First off, you are right that our neo-cons/tea* are causing us a disaster. I know that. Most Americans know that. OTOH, I dislike the solutions that Europe and American dems have proposed. They really will NOT do the job.
Secondly, we have spent 10's of billion on upgrading insulation and windows. I know because we installed over $250 of insulation in our home. Heck we have solar city panels on our house and every week or so, I buy some 2-4 new LED bulbs (from cree), and have replaced nearly all of the incadescent lights and am now replacing the flouresent. We now have less than 10 incadescent, 3 halogens, 10 flourescent, and bunch of LEDs. In addition, we are looking at buying a Tesla Model X.
Third, I have suggested that tax, which I think forces all nations to participate. What is nice is that it rewards nations that lower their emissions relative to their GDP.
But I also think that there is some smart moves that the west should do (esp. America). Require that all new buildings below 5 stories have on-site AE to cover the energy of their HVAC (and require BOTH heating and AC). This has the advantage of allowing any type of AE, but, with solar being the main one AND IT IS EXPENSIVE. As such, this will encourage builders to move to better insulation in the walls, better windows (aerogel), more efficient forms of heating/cooling (geo-thermal), etc. With a build out, this will lower the price of all material, which will lower the price for re-doing older homes.
Another one is that the west is doing transportation wrong. Europe has their twin rail which is a NIGHTMARE. Expensive to install. Expensive to run. Heavily subsidized. Transmag is interesting and cool, but as musk would say, the wrong approach. So, his hyperloop is superior to any of those approaches.
But the west's subsidies on 'low-emission' vehicles is a joke. We treat hybrids the same as pure electrics. Worse, we treat low range electrics the same as high range electric cars. The low range and hybrids require that the cars be constantly charged esp. during the daytime. That makes matters worse, not better. So, what is needed is to treat the subsidies different. Basically, for a hybrid or an electric with less than 100 MPC, give them a small subsidy (say $5K). For those in the range of 100-150 MPC, give them $7.5K. And for 150+ MPC, give them $15K. Why do this? Because it will get car makers to build cars that charge at nighttime.
The final thing is that Germany's approach of doing lead-acid batteries at homes is about the worst idea that I have heard. Instead, they should simply offer a subsidy for that storage and allow the market to decide. But getting lead batteries going is a horrible idea.
with the exception of Honda, all major car makers have electric cars. Other than Tesla and Nissan, none of them want them since it cuts into their profits. BUT, Tesla combined with consumers has forced them to make them. So, yeah, that is huge. It may just be getting going, but in 3 years, Tesla will be making 250K model E / year. And they expect to double it for the next couple of years.
china has loads of tariffs that are designed to block imports from the west. They constantly shift these so as they take over an industry. In addition, they subsidize and then dump on foreign markets. And to help with it, they run 80% coal electric without pollution controls.
And western industrialization had far less pollution for far shorter periods of time. As I pointed out earlier, China's CO2 emissions is more than all of Europe's and America's combined. And America continue to drop ours (europe's is actually increase due to Germany), while China's continues to grow MASSIVELY. China will be at 50% of the world's emissions before 2020, and possibly by 2018 due to their double digit emissions growth.
I have said it before that a consumption tax based on the product and its parts and the CO2 from that region. It should have NOTHING to do with how much CO2 went into the product because it would be a guess at best. Instead, use a satellite (OCO2 is coming this year) to measure the CO2 that flows into a nation/state, and what flows out. By simply going with the measure of in and out, it allows the local gov. to figure out how to lower it. And when it comes to normalization, base it on emission / $GDP. Why GDP? Because CO2 (and other major pollutants) are mostly tied to manufacturing, not people. THis would easily solve the whole issue.
LOL. Hybrids and TDI are good enough to bring that down and work. That is why so many of these car makers went to parallel hybrids (worst idea going). Those thing were answers to foolish ideas like EU and California.
The companies that are now making real electric cars, esp. GM, are saying that they are doing electrics because of Tesla.
