# California bans new gas/diesel vehicles



## Don M. (Sep 24, 2020)

California has voted to ban the sale of new fossil fuel powered vehicles by the year 2035.  I suspect this will prove to be little other than some "feel good" legislation.  The electrical grid in California is already having problems supplying reliable electric power, and without a massive investment in that infrastructure, there is little chance of it's being able to support the charging of millions of car/truck batteries, daily, without creating even more power interruptions. 

While this seems like a positive step in curbing global warming, it will probably prove to have little effect.  We are already at, or very near, the "tipping point" where even a massive global effort to reduce carbon emissions will be "too little, too late".  The Greenland ice sheet is melting, more every year, and there is a massive chunk of Antarctic ice that may be just a couple of years from breaking loose....and this landlocked ice will probably raise the oceans substantially by 2035...and continue to increase with every passing decade. 

Then, there is the little mention of the release of landlocked Methane gas from the permafrost in Canada, Alaska, Siberia....and the ocean depths.  This Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and there are billions of tons of this gas waiting to be released as the global temperatures continue to rise. 

In coming decades, our world is going to change....Substantially....

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...of-new-gaspowered-cars-by-2035-180313529.html


----------



## Irwin (Sep 24, 2020)

In 15 years, electric vehicles will be ubiquitous, anyway, as battery technology advances and prices fall. Electric vehicles will be cheaper to manufacture, so they'll be cheaper, which will cause people to buy them over gasoline powered vehicles.

They should also mandate that all new homes, offices, factories... have solar panels.

We can solve this problem if we put in the effort. We might not see climate results during our lifetimes, but in 100 years, people will. In the meantime, we'll have cleaner air and water, and less noise.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 24, 2020)

I hope that I'm still around to see how this plays out.

I wonder how long it will actually take for gasoline to become a rare commodity for classic car enthusiasts or if they will convert to some type of plant-based alcohol fuel that they cook up in the garage.

I also wonder how long it will be before we eliminate our dependence on personal vehicles in favor of basic transportation using driverless Ubers, buses, trains, etc...


----------



## C'est Moi (Sep 24, 2020)

Don M. said:


> *California has voted to ban the sale of new fossil fuel powered vehicles by the year 2035. * I suspect this will prove to be little other than some "feel good" legislation.  The electrical grid in California is already having problems supplying reliable electric power, and without a massive investment in that infrastructure, there is little chance of it's being able to support the charging of millions of car/truck batteries, daily, without creating even more power interruptions.
> 
> While this seems like a positive step in curbing global warming, it will probably prove to have little effect.  We are already at, or very near, the "tipping point" where even a massive global effort to reduce carbon emissions will be "too little, too late".  The Greenland ice sheet is melting, more every year, and there is a massive chunk of Antarctic ice that may be just a couple of years from breaking loose....and this landlocked ice will probably raise the oceans substantially by 2035...and continue to increase with every passing decade.
> 
> ...



Point of clarification...   the ban was an EXECUTIVE ORDER by the governor.   Not exactly "voted."  

_As California continues to battle ever more deadly and destructive wildfires up and down the state, California governor Gavin Newsom has issued a sweeping executive order that will effectively ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel-driven vehicles by the year 2035 by requiring that any car you drive off the dealer’s lot be zero emission. _


----------



## Nathan (Sep 24, 2020)

@Don M.,  I agree that this order is "too little, too late" and that California has serious electrical supply problems.  Earthquakes make nuclear plants even more risky than their design limitations, which is disappointing as I've always been pro-nuke....until the Fukushima disaster in Japan.
...back to electric cars:  they hold promise, better batteries will spell wider acceptance.  I doubt that I'll ever own an electric car, I just bought a new truck last year; by 2035 it's still going to have less than 50,000 miles on it.


----------



## tbeltrans (Sep 24, 2020)

Well, if California is serious about this, they should take steps to stop the production of methane gas by closing all Italian and Mexican restaurants in the state. 

Tony


----------



## Don M. (Sep 24, 2020)

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

Electric vehicles are a good idea, but until there are batteries that can be fully charged in minutes....instead of hours....and charging stations by the 10's of thousands, these vehicles will be of little use for other than local driving.  And...to meet the electricity demand, without adding to the pollution, thousands of acres of solar/wind farms would need to be erected....at a cost of billions.  

The ONLY sensible option I've seen for vehicle power is Hydrogen....but there again, such a transition would take many years, and 10's of billions of dollars....all of which would eventually fall on the shoulders of the vehicle owners and taxpayers.


----------



## Phoenix (Sep 25, 2020)

At present my husband cannot fit into any electric car I've seen.  He's a tall guy with long legs.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 29, 2020)

How do you charge it when you live in an apartment or condo? By he year 2035 what kind of toxic emissions will vehicle put out?!


