California bans new gas/diesel vehicles

[Don M.]

Interesting. Part of an article I read about Jim Pattinson, one of Canada’s most respected billionaires, raved about Hydrogen powered cars.

Hydrogen powered vehicles would be the Least disruptive "transition". Considering that the planet has plenty of water, and the oxygen could be released into the atmosphere....to be recombined with the hydrogen as it burned...only to produce steam/water, such a fuel would be the least likely to pollute. The main hinderance, at this point, seems to be the energy needed to break the water down into its respective components.

This brings up yet another breakthrough in energy production that is needed....a workable means of producing Nuclear Fusion. A combination of Fusion for electrical generation, and Hydrogen for vehicle fuel would virtually solve humanities need for fuel with minimal impact to the environment.

The answers are out there....let's hope that science and engineering can find the way to make such things available in time to salvage the planet.

 

[C'est Moi]

What do you do when the batteries in your electric tools go dead? You don't sit there and wait for them to charge; you swap them with a fully charged battery. We could do the same thing with car batteries.

Do you realize how big the batteries for electric vehicles are?

 

[C'est Moi]

99% of scientists disagree with you.

I don't believe the percentage is anywhere near 99%.

 

[C'est Moi]

One of the problems now is that most people don't do enough to try to make a difference other than giving it lip service. The problem began as cultures switched from hunter gatherers to agriculture and destroyed the natural balance. Then it expanded with the beginning of the industrial age. True, no one knew back then. We do know now. We have for 60 years, with some deciding it was not something they had worry about until recently. And even so, most don't do enough to stop it. So we are where we are. We can only go from here.

Bingo. When the vocal environmentalists give up their computers, cellphones, air conditioning/heating, gas/diesel vehicle(s), etc. then it will be easier to take the outrage seriously.

 

[Aunt Bea]

Bingo. When the vocal environmentalists give up their computers, cellphones, air conditioning/heating, gas/diesel vehicle(s), etc. then it will be easier to take the outrage seriously.

Your post reminded me of the debate a few years ago over George Bush's energy-efficient Prarie Chapel ranch home and Al Gores energy gulping estate. Who do you believe the environmentalists that tell you how to live or the people that quietly do something?

 

[Nathan]

If California was serious about Climate Change, that state would be doing something to control their annual forest fires.

There is no "IF" about California being serious about climate change, period. But, I realize that a lot of people will say things "off the cuff" that have huge holes in logical thought. Climate change is THE deciding factor in the increase of number and severity of the annual fire season. California can't change the climate on it's own, and of course under the current regime the Federal Government is working against California's every effort to maintain clean air, and reduce climate change.

I suspect that the last few weeks alone, that state has released more pollutants into the atmosphere from its fires than all its vehicle emissions from this year.

That very thought has crossed my mind as well, being that we're sitting between the Bobcat fire and the El Dorado fire, eating tons of smoke from both. Welcome to 2020...

 

[Phoenix]

Bingo. When the vocal environmentalists give up their computers, cellphones, air conditioning/heating, gas/diesel vehicle(s), etc. then it will be easier to take the outrage seriously.

We all will be enviromentalists sooner or later. Our society is the way it is now. We are set up to use all the above. What we have to do is do it wisely and back away from the destructive stuff and stop polluting the land. All of us are guilty and will pay.

 

[AnnieA]

Only 3% of the forests in California are on state land, most of the forests are on federal land, so it's the feds that need to up their game.

Federal forestry agencies try to do controlled burns and the state agency CARB more often than not prohibits them because controlled burns fall under CARB's human created events classification and have to meet California's Clean Air Act standards which fire is never going to do. Then when wildfires start naturally in uninhabited federal forests,the state agency Cal Fire puts them out.

 

[asp3]

Federal forestry agencies try to do controlled burns and the state agency CARB more often than not prohibits them because controlled burns fall under CARB's human created events classification and have to meet California's Clean Air Act standards which fire is never going to do. Then when wildfires start naturally in uninhabited federal forests,the state agency Cal Fire puts them out.

Thanks for lifting some of my ignorance. I hadn't realized that prescribed burns were stopped that way. However the article I read https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen said that some changes were made after the 2017/2018 fire season but we have more room to go.

It sounds like we Californians should be contacting our state representatives and senators to get them to create new laws which loosen burn regulations when risk reaches a certain measurable level.