I have always opposed Kyoto. The problem with it, was that everybody expects the other politicians to make real changes. Worse, without REAL NUMBERS on everybody, it was worthless. And the worst was the idea of allowing 3rd world nations, esp. china, the right to pollute. Heck, everybody claims that America created all of the CO2. Nothing could be further from the truth. We see increases in the atmosphere starting in mid 1800's because other areas had become saturated. Who saturated them? China, Europe, Japan, etc. Hell, China was a MAJOR nation until the communist took it over. Then and only then, did it head downwards.
WOW. The term that Correlation != Causation? You need to learn it and what it means. That is obviously why you fucked up about the tax situation as well.
The reason for CO2 emissions going down is that Nat Gas has been SO cheap, that coal plants have been shut down and replaced with Nat. Gas. Why? Because Nat Gas is SOOO cheap. Hell, 3 Nuke plants are being shuttered and replaced by nat gas. There was absolutely NOTHING interesting in your post or your 'observation', other than it indicates a serious lack of logic
In addition, over the next couple of years, we will see Wind and Electric cars making a MAJOR impact on CO2 emissions. Basically, Wind is within 2 years of no longer needing gov. subsidies. At that point, building wind units through about 2/3 of America will be cheaper than any major form of power. Right now, it is cheaper than nuke, coal, and cheaper than nat. gas in some areas. So, you will bring up the fact that it does not run 100% of the time. Great. But, power companies use mixes and try to keep the cheapest costs possible. Wind does that, but interestingly, mostly at night. Well, to bring the use of it to daytime, several companies with expensive electricity are about to jump on EOS Energy Storage (basically, new york, ca, and now hawaii). These are zinc flow batteries. These are cheaper than building nat gas power plants, BUT, they obviously do not make electricity. So, what will happen is that they will take electricity from night time, such as wind, and even from nuke and fossil fuel plants, and provide for the very expensive daytime electricity. All of these companies expect to pay far less for it. With the batteries and loads of electricity from the night, this will do the on-demand systems.
And while electric cars are less than 1% of all cars sold, this fall will see more than 12 different cars being sold, with more than 30 coming by 2015. In addition, electric car sales are picking up as the price for these drop. And yes, they are dropping. The interesting one is Tesla. They are about to build a battery factory in the US that will more double the entire world's production of lithium cells. This is so that they can sell the upcoming model 3 at a price of 35K. And they expect to produce no less than 250K cars in their first year, and double it for the next 2 years after that. And none of that takes into consideration what BMW, MB, VW,GM, Ford, and esp Nissan are doing. All but Nissan are going slow with it (none of them want it, but consumers do). But both Tesla and Nissan are forcing these companies to produce them. As it is, Tesla has cut hard into the sales of the most profitable cars for MB, Audi, BMW, Caddy, Lexus, etc.
The real issue is that China has FORCED all of the manufacturing there. And they continue to build new coal plants weekly.
It is for this reason why I continue to say that we need to tax ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from. If we do that, then it forces all nations to look long-term, rather than to do what China is doing.
It is an issue all around. Not just with the left. The far right claims that it is wrong to do any cuts at all. The far left claim that unless we have zero CO2 and without the use of nukes, that we are worthless.
Heck, look at the postings with ppl screaming that America is the great evil, while ignoring the fact that America over the last millinum has contributed but a fraction to this growing CO2 problem. And yes, it is NOT over the last 100 years, but over the last 1000 years.
No. GDP is simply a measure of economic output. The problem is, that our pollution and esp. CO2 emissions are linked heavily to it. As such, it makes sense to normalize based on that, and then focus on getting all to lower their emissions based on that formula.
One very nice advantage of this, is that as an area increases in GDP, they tend to emit more. Such a tax will provide a negative feedback loop, to stop that. OTOH, if those who are succeeding, stay on top of keeping their emissions down, than their GDP will continue to rise, and the tax will remain off them.