----------



## StarSong (Sep 29, 2020)

Climate change is increasingly problematic for everyone on the planet.  If it's not yet knocking on your area's door, it will be soon.  Making sport or denigrating the efforts of leaders who are attempting to build awareness and enforce climate friendlier measures is shortsighted and pure folly.  

So far, the US federal government is ensuring that we remain much more a part of the problem than of the solution. 

Ask not for whom the climate change tolls, my friends. Within short order it will toll for me and thee.


----------



## asp3 (Sep 29, 2020)

Don M. said:


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



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.

In addition fires are a normal part of the forest lifecycle and are actually required for some species of trees to be driven to reproduce.  The fire suppression of the last 100 years or so has choked many of the forests with too much burnable undergrowth.  If we would have allowed smaller, less destructive fires throughout those years the fires we have today would have been smaller and wouldn't have spread as far.  I've seen articles that the indigenous people who lived in California practiced preventative fires before Europeans showed up.

So in order to keep our forests healthy we still need to have fires, but smaller, less destructive ones will produce less greenhouse gases and will keep the forests healthy to be able to take in CO2 from the air.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 29, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> How do you charge it when you live in an apartment or condo? By he year 2035 what kind of toxic emissions will vehicle put out?!



Without a massive investment in "charging stations"...equal to todays gas stations, and a battery technology that allows charging in minutes, instead of hours, a transition to electric vehicles would seem to be very impractical.  That, plus the need to create a massive increase in electrical capacity to feed this increased Kw/hr. need...without causing brownouts in homes, etc., is going to be necessary.  If such a capacity increase were to rely on coal or natural gas electrical production, the pollutants released by the power plants would be almost as much as today's gas/diesel vehicles.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 29, 2020)

asp3 said:


> So in order to keep our forests healthy we still need to have fires, but smaller, less destructive ones will produce less greenhouse gases and will keep the forests healthy to be able to take in CO2 from the air.



Yes, the Native Americans knew the value of keeping the forests cleaned up by controlled burning, but those lessons have fallen on deaf ears.  Even if the US were to begin a sensible forest management program, the planet still faces the problem with the Amazon rain forests being decimated by thoughtless actions in Brazil.  The Amazon has been the planets "air purifier" for centuries, and that is being destroyed.


----------



## asp3 (Sep 29, 2020)

Phoenix said:


> At present my husband cannot fit into any electric car I've seen.  He's a tall guy with long legs.



Has your husband tried a Tesla?  I've seen some big people in them.




fmdog44 said:


> How do you charge it when you live in an apartment or condo? By he year 2035 what kind of toxic emissions will vehicle put out?!



Many workplaces in the Silicon Valley area have chargers at their workplaces for their employees and in fact they're often free as a perk.  So many people are able to recharge at work.  There are also many charging stations spread around the area at shopping centers, stores, transit centers and other places.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 29, 2020)

asp3 said:


> Many workplaces in the Silicon Valley area have chargers at their workplaces for their employees and in fact they're often free as a perk. So many people are able to recharge at work. There are also many charging stations spread around the area at shopping centers, stores, transit centers and other places.


Same is true in Los Angeles.


----------



## asp3 (Sep 29, 2020)

Don M. said:


> Yes, the Native Americans knew the value of keeping the forests cleaned up by controlled burning, but those lessons have fallen on deaf ears.  Even if the US were to begin a sensible forest management program, the planet still faces the problem with the Amazon rain forests being decimated by thoughtless actions in Brazil.  The Amazon has been the planets "air purifier" for centuries, and that is being destroyed.



I agree completely regarding Brazil, but until certain world leaders stop supporting the president of Brazil it's unlikely that there will be any changes.  Even then the emboldened loggers, ranchers and miners will be very difficult to reign in.


----------



## Phoenix (Sep 29, 2020)

asp3 said:


> Has your husband tried a Tesla?  I've seen some big people in them.



My husband drives a 2002 Lincoln Town Car.  It's perfect for him.  We go almost nowhere - once every three weeks for groceries.  Most of the things we need we order online and have them delivered.  Once a year we go to the doctor.  I drive a 2004 Buick LaSabe.  He fits in it, though not as good as in the Lincoln.  He has to lean the seat back a little and slide it all the way back.  We do not plan to ever buy another car.  Our footprint is low all around.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Sep 29, 2020)

What a counter-productive world we live in.

Mankind knocks himself out destroying this beautiful, rich planet, and after succeeding, mankind once again knocks himself out trying to fix it.


