Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Joins CEOs Calling For US To Stay in Paris Climate Deal (bloomberg.com)
Billionaire Elon Musk said on Wednesday he would leave President Trump's Business Advisory Council if the White House withdraws from an international agreement aimed at curbing climate change. From a report: The appeals from chief executives such as Tesla's Musk, Tim Cook of Apple and Dow Chemical's Andrew Liveris come as Trump's advisers also present him with closing arguments on the potential risks and rewards of remaining a party to the global pact. Trump also got an earful from foreign leaders and Pope Francis urging him to stay in the agreement during his first international trip as president. Cook placed a call to the White House on Tuesday to urge the president to keep the U.S. in the agreement, according to a person familiar with the move. Liveris was the driving force behind a letter from 30 major company executives backing the deal. And Musk tweeted Wednesday that he has "done all I can to advise directly to" Trump. If the U.S. leaves Paris, Musk said he would drop participation in White House advisory councils. [...] Twenty-five companies, including Intel, Microsoft and PG&E, have signed on to a letter set to run as a full-page advertisement in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on Thursday arguing in favor of climate pact.
The fact is that this is a treaty that hasn't been approved by 2/3 of the US senate. By that alone it should be invalid but the stupid "treaty on treaties" made us less sovern.
I am sure the great negotiator will figure out something that everyone can agree on and totally not give in like everything else
... of the Paris climate con!
his entire business is dependent upon strict environment and pollution controls.
The fact that the diminishing of the treaty may affect world-wide popularity of electric cars would not affect Elon Musk's feelings on the subject. Not at all...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
you forgot to finish your sentence with covfefe
Have to get the gubbermint and peeple off the international trade tit
MAGA don't give up soverntee
OK, Musk's battery factory is in California and has to operate under some pretty strict environmental regulations. But Cook's company outsources all the manufacturing to China where who knows what is dumped in the rivers/ocean/air so I don't think he has much ground to complain about US pollution levels which are nowhere near the problem some places in the world are.
If you don't want international agreements of the United States to be predicated on the whims of Presidents, then you should make the international agreements treaties....
Seriously, the Paris deal is worse than the Kyoto deal. the fact that China, India, South Africa, South Korea, Japan, Russia, etc CONTINUES TO GROW THEIR EMISSIONS, says that it is wrong. Heck, Germany continues building NEW COAL PLANTS. INSANE.
3rd world nations, along with CHina (which is actually a 2world nation now) emit far more than they admit AND continue growing more than what even the west can drop, is a joke.
Hopefully, instead, the GOP will push for a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/Services based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.
All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP.
With this, America raises the tax on the emissions/$GDP. This will force all nations to drop their emission over time, or lose their export market. In addition, it will benefit those nations that have low emission / $ GDP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This sounds a lot better than "Electric Vehicle & Solar Industrialist Asks Government to Impose Environmental Costs on Competition".
Trump's gonna Trump. He campaigned that the USA shouldn't be bound by this treaty, and now he's just committing to another promise, and everyone's freaking out. Policy wonks are quick to point out that, even if we are going to "drop out", no member nation can withdraw within 3 years of joining, plus 1 year to formally withdraw, so we're looking at 2020. If you actually declare the "Accords" a treaty, then it has never been formally approved by the Senate, which triggers a 1 year withdraw time frame.
In any case, economics are going to ultimately drive the discussion. Natural gas is cheaper by far than oil or coal, and we're looking at at least 50 years of reserves in the Appalachians. Coal is already being phased out, and if we continue to do so in an orderly fashion, then that will buy us time to build up the transmission infrastructure necessary to power the continent on wind, solar and storage. What you don't want is an economic shock of the government saying "do this in 3 years" when it is incredibly expensive to do it on that time frame. We can lower our emissions long before the next ice age hits with the Maunder Minimum in 2030. .
Considering that Obama never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, the United states was never a signer of this treaty.
The reason Obama never sent it to the Senate is that both Republicans AND Democrats were against it and would not vote for it.
This is not about Trump and his policy's. This is about America and what a terrible treaty this would be for America and all Americans if the Senate ratified it as currently written.
Trump would be smart to punt this to the Senate and let everyone see that most Democrats in the Senate would not support it as written either.
yeah. So, what is your point?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
While it is laudable that Musk is standing up for the Paris treaty, let's not forget that he has a financial stake in the US signing on.
Not sure why I stick around slashdot. It used to be progressive liberal and non-psycho libertarian. Now it seems to be dominated by right wing nutcases.
Learn some fucking science and get yourselves the ability to think logically and analytically.
I don't understand how technology blog can hate Silicon Valley, hate science, hate innovators. The amount of people hating on Woz and hating on Jony Ive, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Google founders etc is ridiculous. You know what it has to be none of you idiots invented or built anything. Show you can invent something for fuck's sake before taking down the top innovators of our time. And yes I do have inventions and have built things .. not on a grand scale but more than.any of you punks.
Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
>> [Famous CEO] Joins CEOs Calling For US to [Do Something]
Too bad HRC wasn't elected. I doubt she would have resisted the will of any group of CEOs / Global Initiative sponsors.
Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Really the climate deal was just a bunch of promises. The US already leads the world in reducing pollution. China on the other hand is doing little to address the problem and frankly this is the country that has problems. Trump is basically pulling out of a worthless deal with no real deadlines anyway. Yes, its food for fire against Trump but what isn't these days. So we commit to climate initiatives others will never do all the while eliminating jobs in the process. We need a more balanced dedication to the climate questions and ask ourselves if any of it has even been proven effective?
I wouldn't be surprised
[($)]
It's a direct consequence of Chinese companies being myopic and not properly handling their waste products.
Was this right before he hit a big red button launching a giant carbon producing SpaceX rocket in to space then turning to the camera with a smile and a big thumbs up??? Gee, that really "hits home". Couldn't have anything to do with him making a lot of money off of carbon credits, could it???
To remove yourself from a position where you can (hopefully) continue to try to influence Trump, to a position where you cannot influence him harms everyone.
Make your objections, make them loudly, but don't quit the council. We need you there.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
Oh, that's cute. We've got probably 200,000 people dying prematurely from air pollution from auto emissions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
And if you want to compare apples to apples, Google "Deepwater Horizon".
I don't respond to AC's.
With a few exceptions, liberals and libertarians (the kind that would be in the libertarian party not the fake isolationist Republican ones) tend to invent stuff and pursue science.
Right wing nutcases make money off resource hogging activities like real estate, oil, and hate. I mean look at how Trump made his money he just sat on some land and made money off that. He didn't have to invent a search engine like the Goohle founders. He didn't have to design a computer like Wozniak did. He didn't have to do hard science science like most of the 36 living Nobel Prize winners who signed the Mainau Declaration in favor of UN climate change reforms. Trump just got some land and hogged it.
Steve Jobs was correct when he said right wingers like Sean Hannity and the folks running Fox News are ruining the world.
I realize this is going to be an unpopular analysis, but hear me out. Let's do a cost/benefit analysis:
Cost:
The estimated cost of being in the treaty is $1.28 trillion. *
Benefit:
*IF* everyone meets their goals (which they wont), the temperature will reduce 0.05C by 2100 *from* the projected 5C. (so an increase of only 4.95C) **
Some other facts:
- The global temperature increase which scientists say will be "catastrophic and irreversible" is 2C ***
So, the question you need to ask yourself is NOT "am I a good person, because I'm 'doing something'?", but rather "Do I want to pay $1,280,000,000,000 to jog off a cliff rather than sprint off a cliff?"
Yes, we should do our best to keep the planet clean and the habitable - but is stuffing $1.28T into this the best way to go about it? Couldn't the money be better spent on battery technology, nation-wide electrical fill stations, hyperloops, and other technology we have not even thought of yet (rather than paying someone like Kenya for carbon credits to excuse us using old polluting technology we can't afford to replace)?
* https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060042242
** http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
*** https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-summit-and-un-talks
Yeah, it has far more to do with the laptop or smartphone that you posted your incorrect assessment from than it does anything to do with solar panels. Hint: solar panels don't use rare earths, but your new shiny phone does.
Also, don't be a lazy git - if you want someone to google something, at least provide a damn link. HTML has been around and in wide use for like 25 years now.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Even though I have little interest in getting involved in CO2-related discussions, I want to clarify a tiny detail which quite a few people don't seem to know: CO2 is not harmful for human health (perhaps it might not be too good in very high doses, but this is an extremely unlikely scenario). In fact, it is a normal output of any combustion like the ones associated with the breathing process of all the living beings. That linked article can only refer to the other pollutants generated by car engines (e.g., NOx, HC, soot/particles, etc.).
I am not too familiar with the exact conditions of the Paris agreement, but in case of being exclusively focused on CO2/climate change it wouldn't have any impact on the deaths which you are mentioning.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Right, because if we stop burning fossil fuels because we want to lower CO2 emissions, we won't have any impact on NOx and particulate prodicfin
On the one hand, I'm uncomfortable with corporate heads influencing national policy; on the other, those same heads should be taking responsibility for their pollution and this nearly powerless agreement is a first step.
Mr Trump just spent his trip demanding other countries accept their international responsibility: Of course, he really meant 'instead of the USA paying for it'. If the USA doesn't pay for the world police, then US corporations don't get sweetheart tax-breaks and other counties don't kow-tow to US laws on commercial aviation, intellectual property, banking and pharmaceuticals.
I am not too familiar with the exact conditions of the Paris agreement, but in case of being exclusively focused on CO2/climate change it wouldn't have any impact on the deaths which you are mentioning.
Indirectly the Paris Agreement will reduce the number of those deaths because electrification of transport will eliminate all the gaseous emissions from transport in the local area. Any gaseous pollution moves to the electrical power source which is usually in less populated areas. Therefore, exposure by the general population is reduced so the death rate will reduce.
The treaty literally puts hurdles in the way of his business competition. I am sure he is taking a principled stand which has nothing to do with making billions from it.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Face it, the reason that there is an impact is that the states which became more efficient and invest in renewable energy now have cheaper energy and more efficient manufacturing and commercial and residential uses.
Which is why we win.