Finally, you will note that CHina is now emitting 1/3 of the World's CO2 (according to some early estimates that I have access to, they will be over 33% of the CO2 in 2013; IOW, they are continuing their massive CO2 growth ). Most of China's emissions are caused by their large number of new coal plants that they are building. And with these being new over the last 10 years, there is little chance that China is going to cut those back. IOW, unless nations are made to cut back their emissions, they will not do it. Heck, even Europe has not cut back that large of an amount. Probably over the last 10 years, America has made the largest cuts of any region going.
BTW, Here is a decent article about the situation.
As it reports, America is dropping our emissions a great deal. We have been for 6 years, which is why the stats like to use 2005, rather than the more accurate 2011 or 2012.
In addition, it points out that 60% of the emissions come from '3rd world' nations, which for all intents and purposes, means the BRIC nations. The developed world emits less than 40%, with just China emitting more than EUROPE AND AMERICA COMBINED.
abound solar was in my back yard. The fact that you claim 790 million means that you do not have a single CLUE about this. They were passed for 400 million, of which they spent less than 200 million.
Good work on the list, but even then, that list is not complete. For example, it does not include Tesla, of which.5B was lent to them and since repaid. And how much of a difference has it made? Huge. They have forced all of other car makers (save nissan) to build electric cars, even though they do not want to.
No, the free market in America falls with OUR money. It becomes tax writeoffs and bail outs. All in all, the neo-cons have rigged the system to socialize the losses, but privatize the profits.
And claiming that 3rd and 2rd world produce small amounts per capita indicates total foolishness on your part. Many of their are massive. Worse, China doubles every 10 years, and they are NOT SLOWING DOWN.
First, emissions per capita is a worthless measure. The fact is,that emissions are tied to GDP, not ppl. The only one that makes sense is CO2 per $GDP. And on that one, we are in the middle.
Secondly, America's emissions are dropping in EVERY arena. In fact, for the last 5 years, we have dropped more than any other single nation OR ENTITY.
Third, I always have to laugh when I see nutjobs like you screaming (anonomously) that America is the great evil on this, based on calculations of 50,75 years, while ignoring the fact that Europe, China have been emitting large amounts for millenniums. Heck, there is not virgin forest in either China OR Europe. And even now, Europe far outdid America in total emissions throughout most of the 1900s, until 1995. Then when Europe focused on taxing their fuel to stop future shock, did they lower their emissions. Regardless, America continues to drop our emissions.
The problem is NOT people. It is politicians and CEOs. Politicians know that they want economic growth and to own all of the companies. Look at europe. Western europe is cutting their emissions by outsourcing the nasty work to eastern europe nations that are NOT under the same issues. As such, they keep the work fairly local, and the money there, while at the same time, pulling a fast one.
Now, you have Germany that is killing off their nuke program, BUT massively increasing coal and importing electricity from France (nuke) and Poland (coal). So, they outsource their energy, which is a joke.
If you really want to make a difference, then make it about economics, not people and politicians.
Do it with a tax on ALL GOOD CONSUMED. Most importantly, make it based on REAL numbers (not estimates which are grossly wrong), and on emissions / GDP. That forces politicians and CEOs to reconsider what is going on.
I appreciate that he is doing this, but as long as nations like China are growing their emissions as fast as they are, none of this will matter.
What is needed is to get ALL NATIONS to drop their CO2 emissions quicker, not to allow say all of the BRIC nations to go on a emissions spree.
So, who to do this? Simple. We need to put a tax on ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from.
The tax needs to start low and raise over a period of time.
Base it on REAL measurements of CO2 emissions, and not on guesses. Simply use the OCO2 that will be launched this year to record how much CO2 enters a border and how much exits. With this approach, we can see how much CO2 a region is responsible for.
And then to equalize it, do it based on GDP, not per capita. Per capita is the WORST idea going. The fact is, that 80-90 of emissions are based on sloppy manufacturing and energy. By focusing on emissions / $ of GDP, it makes it possible to get all nations to focus on clean energy. In addition, this rewards nations that have clean energy. They can scale up their manufacturing and be cheaper than others since they know that they will not have an expensive tax(way to go iceland).
