Or, crazy thought, locate housing closer to work/school/shopping so people don't have to drive everywhere.

They're called metropolitan areas, and they died from Covid.

 

They're called metropolitan areas, and they died from Covid.

Many were murdered during Covid from IMO too harsh business restrictions and from record high inflation caused by dumping money to try and counter the effects of those policies.

 

Joeyd, Joeyd. RE:""EVs are green ""
Sure Locally are. But Globally....
The production environmental damage is 2x as much as Diesel. There are tons of proof for this.
The human child slave-labor usage 1000 000 000 fold larger.
The exploitation environmental impact (globally).... if bad Diesel have engine efficiency about 39% but good today have at least 43% and best of best near 49% (yet last at Miller cycle not in Carnot cycle) then just witchcraft a bit to sniff out the EV fuel efficiency! The loss in electric motor at least 4% or maybe 6%. The loss in the inverter.driver/controller etc no less than 8% but more probable about 12-13%, the loss in battery discharge - different authors contradict each other, but somewhere between 8 and 12% they agree. The battery chemical energy loss at recharge no less than 10%, the battery charger loss between 12-13% and 6%, the loss in low voltage power lines, no less than 20-30%, the loss in high voltage power lines, about 22-25%, the loss in TEC what generates electricity - 75% if ordinary type and 60-65% if most ever ultra-modern with double energy recovering. Thus multiply this all and look, is it over or below the 15% of efficiency - like Stephensson locomotive!
Okay, probably You may have an illusions about why not to feed those EV by Solar or Wind energy? If so, ask WHEN You are outside of home driving and when want to recharge? Ist it happen at nighttime? Sure Your land is bit larger than mine where one side sun is jumping up, while another is sliding down the horizon, but long-range transport have efficiency dramatically low. Thus locally there is no Sun when needed and there is plethora of Sun when unneeded. Similar of wind energy, it rarely pass with when its needed and mostly is not available when have to be here now.
Thus, one of most important Energetics Law of nowadays - if want to install 1 GW of Solar or Wind, MUST install beforehand the 2 GW of TEC what is on "hot jump" regime - consuming a huge resources to be warm, but producing nothing. Thus, factual environmental cost of EV is AT LEAST 3x more dramatic as drow above. The EV is truly suicide of Planet not an any Save of it.

And, last but no least!
CO2 IS NOT the "bad gas" but instead it makes all the green grass and trees to bloom up multiplicative.
There are data, duplicating CO2 concentration, the biomass global tonnage may even 10x.
The human may stand up at least 100x concentration of today. The global CO2 balance is regulated by Ocean keeping the total accumulated CO2 for many many orders over that amount be find in the Atmosphere. And there the only one law of Chemistry regulates the atmospheric concentration - the Temperature, because at hot T the CO2 solubility DECREASES (not increases as would seem more logical). Thus it explains WHY NASA data files (welcome in their site!!- its public!) why FIRST is happening temperature increase and ONLY THEN happens CO2 concentration increase. The result what is happening before the Cause?? Then this is first case in the Science history where something similar indeed is true.
And what about the Stephan-Boltzmann law? In which degree of Temperature is proportional the thermal radiation of black-body? I was taught that in fourth. Okay, take the in-flux of energy, average T is 5772 K what corresponds to roughly 450 nano meters of wavelength. What is out-coming radiation - its by Wien second law is around 10...12...15 micro meters. So, divide (approx) 10 000/500=40 and make a 40 in step 4 what gives a 0.4 millionth part of influx But thats was maximum out-flux, CO2 may eat up only part of it, thus the Earth ecosystem is even more stable. If UNO data shows nowadays Human caused Total CO2 out-flux is about 3% of Natural, then do You INDEED are SURE that God All-mighty made out Planet so much dramatically unstable that changing that flux for one milliardth (billionth) part the whole Planet will collapse? For me it sounds absurd!
Okay, go in-deep. Take the other tool labelled Beer-Lambert Law. It descriptive the ability of gaseous or liquid environment to absorb the part of irradiation energy. Math there contains few logarithms, sorry for that, but Herr Majesty Excel digests it by an appetite, thus let make a tiny but spectacular examination - take the CO2 constants published by IPCC and ut in that Beer equation. I did it and did multiple times and cases. I imaginative a "total fail" experiment guessing that something awful happened and now CO2 is taking 99% of planet atmosphere. How much more energy will be absorbed by CO2 in atmosphere layer?The answer is surprising a bit. Few percents more than today. I repeated that examination. Imagine situation when CO2 is only 10x more than today. Result - for about 1/1000 of percent larger absorbed energy flux.
And then I remember for WHAT US are hunting the Assange! His stolen private e-letters between highest positions of IPCC head persons. Where they talked how to hide the clear contradictions with the Science of the Global Warming Hypothesis.
Your`s PhD candid for Env Sci and Manag, in past - 11 years for State prime Leading inspector for Air Bassin Environmental issues, Now 25 years for - Scientific researcher at laboratory of atmospheric chemistry and spectroscopy of State University, professional MSc Phys+radiophys and PhD Phys candid at stage of dissertation is written. You may not blame me as badly informed person.
Ah, ya, my friend, the local physicist having hit his 100 year birthday next month, is very keen to philosophy on the GW hypothesis, thus he invented a wonderful device able to measure perfectly the energy fluxes. I asked him - flux looking on Sun is about 1 000 000 fold larger than those coming out of Earth staying in dark cellar, when measurer is cryogenic (sorry, not to liquid helium but only LN2). More over - his every conversation drilled idea is - inside the atmosphere the MAIN energy transfer happens NOT by an irradiation (rays model) but with DIFFUSE irradiation (no concrete angle for rays). Thus the out-flux identically have NO ANY concrete direction, or other words, CO2 may not be able to absorb those out-flux part if that part not exist (roughly).

