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

Weather in areas can be a tell tale sign though.

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.

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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.

..

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/21/opinion/electric-cars-have-dirty-little-recycling-problem-their-batteries

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.

A few points on this.

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.

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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. 

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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.

..

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/21/opinion/electric-cars-have-dirty-little-recycling-problem-their-batteries

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.

"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."

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. 

High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!

brianlux said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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. 

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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.

..

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/21/opinion/electric-cars-have-dirty-little-recycling-problem-their-batteries

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.

"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."

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. 

High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!

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.

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:

JeBurkhardt said:

brianlux said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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. 

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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.

..

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/21/opinion/electric-cars-have-dirty-little-recycling-problem-their-batteries

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.

"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."

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. 

High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!

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.

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.   

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.

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.

I learned this from the Highline here in NY.

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

JeBurkhardt said:

brianlux said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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. 

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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.

..

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/21/opinion/electric-cars-have-dirty-little-recycling-problem-their-batteries

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.

"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."

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. 

High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!

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.

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.   

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.

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.

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:

If they applied for it, the rails should be underneath that asphalt.  That's a nice hike Brian.

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

JeBurkhardt said:

brianlux said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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. 

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

6% of our oil comes from Russia.

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.

..

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/21/opinion/electric-cars-have-dirty-little-recycling-problem-their-batteries

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.

"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."

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. 

High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!

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.

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.   

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.

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.

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:

If they applied for it, the rails should be underneath that asphalt.  That's a nice hike Brian.

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!

California has a bunch of land so places build out , not up.