Forums

Now You Know Some of the Cost to Address Climate Change

Now You Know Some of the Cost to Address Climate Change

Zac and Jesse talk about the cost to mitigate climate change on America's coastlines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sttrL0Z4k0

This will drive ole Mitch out of his mind.

Tesla-David | 5 luglio 2019

Yes, Jesse and Zac did another outstanding discussion showing how urgent action on AGW/Climate Emergency is. Not enough money to build the walls necessary to thwart sea level rise projected, and that is just one facet of the problem. Much better to act, and one can start by taking personal responsibility for ones own actions by purchasing EVs (Tesla's), solar panels, and Powerwall batteries. Many of us posting on the forum have chosen to go down that path, while advocating for a responsible government that will lead a national/international effort to do more than just talk about it. Our current idiot POTUS has abdicated his responsibility to act on this pressing and urgent issue.

blue adept | 10 luglio 2019

The United States subsidizes fossil fuel exploration and production at some $20.5 billion every year.

If we redirected that money to mitigating the affects of Climate Change we'd be well on the way to eliminating it altogether.

BuffaloBillsFan | 10 luglio 2019

+100 to all posters. I don’t know what kind of world we are leaving to our children, but at the current rate of climate change, even I will still be around to see its disastrous effects. Hell, it’s happening right now!

You can’t teach the blind to see . . .

greg | 10 luglio 2019

@BuffaloBillsFan
"You can’t teach the blind to see . . ."

Maybe so, but - There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Tesla-David | 11 luglio 2019

@blue adept, yes agree totally, doing away with all fossil fuel subsidies should be a major priority of any democratic administration going forward. I do not want any of my tax dollars going to these scumbag corporations destroying the habitability of the planet.

dmm1240 | 11 luglio 2019

My prescription:
1. End fossil fuel subsidies and transfer those funds to promoting growth of renewables.
2. Triple funding for the National Science Foundation with emphasis on increasing efficiency of POV cells plus making better batteries and exploring other means to store energy for when the sun isn't shining and/or wind isn't blowing.
3. Restore the federal tax credit for EV purchases for cars made by all manufacturers with a sunset provision of 2023-2024 when EVs can be sold for the same price or cheaper than ICE vehicles.
4. Install EV charging stations at all rest stops along federal highways. Implement a grant program to encourage local governments to install EV chargers in cities and towns.
5. Test and establish a standard plug connection for EVs, whichever works best.
6. Do not end and increase tax breaks for individuals installing rooftop solar. Mandate that HOAs and local ordinances cannot prevent installations. Increase the tax break from the current 30% to 40-50%.
7. Mandate that developers install rooftop solar or micro solar systems in new subdivisions where practical.
8. Tighten up regulations to ensure all new construction is energy efficient.
9. Provide tax credits to individuals for remodeling to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and the same for business.
10. Tax carbon polluters (i.e. utilities) for the pollution they dump in the air, provide incentives to go renewable, and rebate the funds collected to individuals to alleviate any increases on their electric bills utilities implement to fund converting to renewables.
11. Rebuild the electrical grid.
12. Plant a lot of trees. If Johnny Appleseed made the history books planting apple trees across the land, then we can do it by expanding forest cover in the U.S.
13. Rejoin the Paris Climate accords and once again become a global leader in addressing this crisis.
14. End the flood plain insurance scam. The federally funded insurance program as structured encourages homeowners to rebuild homes destroyed by hurricanes, perennial flooding; in some cases the same homes have been rebuilt several times after storms. You get one rebuild and out for existing homes. IOW, if a hurricane flattens your beach house where a home shouldn't have been built in the first place, then you cannot use the insurance money to rebuild. You must move to a safer location. The vacated property then becomes either state or federally owned and further building prohibited.
15. Build seawalls, berms, levees etc to protect threatened cities.
16. Construct a nationwide water management system consisting of pipelines to transport water from areas that regularly flood (i.e. the midwest along the Mississippi River) to areas that have too little water or where water supplies are threatened (i.e. the Colorado River due to declining snowpacks in the Rockies).

I'm sure there are plenty of other good ideas, but those are top of my mind.

sosmerc | 11 luglio 2019

@dmm1240....+100.......that's an impressive list that should be very "doable".