In main lines I dont like a Trump. His pro-russian politics is dreadful. But his Environmental politics was truly sound, including the idea that EV ARE NOT anything clean or good. He probably had a good adviser set for environmental issues.

I agree that EVs have nothing to do with reducing global warming. The auto and truck manufacturers are advocating electric vehicles because manufacturing a EV is much less labor intensive than the internal combustion engine- driven vehicle. Thus the manufacturers are looking to increase their profits by selling what costs them much less to produce at a high price.

In regards to CO2 in the atmosphere, the bad effect of a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is that it is the primary cause of global warming, and the result of global warming is ice melting causing flooding, sea level rise, and lack of potable water. Also the human body has a limited capacity to survive when the surrounding atmosphere is in the high temperature range. Writing now, I don't recall the temperature, but at a certain high temperature human physiology breaks down.

 

One positive thing I can say for EV's though, if I understand this right, is that there is no longer a problem with servicing an internal combustion engine, which got very expensive in recent years. Electric motors are fairly reliable.

Also, we have to consider the one-time manufacturing environmental impact as compared to the impact over the entire life of the ICE based car. This might get a little complicated though.

 

One positive thing I can say for EV's though, if I understand this right, is that there is no longer a problem with servicing an internal combustion engine, which got very expensive in recent years. Electric motors are fairly reliable.

Also, we have to consider the one-time manufacturing environmental impact as compared to the impact over the entire life of the ICE based car. This might get a little complicated though.

@ Mr Al: If you think that servicing an ICE is very expensive, just wait until you see the prices for servicing an electric vehicle!! Just consider that a lot of people around ARE able to service a fuel driven engine, and that the knowledge is freely available to those wanting to learn. In addition, many ICE vehicles are very reliable and need only preventive service such as oil changes and lubrication. The reliability of production electric vehicles is largely unknown at this time. We only have advertising and very limited experience.

Now consider the vastly more complex control system of an EV, plus the fact that no service information will be provided except to a very small collection of selected dealers, and that service parts will not be available for purchase except by those selected dealers, and that will be a show-stopper for a lot of folks.
Would you really want to own a vehicle that cost as much to service as it costs to hire a good lawyer???

Next, consider that no matter how reliable the motor might be, it is totally certain that the battery will fail after a while. That is o concern for those who replace their vehicle yearly, but certainly a big item for those who do not. The vast majority of car owners never have to have an engine replaced, which costs about as much as requiring a battery to be replaced. And presently there is no way to repair a failed drive battery.

 

I agree that EVs have nothing to do with reducing global warming. The auto and truck manufacturers are advocating electric vehicles because manufacturing a EV is much less labor intensive than the internal combustion engine- driven vehicle. Thus the manufacturers are looking to increase their profits by selling what costs then much less to produce at a high price.