 

[AnnieA]

Thanks for lifting some of my ignorance. I hadn't realized that prescribed burns were stopped that way. However the article I read https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen said that some changes were made after the 2017/2018 fire season but we have more room to go.

It sounds like we Californians should be contacting our state representatives and senators to get them to create new laws which loosen burn regulations when risk reaches a certain measurable level.

@asp3 That's the article I read and found it very interesting.

I had already come across information about the Sierra Nevadas (California's watershed) that is another piece of this fire devils puzzle. The period 1937–86 was the third-wettest half-century interval of the past 1,000 and more years. The population of California in 1940 was just under 7 million; 1990 was just shy of 30 million. So appx 23 million people moved into an area during a freakish wet weather anomaly that's not likely to return anytime soon.

Too many people packed into an arid climate that ecologically requires periodic burning is a challenge. I feel for your lawmakers; they're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't predicament. But I think damned if you don't wins out.

 

[RB-TX]

In defense of those who came before us I don't think the science was available or strong enough to really show that we were destroying our planet by exploiting it's resources so aggressively.

However starting around the early 60s some people were pointing out where this road was leading us. I think at that point we can start evaluating decisions that were being made and the information that was available to frame those decisions.



I would love to see any credible studies that were reporting that Manhattan was supposed to be under water 10 to 15 years ago. All of the reviews of previous studies that I have read and am aware of have said that the previous studies were too conservative with their numbers and the effects of climate change have exceeded their predictions.

*******
As far as I know, there were no studies but this was the propaganda from Al Gore and his group.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=al+gore+q.../climaterealityproject.org/files/blog/ag1.png

 

[StarSong]

Al Gore wasn't incorrect overall. Some forecasts didn't come to fruition exactly as some scientific models projected, but that's always true of scientific models.

It's a shame we didn't heed his warnings.

 

[asp3]

*******
As far as I know, there were no studies but this was the propaganda from Al Gore and his group.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=al+gore+quotes+climate+change&va=z&t=hk&atb=v228-1&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/climaterealityproject.org/files/blog/ag1.png

According to this article (which is not favorable towards Gore) https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/0...onvenient-claim-about-nyc-flooding-in-sequel/ the quote is:

“If Greenland broke up and melted or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida [animation shown with much of the state underwater].”

Immediately, after showing Florida, Gore showed animations of drowning cities and countries: San Francisco, The Netherlands, Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta and then Manhattan.

“But this is what would happen to Manhattan, they can measure this precisely,” Gore warned as he showed his audience much of the city underwater, including the area where the memorial would be built.

That claim was made in a 2006 film, not 25 years ago so I'm still awaiting something said 25 years ago about Manhattan being under water.

The quote also doesn't mention any particular time period. It mentions one or two events which would result in many places including Manhattan being flooded.

So I still don't think that 25 years ago anyone said anything about Manhattan being under water 10 to 15 years ago.

 

[AnnieA]

Al Gore wasn't incorrect overall. Some forecasts didn't come to fruition exactly as some scientific models projected, but that's always true of scientific models.

It's a shame we didn't heed his warnings.

The problem was the messenger and his delivery. Politicians of all stripes look for ways to propel themselves into the limelight. Gore chose climate change and in doing so made it a divisive issue by making fearmongering statements that even climate change scientists were quick to correct. In his bid to use climate change as his pet 'issue', he made wildly speculative statements such as at the Copenhagen climate summit when he said that polar ice caps would likely melt by 2014 and was quickly denounced by leading climate change scientists. This is just one more example of why I hate politics. Politicians polarize, divide and the fallout stymies constructive action on so many fronts.

Copenhagen climate summit: Al Gore condemned over Arctic ice melting prediction

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.​

​

However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims.​

​

Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. ...​

​

Mr Gore’s speech also provoked criticism from leading members of the climate science community, who described the projection as “aggressive”.​

​

Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Times: “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics.​

​

​

 

[asp3]

Here's a good Snopes write up on what and when Gore said what he said. I am disappointed that I was unable to find any reference to Gore correcting his gaffs. One needs to take responsibility for and correct one's incorrect statements.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

 

[AnnieA]

Here's a good Snopes write up on what and when Gore said what he said. I am disappointed that I was unable to find any reference to Gore correcting his gaffs. One needs to take responsibility for and correct one's incorrect statements.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

IMHO, about 99.9% of people who make a run for the presidency are narcissists. Narcissists have great difficulty admitting their wrongs.

