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.
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.
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....
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.
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
I wouldn't be surprised
[($)]
his entire business is dependent upon strict environment and pollution controls.
Actually, that's not true. Tesla cars have gotten subsidies but those are going to run out soonish. People are buying them despite their price tag because they like 'em. They're producing as many as they possibly can.
I think the SolarCity part is probably receiving subsidies one way or another (net metering is once such subsidy). But costs are dwindling so those are probably going away too, eventually.
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
Heck, Germany continues building NEW COAL PLANTS. INSANE.
List of planned Coal Power Plants in Germany
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1st: Under construction. Construction plan has been subsequently declared invalid (future uncertain)
2nd: Planning frozen
3rd: Planning stopped
4th: Under planning. Legal dispute about engineering standards underway
5th: Under planning. Construction questionable due to uncertain economic viability
So, of the 5 coal power plants planned or under construction, only one is actually being constructed, which might never see operation, while the rest are only in the planning phase and the construction is uncertain at best.
Once those subsidies run out, his product becomes stacked a little lower compared to the incumbent manufacturers who aren't all electric. Musk is merely looking for an angle, and if he can make life difficult for his competitors that works to his benefit. Think about it - keep Obama's crazy fuel economy regs in play, and what chance does a gasoline or diesel engine have against Tesla at any cost? Performance would by necessity be severely crippled, and Tesla can thumb their nose even more by showing how even their cheapest models outperform everyone else. Also think about who owns the electric car space through battery contracts, battery production, and power delivery technology. Becomes pretty clear the Paris nonsense works to benefit Musk in a bigly way.
the GOP will push for a tax
Proof of the alternate universe theory? Sign of the end times? Pigs will start flying? Hell will freeze over?
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.
Hopefully, instead, the GOP will push for a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/Services based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.
So they should tax countries like Qatar and... the USA. Worst CO2 emitters per capita.
All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP.
Per GDP? Why per GDP? What kind of fucked-up measurement is that? If the global GDP doubles, do you really think the Earth will absorbs twice as much CO2?
The only valid metric is CO2 per capita. And we should cut all financial insensitive to birth to make sure the total population remains acceptable.
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.
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! --
Well, if you want to be nitpicky, for one thing, Germany is not building new plants, it is building a new plant. All others are speculative.
But the deeper point is that the parent post creates the impression that Germany is in some kind of Coal Power Rollout strategy, whereas in truth, if you consider the facts that a country like Germany has about 200 power plants total and they are building 1 new coal plant whereas another 4 are disputed, it is more indicative that coal power is actually in the process of being phased out.
You are STILL building, and that is the problem. 14% of Germany's power comes from nukes which you are shutting down. AE is not able to replace it, since a true baseline is needed. As such, Germany will have to decide wether to stay with nukes and phase out their 40% coal dependancy, OR increase coal to 54%
.3Tw, and by end of 2018, will be below .2TW in coal.
There is very little that trump can do to restart it as NOBODY in American utility is going to pick coal over nat gas.
America has brought our coal from around 1TW down to below
However, neither Germany nor western europe, is the real problem. The real problem are nations like CHina, India, pakistan, poland, etc that are building new GW of coal EACH YEAR. China will add 40 GW of new coal plants THIS YEAR. Yes, by end of 2017, they will have added another 40 GW. America will have dropped 10 GW of coal with more coming in 2018, but China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, and I believe even poland will add more than 10 GW EACH.
This is how we lose at AGW. We need to get EVERY NATION TO STOP BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS. Then and only then can we start to back off.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
LOL.
Per capita assumes that ppl make the choices for emissions. We do not. Not to a large degree that is. How much say do you think that the average chinese has on new coal plants being put in? Absolutely NONE. Otherwise, China would have a fraction of the plants that they have and ppl would not be dying from the pollution.
How much say do you think that the Average American, or even eastern European has on their say about coal plants going in? Do you really think that Poland's citizens want to continue putting in new coal plants? NOPE.
How about buying EVs? Until Tesla came along, how many types of EVs could you buy? The answer is NONE. Tesla, a corporation, is what created the opportunity for this and is forcing all car makers to go along with this.
We own a Model S and have 10 KW of solar city on our roof. How much influence did I have on society? Very little. HOWEVER, how much influence has Tesla and Solar city had? EVERYTHING.
And what drives businesses and govs? Not you or me. $$$$$.
As such, the ONLY sane measurement, is emissions / $ GDP.
As to the continuing rise in $GDP yearly, not a big deal. After all, the number of ppl rise as well. Instead, we tie it ultimately as a % of the global GDP. Buf for now, just getting taxes going and getting ALL NATIONS to change, is what matters.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What's "worthless" about the deal is that it amounts to not much beyond saying "we will try", but actively deciding to not participate sends a clear message that the USA does not even *want* to try...