In regards to CO2 in the atmosphere, the bad effect of a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is that it is the primary cause of global warming, and the result of global warming is ice melting causing flooding, sea level rise, and lack of potable water. Also the human body has a limited capacity to survive when the surrounding atmosphere is in the high temperature range. Writing now, I don't recall the temperature, but at a certain high temperature human physiology breaks down.

Save for the first and last sentences, everything in this post is wrong.

Stop believing the pop hype. Nothing is true just because someone told you it is.

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/peak-oil.119585/post-1897514

 

The core body temperature at which life- sustaining functioning of the human body starts to break down is only around 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-degrees-why-heat-waves-kill-so-quickly/

 

The core body temperature at which life-sustaining functioning of the human body starts to break down is only around 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-degrees-why-heat-waves-kill-so-quickly/

No doubt that's a fever state but I've lived and worked for months in 110 plus weather for years on end when younger, without AC, with proper conditioning and hydration. Humans, as a species, will adapt if we slow the process of global warming but it won't be easy or fun.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928107/

Acquisition of the heat-adapted state occurs through repeated or continuous exposure to heat stress and accompanying elevation in Tc and may be achieved with artificial exposure to heat, by residence in a natural hot climate, or with physical training sufficient to raise Tc in less severe conditions (Leon and Bouchama, 2015). Phenotypic changes that are associated with repeated heat stress include altered sweating and skin blood flow responses, decreased metabolic rate, plasma volume (PV) expansion and improved cardiovascular stability (Nielsen, 1998; Shapiro et al., 1998; Patterson et al., 2004). In the hot environment, acquisition of these adaptations associates with improved thermal comfort (Sato et al., 1990), lower physiological strain (Taylor, 2014) and restored performance capacity for equivalent bouts of exercise conducted in less severe conditions. In some studies, performance is also enhanced on return to the thermoneutral environment, by way of increased maximal aerobic capacity (Sawka et al., 1985; Lorenzo et al., 2010). A core physiological change in heat adaptation, as described by Conn and Johnston (1944), is increased sweat rate and decreased concentration of sweat sodium and chloride (Leon and Bouchama, 2015) due to changes in the eccrine glands (Sato et al., 1990). Sweating, through changes in the CNS, occurs earlier and at a lower core temperature (Taylor, 2014).

Bass and Henschel defined acclimatization as ‘the dramatic improvement in the ability to work in the heat which occurs within 4 to 7 days of first exposure’ (Bass and Henschel, 1956). Over this period, rapid, demonstrably effective (Garrett et al., 2009, 2012) but ultimately incomplete (Pandolf, 1998; Gibson et al., 2015) adaptation ensues with improved cardiovascular stability and heart rate decrease, in association with PV expansion (Armstrong and Maresh, 1991). Horvath and Shelley described attaining a stable state of improved physical and mental functioning with fuller acclimatization (Horvath and Shelley, 1946) encompassing the features of longer term heat adaptation such as behavior changes resulting in reduced heat stress, e.g., reduced work and greater use of shelter (Périard et al., 2015), and improved thermal sensation (Chalmers et al., 2014). Acclimation status has been categorized by the number of exposures to heat stress (Chalmers et al., 2014; Tyler et al., 2016) as short-term (up to seven exposures), medium- term (eight to 14 exposures), and long-term (15 or more exposures).

 

Have any trustworthy sources determined that the increase in temperature is not caused by a small increase in the energy output from the sun?? Consider that a very slight increase over a period of years would be impossible to feel and quite difficult to measure , since the measurement accuracy a hundred years ago was not nearly as accurate.
OF COURSE, if the temperature rise were the result of the sun, then nobody would get to be in control of the efforts to reduce it, would they?? And then consider that the purpose of being in government is to be in power, at least that is what I see. And if there is no crisis to attack, then the solution is to create one, preferably one that will require lots of authority to make work. From history we can see that was the motivation for the two "World Wars", which were to solve problems created by leaders.
Fortunately most folks have realized that war is so very nasty that most folks choose to avoid it., Thus some other foe had to be found, which it was.