Not being in the accord just means we outcompete you more and we create even more jobs than you do.
Being out of the accord hurts you, not us. My bills are getting cheaper, while yours are going up, because of a lack of investment on your part in energy efficiency and expensive fossil fuel energy instead of cheaper renewable energy.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
One of the goals in fighting air pollution is to keep stinky things out of the air. Stinky things like Musk.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Read his tweet. He didn't
But all of us can live by the Paris agreement, nothing stopping us.
So live well and live by the agreement, if you want, read it and sign it yourself.
has nothing to do with solar panels or wind turbines. Few of them really use rare earth. That was all about a gov that pushes the heavy pollution so that they can destroy western companies and then have a monopoly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
ah nope.
In POF, EVs in China will only make things worse there. They get 80-85% of their electricity from coal. Worse yet, they purposely leave off pollution controls. As such, things will get WORSE in China, not better.
Now with that said, in most parts of the world, EVs will actually improve things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The inconvenient truth is that Elon Musk's electric car and battery ventures will benefit greatly from a bullshit agreement based on bullshit science. Al Gore showed the way. Bravo, thieves.
Tesla sure seems keen on selling whole house batteries with their solar roof. Though the panels themselves may not, the accessories sure as hell do.
Battery tech is fine. But electric fill stations are useless. Gas cars are cheaper to own and operate and likely will be unless bat tech gets a _lot_ better. As for Hyperloops, a) good luck getting Americans to use them, we like our cross country drives and b) even better luck getting an infrastructure bill passed in America (you tax and spend liberal you).
Yeah, it's a bad treaty. But it's the kind of treaty you get in a screwed up world like this. And for the most part nobody wants to fix the things that make it a screwed up world. So here we are.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I wonder if his building and selling _electric cars_ might have anything to do with that... Hmm...
Musk and other CEO's are the oligarchy. If they truly wanted something done, all they need to do is focus their almost insurmountable cash pile and change it. In other words Elon, put your money where your mouth is or shut up. Elon may like working on the shiny new toys of the future, but if the knuckle draggers put in place by the rest of his elite class ensure policies in place keep the status quo - nothing matters because nothing changes.
Yes, because they will never change their energy mix and are not ramping up their solar production.
Imagine that: A rich person wants us to stay in a deal that redistributes wealth to rich people.
Ahhh yes, the ever-nebulous 'externalities' that can never be quite proven, but do come in handy politically (just like CAGW itself) to yank the emotions. Won't somebody please think of the children?
Basically musks big gamble is that USA should go full blown on emissions based taxing. Musk has now what.. 6 billion dollars riding on it?
to put some perspective. Maserati Ghibli S is about on par with tesla cheapeast model s in USA. In Places like finland or norway or whatever.. the Maserati Ghibli S is 50 000 EUROS MORE EXPENSIVE. Musks wet dream was for the same kind of car taxing to happen in USA and for the silly shit of classifying pt cruisers as trucks and all that to end.
if you go for the 130 000 euro teslas.. then the "competition" gets car taxes that are to tune of 100k(being 100k more expensive than the 130k tesla.. (of course, the "competition" can drive from south of finland to lapland in a day, so theres that..).
that's what Musk was riding on with Tesla. if that happened, he could raise the price of teslas maybe the critical 10% and still be kind of a good deal. ..also at the same though, all the other car manufacturers do have electrics ready to roll out once it makes profit to sell them at prices people buy them. this kind of matters because tesla has no technology that other car manufacturers didn't have.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.
Excuse me?
https://e360.yale.edu/features...
Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Yeah, it has far more to do with the laptop or smartphone that you posted your incorrect assessment from than it does anything to do with solar panels. Hint: solar panels don't use rare earths,
You guys are really sure of things that are wrong.
https://e360.yale.edu/features...
Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
https://e360.yale.edu/features...
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Even though I have little interest in getting involved in CO2-related discussions, I want to clarify a tiny detail which quite a few people don't seem to know: CO2 is not harmful for human health (perhaps it might not be too good in very high doses, but this is an extremely unlikely scenario). In fact, it is a normal output of any combustion like the ones associated with the breathing process of all the living beings. That linked article can only refer to the other pollutants generated by car engines (e.g., NOx, HC, soot/particles, etc.).
You're actually mistaken, while Carbon Dioxide is not listed as a poison or toxic, and it is a waste product, there is strong medical evidence as to it being harmful for human health. It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.
I am not too familiar with the exact conditions of the Paris agreement, but in case of being exclusively focused on CO2/climate change it wouldn't have any impact on the deaths which you are mentioning.
The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.
Sorry, two for two.
I'd post links but I am on mobile, so a bit more trouble.
Jennifer Law did one of the studies, as a NASA flight surgeon, it should be public documentation though. And fo the other, just read the treaty.
The US Constitution is a very small and simple document that has been openly published and freely-available for all to read for over 200 years. It explicitly says that any treaty the US president negotiates and signs does not take effect until 2/3 of the US Senate votes affirmatively to ratify it. Any and all competent international diplomats and ambassadors know this - it's never been a secret. As such, any foreign leader who asserts that the US must obey an un-ratified treaty is either an ignoran doofus or is being very dishonest, probably for geopolitical reasons.
