Can You Believe This-The Government Wants Us To Go EV but In So Doing They Will impose a gas surcharge

[Bobvin]

Eh, I'm a denier. I don't believe any of it. Coming ice age, over population, peak oil, ozone hole, global warming, I've been hearing some kind of global catastrophe sky-is-falling nonsense all life. Yet here we are. I choose not to live in fear, instead I choose to be happy. Life is better this way. Live, love, laugh, listen to music, drink good wine. I've known dispair, happiness is much better.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Empirical Audio, I hear you. What do you think of our beloved Class A amplifiers? What about our preamps and phono stages that are designed to be left ON all the time? At least I usually turn off the lights while listening. The historical district officials in my town will not allow me to tear down my fireplaces and chimneys or install insulated window panes. I have neighbors who only use firewood to heat their homes.

My latest DAC design is much more efficient than the one before that, even using some class-A. There are integrated circuits and techniques like switching amps and SMPS that address inefficiencies. It's just a matter of getting the designers to make this a priority.

As for heating your home with wood, I have no problem with that, providing you use an efficient, low emissions wood stove or insert. I have one of these and when I use it during power outages, there is literally no smoke visible outside from the chimney. These technologies already exist.

Landlords provide heat for some tenants in Massachusetts. I want to turn the heat off from April through October like I do at my own house, but the health department mandates that heat be available for all tenants from September 1st through June 15th. I comply lest I be cited for violating the local health codes. Of course, the heat is left on and the tenants open their windows. I'm not allowed to discuss cultural differences or energy conservation with the local health department. I agree that something needs to change.

Local or state legislation could fix this, if people just made the request....

 

[Empirical Audio]

A derogatory "Citizens think the government should solve all of their problems." followed by a lengthy list of legislation proposed as a solution? Hmmm...

It's a conclusion I have reached by observation and conversation. I've all but given up on people doing the RIGHT THINGS, so I fall back on legislation to motivate or force them into compliance.

Even the climate movements/activists are focusing primarily on government action and interventions. Even they don't see the need for individual citizens to make changes in their choices and behaviors, and these are the people that are passionate about saving the planet. Really disappointing frankly.

I personally practice what I preach, from the electric car to the solar hot water to the LED bulbs to the efficient heat-pumps.

 

[Empirical Audio]

The facts: 90%+ climate scientists say the world has got about 10-15 years to begin developing effective plans to dramatically bring down the burning of fossil fuels from current levels.

It's likely going to take some serious federal and state funding, and unselfishness to accomplish this before it's too late. Since the severe effects are forecast to begin around 2050, many born after 1960 are likely to deal with the most costly effects. Young people born after 1990 will be the most severely affected. No wonder their so pissed.

EPA Source:
-Transportation (28.9% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.
-Electricity production (27.5% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 62.9% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.
-Industry (22.2% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.
-Commercial and Residential (11.6% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.
-Agriculture (9.0% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.
-Land Use and Forestry (offset of 11.1% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

An excellent list, thanks. The takeaway here is that transportation emissions are actually LARGER than power plants and while power plant emissions are flattening and even dropping, transportation emissions continue to rise.

Today was the first time I had seen the individual driver component of US transportation emissions, which is about 15% of the total emissions. Does not include commercial or air travel. This is the biggest chunk that all of us can have an immediate effect on. This could be changed almost overnight unlike the power plants, which take almost a decade to retrofit.

Changing to a beef and dairy free diet will make a difference too, but significantly smaller.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Eh, I'm a denier. I don't believe any of it. Coming ice age, over population, peak oil, ozone hole, global warming, I've been hearing some kind of global catastrophe sky-is-falling nonsense all life. Yet here we are. I choose not to live in fear, instead I choose to be happy. Life is better this way. Live, love, laugh, listen to music, drink good wine. I've known dispair, happiness is much better.

Well, your children will not appreciate your complacency. They will have to live with the h*ll you will leave to them. They are the ones that motivate the rest of us to stop this runaway train.

 

[NorthStar]

Wine is good for the heart, oil is bad for the lungs (plastic, petroleum products, smoke, gas, burning, CO2, ...). This Earth we live on, it's not ours, it's the entire humanity. Nobody has the right to dictate, only life's important. We don't do things to enrich our bank accounts @ the expense of the poor, we do things for everyone equally after us. Kids they don't ask where they want to be born, they just born everywhere, anywhere with a heart and blood running through their veins.

