If this is true why are fossil fuel companies advisors in charge?
As the link I provided above summarizes, coral reefs, amphibians, birds, and insects are already showing massive evidence of extinction impacts from AGW/Climate Emergency/CRISIS. What will it take to wake people up to our current reality. This is not something that we need to worry about in the distant future, it is happening NOW right under our noses, and it is sad beyond belief to see the utter lack of concern by most people as this disaster unfolds. Greta Thunberg is right to call the World adult leaders out for only paying lip service to what is going on. We have precious little time to act, and EVERYONE needs to step up and demand action, and also take personal responsibility to reduce their carbon footprints as much as possible.
Here is the link I mentioned.
"The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History is a 2014 non-fiction book written by Elizabeth Kolbert and published by Henry Holt and Company. The book argues that the Earth is in the midst of a modern, man-made, sixth extinction. In the book, Kolbert chronicles previous mass extinction events, and compares them to the accelerated, widespread extinctions during our present time. She also describes specific species extinguished by humans, as well as the ecologies surrounding prehistoric and near-present extinction events. The author received the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction for the book in 2015."
This Horsey cartoon is telling forecasting the likely future with our Climate Emergency/CRISIS!
Thanks Tesla-David. Below is some cartoons exposing the idiot Climate Crisis Deniers illustrating the lack of any logic or plain good old common sense.
Nantucket wants climate change action:
Thanks @Mike83 great cartoons. I recognized Mitch as the last image on right in first cartoon!
Way to go Nantucket! Let's keep up the personal, local, and State actions, until we take our country back from the current scumbag POTUS.
One of my favorites is the two frogs in a pot as the stove slowly heats them up; denier frog says
Stovetop temperatures change all the time
Troll poster flagged!
Continuing my rant from top of this page about the Climate CRISIS, on when people wake up and demand real action.
"Thousands Of Scientists Around The World Declared A Climate Emergency And Warned Of "Untold Suffering"
"More than 11,000 scientists from around the world issued a dire warning Tuesday that the world must take immediate action to fundamentally alter a range of human activities to avert "untold suffering due to the climate crisis."
a really big Chinese hoax
"The US represents 4.5% of the global population, unless China and India are on board, it's pointless."
You left out that our 4.5% is responsible for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
This is where U.S. greenhouse gas emissions stand by cause as a percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions:
1) Energy 12.56%
2) Agriculture 0.8%
3) Industry 0.62%
4) Waste 0.37%
The top 10 worst offenders as of 2017:
1) China 26.83%
2) United States 14.83%
3) European Union 9.66%
4) India 6.65%
5) Russia 5.03%
6) Japan 3.09%
7) Brazil 2.33%
8) Indonesia 1.7%
9) Canada 1.69%
10) Mexico 1.68%
A) The World’s Top 3 Emitters Contribute 14 Times the Emissions of the Bottom 100
The top three greenhouse gas emitters— China, the European Union and the United States—contribute more than half of total global emissions, while the bottom 100 countries only account for 3.5 percent.1 Collectively, the top 10 emitters account for nearly three-quarters of global emissions. The world can’t successfully tackle the climate change challenge without significant action from these countries.
B) The Energy Sector Is the Major Culprit, but Action in Every Sector Counts
Over the past 10 years, the energy sector has remained the largest contributor to emissions over any other sector, representing 72 percent of global emissions in 2013. China saw the largest increase in single-sector emissions from 2012 to 2013 from its energy production, which increased by 365 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), or 4 percent. The majority of these emissions came from an increase in electricity production, heating and transportation. However, this does represent a lower rate of increase than the historical average —China’s average annual growth rate for coal consumption from 2000 to 2013 was 8.8 percent.
On the other hand, Australia, the world’s 15th -largest emitter, saw the largest emissions decrease in a single sector, with its agricultural emissions dropping by 65 MtCO2e, or a reduction of 34.6 percent since 2012. The majority of those reductions came from a decrease in the area of burning savannah2, which reduced methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions.
C) Some Major Emitters are Reversing their Trends
From 2012 to 2013, the top 10 emitters cumulatively increased their emissions by 2.2 percent, compared to the average annual growth of 2.4 percent over the last 10 years. Within that same period, the top two global emitters, China and the United States, saw the largest single year percentage increase in greenhouse gas emissions, with a rise of 4.3 and 1.4 percent respectively.