America is the great importer. Worst of all, we import heavily from some of the worst emitting nations. So, this will force those nations to change their ways, while helping any nation that cleans up.
In fact, all of the most profitable cars went way down due to ppl wanting Tesla. As it is, it is the only car that is truly on a wait list. For others that are less than 150K, and on a wait list, it is because the manufacturer is playing games with customers.
First off, the Model S can handle double the battery weight without any issues.
Third, why would you call somebody that hates to waste money on slow poorly made cars, to spend it on well-made high performance inexpensive cars to be stupid? Considering that the Model S is better than any car that costs under 150K, I would say that it is one of the best values going.
The battery that is coming will not be SOLD with the cars. They make ZERO sense for regular car driving. 40, 60, and 85 kwh is perfect (though 40 was killed) for running around town. What the coming 120 AND 160 KWH battery will be used for is long distance trips. You will simply to to the local service center, and swap your battery out with one of the LD ones. Then do your trip. If you are going to spend time at a remote location that has a service center, you will be able to swap back to a lower KWH battery, which will costs you less for the week. Then when you are ready to go, you simply change out for a fully charged 120/160 KWH battery and drive the 450-600 MPC that it gives you.
Good post. I would mod you up had I not posted here originally.
#3 and 4 are accurate for LONG-term missions. For one that will last less than 1 month, they are not that important compared to the original 1 and 2. BUT, there is little doubt that those are up high on our needs for long-term needs.
And yeah, I recall watching those original star treks. Not in re-runs, but original shows. With my dad, who flew B-47s at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, you are right that our neo-cons/tea* are causing us a disaster. I know that. Most Americans know that. OTOH, I dislike the solutions that Europe and American dems have proposed. They really will NOT do the job.
Secondly, we have spent 10's of billion on upgrading insulation and windows. I know because we installed over $250 of insulation in our home. Heck we have solar city panels on our house and every week or so, I buy some 2-4 new LED bulbs (from cree), and have replaced nearly all of the incadescent lights and am now replacing the flouresent. We now have less than 10 incadescent, 3 halogens, 10 flourescent, and bunch of LEDs. In addition, we are looking at buying a Tesla Model X.
Third, I have suggested that tax, which I think forces all nations to participate. What is nice is that it rewards nations that lower their emissions relative to their GDP.
But I also think that there is some smart moves that the west should do (esp. America). Require that all new buildings below 5 stories have on-site AE to cover the energy of their HVAC (and require BOTH heating and AC). This has the advantage of allowing any type of AE, but, with solar being the main one AND IT IS EXPENSIVE. As such, this will encourage builders to move to better insulation in the walls, better windows (aerogel), more efficient forms of heating/cooling (geo-thermal), etc. With a build out, this will lower the price of all material, which will lower the price for re-doing older homes.
Another one is that the west is doing transportation wrong. Europe has their twin rail which is a NIGHTMARE. Expensive to install. Expensive to run. Heavily subsidized. Transmag is interesting and cool, but as musk would say, the wrong approach. So, his hyperloop is superior to any of those approaches.
But the west's subsidies on 'low-emission' vehicles is a joke. We treat hybrids the same as pure electrics. Worse, we treat low range electrics the same as high range electric cars. The low range and hybrids require that the cars be constantly charged esp. during the daytime. That makes matters worse, not better. So, what is needed is to treat the subsidies different. Basically, for a hybrid or an electric with less than 100 MPC, give them a small subsidy (say $5K). For those in the range of 100-150 MPC, give them $7.5K. And for 150+ MPC, give them $15K. Why do this? Because it will get car makers to build cars that charge at nighttime.
The final thing is that Germany's approach of doing lead-acid batteries at homes is about the worst idea that I have heard. Instead, they should simply offer a subsidy for that storage and allow the market to decide. But getting lead batteries going is a horrible idea.
with the exception of Honda, all major car makers have electric cars. Other than Tesla and Nissan, none of them want them since it cuts into their profits. BUT, Tesla combined with consumers has forced them to make them. So, yeah, that is huge. It may just be getting going, but in 3 years, Tesla will be making 250K model E / year. And they expect to double it for the next couple of years.
china has loads of tariffs that are designed to block imports from the west. They constantly shift these so as they take over an industry. In addition, they subsidize and then dump on foreign markets. And to help with it, they run 80% coal electric without pollution controls.