The tools we have today, more and more are batteries operated, with more powerful batteries.
The robots we build to build cars, they are batteries operated...electric. Nobody wants to build cars with gas machines in the factories...that would be suicide.

Our loudspeakers and tube amplifiers are electric mechanical devices, they don't use a gas tank to reproduce music, but electric current, solar energy, wind turbines, ocean waves and tides, waterfalls, dams, ...

Solid State, Class D, G, EV, ...more efficient better mileage and healthier.
I despise chainsaws noise and gas and oil.

Cities made of concrete and glass and steel without surrounding forests and mountains and oceans look and feel boring.
Hurricanes, what create them...magic vudu from air?
Icebergs braking and melting...the sun from above?

Electric cars are the reality today and by 2050 the norm. Oil is going the way of the dodo, into a giant black hole.

 

[Bobvin]

Well, your children will not appreciate your complacency. They will have to live with the h*ll you will leave to them. They are the ones that motivate the rest of us to stop this runaway train.

You almost got me to take the bait. I'll go put on another record and pour myself a nice Bordeaux. Then hug my wife and pet my cat...

Of all the things there are to possibly worry about for sake of humankind, I am going to say climate hysteria is far down the list. I'm much more worried 'scientists' with their immense hubris will convince inept government officials (with their insatiable need to feel important) to do something that'll screw things up and cause real misery. (Because, you know, they have such a great track record of accurately predicting the future!)

 

[jeff1225]

Eh, I'm a denier. I don't believe any of it. Coming ice age, over population, peak oil, ozone hole, global warming, I've been hearing some kind of global catastrophe sky-is-falling nonsense all life. Yet here we are. I choose not to live in fear, instead I choose to be happy. Life is better this way. Live, love, laugh, listen to music, drink good wine. I've known dispair, happiness is much better.

The hole in the Ozone was a real thing and was solved though 180 countries signing on to ban the chemicals (CFB's) that caused the hole. According to NASA, the hole is slowly repairing. So, we can be happy and drink wine and not even know things are getting better.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-46107843

 

[DaveC]

I don't think it matters how much we know. Historically, Bobvin is likely to be correct wrt doomsday scenarios playing out as a result of climate change. Humans only have limited intelligence and a proclivity for doomsday scenarios.

The reason it doesn't matter what we know is transitioning away from burning fossil fuels and changing our agricultural systems so they are not 100% reliant on fossil fuels to feed the world simply makes sense.

Developing technology to adjust the Earth's climate so we can avoid wholesale extinction events, changes in weather patterns, shifting climates, ares of the world becoming too hot for human habitation, massive rise of sea levels... this all makes a lot of sense to me to do this regardless of how much human activity contributes to the Earth's natural changes. Even if humans have absolutely no effect whatsoever on climate, which seems absurd, it seems like a great idea to keep the Earth from warming further.

We have a growing population that'll top out near 11B best case, and imo the only thing that's going to save the world is technology. We need to figure out how to adjust climate and produce useful energy with efficiency and less pollution. We're going to have to remove CO2 via reforestation and technology, and we need to figure out how to shade the Earth.

 

[Al Stewart]

Many folks fall into the category of climate change "deniers" due to the phenomena known as defensive attribution. If something is terrible and true and dramatically alters human impressions of safety, it becomes important to deny its validity. This allows the denial to then mentally erase the terrible end result threatening the human illusion of safety. I don't say this in judgment of others. All of us are capable of displaying defensive attribution given the right topic that scares us into this particular mindset. Unfortunately, mass extinction (currently occuring in the insect, plant and animal kingdoms in our world) seems a heavy price to pay for this apparent human "devolutionary" feature in our collective DNA. Interestingly, we seem to be the rare species that doesn't always run when the forest around us is on fire---defensive attribution.

 

[DonH50]

Or read the reports by Dr. John Bates...

 

[Al Stewart]

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. I know who Dr. John Bates is, and that he took issue with the manner in which Dr. Karl reported one particular data set related to climate change, that there was an investigation and that a determination was made that Dr. Karl didn't do anything inappropriate or unscientific. But I might not fully understand the above note. Could you please clarify it?