No US President may unilaterally bind the American people, for decades to come (possibly permanently), to some agreement he/she has negotiated to his/her personal satisfaction and possibly in private through "back channels" and possibly with secret "side agreements" (like Obama's Iran nuke deal). That's not how democratic forms of government work; if the president wants some international rules that override American law, will be binding on American citizens, etc he has to have the support of the Senate - it's part of our system of checks-and-balances. It was global news that Obama joined the Paris climate agreement WITHOUT submitting it to the Senate (because he knew it would go down in flames there) and everybody on Earth who was paying attention knew full-well that this meant it had no substance and could be eliminated by the stroke of any future President's pen (or ANY federal judge in the US ruling that the feds were enforcing a non-law...) Obama and his supporters simply counted on never again losing the White House to any non-Democrat - which is the load of tripe abou demographics that progressives have been feeding eachother for the past 8 years and part of why they are so freaked-out to have lost.
No, it's not an illegal treaty. It's a treaty. One you don't like. That is all.
Fucking idiot.
No? Then the start of all this bollocks should have gotten your comment, but it did not.
if we stop burning fossil fuels
This is probably the trendy idea with lowest applicability ever. We have been burning fossil fuels since we became an industrialised society over 200 years ago and we don't know anything better than that. Talking about not burning fossil fuels at all is almost like talking about magic.
Just replacing internal combustion engines (a tiny proportion of the burning-fossil-fuels reality) is so complex that, at this point, can even be considered a completely unrealistic long-term goal. We already have acceptable alternatives for small engines (cars) but replacing all the existing ones isn't a reasonable expectation for the next 20-50 years; and we are still not even close to replacing heavy-load ones (trucks, ships, planes, etc.), which are the biggest pollutors by far.
Down here in the actual reality where we have to deal with burning fossil fuels without dreaming about magical what-if scenarios, reducing CO2 and NOx (or any other pollutant) are completely different stories. Each emission type requires different approaches with different drawbacks (because most of people, many of them systematically complaining about non-environment-friendly policies, want their engines to continue running as so far, their electricity to continue being reliably provided, etc.), even different fuels and conditions are more (un)likely to output certain pollutants. NOx and CO2 will never be considered at an equivalent level absolutely anywhere unless in the mouths of generically-speaking people.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
So if you benefit from something, you're claiming that is corruption and disproves the claim. So you benefit from the current fossil fuel funded society, therefore your claims are null and void because of your corrupt benefiting from the status quo.
Indirectly the Paris Agreement...
Sure, as indirectly as dreaming with a number might have an impact on your chances of winning the lottery. No. Even by assuming that the most ambitious long-term CO2-reduction goals are achieved, we would continue heavily relying on fossil fuels and all the worldwide emission regulations would continue being eminently focused on reducing actually-harmful-for-health pollutants (+ including some references to the CO2 newcomer).
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.
?! Seriously?! I worked during 2 years for a company whose business was focused on emissions (mostly from internal combustion engines) and, as per my knowledge, all the industry wasn't even considering CO2 as a pollutant until relatively recent times. Also I wasn't aware about the fact that humans (or any other living being) are systematically generating poisonous-to-themselves compounds. Are you saying that just breathing is bad for your health?! Wow! You should quickly let everyone know about your discoveries because there are lots of people wrong out there. The medical community should start recommending people not breathing and/or not being around of other breathing things. Logically, I believe that all what you are saying is completely true, but just for future readers not knowing you, your knowledge and intentions as well as I do (random other AC), would you mind to share some reference from a reasonably trustworthy source somehow supporting your words?
The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.
According to Wikipedia, you mean H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs. If this is true (why or how could I doubt about the reliability of such a trustworthy source of knowledge as you have proven to be?!), it would mean that, out of the main pollutants from internal combustion engines, they only care about the referred CO2. Note that N2O has nothing to do with the dangerous NOx (NO + NO2), also that its other name (laughing gas) gives a good idea about its actual relevance.
Sorry, two for two.
Yes, I agree I think that the first paragraph reflects much better your surprisingly in-denial (dishonest?!) ignorance though.
I'd post links but I am on mobile, so a bit more trouble.
But you did share all that knowledge with the rest of the world anyway. Thanks! And I am saying that as both a human and a learner.
Jennifer Law did one of the studies, as a NASA flight surgeon, it should be public documentation though. And fo the other, just read the treaty.
Jennifer Law doesn't sound like the kind of made-up name intended to be appealing to gullible audiences? Like the fake name used by a scammer or what Sarah Silverman's last trailer is mocking with "Tom Virtue"? Also a flight surgeon?! Are now (flight!!) surgeons taking care of emissions and their effects on health? I thought that all this was taken care of by biology-focused specialities, but what has a surgeon to do with anything of this? And also NASA (well... they might do some work on emissions, although not sure that via their flight surgeon)?! Please, do a little effort as soon as you can and share a like to that breaking-through research! We have to let the industry and the world know! They have done so many mistakes and Jennifer is so unfairly not extremely famous!