And western industrialization had far less pollution for far shorter periods of time. As I pointed out earlier, China's CO2 emissions is more than all of Europe's and America's combined. And America continue to drop ours (europe's is actually increase due to Germany), while China's continues to grow MASSIVELY. China will be at 50% of the world's emissions before 2020, and possibly by 2018 due to their double digit emissions growth.
I have said it before that a consumption tax based on the product and its parts and the CO2 from that region. It should have NOTHING to do with how much CO2 went into the product because it would be a guess at best. Instead, use a satellite (OCO2 is coming this year) to measure the CO2 that flows into a nation/state, and what flows out. By simply going with the measure of in and out, it allows the local gov. to figure out how to lower it. And when it comes to normalization, base it on emission / $GDP. Why GDP? Because CO2 (and other major pollutants) are mostly tied to manufacturing, not people. THis would easily solve the whole issue.
LOL. Hybrids and TDI are good enough to bring that down and work. That is why so many of these car makers went to parallel hybrids (worst idea going). Those thing were answers to foolish ideas like EU and California.
The companies that are now making real electric cars, esp. GM, are saying that they are doing electrics because of Tesla.
I have always opposed Kyoto. The problem with it, was that everybody expects the other politicians to make real changes. Worse, without REAL NUMBERS on everybody, it was worthless. And the worst was the idea of allowing 3rd world nations, esp. china, the right to pollute. Heck, everybody claims that America created all of the CO2. Nothing could be further from the truth. We see increases in the atmosphere starting in mid 1800's because other areas had become saturated. Who saturated them? China, Europe, Japan, etc. Hell, China was a MAJOR nation until the communist took it over. Then and only then, did it head downwards.
WOW. The term that Correlation != Causation? You need to learn it and what it means. That is obviously why you fucked up about the tax situation as well.
The reason for CO2 emissions going down is that Nat Gas has been SO cheap, that coal plants have been shut down and replaced with Nat. Gas. Why? Because Nat Gas is SOOO cheap. Hell, 3 Nuke plants are being shuttered and replaced by nat gas. There was absolutely NOTHING interesting in your post or your 'observation', other than it indicates a serious lack of logic
In addition, over the next couple of years, we will see Wind and Electric cars making a MAJOR impact on CO2 emissions. Basically, Wind is within 2 years of no longer needing gov. subsidies. At that point, building wind units through about 2/3 of America will be cheaper than any major form of power. Right now, it is cheaper than nuke, coal, and cheaper than nat. gas in some areas. So, you will bring up the fact that it does not run 100% of the time. Great. But, power companies use mixes and try to keep the cheapest costs possible. Wind does that, but interestingly, mostly at night. Well, to bring the use of it to daytime, several companies with expensive electricity are about to jump on EOS Energy Storage (basically, new york, ca, and now hawaii). These are zinc flow batteries. These are cheaper than building nat gas power plants, BUT, they obviously do not make electricity. So, what will happen is that they will take electricity from night time, such as wind, and even from nuke and fossil fuel plants, and provide for the very expensive daytime electricity. All of these companies expect to pay far less for it. With the batteries and loads of electricity from the night, this will do the on-demand systems.
And while electric cars are less than 1% of all cars sold, this fall will see more than 12 different cars being sold, with more than 30 coming by 2015. In addition, electric car sales are picking up as the price for these drop. And yes, they are dropping. The interesting one is Tesla. They are about to build a battery factory in the US that will more double the entire world's production of lithium cells. This is so that they can sell the upcoming model 3 at a price of 35K. And they expect to produce no less than 250K cars in their first year, and double it for the next 2 years after that. And none of that takes into consideration what BMW, MB, VW,GM, Ford, and esp Nissan are doing. All but Nissan are going slow with it (none of them want it, but consumers do). But both Tesla and Nissan are forcing these companies to produce them. As it is, Tesla has cut hard into the sales of the most profitable cars for MB, Audi, BMW, Caddy, Lexus, etc.