 

[Bobvin]

I don't know what temperature is uninhabitable for humans? People live in the middle east and the deserts there get to 120 F regularly, yet they still live there! I don't think a couple degrees F is going to have them moving out anytime soon. Maybe getting a little more ornery, like me when the temp gets over 100.

Aren't there a lot of envious people out there who'd be happy to see ocean front estates of the rich and famous end up underwater? And those inland homes now with ocean frontage--hows that for some redistribution!

I'm just of the opinion the earth will balance out, and while humans undeniably have an impact, global pollution is, IMO, far more of a threat than changing climate. Killing off the bees with pesticides will have a bigger impact than climate change. There are lots of things that will have a larger, more consequential impact than climate change. But politicians and unscrupulous profiteers will seek to take advantage for their own benefits.

Whenever I see a bandwagon, I turn the other way rather than climb aboard.

OK, OK, I'm done stirring the pot. I think I need to play me some blues. Maybe Donald Fagen's "Weather in my head" (Sorry 'bout the phone-camera video, I just can't link to anything David Letterman.)

Peace out!

 

[DonH50]

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. I know who Dr. John Bates is, and that he took issue with the manner in which Dr. Karl reported one particular data set related to climate change, that there was an investigation and that a determination was made that Dr. Karl didn't do anything inappropriate or unscientific. But I might not fully understand the above note. Could you please clarify it?

Sure! I just happened to remember Dr. Bates but there are many others (though a minority if you believe the press -- I do not know). My thought was that perhaps not all the "deniers" are doing it out of some defensive mechanism but may be basing their denial on contrary scientific evidence. That is, the extent of of human causation; I don't think anyone is actually denying climate changes over time.

I am not sure I am a "denier" as it is not my field, so I'm not competent to say, but I tend to side @Bobvin. Certainly climate change is real, and always has been, so the big debate seems to be about how much is due to human causes vs. natural, with a side debate of what countries etc. are most responsible and/or have the greatest capacity to influence it (for better or worse). I was involved with gov't R&D for many years and am a bit cynical about research that drives its own funding through the "chicken little" syndrome (the sky is always falling for one reason or another, so ask for more money to stop it). I remember the looming nuclear catastrophe in the 60's, impending ice age due to particulates from fossil fuels in the 70's, etc. Some new crisis every decade that threatened to end the world we knew. Maybe we just got jaded and desensitized?

From an engineering point of view, it is not clear that today alternative power is really viable and/or has less impact on global warming. But there is a lot of research being done by the industries and discussed at conferences by the IEEE and so forth. Reducing our impact on the environment sounds good; it always comes down to how practical and at what cost. An argument I cannot effectively present and I suspect none of us would win or lose -- I think an Internet (or in person) debate is unlikely to change minds.

Gotta' get some sleep -- up in a few hours to go to work again.

 

[Al Stewart]

Don, thank you for the above explanation. I have spent most of my professional life looking underneath "scientific" research to determine whether objective science took place as opposed to something else, such as a subjective preferred profitable outcome. So, I understand and think healthy skepticism of scientific research is wise. On this topic, it seems to me that the scientific consenus is deep and wide. The outliers all seem to be supported by the fossil fuel industry. It reminds me of the consensus that formed around cigarette smoking and lung cancer in the early 1960s. By the 1990s there were still those in the scientific community that disputed cigarette's having a direct relationship to lung cancer. But they all seemed to be affiliated in one way or another with the tobacco industry. Regards
Al

 

[Al Stewart]

Bob, I agree that killing off bees is of great consequence to the Earth. I would point out that the pesticide companies strongly argue that their products are not contributing to the declining bee population. They have scientists that publish papers to support their industry view. The bandwagon is currently heading towards pesticides being the main culprit. On this issue it looks like you are on the bandwagon after all
Love the Donald Fagen clip. I saw "Steely Dan" here in Dallas right after Becker died. Terrific show--I took my sons and watched Jon Herington smoothly work his way through the Steely Dan guitar riffs like they were child's play. And Keith Carlock on the drums was sensational. Fagen looks very fragile now--folks had to help him out to the piano. But, he put on a great show.
Peace
Al