DISCLAIMER: yes, this post contains looooots of sarcasm.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
I meant "share a link to that breaking-through research".
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
My original intention of not wanting to get involved in CO2-related discussions should be clearer now by reading the replies I got. Honestly, I was expecting much more aggressive attitudes + down-votes. Although I am pleasantly surprised with what I have seen so far, am still not interested in getting involved in these discussions.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Taking a sample size of one is never good. Try looking at all the known samples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
The world has had 100,000 deaths per trillion kwh of coal generated power.
The world has had 36,000 deaths per trillion kwh of oil generated power.
The world has had 440 deaths per trillion kwh of solar generated power.
The world has had 150 deaths per trillion kwh of wind generated power.
The world has had 90 deaths per trillion kwh of nuclear generated power.
The US probably should pay for cleanup in other countries. We've basically outsourced our pollution, we send just about everything to China for manufacture because it's too expensive to do it cleanly in the US. We benefit by cheaper products as well as keeping the homeland clean.
Each year the US loses $600 billion due to the health problems caused by using coal as an energy source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... . That doesn't include any negative effects from climate change.
Gasoline-related health problem estimates are $1.7 trillion per year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... . Again, that doesn't include any negative effects from climate change.
So yes, I'd like to spend $1.3 trillion a year in an effort to stop harming my neighbors.
Reducing the ecological footprint can now be established by not buying USA made products...
So far. If you extrapolate that argument though, coal, oil and nuclear should be phased out. That stat regarding nuclear is like saying Russian roulette is safe
If you keep using nuclear eventually that 90 deaths will dramatically increase, making it far more dangerous than solar/wind. There will be no mass destruction due to solar/wind.
I chose to end my comments, not with a rim shot, but a long decaying F#7sus4
It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.
?! Seriously?! I worked during 2 years for a company whose business was focused on emissions (mostly from internal combustion engines) and, as per my knowledge, all the industry wasn't even considering CO2 as a pollutant until relatively recent times.
And? This means what, that because they didn't do something, they couldn't be wrong? The history of industry being ignorant of problems is well established.
Also I wasn't aware about the fact that humans (or any other living being) are systematically generating poisonous-to-themselves compounds.
Well, that's a feather in your cap, ain't it, to be ignorant of human and other living beings, having biological processes that are harmful to themselves.
Are you saying that just breathing is bad for your health?!
You've never been to LA in a smog alert, or just a dust storm, I take it?
Wow! You should quickly let everyone know about your discoveries because there are lots of people wrong out there. The medical community should start recommending people not breathing and/or not being around of other breathing things.
Indeed, the medical community does have to make a lot of recommendations regarding being around other people, for a lot of reasons. Why most of the places I've seen have had signs warning patients to avoid contact, and not get too close to each other.
Logically, I believe that all what you are saying is completely true, but just for future readers not knowing you, your knowledge and intentions as well as I do (random other AC), would you mind to share some reference from a reasonably trustworthy source somehow supporting your words?
I did give you sufficient reference, to a NASA flight surgeon, but as I was on mobile, so I found it more difficult than it was worth to seek out a link for you. Sorry.
Of course, your sarcastic response now disinclines me to provide you with anything more either.
You could simply search for it yourself.
The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.
According to Wikipedia, you mean H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs. If this is true (why or how could I doubt about the reliability of such a trustworthy source of knowledge as you have proven to be?!), it would mean that, out of the main pollutants from internal combustion engines, they only care about the referred CO2. Note that N2O has nothing to do with the dangerous NOx (NO + NO2), also that its other name (laughing gas) gives a good idea about its actual relevance.
Don't worry, as internal combustion engines mostly use , all of their waste products are covered.
It's really easy to read the agreement, and see how open-ended it is. It's not as limited as say the Montreal Protocol.
Sorry, two for two.
Yes, I agree I think that the first paragraph reflects much better your surprisingly i
And? This means what, that because they didn't do something, they couldn't be wrong?
I read that first sentence, then skimmed through all your links to find a reference to the marvellous contribution of Mrs Law (BTW, I didn't mock anyone other than you inventing a name which happened to have certain curious appearance), confirmed that it wasn't there and now I am writing these reasonably-respectful farewell lines. Bye.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
ah! Big apologises! I seriously didn't read your comment (very bad impression from your first one), but you did include a reference to the (actually existing!) Mrs. Law! Really sorry about that. I will read it right away and come back to you ASAP.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Again: sorry, sorry and re-sorry. I am certainly not the kind of person ignoring others, easily misjudging or not adequately understanding their positions. I am not trying to justify my behaviour, but bear in mind that I answered your first reply after having written other two answers (+ not having too much time/planning to do that + as already said, not liking this kind of discussions too much). Also bear in mind my solid background on this front what makes kind of difficult to take certain statements too seriously. Hopefully, you will understand my position.