SCCRENDO | 11 luglio 2019

@dmm. Another great post. Thanks

Tesla-David | 11 luglio 2019

@dmm1240 +100; agree with your list.

blue adept | 11 luglio 2019

@BuffaloBillsFan

It's not that they're 'blind', it's that they're selfish and greedy, the evidence of their behavior proves that.

blue adept | 11 luglio 2019

@dmm1240

I only have issue with one of your proposals, #5, inasmuch as it would enable non-Tesla vehicles to make use of Tesla charging stations, thereby creating the potential for actual Tesla owners to be unable to access them when needed because an off-brand owner is occupying the charger.

A solid list otherwise.

NKYTA | 11 luglio 2019

@blue, a problem that doesn’t seem to be happening, groan. But I agree, from a Mission Statement POV, that Elon needs to put some of his brainpower into solving that problem...

Get legacy automakers to agree, or just takeover the whole EV market.

Hard to get the former, NADA and entrenched automakers.
The latter, too big for Tesla.

Going to get ugly before it gets better...

nwfan | 12 luglio 2019

End fossil fuel subsidies? I'm all for it. Are the Americans ready for the price hike at the pumps?
Our govt has kept the price at the pump low through the subsidies and govt military protection
and intervention in the oil producing locations.

About time we pay the true cost of the fuel we consume. And start the change to EV's.

blue adept | 12 luglio 2019

@NKYTA

Or...Tesla can just simply keep on doing what they're doing and let everyone else figure it out for themselves on their own inasmuch as it only makes sense for a non-related, third-party utility provider to cater to the masses with universal adapter capability while manufacturers maintain their brand-specific accessibility to ensure availability.

blue adept | 12 luglio 2019

@nwfan

It is, afterall, highly illogical to continue to throw so damn much money at something whose very use results in the preventable, premature deaths of ever increasing thousands yearly when there is a readily available and easily implemented technology that has already rendered the former obsolete.

Techy James | 12 luglio 2019

@dmm1240, great list, although with the current administration this has zero chance to occur. Good news though next year we have election year, and we can get an administration in place that will be more forward thinking, and not redo the same mistakes that have failed every time its been tried.

@blue adept, I disagree, yes the existing Tesla Network would see more use, but that is not always a bad thing. Some areas constituently have free chargers. The other side of this also with a single solution like CCS in Europe, Tesla owners could also use alternative locations and not be limited to just the Supercharger network.

jimglas | 12 luglio 2019

but trump digs coal ....

blue adept | 12 luglio 2019

@Techy James

Tesla owners, like moi, are already able to charge at third party utility sites given that we're furnished with charging adapters suitable for accommodating a variety of situations/charge solutions:

https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation/mobile-connector

Tesla owners buy into more than merely ('merely', ha!) the most technologically advanced and mechanically engineered zero emission vehicle on the planet, they're also buying into the privilege of assured access to proprietary charging facilities which serves to circumvent the potential for a whole host of potential technical issues that could arise with universal charging facilities.

Don't misunderstand me, I can recognize the inherent benefit of universalized charging facilities, but I also realize that they're not going to be much of a benefit unless EVERYONE is on the same page and, given the current atmosphere of the industry, everyone simply isn't.

Nice sentiment though.

SCCRENDO | 13 luglio 2019

@rhj. So you have climate change deniers in Finland that publish factless crap?
What is the point of your post???
Idiot!!!!
Flagged!!!!

dmm1240 | 14 luglio 2019

From Time Magazine:

"Melting ice sheets in the Antarctic, particularly one of the largest and unstable glaciers in the region, could significantly accelerate global sea level rise, according to a new report.
The climate scientists who measured likely outcomes of glacial melting at the bottom of the world focused the study on the Thwaites glacier, an area as large as Florida in western Antarctica that is considered the most unstable in the continent.
The study found that even if no further climate change happens in the future, more Antarctic ice sheets are likely to become unstable. It also states that as destabilization of glaciers in Antarctica continues, it’s increasingly likely that sea levels will rise more rapidly.
“Due to our past changes in climate there is a certain amount of sea level rise that will definitely occur in the future,” Alex Robel, a glaciologist and assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, tells TIME. He and two other scientists from the California Institute of Technology and the University of Washington wrote the report published by the National Academy of Sciences."

We have a choice: Do what we can to reverse/mitigate the effects or continue soldiering on attempting to adjust as the crisis escalates. Of the two, attempting to adjust is by far the more expensive.

