The all-purpose heavy duty Climate Chaos thread (sprinkled with hope).
Comments
-
I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole life
0 -
Zod said:I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole lifeI've heard from other in BC as will as a number of family members and friends of mine in the greater Seattle/ Puget Sound area much the same Zod. I lived on the Olympic Peninsula for 3 or 4 years in the early 90s and I no doubt would notice the change if I spend some time up there again.I always want to hear good news regarding climate change but it's hard to find, especially reading something like this from this morning:
Satellite data shows entire Conger ice shelf has collapsed in Antarctica
Nasa scientist says complete collapse of ice shelf as big as Rome during unusually high temperatures is ‘sign of what might be coming’
(More at link).
Sorry folks, don't mean to be a downer. :-(
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
I want to have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.brianlux said:Zod said:I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole lifeI've heard from other in BC as will as a number of family members and friends of mine in the greater Seattle/ Puget Sound area much the same Zod. I lived on the Olympic Peninsula for 3 or 4 years in the early 90s and I no doubt would notice the change if I spend some time up there again.I always want to hear good news regarding climate change but it's hard to find, especially reading something like this from this morning:Satellite data shows entire Conger ice shelf has collapsed in Antarctica
Nasa scientist says complete collapse of ice shelf as big as Rome during unusually high temperatures is ‘sign of what might be coming’
(More at link).
Sorry folks, don't mean to be a downer. :-(
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Weather in areas can be a tell tale sign though.Zod said:I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole life
60 minutes did a special on wine and grapes. It mentioned that areas that were great for growing have become too wet and other areas are becoming new for growing because they are dryer.0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
Weather in areas can be a tell tale sign though.Zod said:I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole life
60 minutes did a special on wine and grapes. It mentioned that areas that were great for growing have become too wet and other areas are becoming new for growing because they are dryer.
And in NY its like an iceberg today, heat clicking on non stop. A certain portion of the electorate will never see through that.
The best thing we can do is get rid of coal. Interesting article in NYT about Manchin getting rich from coal. Not regular coal of course, but the very dirty kind. Nothing will get done until climate dominates elections. It’s time for Dems to prove to the US voters it’s time to act and voting Republican will do nothing short of destroying the planet. Be just as histrionic as the GOP during even numbered years in the autumn.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/27/climate/manchin-coal-climate-conflicts.html?referringSource=articleShare0 -
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.0 -
I always find it surprising that people don't take this into account when they talk about how clean EVs are. Not to mention the humanitarian issues that go into getting some of these metals. Another thing, we have rare earth metals in the US but no one wants to mine them due to the environmental concerns and our lack of processing infrastructure. I'm not sure what is worse for personal transportation, but EVs aren't the silver bullet many are expecting.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
A few points on this.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
There is a reason other companies are switching over to EV. Amazon, Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren to name a few.
There is a massive influx of new reusable energy going to be created in the next 5 years to support our electrical grids and needs.
Mining rare earths has been looked at in ways of doing it cleaner in the US because we understand that we can't always keep buying them from China and our stock pile will eventually dwindle.
Doing nothing about our dependence on oil is unacceptable.
We as a country need upgrades to our grids and how we distribute the energy.
Doing all of this, recycling of batteries, etc is all a step in the right direction.0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
static111 said:
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.I wish!The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.brianlux said:static111 said:
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.I wish!The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.0 -
JeBurkhardt said:
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.brianlux said:static111 said:
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.I wish!The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area.
Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.brianlux said:JeBurkhardt said:
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.brianlux said:static111 said:
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.I wish!The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area.
Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.brianlux said:JeBurkhardt said:
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.brianlux said:static111 said:
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.I wish!The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area.
Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.Sadly, for better or worse (it is nice to walk on) this is what most of the former rail lines up here look like now:
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
If they applied for it, the rails should be underneath that asphalt. That's a nice hike Brian.brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.brianlux said:JeBurkhardt said:
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.brianlux said:static111 said:
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.I wish!The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area.
Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.Sadly, for better or worse (it is nice to walk on) this is what most of the former rail lines up here look like now:0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
If they applied for it, the rails should be underneath that asphalt. That's a nice hike Brian.brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.brianlux said:JeBurkhardt said:
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.brianlux said:static111 said:
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.I wish!The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area.
Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.Sadly, for better or worse (it is nice to walk on) this is what most of the former rail lines up here look like now:The sections I've seen in my years here have had the rails removed and the are a few places with rails and ties off to the side, so I'm guessing they have all been removed. And here in brodozer country, the will to reduce global warming is weak. Why am I here?!But yes, it is a nice walk. I prefer regular earthen trails and we try to get out once in a while to go to the American River Conservancy trail which are a bit further away but not too far. Of course, that means driving and we try to keep our mileage down, so that doesn't happen as often as I would like. There is land enough for more parks around here but developers are eating that open space up like there's no tomorrow. Which takes us full circle. Ugh! So hard to remain optimistic!"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
California has a bunch of land so places build out , not up.brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
If they applied for it, the rails should be underneath that asphalt. That's a nice hike Brian.brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.brianlux said:JeBurkhardt said:
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.brianlux said:static111 said:
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!brianlux said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
6% of our oil comes from Russia.brianlux said:Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:The gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.That, in a nutshell, is it.
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers...
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.I wish!The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area.
Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.Sadly, for better or worse (it is nice to walk on) this is what most of the former rail lines up here look like now:The sections I've seen in my years here have had the rails removed and the are a few places with rails and ties off to the side, so I'm guessing they have all been removed. And here in brodozer country, the will to reduce global warming is weak. Why am I here?!But yes, it is a nice walk. I prefer regular earthen trails and we try to get out once in a while to go to the American River Conservancy trail which are a bit further away but not too far. Of course, that means driving and we try to keep our mileage down, so that doesn't happen as often as I would like. There is land enough for more parks around here but developers are eating that open space up like there's no tomorrow. Which takes us full circle. Ugh! So hard to remain optimistic!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help