:)) which describe the non-applicability of these conclusions to atmospheric (or any other kind of accidental/under normal conditions) contamination. You have to get a dose 20 times higher than normal atmospheric conditions just to reach "Empiric threshold established by flight surgeons" (= an astronaut is still able to perform his demanding work perfectly!), what also means getting locked in a very small room with lots of CO2 (BTW, if you do that with something like a car, the other pollutants, most likely CO, would kill you before that you could start feeling the indicated CO2 effects). You need to get over 40 times the normal atmospheric concentration to start feeling "Slight performance decrement after chronic exposure" (= after being under these conditions for too long, you might not be able to perform all the actions which an astronaut have to perform at 100%). If you get 65 times more, you would reach "the maximum Maximum CO2 concentration on Apollo 13" (= astronauts flight under these conditions!). If you keep increasing the values, you would get increasingly slightly worse effects eminently defined by symptoms like headache, sweating, dizziness, etc. I couldn't find in that paper any reference to words like "bone", "cognitive" or "kidney" (= you aren't too honest and/or don't know what you are talking about; an idea which was pretty clear in my mind since the very first second).
I took a quick look at the paper you were referring (this one, download the cached version because the NASA links don't seem to work) and it doesn't show any surprising to me result. Bear in mind that what we call (toxic) pollutants (e.g., the referred NOx) are very dangerous, what means that they provoke cancer in open space. Getting highly concentrated doses of virtually anything might be unhealthy, but this isn’t enough to say that certain substance is toxic. Also note that I did expressly clarify in my first comment that, under exceptional circumstances CO2 might be somehow problematic (as everything else under extreme conditions).
The basic conclusions of this paper are summarised in table 2 (page 19) which includes a very descriptive list of situations (good work, Mrs. Law! Sorry again
In summary, it seems a study only relevant under very specific conditions (= maximising the performance of astronauts), which doesn’t seem applicable anywhere else and, in any case, is certainly very far away from representing even the starting point for claims on the lines of "CO2 is bad for human health". No, it is certainly not. It isn't enough under normal atmospheric conditions and not even for very concentrated doses (inside an actual greenhouse). Taking a very high dose of CO2 (or anything else like water or oxygen) cannot be good, but this is evident and doesn't convert it into bad not even watch-your-dose material; just in don't-get-completely-crazy-and-start-living-24hours-with-a-high-CO2-concentration-because-you-might-get-headaches material. Anyone claiming that CO2 is bad for your health is plainly a liar. In any case, I do apologise again for my very far from ideal behaviour. Hopefully, this will be enough to finish this chat.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
you might want to look at the age of that article.
Wind turbines made in AMerica and Europe along with a number of the EVs such as Tesla are AC based, and do not have magnets.
Chinese MADE has a lot of rare earth, but that is because they now control a lot of the market.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
relative to coal,no, they are NOT ramping up AE. China is STILL growing their coal each year MORE than AE.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
People who make money from government subsidy in a thing, will support anything that assists governments in maintaining that subsidy.
Also, People who own companies who get free pass in refusing Unions in a state where people claim Union is more important than the jobs OR the members of unions, need to toe the Party line or that Party may stop looking the other way.
You may want to have a look at what it says about solar panels and rare earth elements.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Elon Musk runs SolarCity so his opinion on this is colored whether you believe in global warming or not. Is this really news to anyone?
Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.
Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.
Excuse me?
https://e360.yale.edu/features...:
Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.
That is a different technology than the panels made in China, which are all silicon panels.
(Also, tellurium is not a rare earth element, not that this matters, since it's not used in the panels made in China.)
You are excused.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Again: sorry, sorry and re-sorry. I am certainly not the kind of person ignoring others, easily misjudging or not adequately understanding their positions.
You may want to reconsider your approach then, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.
I am not trying to justify my behaviour, but bear in mind that I answered your first reply after having written other two answers (+ not having too much time/planning to do that + as already said, not liking this kind of discussions too much). Also bear in mind my solid background on this front what makes kind of difficult to take certain statements too seriously. Hopefully, you will understand my position.
Understand? Sure, I understand a lot of things. This should not be construed as condoning, approving, or otherwise endorsing. It is merely a matter of comprehension.
In fact, if anything, my understanding likely differs from yours considerably. I think you believe you know more than you really do, and with your dislike are getting inclined towards intemperance and hastiness rather than moderate yourself based on wisdom and prudence.
It's not an uncommon sentiment, but that just means you should be more aware of it.
I took a quick look at the paper you were referring (this one, download the cached version because the NASA links don't seem to work) and it doesn't show any surprising to me result.
The NASA link worked for me, perhaps you had some other problem, or perhaps it was some transient error. I couldn't say.
Bear in mind that what we call (toxic) pollutants (e.g., the referred NOx) are very dangerous, what means that they provoke cancer in open space.
We're not talking about what is called "toxic" pollutants, or even "pollutants at all" as if you remember, your statement was:
CO2 is not harmful for human health (perhaps it might not be too good in very high doses, but this is an extremely unlikely scenario).
When in fact, medical evidence points to you being mistaken, as it can be harmful. Even beyond your qualifier's limits to cover.
Getting highly concentrated doses of virtually anything might be unhealthy, but this isn’t enough to say that certain substance is toxic.
Again, we're not talking about whether or not it is toxic, per se, but the issue of it being harmful.
Which it can be. That doesn't even fit under "not be too good" not that I know what you meant by that or the ambiguous statement of very high doses, but harmful on its own, due to its effects on the body.