 

Have any trustworthy sources determined that the increase in temperature is not caused by a small increase in the energy output from the sun?? Consider that a very slight increase over a period of years would be impossible to feel and quite difficult to measure , since the measurement accuracy a hundred years ago was not nearly as accurate.
OF COURSE, if the temperature rise were the result of the sun, then nobody would get to be in control of the efforts to reduce it, would they?? And then consider that the purpose of being in government is to be in power, at least that is what I see. And if there is no crisis to attack, then the solution is to create one, preferably one that will require lots of authority to make work. From history we can see that was the motivation for the two "World Wars", which were to solve problems created by leaders.
Fortunately most folks have realized that war is so very nasty that most folks choose to avoid it., Thus some other foe had to be found, which it was.

There are no trustworthy sources for that warming scenario.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/


No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.
One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.
A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

 

Have any trustworthy sources determined that the increase in temperature...

I don't know of any trustworthy sources temperature, much less sources of increase in temperature.

Most of the old data are proxies, and most of the new data are interpolations to account for weather stations that no longer exist.

And as for the weather stations that do exist, well, the environment has changed around them: more people, concrete, and asphalt.

And much of the old data has been "adjusted" lower over time -- in other words, completely corrupted.

 

I don't know of any trustworthy sources temperature, much less sources of increase in temperature.

Most of the old data are proxies, and most of the new data are interpolations to account for weather stations that no longer exist.

And as for the weather stations that do exist, well, the environment has changed around them: more people, concrete, and asphalt.

And much of the old data has been "adjusted" lower over time -- in other words, completely corrupted.

That's no longer the truth about temperature. We've had very good space based data since the early 80's and the trend is very clear even if some (I don't) dispute the cause as human caused.

 

That's no longer the truth about temperature. We've had very good space based data since the early 80's and the trend is very clear even if some (I don't) dispute the cause as human caused.

Ah....so ignore all the old manufactured data that was invented to create this insanity, but believe all the new manufactured data that was invented to perpetuate the insanity.

I will never forget that this all started as an excuse to transfer money from rich societies to poor ones (with 10% for the Big Guy). The goal remains the same. The narrative must be continually reinforced.

 

I submit this as proof that we are all going to die:

I know this because the colors change from blue (like the life-giving ocean) to red (like Hell).

And they call it a "Climate Spiral" -- just like a "Death Spiral". We are Spiraling Out of Control!

So, be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Oh, and give all your money to the Chicoms to change the color back to blue and stop the Spiral.

Believe all of this: it comes from the Government. Why would they lie?

 

If what they told us in the early 70's about global warming and the seas rising had come true, I'd be tired as hell from treading water or dead from drowning... I'm still 11 feet above MSL (mean sea level) and it hasn't changed in the last 50+ years... Beach fronts erode from wind, storms, and tides but the MSL in Coastal Georgia hasn't budged.

 

If what they told us in the early 70's about global warming and the seas rising had come true, I'd be tired as hell from treading water or dead from drowning... I'm still 11 feet above MSL (mean sea level) and it hasn't changed in the last 50+ years... Beach fronts erode from wind, storms, and tides but the MSL in Coastal Georgia hasn't budged.

And I've lived on the same damn beach for 50 years. All the landmarks are still in exactly the same place relative to the shoreline as they were 50 years ago.

I believe nothing that I don't see with my own eyes and measure with my own ruler.

 

Ad if all he ice in the arctic and ant-arctic melted would they even be able to measure the rise. If you look at the surface area of the combined oceans, and consider the volume of water to raise one square mile one inch. how many hundreds of cubic miles of ice will need to melt to rise the level one inch.

 

Oh, the irony!

Say it with me: "Drill, baby. Drill!"

 

I am not advocating reckless behavior, I am just pointing out some discrepancy in the arguments.
I also remind folks that some folks really believe that they should be in charge because they also believe that they are much wiser than everybody else. Consider that most despots thru-out history thought that they were correct in taking over.

 

I am not advocating reckless behavior, I am just pointing out some discrepancy in the arguments.
I also remind folks that some folks really believe that they should be in charge because they also believe that they are much wiser than everybody else. Consider that most despots thru-out history thought that they were correct in taking over.

The discrepancy in the arguments are lawn/deck chairs on the Titanic. Just ignore that iceberg, full speed ahead.

I'm not for ceding the climate fight to the alarmist predictions of those with IMO a socialist agenda. I'm for practical engineering from decades of solid science (instead of a BS immediate transition from fossil fuels using ideas from the Green New Deal cult) to mitigate the current and future effects of global warming.

To the deniers, here is the 'real cause.