We’ve had topics on it here, and I’ve posted quite a bit of info.
Global warming is real. Tesla helps to fight that and secure a better future for mankind. So when you invest in Tesla, you are also investing towards a noble cause.
Liberals believe in economic externalities, study some economics and you might grasp it. The fundamental flaw in libertarianism is that individual decisions affect not just oneself, but also others. And that all leverage benefits of society to gain wealth. No one every truly does it on their own.
Externalities aren’t always easy to estimate. Exactly how much are we polluting, and how much is that going to affect the planet? Hard to guess exactly, but like a good engineer / statistical modeler, we should try to make a good guess, and act on it. Later, we update and change based on new information.
You, however, are just lazy and dismiss the entire premise. Pathetic.
I am in the construction business. We are the whipping boys of the EPA and environmentalists. They would be more believable if they just said put a limit on the number of people allowed to exist in the planet, instead their plan is to make it so miserable for the rest of us that nobody will have children.
Likely true. But is it due to humans or just natural climate changes? Go from extreme cold that kill the dinosaurs, then warmup till “global warming”.
Better leave this to scientists. And the docs overwhelmingly agree it’s due to humans.
Another way to look at this is as follows:
if you agree the earth is warming (regardless of cause), and we understand what causes warming (Greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane as well as shrinking albedo), then if we can mitigate or even reverse the effect of the change, should we not do so?
The steps to mitigate and manage are well understood. Even if you believe humans are not the primary cause, if humans can make it better so that we can protect the earth for our children, should we not do so?
May be humans can’t stop the inevitable, perhaps we can don’t add to the progress.
Yup. The reasons to act are overwhelming regardless of causes.
Now I know what cause TSLA to be red in a sea of green.
He was futzing around tweeting in the morning saying he resigned all his titles from Tesla in the morning and he was nobody there. He really should shut up on twitter.
It is important to do something that will work scientifically. Not raising local taxes for futile attempts.
Liberals believe in greenwashing.
My guess is an ocean project to absorb CO2 would be lot more effective.
I realize most people have a religious zeal to believe in Global Warming.
My point is it doesn’t matter what people believe. What matters is scientific solutions.
Agree. greenwashing won’t solve stuff. We need to look at practical things both big and small to do. It’s like our energy policy. We have to use everything and use the tool best fit for the job (coal, gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, water). Similarly, we should test what would manage heat levels and implement them. This should include
i) reforestation - offsets fossil fuel consumption to some extent
ii) switching to renewables where feasible (solar, wind, hydro)
iii) keep an open mind about nuclear
iv) manage consumption (cows are probably the biggest generator of greenhouse gases. Save the cow, eat more chicken)
and probably a bunch more that will help.
I am keeping an open mind about nuclear despite Chernobyl and Fukushima.
It’s warming at the local regional level, but the net effect will be no difference outside the regional level. And the energy production will help reduce the the generation of carbon from fossil fuel generation
Specifically, the “avoided warming” achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel sources could surpasses any warming from wind in about a century in the studied scenario, as emissions reductions accumulate.
I also don’t use hand dryers in public restrooms anymore, because I think they are less environmentally friendly than paper towels…
- For wind to scale, you’d need it in all regions. You’d be warming all regions.
- Models that use CO2 to predict the earth’s temperature broke a couple of decades ago. They aren’t accurate, so the second point is useless.
that assumes the study itself is accurate. The study authors themselves state that they believe there will be net reduction even allowing for local warming. And there are others that say the model used for drag is wrong. So you cannot accept one part of the author’s study (local warming) without accepting their overall conclusion (net savings) unless you just want to pick and choose facts to fit your view.
Even if you accept just part of the study, no one is saying use wind exclusively. You have multiple tools, and you use the best tool for each region / situation