 4runner just doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't want to get rid of the 4runner, but having a small EV for around town runs would save a ton of gas and wear and tear on the ICE vehicles so it would be nice as an option. I don't think it should be forced into existence through legislation though.

I've often wondered what the true impact of all the atomic and nuclear testing by the US, USSR, and others has been on the planet. I think there have been hundreds of tests done in the past 75 years, each one essentially releasing the power of the sun on the planet with each test.

Is it coincidence we see higher temperatures in the pacific ocean, which is where we did a lot of our testing? I'm not smart enough to know but there are a lot of things that I feel could be pointed to as a possible reasons for an accelerated warming.

 

Because lithium is a metal and Maine prohibits mining for metals with open pits larger than 3 acres, it cannot be mined with an open pit...and that is the only real way to mine lithium. The law is because of mining for copper, lead and zinc and water pollution that those mines can cause since those metals often occur in rock that is rich in iron sulfides.

It might be the largest lithium deposit in the world.

 

There is some great thoughts being shared in this thread, by far one of the best I have been a part of on this touchy subject.

 

you can not ask a sovereign state to progress when we did the same thing a century or two ago.

 

I'm curious - why not?

 

We don’t need to do business with them either, let them steal our intellectual property, manipulate currency, allow spy balloons, form alliances with Russia, Iran against ourselves, and I am sure we could list more. I don’t believe in kissing up, we need to put on the big boy pants already and use the set we have.

 

Do you have credibility as a nation when you do that?
Sure you can twist their arms a bit but they are going to do what is in their best interest. After a certain point, there isn't any leverage left.

 

Sure we can do that.
In an increasing global economy we are sure to lose out in the process, however.
If we don't do business with them, I am sure some other country will be happy to take out spot.

 

We know things now that we did not know 100 years ago so yeah, we absolutely can ask and still maintain credibility.

As for leverage, same as always, either we buy from them or we don't.

 

We *know* 27% of methane United States's emissions are from cattle and pigs. Yet we continue to eat them.
Just because we know something does not mean people change their behavior. Same is true for nations, especially when they are still industrializing and most of their GDP comes from polluting businesses.

 

If we as a country could sustain ourselves before the Chinese boom I am not sure why we could not do it again. If not shame on us.

 

You realize "chinese boom" was because US promoted it right? US consumer wants cheap stuff above all else. Its supply and demand. Just because we wish we could stop relying on China for supplying cheap products does not mean we will rid of them overnight. Or in a few years. Sorry but not gonna happen.

 

Yes that is one point we agree on. It’s our own fault China got to where it is as consumers, and stock holders no doubt. I agree on that point for sure. Just sad to see we never learn from mistakes or change course

 

GMC Hummer EV Battery Teardown Proves Our Fears (aol.com)

 

I misunderstood. Thought you were generalizing, not referring to the USA specifically.

No, I don't see China or anyone else addressing their pollution before it becomes important to them to do so. External pressures or encouragements from other nations can be largely meaningless.

 

Wow - just wow. That design is in no way efficient, sustainable, or damn, even affordable. I mean the thing is a tank at 9,000 pound. Holy crap.

 

I find the idea of an off-road EV simply ridiculous. What you want in the field is tried and true simplicity of design and rugged function. Why do you think all of the fighters in the middle east drive Toyotas? It's something you can repair in the field with minimal tools, training, and supplies. The EV Hummer? A joke. You think something like that is going to make it on even a medium-level trail run? Doubtful.

 

I have nothing against EVs, per se, but everybody is jumping on the bandwagon BEFORE we have the technology!


More:

I was left flat by my electric car charging experience (yahoo.com)

 

different scales I am afraid
cellphones or radio frequency devices may not cause global warming. Honestly this is the first time I have heard it mention, and I do not have a research article to disprove it right now. But If it was, I am sure someone would have reported it.

 

We can thank the Ferrari (CEO) dude from Milan for this thought provoking topic!

 

RF waves technically could directly make air temp rise if the frequency is one that actually interacts with the air. But I think the point is to use RF so that it doesn’t interact with air. As a basic example, a microwave oven generates RF that doesnt act on the air, just the food inside it. That’s why it heats food so efficiently, because it doesn't waste energy on heating the air. Sure, some waves could heat the air, but that would be an inefficiency engineers usually try to get rid of.

Think of RF like light. It’s light in frequncies our eyes can’t see. A flashlight can heat the air, but because heat doesnt help us see, we look for more efficient ways to do that, so we dont waste fuel and can see better.

That said, any RF tech is a type of machine that requires energy to push RF through space/atmosphere. Those machines literally get hot when doing their work…just like any machine. They also require fuels to power them. The better question might be how much of carbon emission can be attributed to the energy needed power all of the phones, devices, which almost everyone on earth has. And the carbon released to manufacture them continually.

But philisophically, I believe any tech is a tool. We use tools to fill a personal need. Ultimately, I think this whole debate gets personal because it is personal. Nobody likes being told not to use a tool they depend on for something personal. Sure, we should want better tools to do the job better, we should always be open to that. But if the user isn’t designing or making that tool, and you guilt them for using it…that’s the definition of a personal criticism. A lot of the benefit of this debate in society is lost to the fact that we are framing the problem incorrectly and losing sight that people are the important thing in all of this. Machines, fuel, tools, they all serve us. We are the important thing. The earth and it’s resources are important, only because they serve our needs!

Instead we devolve into blaming “humanity” for being an “infection” on the earth. As if this rock would even matter if nobody were around to care.

Lot’s of youth have grown up with the idea that humans are a blight on the earth, to a large degree caused by how this debate has been framed. They grow depressed, angry, and literally view themselves and their fore-bearers as trash. We all poop. Poop is dirty and we should try to be clean about it. But we shouldn’t make people feel like poop, just because they poop.

 

O. M. G. So we’ve got two competing automotive technologies: electric and hydrogen. The electric throws off microwaves and the hydrogen produces moisture. We will literally be scalded by steam as we drive down the highway!

My eldest daughter is somewhat of a fanatic. I have told her that I share her concern about the environment but disagree on the immediacy required to solve the problem. I show her news clippings from back when I was her age, warning of the next ice age and the impending glacial ice sheet that will cover North America. Articles by the same scientific organizations which wring their hands with such concern now. I’ve agreed that change should happen, but that the process should be one of evolution, not revolution. But her zeal is not to be contained and we have the ongoing debate about whether humans are stewards or parasites. We argue about shrinking our eco footprints vs shrinking the number of footprints. And ultimately, feeling battered, I don my favorite armor. Sarcasm. I described to her my 200 year plan. In 200 years, I told her, I’ll be dead. Everyone I ever loved will be dead. And everyone they ever loved will be dead. I only need the world to last 200 more years. What vested interest do I have in the perpetuation of humanity beyond that? She says she subscribes to the humans-are-parasites-that-exist-outside-of-and-at-odds-with nature perspective. Fine. Surely then it must actually be preferable that we render the planet uninhabitable for humans, so that we the parasites can be exterminated at last and nature can continue on its merry way without us, recovering as it has before from the global ecological disasters of the past. She hates the flawlessness of the logic.