The real issue is that China has FORCED all of the manufacturing there. And they continue to build new coal plants weekly.
It is for this reason why I continue to say that we need to tax ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from. If we do that, then it forces all nations to look long-term, rather than to do what China is doing.
It is an issue all around. Not just with the left. The far right claims that it is wrong to do any cuts at all. The far left claim that unless we have zero CO2 and without the use of nukes, that we are worthless.
Heck, look at the postings with ppl screaming that America is the great evil, while ignoring the fact that America over the last millinum has contributed but a fraction to this growing CO2 problem. And yes, it is NOT over the last 100 years, but over the last 1000 years.
No. GDP is simply a measure of economic output. The problem is, that our pollution and esp. CO2 emissions are linked heavily to it. As such, it makes sense to normalize based on that, and then focus on getting all to lower their emissions based on that formula.
One very nice advantage of this, is that as an area increases in GDP, they tend to emit more. Such a tax will provide a negative feedback loop, to stop that. OTOH, if those who are succeeding, stay on top of keeping their emissions down, than their GDP will continue to rise, and the tax will remain off them.
Finally, you will note that CHina is now emitting 1/3 of the World's CO2 (according to some early estimates that I have access to, they will be over 33% of the CO2 in 2013; IOW, they are continuing their massive CO2 growth ). Most of China's emissions are caused by their large number of new coal plants that they are building. And with these being new over the last 10 years, there is little chance that China is going to cut those back. IOW, unless nations are made to cut back their emissions, they will not do it. Heck, even Europe has not cut back that large of an amount. Probably over the last 10 years, America has made the largest cuts of any region going.
BTW, Here is a decent article about the situation.
As it reports, America is dropping our emissions a great deal. We have been for 6 years, which is why the stats like to use 2005, rather than the more accurate 2011 or 2012.
In addition, it points out that 60% of the emissions come from '3rd world' nations, which for all intents and purposes, means the BRIC nations. The developed world emits less than 40%, with just China emitting more than EUROPE AND AMERICA COMBINED.
abound solar was in my back yard. The fact that you claim 790 million means that you do not have a single CLUE about this. They were passed for 400 million, of which they spent less than 200 million.
Good work on the list, but even then, that list is not complete. For example, it does not include Tesla, of which .5B was lent to them and since repaid. And how much of a difference has it made? Huge. They have forced all of other car makers (save nissan) to build electric cars, even though they do not want to.
LOL.
I notice that it includes fiskar, but does not include tesla which came out of the same funds and was paid off.
Can you say TOTAL BS?
No, the free market in America falls with OUR money. It becomes tax writeoffs and bail outs. All in all, the neo-cons have rigged the system to socialize the losses, but privatize the profits.
Actually, that fund has been shown to be better than what wall street has done.
And that is the WORST metric going. The reason is that emissions is NOT based on ppl, but GDP.
Only idiots try to push the concept of per capita.
And claiming that 3rd and 2rd world produce small amounts per capita indicates total foolishness on your part. Many of their are massive. Worse, China doubles every 10 years, and they are NOT SLOWING DOWN.
here is based on 2005 emissions which is worthless, but there it is
This is based on PPP GDP (which is also a bad idea, but still better than per capita) However, as you look at it, you realize that most of the bad polluters, are oil producing, high GDP growth nations, AND CHINA.
Even with GDP based, you can see that the majority of 3rd world nations that do not have economy, have no real emissions.
First, emissions per capita is a worthless measure. The fact is,that emissions are tied to GDP, not ppl. The only one that makes sense is CO2 per $GDP. And on that one, we are in the middle.
Secondly, America's emissions are dropping in EVERY arena. In fact, for the last 5 years, we have dropped more than any other single nation OR ENTITY.