Also note that I did expressly clarify in my first comment that, under exceptional circumstances CO2 might be somehow problematic (as everything else under extreme conditions).
Good for you, but as I noted, it's not simply of problematic, such as I might consider it as a matter of suffocation. So it's more than simply "not too good", but actual, medical effects that can be detrimental in themselves.
And do note, that while being on a space station may be unique (for now), there are not too dissimilar issues within other spaces that human beings are frequently found. It may be desirable to rethink our building and enclosed vehicle designs.
(BTW, if you do that with something like a car, the other pollutants, most likely CO, would kill you before that you could start feeling the indicated CO2 effects).
There are many things that are more harmful than others, we still recognize that harm can occur.
I couldn't find in that paper any reference to words like "bone", "cognitive" or "kidney" (= you aren't too honest and/or don't know what you are talking about; an idea which was pretty clear in my mind since the very first sec
you might look at the fact that it was more than 5 years ago (written 4 years ago, but based on data from 6 years ago), and panels have changed due to those issues.
Now, the chinese panels continue to make use of rare earth, but not a big deal except for those that buy them.
Thankfully, SOlar city and several other companies here in the west are not making use of those.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In fact, if anything, my understanding likely differs from yours considerably.
I have no doubt on this front. In fact, this last message is further proving a kind-of-prejudice I got about you since the first moment (I am a prejudice-free person, but cannot avoid having likely-to-be-true expectations about certain people on account of my experience and my big interest in properly knowing and understanding others. Logically, I dismiss these pre-ideas as soon as possible, although they tend to be very accurate in certain contexts): you are a person who usually talks without knowing; one of those using expressions like "I am here to see the big picture"; the kind of personality usually working in managerial, political or other abstract talking environments; an individual who cannot see a discussion as a way to gain more understanding into the given situation (and/or grow as a person), but as something to win/lose; you rarely understand almost anything adequately and plainly focus on looking for weaknesses in your opponents (for you, everyone is an opponent to beat and everything is a game/war to win; you are also permanently afraid of virtually anything) to ease your win; the net contributions of persons like you to the world or to others is usually none as far as you only care about one person (= yourself), ironically you behave in a way which is mostly damaging for you (if those of your kind ever discovered how marvellous is truly knowing, truly not fearing, actually contributing, etc. you would change immediately your ways); etc.
I knew all this from your previous comments, but the absolute confirmation has been your reaction to my (over-)apology (something that a person like you never does, even though you are wrong most of the times): only people like you see an apology as an excuse to attack (a weakness?! No. It shows honesty and self-confidence or, by using an easier-for-you language, strength) and to try to cover their lacks. The normal/reasonable behaviour? Accepting/understanding the apology and, in case of being applicable, repaying it with your own (in this case? Something like "sorry for posting so misleading and clearly wrong statements; I honestly don't know too much about all of this and was just repeating what I read somewhere else" would make my aforementioned prejudice invalid and you respect-worthy for me).
I think you believe you know more than you really do
This is a new sample of generic talking which tries to cover your evident lacks on what is being discussed. Your whole message is full of meaning-nothing (or self-help-book-material or CEO-talk or abstract-nonsense or canned-knowledge samples) sentences on these lines which you (very wrongly) think that are helpful to deal with any situation where you don’t have the required knowledge. I have met many people like you and have tried quite a few times to make you understand (even just via "let's just understand that our positions are very different and what works for each one of us doesn't work for the other"), but always failed. Apparently, you don't want to see yourself and what you represent clearly (perhaps this is a basic requirement for a personality like yours); I am not sure whether you are fully lying to yourself or are so committed to your life role of selling-distorted-images that can never reach a point of acceptation ("OK. My techniques don't work with certain type of people and I would have to accept it"), a practical stalemate by applying your always-competing perception of the world.
You keep repeating your proceedings, standardised answers, calculated reactions, etc. which have worked on other contexts, by ignoring the reality in front of you clearly telling "your bag of tricks isn't good here". You will never understand even the tiny fraction of reality defined by the simple: there are actually honest, knowledgeable, wanting-to-understand-&-be-understood people for whom your world of abstract really-meaning-nothing is a complete (s
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
In fact, if anything, my understanding likely differs from yours considerably.
I have no doubt on this front.
One would hope so, after all I stated my understanding, so you being aware of your own, can thus confirm it for a certainty.
In fact, this last message is further proving a kind-of-prejudice I got about you since the first moment (I am a prejudice-free person, but cannot avoid having likely-to-be-true expectations about certain people on account of my experience and my big interest in properly knowing and understanding others.
Hmm, your message is further establishing to me, that the advice I already gave you, is something you really ought to consider, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.
Logically, I dismiss these pre-ideas as soon as possible, although they tend to be very accurate in certain contexts): you are a person who usually talks without knowing; one of those using expressions like "I am here to see the big picture"; the kind of personality usually working in managerial, political or other abstract talking environments; an individual who cannot see a discussion as a way to gain more understanding into the given situation (and/or grow as a person), but as something to win/lose; you rarely understand almost anything adequately and plainly focus on looking for weaknesses in your opponents (for you, everyone is an opponent to beat and everything is a game/war to win; you are also permanently afraid of virtually anything) to ease your win; the net contributions of persons like you to the world or to others is usually none as far as you only care about one person (= yourself), ironically you behave in a way which is mostly damaging for you (if those of your kind ever discovered how marvellous is truly knowing, truly not fearing, actually contributing, etc. you would change immediately your ways); etc.