 

[squatting dog]

According to this article (which is not favorable towards Gore) https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/0...onvenient-claim-about-nyc-flooding-in-sequel/ the quote is:

“If Greenland broke up and melted or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida [animation shown with much of the state underwater].”

Immediately, after showing Florida, Gore showed animations of drowning cities and countries: San Francisco, The Netherlands, Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta and then Manhattan.

“But this is what would happen to Manhattan, they can measure this precisely,” Gore warned as he showed his audience much of the city underwater, including the area where the memorial would be built.

That claim was made in a 2006 film, not 25 years ago so I'm still awaiting something said 25 years ago about Manhattan being under water.

The quote also doesn't mention any particular time period. It mentions one or two events which would result in many places including Manhattan being flooded.

So I still don't think that 25 years ago anyone said anything about Manhattan being under water 10 to 15 years ago.

And then there was this.
For sheer vivid lunacy, nothing matches the Good Morning America report from 2008:
They showed images of Manhattan shrinking against the onslaught of the rising seas, and by 2015, Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon.

There are indeed scientists laboring away in good faith to understand more about our climate, and I applaud their work. But climate activists all too often are the close cousins of politically correct hucksters. They cloak their raw will to have power in the self-righteous cloak of the great and glorious cause. We’ve taken them seriously for far too long. Now, it’s time to laugh.

 

[squatting dog]

The practicality of today’s electric cars summed up in one photograph:
A diesel van towing a gasoline-powered generator called in to charge up an electric vehicle’s dead batteries....

 

[AnnieA]

The practicality of today’s electric cars summed up in one photograph:
A diesel van towing a gasoline-powered generator called in to charge up an electric vehicle’s dead batteries....

Yikes! Bet that's a good bit more expensive that toting a few gallons of gas from the nearest filling station.

The problem is our current battery technology lacks longevity and requires rare earth minerals that exploited people mine for us. I do think that improved batteries are in our future ...near future, I hope. I read about battery development from time to time and wish I had a crystal ball as to who is going to get there first ...that stock will go through the roof once a company goes from R&D into consumer production.

 

[asp3]

And then there was this.
For sheer vivid lunacy, nothing matches the Good Morning America report from 2008:
They showed images of Manhattan shrinking against the onslaught of the rising seas, and by 2015, Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon.

There are indeed scientists laboring away in good faith to understand more about our climate, and I applaud their work. But climate activists all too often are the close cousins of politically correct hucksters. They cloak their raw will to have power in the self-righteous cloak of the great and glorious cause. We’ve taken them seriously for far too long. Now, it’s time to laugh.

Is the 2008 GMA report available online somewhere? I'd like to take a look and see what was actually said and what they got wrong.

You seem to imply that a large number of scientists are not laboring in good faith but then again I might be misreading your implied message. It's an ambiguous sentence to me. If you replaced "There are indeed scientists" with a more descriptive word would you choose, Most scientists, more than half of scientists are, less than half of scientists or a few scientists?

How are climate activists close cousins of "politically correct hucksters"?

I also hate the term politically correct because it implies the people with such opinions only have them because they believe they are the ones to have to be seen in a positive light by others. I find that the people who label opinions as politically correct are more likely to have less of an understanding of an opinion than the ones they accuse of having them to be politically correct.

I personally think that we don't take the climate activists seriously enough. I find they are much more informed about the workings of the world and the implications of climate change than those that dismiss them.

 

[asp3]

The practicality of today’s electric cars summed up in one photograph:
A diesel van towing a gasoline-powered generator called in to charge up an electric vehicle’s dead batteries....

View attachment 125209

To me the image shows the limitations of people who don't understand how electric cars work. I'm willing to bet the same driver runs or has run out of gas in the past.

There is also a possibility that the context of the image has not been accurately portrayed. For example it could be that the image is of someone's car who was given bad information about the availability or functionality of charging stations at their destination and they might have been trying to get to another charging station that was working. The same thing could happen to a gasoline powered car where the pumps where they were headed were out of order and they ran out of gas on the way to another station with working pumps.

 

[StarSong]

Agreed, @asp3

Some of my snowbird friends own a Tesla. When driving between homes they know when they're going to need to recharge and where recharging stations are located.

Battery life is displayed on the dashboard, just as fuel levels are on gas powered vehicles.