Third, I always have to laugh when I see nutjobs like you screaming (anonomously) that America is the great evil on this, based on calculations of 50,75 years, while ignoring the fact that Europe, China have been emitting large amounts for millenniums. Heck, there is not virgin forest in either China OR Europe. And even now, Europe far outdid America in total emissions throughout most of the 1900s, until 1995. Then when Europe focused on taxing their fuel to stop future shock, did they lower their emissions. Regardless, America continues to drop our emissions.
Really? Where in the constitution does it say that the president and congress can NOT prepare for a coming disaster?
Personally, I think that you neo-cons/tea* are in dire need of the lithium that Tesla is chewing up.
Considering that most of those executives were republicans, I doubt it.
The problem is NOT people. It is politicians and CEOs. Politicians know that they want economic growth and to own all of the companies. Look at europe. Western europe is cutting their emissions by outsourcing the nasty work to eastern europe nations that are NOT under the same issues. As such, they keep the work fairly local, and the money there, while at the same time, pulling a fast one.
Now, you have Germany that is killing off their nuke program, BUT massively increasing coal and importing electricity from France (nuke) and Poland (coal). So, they outsource their energy, which is a joke.
If you really want to make a difference, then make it about economics, not people and politicians.
Do it with a tax on ALL GOOD CONSUMED. Most importantly, make it based on REAL numbers (not estimates which are grossly wrong), and on emissions / GDP. That forces politicians and CEOs to reconsider what is going on.
I appreciate that he is doing this, but as long as nations like China are growing their emissions as fast as they are, none of this will matter.
What is needed is to get ALL NATIONS to drop their CO2 emissions quicker, not to allow say all of the BRIC nations to go on a emissions spree.
So, who to do this? Simple. We need to put a tax on ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from.
The tax needs to start low and raise over a period of time.
Base it on REAL measurements of CO2 emissions, and not on guesses. Simply use the OCO2 that will be launched this year to record how much CO2 enters a border and how much exits. With this approach, we can see how much CO2 a region is responsible for.
And then to equalize it, do it based on GDP, not per capita. Per capita is the WORST idea going. The fact is, that 80-90 of emissions are based on sloppy manufacturing and energy. By focusing on emissions / $ of GDP, it makes it possible to get all nations to focus on clean energy. In addition, this rewards nations that have clean energy. They can scale up their manufacturing and be cheaper than others since they know that they will not have an expensive tax(way to go iceland).
America is the great importer. Worst of all, we import heavily from some of the worst emitting nations. So, this will force those nations to change their ways, while helping any nation that cleans up.
In fact, all of the most profitable cars went way down due to ppl wanting Tesla. As it is, it is the only car that is truly on a wait list. For others that are less than 150K, and on a wait list, it is because the manufacturer is playing games with customers.
First off, the Model S can handle double the battery weight without any issues.
Third, why would you call somebody that hates to waste money on slow poorly made cars, to spend it on well-made high performance inexpensive cars to be stupid? Considering that the Model S is better than any car that costs under 150K, I would say that it is one of the best values going.
The battery that is coming will not be SOLD with the cars. They make ZERO sense for regular car driving. 40, 60, and 85 kwh is perfect (though 40 was killed) for running around town.
What the coming 120 AND 160 KWH battery will be used for is long distance trips. You will simply to to the local service center, and swap your battery out with one of the LD ones. Then do your trip. If you are going to spend time at a remote location that has a service center, you will be able to swap back to a lower KWH battery, which will costs you less for the week. Then when you are ready to go, you simply change out for a fully charged 120/160 KWH battery and drive the 450-600 MPC that it gives you.
Good post. I would mod you up had I not posted here originally.
#3 and 4 are accurate for LONG-term missions. For one that will last less than 1 month, they are not that important compared to the original 1 and 2. BUT, there is little doubt that those are up high on our needs for long-term needs.
And yeah, I recall watching those original star treks. Not in re-runs, but original shows. With my dad, who flew B-47s at the time.