Yanoda wrote:Using electric vs fuel cars is a very complex situation that does not only focus on the emissions. It involves the energy and resource balance, human health, economic factors and social mindsets.
Electric cars would (in the long run) reduce emissions (O3, NOx, CO2, SOx etc.) within cities/high traffic areas. This would reduce health effects on Humans and reduce ecological impact on the environment. Use of electric cars would also negate the need to import large amounts of Oil if the Energy sector is able to accommodate the transition (construction of renewable energy and Nuclear Power Plants if needed). Using coal plants would negate the emissions reductions of electric cars for obvious reasons. The problem with the electric cars would be an increase in costs (both the consumer and producer), making it a bit difficult selling it commercially for the average individual. There is also the problem with rare resources that are required to produce high capacity batteries for the cars. There is also the need to construct the infrastructure to support the use of electric cars.
So, first, maybe, maybe it would reduce the impact on our environment but we have to remember there are millions of cars from the last 50 years on our roads and now it's cheaper and more environmentally-friendly to buy one for 2k bucks than buy a car with zero emission which production would take more resources and, in overall, costs of production + gases emitted during the process would make the whole thing not worth a problem. Plus, even if someone would buy a Prius or other [poo] it would make no difference in world of cars for fuel. In addition, importers of Oil would do anything to stop the expansion of cars without emission. But you mentioned about that problems so never mind. I'm not also quite sure what you mean by the explanation "if the Energy sector is able to accommodate the transition" [just after I translated it I still can't get what you mean, not that I'm moron but there are several ways of translating something like that].
The last but not the least thing you haven't written about is that what the cars would save while driving( I mean CO2) would be produced do give them energy to drive. So, as it follows - really doesn't
er what you drive.Yanoda wrote: My previous post was about solar minimum, where many opponents of Anthropogenic Climate Change claim has a larger effect on the Climate than Human/Anthropogenic Emissions have on the Climate.
Haven't heard of that, I know that solar flares may affect us in some way but I guess it's not only about them.
Yanoda wrote:The current Climate Change many Climatologists and Environmentalists are talking about is the Climate (also Environment) Change from human actions (Anthropogenic). The rate of Species extinction today has exceeded (many say by a factor of a 100) the previous major extinction rates (based on geologic history ect.) in Earth's History. Current rates could achieve the rate of the mass extinction that occurred 65 million years ago. That is what has the scientists alarmed. There is also the problem with lack of diversity that can cause several problems within ecosystems (this will also affect Humans). Environmentalism isn't only about 'saving' the Planet, but preserving resources, natural habitats and quality of life for future generations.
Yeah, the best examples are: In UK they have forbidden to kill foxes so they reproduces without any brakes, some time ago in Yellow Stone they wanted a peace so they eliminated wolfs (and then there were too many mooses) then they got the had done a wrong thing but still... some behaviors of people are strange.
Yanoda wrote:The major problem in the argument with Mr. Carlin is that he assumes that the extinctions we have today are natural, it's not. His statement that 25 species die every day regardless of human behavior is misleading. Scientists say that human activity cause about 50,000 species to disappear/go extinct every year, that is 137 species per day, vastly more than what Mr. Carlin states. Already about 1.5 minutes into the video, Mr. Carlin makes a lot of baseless assumptions. Sure, we [m'kay] ourselves and the planet can recover (albeit very slow, took over 30 million years for the planet to fully recover from the extinction 65 million years ago). But, if we [m'kay] the planet, we get [m'kay] regardless. So trying to reduce our effect on the environment and the 'planet' would enable us to live on said planet a bit more comfortable and longer than if we didn't do [poo]. I don't even need to go on with his rant about environmentalists. The amount of exploitation and emissions we have done over the course of 200 years is quite a feat compared to how long the same processes took in the past 4.5 Billion years of Earth's history. That is also a reason why Climatologists and Environmentalists are worried. He keeps talking about the Planet, but doesn't talk about the organisms that inhabit the planet. The organisms were the ones that had to endure the hardships of what Mr. Carlin lists the Earth has undergone. Quite a difference how omitting something small can change the perspective.
You may be right but we still find/discover new species, some of them restore and these that are gone, I don't know how important they were ( I know each one can have influence on the whole animal chains[or how to call it right]) but I don't think it's a great lost. In this 137 per, how many are really important, that may significantly change our life(even if we consider long lasting process of the change)? I'm not the spec but isn't there some exaggerating?
Take your time.