Even with that growth of emissions from 2012-2013 by top emitters, if we expand the timescale, their combined emissions have remained the same for the past decade.3 In that time, the United States peaked its emissions in 2007, and the European Union, the third-largest emitter, saw steady reductions. Others have stabilized their emissions over the last 10 years, including Russia and Canada.
More recent data looking only at energy-related carbon dioxide emissions shows that this type of emission stayed flat globally between 2014 and 2016, even as the global economy grew during the same period. Since carbon dioxide is the most abundant greenhouse gas, this is an encouraging trend. We await further data to see whether other types of greenhouse gases are growing or shrinking, and whether this trend will continue.
As 21 countries are already proving, decoupling carbon dioxide emissions from economic growth is happening. But to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we need to bend the emissions curve significantly downward.
The "adapting to address climate change is too expensive" argument is a red herring.
Every year, the cost of producing electricity from solar/wind drops. It is now cheaper to install new solar/wind capacity than to run existing coal plants. Coal plants are closing across the U.S. Scotland now generates 100% of its energy needs using renewable energy sources (primarily wind) on more and more days of the year. All of the British Isles are headed in the same direction.
China is on board. The Chinese were making great strides -- it's the largest EV market in the world btw -- until Trump's tariffs hit. Since the Chinese economy has taken a hit there was some backsliding.
The Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain and spread to most of Europe and North America. We were solely responsible for the vast bulk of emissions from 1800-1980 or so. Japan, S. Korea and China joined us in the latter part of the 20th century.
The U.S. is the only country ON THE PLANET that is not part of the Paris Climate Accords, thanks to Herr Dumbass.
To try to an deny fault on our part is to stand there in front of a broken cookie jar with chocolate smeared all over our face and cookie crumbs all over our clothes. We did it.
Concrete is the most widely used man-made material in existence. It is second only to water as the most-consumed resource on the planet.
But, while cement - the key ingredient in concrete - has shaped much of our built environment, it also has a massive carbon footprint.
Cement is the source of about 8% of the world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, according to think tank Chatham House.
If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world - behind China and the US. It contributes more CO2 than aviation fuel (2.5%) and is not far behind the global agriculture business (12%).
Thanks dm1240 and NKYTA for uncovering the sheets of the contributors making the Climate Crisis so real and deadly.
Michael Barnard did a investigative study on what I call the welfare fossil fuel industry who likes to keep their permanent subsidies off the record. Odd that they are rewarded for causing environmental disasters instead of having to be held accountable. Nice to see more people realize what a bunch of crooks these people are. This, in my mind is not capitalism or free enterprise and it is holding American back from progressing in the world.
Will people give up their SUV? Maybe buying a Tesla MY and putting solar in their homes could curtail these damages.
Are people willing to take responsibility or is it all talk and no walk?
No, we won't give up our SUVs for the fake climate crisis while rush rich hypocrites in Europe and America buy EVs with oversized batteries that cause as much emissions during production as 5 years of driving ICE...We'll make our SUVs bigger and more capable!
more fabricated BS from darth.
In another thread Derp admitted that releasing CO2 increased temperatures during his lecture on physics.
What happened Derp?
Oh yeah? Show me the math that says even a 50% reduction in lifetime emissions from autos because of EVs will make any difference with regard to climate change? You can't. They (climate alarmist) can't. Known science can't. Voters don't care or believe you. Stop making up a BS crisis! Go enjoy Thanksgiving while all of these cars, trucks and planes surge emissions today on their way to dinner!
So much for teaching anyone physics.
So much stupid. So little time on this earth.
Go back to your death cult, Derp.
Let the adults and scientist handle this.
I'm waiting for you to handle it? Seems like no one is listening!
The US pulled out of Paris... Seems like someone listened!
No one is getting rid of SUVs. There are no vehicle compromises with switching to electric. The difference is fuel.
And the origin for that fuel is Anna will be for quite some time, FOSSIL FUELS. By the way, this is post 1776! We will not be subject to the tryanny of the fake climate crisis mob!
Russians are not American. Only a moron would deny that fossil fuel burning is innocuous. Trolls are so passe. Get a life.
Happy Thanksgiving to all real owners.
What Tyranny? If a company like Tesla wants to make EVs and people buy them that is Free market. What Tyranny?
Happy Thanksgiving @Mike83 and other REAL owners. So tired of the BS from our resident no nothing troll!
Tesla just makes a better mousetrap which incidentally helps save humanity from it's stupider selves.
Say no to being a member of the death cult.