 

[DonH50]

Don, thank you for the above explanation. I have spent most of my professional life looking underneath "scientific" research to determine whether objective science took place as opposed to something else, such as a subjective preferred profitable outcome. So, I understand and think healthy skepticism of scientific research is wise. On this topic, it seems to me that the scientific consensus is deep and wide. The outliers all seem to be supported by the fossil fuel industry. It reminds me of the consensus that formed around cigarette smoking and lung cancer in the early 1960s. By the 1990s there were still those in the scientific community that disputed cigarette's having a direct relationship to lung cancer. But they all seemed to be affiliated in one way or another with the tobacco industry. Regards
Al

NP Al. I am in no real position to argue either way; as an engineer I am/was always more focused on creating a solution to meet the needs of a contract (problem) so have less insight into "the big picture". As a good ol' Missouri boy skepticism is in my blood; "show me!" But, this (cause of climate change) is not something I have researched in any depth at all, and I have little faith in what the media says about it (either way).

Curious: Was it Dr. Bates or some other that linked the changes to sun and other cycles? I have a vague memory of reading a report from a Boulder person years ago but no idea who that was.

A better question might be to recommended some basic reading material pro and con. Internet searches turn up bazillions of articles and no way to sort by credibility. Is there a "dummies guide to climate change" that lays it out? I think most folk are making up their minds on emotional rather than scientific evidence, e.g. by whom they like best on TV, etc.

Bees are dear to my heart, both as a country boy they are vital to crops, and because every summer I had to help my grandfather spin the combs to extract the honey from his hives. Yummy! Spread over toast with homemade butter and heavy cream poured over breakfast cereal from the morning milking (manual back then, bucket and stool)... Makes my mouth water and arteries harden just thinking about it.

 

[DonH50]

This article about energy storage and costs just hit my inbox: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywis...3NWY1cG52U05BeCtZdXl0ZHFrYjRNbklWTnJYNnc2In0=

 

[Empirical Audio]

Many folks fall into the category of climate change "deniers" due to the phenomena known as defensive attribution. If something is terrible and true and dramatically alters human impressions of safety, it becomes important to deny its validity. This allows the denial to then mentally erase the terrible end result threatening the human illusion of safety. I don't say this in judgment of others. All of us are capable of displaying defensive attribution given the right topic that scares us into this particular mindset. Unfortunately, mass extinction (currently occuring in the insect, plant and animal kingdoms in our world) seems a heavy price to pay for this apparent human "devolutionary" feature in our collective DNA. Interestingly, we seem to be the rare species that doesn't always run when the forest around us is on fire---defensive attribution.

It's a combination of fear, ignorance and complacency. Fear drives some people into tribal retreat. Divides us. Poor citizens, both locally and globally.

People need to realize that citizenship includes a responsibility to stay informed, be vigilant and vote. The US has the poorest voting record of any developed country. Pitiful.

 

[Empirical Audio]

I don't know what temperature is uninhabitable for humans? People live in the middle east and the deserts there get to 120 F regularly, yet they still live there! I don't think a couple degrees F is going to have them moving out anytime soon. Maybe getting a little more ornery, like me when the temp gets over 100.

In Yemen, they have to import practically all of their food from more temperate climate countries. They have to desalinate the ocean for water. This is how they survive. When no more temperate climate countries are left in the region, it is uninhabitable.

Aren't there a lot of envious people out there who'd be happy to see ocean front estates of the rich and famous end up underwater? And those inland homes now with ocean frontage--hows that for some redistribution!

Probably, but these people are low-life IMO. There are thousands of people that are not rich and famous whose homes were destroyed by hurricane Sandy. Many of these have still not rebuilt.

I'm just of the opinion the earth will balance out, and while humans undeniably have an impact, global pollution is, IMO, far more of a threat than changing climate. Killing off the bees with pesticides will have a bigger impact than climate change. There are lots of things that will have a larger, more consequential impact than climate change. But politicians and unscrupulous profiteers will seek to take advantage for their own benefits.

Opinions are not science. If you look at the organizations whose job it is to monitor threats to humans worldwide, you will see that Climate Change is now at the top of the list.