In other words, a pound of prevention is by far the better course because the cure will be a ton and cost the same.

blue adept | 15 luglio 2019

@nwfan

Actually, that $20.5 Billion in subsidies that the oil industry gets every year is applied at the front end towards the exploration, securing, extraction, refining, processing and distribution, not at the back/consumer end of the ground-to-pump cycle, whereas the only time a "hike" is experienced at the pumps is when there has been some typically weather related disruption in the supply chain inasmuch as each country has it's own "reserves" to draw from in times of severe interruption, e.g., war, that are separate from the overall supply chain.

Shifting those funds from the oil industry to EV's/renewables would mark the start of the worldwide conversion to EV's and prices at the pump would actually drop as suppliers and retailers would endeavor to squeeze every last dollar that they could out of what they had on hand as they sought to eek out as much return on their investment as possible while demand for it would dwindle to nothing in conjunction with the increased adoption of EV's.

So, yes, BRING. IT. ON!

nwfan | 15 luglio 2019

@blue adept, don't forget the hidden cost of providing security to the tankers.
US Navy is deployed to the Perisan Gulf. Wonder what the cost is for a Carrier Battle Group
6 month deployment?

NoMoPetrol | 16 luglio 2019

@jimglas "but trump digs coal ...."

What he needs to do is actually go dig for coal. For a year or two. Then let him tweet from the bottom of a coal mine if he can even get cell phone reception.

sabbia | 16 luglio 2019

Did rhj's post disappear after it was pointed out that his quote was from Russia Today? I can't find it. Hope it's still somewhere.

SCCRENDO | 16 luglio 2019

@sabbia. Flagged away. No need to respond to all these denier kooks. They stink up the forum. Just flag them away.

Tesla-David | 16 luglio 2019

Idiot troll flagged

blue adept | 16 luglio 2019

@nwfan

I've covered the deployment of military assets (and the ofttimes resultant loss of personnel...the aunts and uncles, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers...of American families) to both acquire and protect our access to petroleum reserves in this or that corner of the world in some detail in other threads on the subject but only summarized it here with the use of the term, "...securing...", but we're on the same page.

And since you asked...

Each carrier strike group has a different ship composition, but generally they have one carrier (with a carrier air wing on it), at least one cruiser and a destroyer squadron (consisting of destroyers and sometimes frigates too) composed of the following:

1 - Nimitz-class aircraft carrier : $6.2 billion

7 - Arleigh Burke-class destroyer : $12.6 billion (7 x $1.8 billion)

3 - Ticonderoga-class cruiser : $3 billion (3 x $1 billion)

48 - F/A -18 Super Hornet : $3.360 billion (48 x $70 million (flyaway cost*))

4 - E-2C Hawkeye : $704 million (4 x $176 million (flyaway cost))

5 - E/A-18G Growler : $350 million (5 x $70 million (flyaway cost))

2 - C-2A Greyhound : $80 million (2 x $40 million)

12 - MH-60S Seahawk : $336 million (12 x $28 million(flyaway cost))

16 - MH-60R Seahawk : $672 million (16 x $42 million(flyaway cost))

Now add to that approximately 8,000 personnel (afterall, the ships and planes and such can't run themselves...yet) which, for simplicity's sake, let’s assume the average salary is $3,000 dollars a month which equates to $288 million/year.

Adding it all up it will cost approximately $27 BILLION DOLLARS and that doesn’t take into consideration the cost of submarines and other ships (logistics, etc) and their crew that may be attached to the group from time to time, the costs for maintenance and supply, the costs for the weapons to the aircrafts, training, exercise, etc.

So, as I've mentioned above, ALL of those subsidies are on the 'front end' of the ground-to-pump cycle.

Remove them and the cycle stops, that ever inward and downwards spiral into the obliteration of life as we know it, if not all Life itself, through the process of the attrition of our life-sustaining ecology, and all due to the avarice of a handful of a few individual's selfishness and greed.

Cut off the head of the snake and it will die.

*Flyaway cost is the cost to build a single aircraft (airframe, avionics, engine etc) and not counting weapon systems, additional equipment and other recurring costs.

**Shout out to one Jones Averino, currently an Industrial Engineering undergraduate, for their efforts in researching and composing these figures.

sabbia | 16 luglio 2019

Question. When flagging, is it a good idea to identify the troll's handle and garbage date?