----------



## RB-TX (Sep 29, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Climate change is increasingly problematic for everyone on the planet.  If it's not yet knocking on your area's door, it will be soon.  Making sport or denigrating the efforts of leaders who are attempting to build awareness and enforce climate friendlier measures is shortsighted and pure folly.
> 
> So far, the US federal government is ensuring that we remain much more a part of the problem than of the solution.
> 
> Ask not for whom the climate change tolls, my friends. Within short order it will toll for me and thee.


**********
All this climate change talk reminds me of what we heard 25 years ago.  Manhattan was supposed to have been under water 10 or 15 years ago due to ocean rise due to melting ice due to climate change.  

Of course there is climate change - there always has been. Not too long ago (historically speaking) glaciers covered most the northern third of the US.  Geologists claim that once the world was warmer than it is now.  You can't stop Mother Nature.

That being said, there is no reason for humans to pollute the atmosphere with chemicals and more carbon dioxide, which is (according to scientists) the main cause of the green house effect.  The unnecessary annual California (and other western states) fires are surely major contributes to carbon dioxide.  Occasional volcanoes also play a part. 

Sure the climate is changing - always has and always will and there is very little humans can do anything about it one way or other. 

That's my opinion.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 29, 2020)

Don M. said:


> If California was serious about Climate Change, that state would be doing something to control their annual forest fires.  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.
> 
> Electric vehicles are a good idea, but until there are batteries that can be fully charged in minutes....instead of hours....and charging stations by the 10's of thousands, these vehicles will be of little use for other than local driving.  And...to meet the electricity demand, without adding to the pollution, thousands of acres of solar/wind farms would need to be erected....at a cost of billions.
> 
> The ONLY sensible option I've seen for vehicle power is Hydrogen....but there again, such a transition would take many years, and 10's of billions of dollars....all of which would eventually fall on the shoulders of the vehicle owners and taxpayers.



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.


----------



## Jules (Sep 29, 2020)

Don M. said:


> The ONLY sensible option I've seen for vehicle power is Hydrogen....but there again, such a transition would take many years, and 10's of billions of dollars....all of which would eventually fall on the shoulders of the vehicle owners and taxpayers.


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


----------



## StarSong (Sep 29, 2020)

RB-TX said:


> **********
> All this climate change talk reminds me of what we heard 25 years ago.  Manhattan was supposed to have been under water 10 or 15 years ago due to ocean rise due to melting ice due to climate change.
> 
> Of course there is climate change - there always has been. Not too long ago (historically speaking) glaciers covered most the northern third of the US.  Geologists claim that once the world was warmer than it is now.  You can't stop Mother Nature.
> ...



99% of scientists disagree with you.


----------



## asp3 (Sep 29, 2020)

Aunt Marg said:


> What a counter-productive world we live in.
> 
> Mankind knocks himself out destroying this beautiful, rich planet, and after succeeding, mankind once again knocks himself out trying to fix it.



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.



RB-TX said:


> All this climate change talk reminds me of what we heard 25 years ago.  Manhattan was supposed to have been under water 10 or 15 years ago due to ocean rise due to melting ice due to climate change.



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.


----------



## Phoenix (Sep 29, 2020)

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.


----------



## Phoenix (Sep 29, 2020)

Nathan said:


> @Don M.,  I agree that this order is "too little, too late" and that California has serious electrical supply problems.  Earthquakes make nuclear plants even more risky than their design limitations, which is disappointing as I've always been pro-nuke....until the Fukushima disaster in Japan.
> ...back to electric cars:  they hold promise, better batteries will spell wider acceptance.  I doubt that I'll ever own an electric car, I just bought a new truck last year; by 2035 it's still going to have less than 50,000 miles on it.


I always thought nuclear plants were lethal.  Thankfully where I live the voters voted to close down the one plant we had.  Unfortunately now some are trying to revive it.  Solar power is the way to go.  If the sun dies out, we are dead anyway.  Plus, there's wind power.  In the Pacific Northwest we have relied on hydroelectric plants, but with the rainfall dropping that won't always be a viable source of energy.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 29, 2020)

Jules said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2020)

Irwin said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2020)

StarSong said:


> 99% of scientists disagree with you.


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


----------



## C'est Moi (Sep 29, 2020)

Phoenix said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2020)

Don M. said:


> 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.



Don M. said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2020)

asp3 said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2020)

AnnieA said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2020)

asp3 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 30, 2020)

asp3 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


*******
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 (Sep 30, 2020)

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 (Sep 30, 2020)

RB-TX said:


> *******
> 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 (Sep 30, 2020)

StarSong said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2020)

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 (Sep 30, 2020)

asp3 said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2020)

asp3 said:


> 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].”
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 30, 2020)

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 (Sep 30, 2020)

squatting dog said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2020)

squatting dog said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2020)

squatting dog said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2020)

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.


----------