I'd this chain of pseudo-babble reflects your own self more than me. It's certainly more important to you, than it is to me.
I knew all this from your previous comments, but the absolute confirmation has been your reaction to my (over-)apology (something that a person like you never does, even though you are wrong most of the times): only people like you see an apology as an excuse to attack (a weakness?!
No. It shows honesty and self-confidence or, by using an easier-for-you language, strength) and to try to cover their lacks. The normal/reasonable behaviour? Accepting/understanding the apology and, in case of being applicable, repaying it with your own (in this case? Something like "sorry for posting so misleading and clearly wrong statements; I honestly don't know too much about all of this and was just repeating what I read somewhere else" would make my aforementioned prejudice invalid and you respect-worthy for me).
Yes, I was surprised even your timid approach to an apology. It wasn't very convincing, as you left out a significant amount of your error, and even with what little you offered, you were quite inadequate, but you managed to come to some degree of apology. Still, the things you left out, were quite meaningful, so even with what you did offer, you did fail to be convincing.
It's like when somebody says "I'm sorry if you thought something I said hurt you" rather than you know, actually admitting to their hurtful words.
I think you believe you know more than you really do
This is a new sample of generic talking which tries to cover your evident lacks on what is being discussed. Your whole message is full of meaning-nothing (or self-help-book-material or CEO-talk or abstract-nonsense or canned-knowledge samples) sentences on these lines which you (very wrongly) think that are helpful to deal with any situation where you don’t have the required knowledge. I have met many people like you and have
Hmm, your message is further establishing to me, that the advice I already gave you, is something you really ought to consider, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.
This is when I decided to stick to my original intention of plainly ignoring you and your "infra-world". Bye.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
My first intention was to not read a single character of your likely-to-be dishonest, misinterpretation-prone, abstract, etc. new nonsense, but then I said to myself "what kind of person are you? Someone as sad as this clown? With no respect for yourself and others? Living in a made-up reality built over fears, misunderstandings and prejudices? Never willing to adequately understand anyone or anything? No. This isn't me". So, I reconsidered my decision and started to read your comment until reaching
Hmm, your message is further establishing to me, that the advice I already gave you, is something you really ought to consider, as your manner of behavior doesn't fit very effectively with your professed belief in yourself.
This is when I decided to stick to my original intention of plainly ignoring you and your "infra-world". Bye.
Yes, yes, you have been having a conniption fit with your calumnious burbling over this discussion for quite a while, but it's no shock to me that you can't keep your word. Would perhaps have been better for your karma if you had, but no shock to myself.
conniption
Your best (actually, only one) contribution so far: you have taught me a new word. Congrats! You should be very proud of yourself because people like you rarely teach me anything. Although it doesn't describe my behaviour here, only your crazy misinterpretations making up non-existent meanings for everything.
Your usage of the English language seems to indicate that my original guesses regarding the source of your evident in-denial behaviour, living in made up realities, always selling (and probably easily buying) dishonesty, etc. might not be fully related to your occupation (note that I didn't read your previous reply and don't know whether it contains more information about yourself), but perhaps also to your way of life understood in its widest sense, as defined by your social status, life choices and expectations. In any case, this doesn't have any effect on what really matters: your behaviour denotes not only serious understanding lacks, but also a distorted self-perception.
You being a knowing-nothing-and-talking-a-lot CEO, a rich kid who hasn’t ever done anything relevant or any other over-protected, detached from reality and completely unaware about this fact idiot is completely irrelevant. Additionally and as already explained, I don’t have generic prejudices and plainly focus on current personalities/attitudes (+ noting the high probability of certain conditions to generate similar outcomes). The only thing that matters is that I have nothing to do with you, I don't want to talk to you and all what you say (interpret, hope, etc.) is, by using an expression honouring your deep love for the English language, bollocks.
you can't keep your word
This is a new proof of your serious understanding limitations. It had nothing to do with keeping my word (to whom!? to myself?!), I plainly used a descriptive-enough (although nothing is descriptive enough for a person like you) approach to summarise an evident-to-anyone-reading-this-chat conclusion: I am not interested in continue reading your incoherent nonsense. Please, stop making a fool of yourself and inventing a whole conversation including your interlocutor being involved in it at all.
better for your karma
By assuming that you are not using karma in the sense of this site (i.e., the global assessment determining good/bad track-records of logged-in users, mostly relevant to become eligible in the random selection of moderators. BTW, mine is excellent), this reference would confirm your "solid" scientific background eminently formed by absolute truths like "science is good" (sorry, I meant "science is splendid"). A fact that makes even more ridiculous you expecting your opinion (better: aggregation of random irrelevant ideas only proving your unwillingness to adequately understand anything) being taken seriously regarding any scientific issue.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.