Are we losing the EV Revolution?

[Jim Lewis]

As far as I know, no one really understand just how the earth produces oil, and at what rate.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything. But a known fact is that humans are consuming each year fossil fuel reserves that took roughly a million years of plant growth to make. So there is no way the earth will regenerate or replenish fossil fuels at the rate at which we're using them. All this business about electricity as something that can be restricted. The sun and the wind work everywhere in the world. You can generate electricity in your backyard or on your roof and store it. You can't generate fossil fuel in your backyard. It takes a national or international supply chain to provide it.

On climate change and the world's fate, it's worth noting that there've been quite a few mass extinctions in the past caused by changes in the earth's atmospheric composition. One of the first and most disastrous (but not for us) was the evolution of cyanobacteria 2.3 to 2.7 billion years ago. They started photosynthesis on a mass scale in the world's oceans, releasing a new atmospheric gas poisonous to the dominant anaerobic life forms that existed at the time. That gas was oxygen, without which we wouldn't be the clever multi-cellular organisms we are today. By producing "nuclear winter" and creating acid rain, volcanoes caused quite a few other extinction events, etc. So, in a way, we are the cyanobacteria of today, producing CO2 and methane like gangbusters and not having a whole lot of really terrific intention of stopping. If all the ice on the planet were to melt, sea level would rise about 230 feet. Houston, for example, is, on average, 50 feet above sea level. Its highest ground level is only 150 feet above sea level. In the geological past, high atmospheric CO2 levels have melted all glacial ice on the planet, and the polar oceans were warm enough to go swimming. One can't say that can never happen again.

I think we need to evolve so that doesn't happen, and I think most Houstonians living a century or two in the future would agree with me (as well as everyone else's descendants trying to live in all the coastal cities of the world). The important thing is not what vehicles we drive but what we do to the composition of the earth's atmosphere. However we avoid being the cyanobacteria of today is fine with me.

Sponsored

 

[PreservedSwine]

I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything. But a known fact is that humans are consuming each year fossil fuel reserves that took roughly a million years of plant growth to make. So there is no way the earth will regenerate or replenish fossil fuels at the rate at which we're using them. All this business about electricity as something that can be restricted. The sun and the wind work everywhere in the world. You can generate electricity in your backyard or on your roof and store it. You can't generate fossil fuel in your backyard. It takes a national or international supply chain to provide it.

On climate change and the world's fate, it's worth noting that there've been quite a few mass extinctions in the past caused by changes in the earth's atmospheric composition. One of the first and most disastrous (but not for us) was the evolution of cyanobacteria 2.3 to 2.7 billion years ago. They started photosynthesis on a mass scale in the world's oceans, releasing a new atmospheric gas poisonous to the dominant anaerobic life forms that existed at the time. That gas was oxygen, without which we wouldn't be the clever multi-cellular organisms we are today. By producing "nuclear winter" and creating acid rain, volcanoes caused quite a few other extinction events, etc. So, in a way, we are the cyanobacteria of today, producing CO2 and methane like gangbusters and not having a whole lot of really terrific intention of stopping. If all the ice on the planet were to melt, sea level would rise about 230 feet. Houston, for example, is, on average, 50 feet above sea level. Its highest ground level is only 150 feet above sea level. In the geological past, high atmospheric CO2 levels have melted all glacial ice on the planet, and the polar oceans were warm enough to go swimming. One can't say that can never happen again.

I think we need to evolve so that doesn't happen, and I think most Houstonians living a century or two in the future would agree with me (as well as everyone else's descendants trying to live in all the coastal cities of the world). The important thing is not what vehicles we drive but what we do to the composition of the earth's atmosphere. However we avoid being the cyanobacteria of today is fine with me.

But it is not a known fact. It may be known theory. In fact, I could argue that nothing could be more green than using decomposed organic matter as fuel. I will also say that much of what I’m saying is to garner a reaction. The simple fact is anyone that says with conviction that this is the answer is a simpleton.

 

[USA EV]

If you're serious about doing your part to limit climate change and preserving the world for future generations then please earnestly look into switching to a plant-based diet as well. Bonus benefits include an overall reduction in unnecessary harm to innocent animals and personal health benefits (if done right).

 

[Jim Lewis]

The simple fact is anyone that says with conviction that this is the answer is a simpleton.

Get yourself a good text or layman's introduction to geology. The age of rocks on Earth can be determined fairly precisely by the relative balance of different isotopes in various radioactive decay chains. For example, 5.7: Calculating Half-Life - Chemistry LibreTexts. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and can be used to determine the age of the oldest rocks on Earth. From the chemical composition of rocks at different ages of the Earth, it can be determined what sort of things were going on during a particular age. For example, the appearance of cyanobacteria was heralded because no sedimentary rocks from older ages of the earth were intensely "rusted," i.e., containing pigments produced from oxidation reactions. Oxygen was required to do that. Pigmented layers of rock (top layers are younger):

Source: Evidence of earliest oxygen-breathing life on land found (nbcnews.com) and Ted Talk on "How A Single-Celled Organism Almost Wiped Out Life on Earth."