Which of course they are legally allowed to do, but considering the issue at hand, and given that it affects everyone on the planet, I'm not entirely convinced that was the *right* thing to do, unless the US were to volunteer an initiative of its own that it will practice within its own borders which might achieve similar ends.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
LOL.
Per capita assumes that ppl make the choices for emissions. We do not.
Yes we do. We choose to have large cars and big houses.
Not to a large degree that is. How much say do you think that the average chinese has on new coal plants being put in? Absolutely NONE. Otherwise, China would have a fraction of the plants that they have and ppl would not be dying from the pollution.
They are not a democracy. It's their problem to fix.
How much say do you think that the Average American, or even eastern European has on their say about coal plants going in? Do you really think that Poland's citizens want to continue putting in new coal plants? NOPE.
They don't want coal, but they don't want to pay for wind power. You can't have both cheap and clean energy. Although these days natural gas is pretty cheap and cleaner than coal.
We own a Model S and have 10 KW of solar city on our roof. How much influence did I have on society? Very little. HOWEVER, how much influence has Tesla and Solar city had? EVERYTHING.
If people paid for the real cost of their CO2 emissions, we wouldn't need to subsidize electric cars so that they become attractive. And there would have been electric cars sooner. If it isn't Tesla, then somebody else would have done it.
As to the continuing rise in $GDP yearly, not a big deal. After all, the number of ppl rise as well. Instead, we tie it ultimately as a % of the global GDP. Buf for now, just getting taxes going and getting ALL NATIONS to change, is what matters.
So you are going to tell that poor African living with nothing that he has to forfeit his tap water because his share of the global GDP is close to 0? And all that so that big fat people continue to drive their big fat SUV?
It make no sense.
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...
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?
you know, sadly, ppl like you speak often without even looking at the issues.
In terms of emissions / $GDP, MOST 3rrd world nations are in the middle to the low end of emissions / $GDP. IOW, they will actually come out ahead.
OTOH, nations that are working hard to cheat at production by manipulating their money, going to cheap coal, oil, etc, without pollution controls, dumping heavy pollution on the world (for example, 80-90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from south-east asia with the majority being china who dumps their garbage in the ocean), picking up the worst from the west, etc will lose, while nations that clean up or are poor economically, will actually do better.
And this will prevent businesses from simply jumping from nation to nation looking for whomever will cheat. Afterall, those nations will have a large tax on their exports, which will make it worthless for businesses to go there.
OTOH, for states/nations that do not cheat, and clean up, or already have low emissions / $GDP (say france, sweden, etc), they will join nations like Chad in not having a tax on their exported goods/services. Note that if those goods grabbed parts from China, then those items will be accessed at China's rate (which would be 100% tax), instead of at sweden's. However, if the item was composed of parts from say sweden, chad, france, and say California, it would be zero% tax.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For some reason, these facts are never explored at any depth or discussed in the mainstream media. Very curious.
And what's the projected non-increase in temperature by 2100 ASSUMING everyone follows the rules and energy generation technology stays at a standstill? Is it 0.04 degrees C or something?
This is madness, pure inexplicable madness.
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.
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.
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.
it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have the right to pollute more than someone living in a developing nation just because you happen to live in a country with a larger GDP/capita.
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.
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.
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
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.
china's factories have NOTHING to do with their choosing of coal. That is just plain BS. They have the ability to add nuclear power, but do not want to do so since it would be from a nation that they would have to depend on.
They could choose to spend all of the money that goes to coal plants on AE, but they are choosing to NOT do that. The reason is that coal is MUCH cheaper and more effective there, esp when they remove pollution controls.
These are choices that CHina's gov and businesses choose to do.
It is no different than America choosing to do nat gas and wind for the last 6-7 years.
>
And if you want to speak of GDP, well, America is doing loads of work for China on our GDP, and we do it for less than half of the emissions.
All because our gov and businesses choose to do things cleaner.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
this has nothing to do with larger GDP/capita.
This has EVERYTHING to do with how to stop the CO2. The fact is, that it is not you and I that are in control.
And I say that knowing that I have already brought my familes emissions WELL BELOW WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL INDIAN emits.
We have a tesla, bikes, 10 KW solar city system (which generates more than what my family uses), and keeps our trash low.
I doubt that YOU have done close to this much, since it is likely my family is pretty much at zero co2/year.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
what facts are never discussed?
And what is madness?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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
This part:
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.
no, they CHOOSE to burn coal. It was not needed.
For example, if you hire somebody to protect you and then run around just murdering ppl off the street, are you responsible?
Nope.
China gov and businesses are choosing to burn coal for their electricity. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with their working to pull manufacturing over there.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.