For example, Idiot troll (rmitchel108, 2/19/14) flagged

I often research to expose their lies or idiocy (I know that doesn't stop them).

For example, I think it was a good idea to expose that rhj got their info from Russia Today.

SCCRENDO | 16 luglio 2019

@sabbia. I think most of us have made a choice not to give our trolls the recognition they are looking for. They are only trolling to get attention. Our most persistent one, Mitch will regurgitate his stuff as a reflex when you trigger a certain buzzword. When he is flagged without comment there is no record of his existence. This tends to panic him and he starts multiple threads. But with a few people flagging him there is no evidence he ever existed. This is very effective. If we document his existence then he is happy even if the post has disappeared. I realize it would give you great pleasure to point out what a fool and troll he is but your response would not register with him. I think flagging him without any acknowledgement is working very effectively and keeps his stink off the boards. It is worthwhile doing the same with the other minor trolls who post incomprehensible drivel.

dmm1240 | 16 luglio 2019

Here's something else to consider. A carrier group is dependent on the carrier itself for striking power. The cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc are there primarily to protect the carrier. Take out the carrier and the strike group loses most of its combat power. Technological advances threaten to make carriers are obsolete ad carriers once made battleships obsolete.

I love to use the Billy Mitchell as an example. If you're not familiar, Mitchell was an aviator during WWI who commanded all US aircraft in France. After the war, he was appointed deputy director of the Air Service and began advocating increased investment in air power, believe it vital to future wars. In particular, Mitchell espoused that bombers could sink battle ships. He antagonized many senior officers with his advocacy and was reduced in rank for insubordination because he accused them of wasting money on battle ships.

In 1921, Mitchell convinced Sec of War Newton Baker to Sec Navy Josephus Daniels to stage a series of joint Army-Navy exercises known as Project B where surplus and captured ships. Mitchell insisted he could sink a dreadnought under war conditions. The Navy was not amused. Admirals loved their battle ships because command of one was a sure path to flag rank.

The Navy rigged the test. They chose a site 80 miles offshore which would limit the Army's time over target. The p lanes were forbidden to use aerial torpedoes and were allowed on two hits on the target battleships and would have to stop allowing damage assessments after the two hits. Smaller ships could not be struck by bombs larger than 600 lbs. Mitchell held to the Navy's restriction on three dates and successfully sank the ex German destroyer G-102 and the ex German light cruiser Frankfurt. On 7/20/21, the Navy brought out the ex-German battleship, Ostriesland. On the scheduled day, attacks with 230, 550 and 600 lb bombs settled the target 3' by the stern with a 5° list to port, and she was taking on water. The Navy claimed rough seas and ordered the attacks stopped. When the attack was allowed to resume the next day, five Army bombers dropped a single 1,100 lb bomb each, scoring three direct hits. The Navy stopped further attacks even though the Army had 9 bombs left. Then the Army sent in six bombers loaded with 2k bombs. After four hits, the battlewagon sank. Mitchell later repeated the results twice.

This caused an uproar. President Harding and other high officials were incensed by Mitchell's demonstrations showing the Navy's weakness to aerial assault.

The Navy finally built some carriers. They saved our bacon at the start of WWII. During the war, except for the Battle of Leyte Gulf, battleships were mostly used to bombard Japanese positions as the Marines landed.

Our proud carriers become more vulnerable to this by the day. If you can lay torpedoes that lay in wait and activate when one of our carriers are near, no sub platform required... if you can build swarms of drones to fly in at wave top level to attack a carrier by the thousands... if you can launch thousands of missiles at a carrier from hundreds to thousands of miles away... if you can set off an EMF bomb to jam a carrier fleet's electronics... what you have is a $6.2 billion target sunk by much cheaper weaponry.

blue adept | 16 luglio 2019

@dmm1240

While we weren't necessarily interested in the semantics, only the finances involved in ground-to-pump oil production, I do thank you for the history lesson and technical analysis of the waning viability/incurred liability of carriers in today's military due to technological advances in warfare.

Luckily our threat detection, interception capabilities and other such counter measures have also advanced to help maintain the safety of our carrier fleet and associated air squadrons.

Now if we could steer the conversation back to Tesla-based concerns....