Similarly, from other dated rock layers and their chemical and isotopic compositions, one can deduce what CO2 levels and climate conditions were like in more recent epochs. The problem with plate tectonics, although it undoubtedly helps make possible continuing life on Earth by recycling carbon into the atmosphere from geological deposits, is that it wipes out the record of surface rock deposits, so reconstructing the past is a scattershot approach, searching for rock layers around the globe that escaped complete recycling. IIRC, there is no complete geological record at any one site on Earth.

Perhaps you're right about the ability of most humans to distinguish fact from fiction. That doesn't bode well for the future of humanity.

Further reading for anyone interested:
Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia
A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org
(although the CO2 reference has an axe to grind, the article does
a good job of explaining how past CO2 levels were deduced).

 

[ryun]

For some, it is virtue signaling, for others it’s a genuine concern about what’s going on with our climate and a desire to change in small but significant ways. I don’t see it as a zero sum game where we drop everything about our lifestyle; the change will be incremental—transitioning from the ICE and reducing CO2 emissions would be a big step forward. Whether the change happens fast enough remains to be seen. There’s a host of problems in battery manufacturing, but on balance it’s cleaner and more sustainable than its ICE counterpart.

My sentiments as well. Having a truck makes things immensely easier for my family about once or twice a month, but we would have made do with the vehicle we had before (if it wasn't breaking down, that is). Since I work remotely my wife and I could have probably downsized to one car with an e-bike in the mix.

What I want is to see more EVs on the road, including trucks. Especially trucks. And I believe me purchasing one helps push that incremental change, if ever so slightly. People can call it "virtue signaling" if they want. What I'm trying to do is signal to manufacturers, "more EVs please." And the F150L checked the most boxes for me and my family from a variety of different personal factors.

 

[Grumpy2]

My life spans the big surge in greenhouse gas and I realize I helped that increase my entire life.

I may get to drive vehicles for 10 more years and I certainly don't want to make the situation any worse for my great grandchildren.

I know some nations, and some people, are not going to make changes even now with all the obvious science. It may take 100 years to correct our ignorance and make the earth great again.

Climate change is real, Man caused it, Experts agree, and it is going to be BAD. But we now know how to stop it, and it isn't hard, just different.

How can anyone seriously believe we should continue to drill, drill, drill ?

 

[Grumpy2]

Republican Consultants pushing Electric Vehicles based on surprising polling results:

 

[PreservedSwine]

Climate change is real, Man caused it, Experts agree, and it is going to be BAD. But we now know how to stop it, and it isn't hard, just different.

How can anyone seriously believe we should continue to drill, drill, drill ?

With all due respect, many experts also disagree. At great risk to their personal and professional lives. To go against state propigated orthodoxy in this current climate is to risk grants, your reputation, or even your job. The “science” is far from settled. What is settled, is using the auspice of climate change as a wealth redistribution tool.
The same government that lies about Covid are to be trusted with Climate science? We can test Covid. It’s far easier to assess what is and what isn’t.
They told you it wasn’t created in a lab. They knowingly lied. They destroyed lives and careers in the process. They’ve maligned educated experts in their field that dare stand up against them.
It would be sad if it went effective, instead it’s terrifying.
So you know what the government will do to those it knowns are right, but don’t agree.
Quite a few climate scientists that were ringing the danger bell 10 or 15 years ago have asked everyone to stop with they hysteria. Many have written books on the subject.
There are several reasons for this, but as I sit in a waiting room at my Dr’s office I’ll try to be brief.
Why the terrible predictions of flood, death, famine, etc. ?
In a nutshell, the study of climate change by these organizations only search for negative consequences as part of the study guidelines. The studies aren’t looking for positive results. If climate change makes a particular crop in a particular region unsuitable, rather than farming in a new region- the study will conclude the crop is lost, and base effects on this conclusion.
Just called my name but you get the gist

 

[ryun]

With all due respect, many experts also disagree. At great risk to their personal and professional lives. To go against state propigated orthodoxy in this current climate is to risk grants, your reputation, or even your job.

...or, they get spots on prime time as the "other side" during debates that include fat checks from entrenched interests to continue muddying the waters.

You've got a scientist's skepticism, and that's a good thing. But the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is happening and is caused by humans. It's going to have a drastic impact especially if we maintain current trends -- much of which will be detrimental.

Sponsored