Andy Tesla is the approach I advocate and support. Of course not because I think they will save the planet from climate change which is BS. But because they make a good product. This is different from politicians who want to ban/regulate things and pass Green New Steals which Trump has stopped at the national level.
Make the Guillotine Great Again
Yeah I guess making America great again isn't good enough for fake climate crisis clowns.
Thanks Tesla-David, I just read one owner completed one million km in his MS.
The coward Climate denier has nothing factual to argue with and is reduced to political gibberish. Not playing with a full deck
That's a lot of charge cycles and CO2... Unless you think EVs charge on unicorn farts! Let's see, conservatively, that's 90K kg of CO2 + another 13K kg of CO2 during battery production. So 103K kg of CO2... Wow we're really making a difference there!
flag and move on
Imagine if we were to get hit by a solar storm similar in magnitude to the one we were hit by in the 1800s.
Pollution must also be ‘fake news’ to this cretin.
Strawman as usual. Redshift I know it's hard to respond to an argument that leaves no room for refutation. You are looking for a free lunch but physics doesn't work that way.
Darth would know all about physics.
Andy you have a lot of responses... I told you that a million km Model S makes a minimum* of 103K kg of CO2 and that's not good if you care about Zero Emissions and CO2. 116K kg of CO2 when we consider the additional battery it needed. How is that good or any better than an ICEV with respect to fake climate change alarmism? How come none of your responses contain any numbers that disprove mine? You ask for "data", you get it, then you ignore it. Why is that? It's because you can't handle the truth.
“Physics” doesn’t work that way? Chuckle!
I must have missed something when I used to score near perfect scores in Physics during my college education.
Like most everyone here has guessed, you probably didn’t do too well in either math or Physics. You tend to over-compensate by mentioning math and Physics anytime you feel slighted.
Redshift you’re all words, no math. Minimally, 116K kg of CO2. Prove it’s not true or admit the reality.
Climate deniers IQ might be 70 and SAT total score of 450. Prove me wrong.
Prove you are wrong to say a Model S pollutes more than a Hummer? No need, it’s false on the face of it. You made your Hummer have two lives just to ‘beat’ the S in emissions. It’s a theory only a Trump supporter like you would believe, just like you probably believe in voodoo, witchcraft and other sundry things.
Ask Neil deGrasse Tyson, whom you gleefully quoted recently, what he thinks about AGW. He is a renowned scientist and knows Physics particularly well, I hear.
Even accounting for lithium battery production (more about this below) electric vehicles produce significantly lower CO2 emissions over the life of the car. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reports that EV manufacture has 68% more emissions than an equivalent ICE car. I hesitate to quote the 68% number from UCS because I fear that some may simply use that and obfuscate the rest...we'll see. If we focused only on the cost of the production of the energy source we would all be driving coal-powered steam cars. Or we can get the energy for free by going into a forest with Paul Bunyan's ax. Bring back the Stanley Steamer!
The Union of Concerned Scientists goes on to say, "Battery electric cars make up for their higher manufacturing emissions within eighteen months of driving — shorter range models can offset the extra emissions within 6 months."
How much CO2 is emitted while driving depends, of course, on how the electricity is produced. In low fossil fuel states (for example, CA, IL, the Pacific Northwest) the harmful emissions from electricity production is even less.
Even considering the most polluting states rolled into the average, the Union of Concerned Scientists reports that over an average lifecycle, a BEV will produce 33 tons less greenhouse gas than an ICE vehicle.
A the risk of diverting the bottom line conclusion that BEVs pollute significantly less than ICEs here's a small diversion of the emission cost of producing a lithium battery. Some lithium is produced by using deepwater brines and letting the brine evaporate. Not much energy use here. Other techniques fracture rocks and require significant energy to separate the elements. Not all lithium production is equal. The amount of CO2 emission required to produce a lithium ion battery depends of the production method used.
More words, no numbers, no denying what I told you. That's because you can't. The truth hurts!
@Sabbia I don't disagree with that, ~33 tons less, depending on which EV and ICEV we are talking about. If you're taking about cars like Model S, Mach E and Taycan, they are not greener than low emissions ICEVs because they are too big and heavy and thusly require a lot more energy and Li to move around. Call it a carbon luxury EV tax.
No denying? Seriously? Go back to your insipid Model S vs Hummer thread on the S forum. You will find miles of posts refuting your hypothesis. With numbers, which you so love.
No need to revisit that lunatic asylum every time you feel like forgetting what happened in that thread.
Now, go read that thread entirely. Bozo.