Are we helping in the fight against climate change or just indulging our love of toys (er technology)?

[JimBob]

Is this the study you are citing? No, there are many other different peer reviewed studies.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm

The scientists concluded CO2 was not "the main trigger" of climate change, but it is intimately linked - possibly because of CO2 stored in glaciers and the sea, where warmer climate sees that CO2 released. Depends, many different factors affect climate change. As to which was the main cause requires analysis.

The other issue is measurement. Measuring CO2 going back even 100 years uses a very different method than even 20 years ago, where satellites and other digital tools were used. The study measured CO2 levels in plankton and then estimated what CO2 was going back millions of years...Ice cores go back about 800,000 years. Beyond that other methods are used.

Alas, could that lead to erroneous conclusions? One data set is an estimate, the other data set uses actual measurements. They were then combined for the 2m year timeline. These conclusions are peer reviewed and are constantly modified an new information comes to light.

That said, it doesn't really matter. Humanity should reduce all forms of pollution. My biggest concern is this bizarre obsession with CO2, where potentially bigger problems could actually lead to an extinction event should we pollute our land and seas with enough toxic waste. Yes, but the CO2 obsession is not bizarre. Do some research on CO2 and how it has varied over time and why and the consequences of that variation.

And to your question about CO2, what is a good temperature for planet Earth, factoring in the northern and southern hemisphere and all types of biome? Agricultural societies have been around for around 9,000 years +- and industrial societies about 300 years. World population has grown by 7 billion over the past 250 years. If the rules change, then all the these get impacted and maybe in an adverse way.

Sponsored

 

[nickmdp]

Oh my goodness. Are we now climate scientists? Ok, then I am also a doctor, soccer coach and politician and what not.

Read the IPCC reports. Frankly this is embarrassing.

You mean I can't find all the answers to life's questions on Quora? But it's peer reviewed with upvotes and downvotes, seems legit to me /s

 

[TDinDC]

Stepping back for just a second. Whether people are able to agree about causes or degree, we are all discussing (1) pollution and (2) needless waste through inefficiency. It should be without controversy to say that we as a species should seek to eliminate pollution and waste. We should be doing so urgently as this is our home. Surely we can all agree on that.

The sentiment that led me to post this thread was the observation that we don’t really focus on this, and instead focus on the end results of production as a sign of good (eg, EVs powered by solar and manufactured without creating unnecessary waste) or bad (eg, giant heavy ICE vehicles), when the EV we thought was good might be powered by coal and manufactured in a wasteful way, or the ICE vehicle is super efficient and powered by fuels that are comparatively less damaging than how electricity is produced in the region.

And if you do believe in a creator, you should be wanting to cherish the planet and each other since all was made by the creator and laid at your feet, so I’m not sure why beliefs here necessarily dictate views or outcomes.

But that’s just me and I seem to know less each year that has passed since I was 18 when I knew everything.

 

[Tooney]

Ducks.....

 

[proficient_mathematician]

It should be without controversy to say that we as a species should seek to eliminate pollution and waste.

Agreed! I think it should also be without controversy to say that carbon dioxide is the main culprit of anthropogenic global warming. Maybe it’s the fault of misinformation or contrarianism that this isn’t the case.

 

[TaycanHero]

Agreed! I think it should also be without controversy to say that carbon dioxide is the main culprit of anthropogenic global warming. Maybe it’s the fault of misinformation or contrarianism that this isn’t the case.

It's not controversial, it just isn't possible to prove, much like God - which incidentally most religious people believe controls Earth's climate. Therein lies an interesting dichotomy that I won't get into...

This NOAA study - so we can be confident it isn't misinformation - shows the planet has been significantly hotter than today:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

So where is the correlation to CO2? Climate science is enormously complex, and cannot be simplified to a single cause and effect.

I will stress we absolutely should reduce our CO2 emissions, but likewise we should not focus all resources on tackling CO2, where instead if we addressed all forms of pollution, and focussed on renewable/biodegradable materials for every element of human life - CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced.

I liken it to going to the gym. If you focus only getting huge muscles, you probably won't achieve your goal as your focus is all wrong. If instead you focus on strength and power, those big muscles will be gained without even thinking about it.

That metaphor applies to human CO2 emissions, since everything in this universe has a CO2 footprint. Address the pollution the planet cannot easily deal with, and before long all CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced.

If at that point the climate is still changing (and it will, that's how this planet and universe works: in cycles) - for better or for worse - so be it. Humanity is resilient. In the middle ages, the Maunder Minimum didn't halt human progress, though it did slow it down. In the Roman era, the Roman Climatic Optimum didn't see everyone self combust - though it did accelerate the progress of a civilisation with less pestilence and famine.

On that last point, the next big climatic warming event started around 1715. Less than half a century later, the Industrial Revolution started. Quite fascinating to observe how climate change correlates so closely to the rise and fall of civilisations - and long before fossil fuels existed.

 

[TDinDC]

It's not controversial, it just isn't possible to prove, much like God - which incidentally most religious people believe controls Earth's climate. Therein lies an interesting dichotomy that I won't get into...

This NOAA study - so we can be confident it isn't misinformation - shows the planet has been significantly hotter than today:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

So where is the correlation to CO2? Climate science is enormously complex, and cannot be simplified to a single cause and effect.

I will stress we absolutely should reduce our CO2 emissions, but likewise we should not focus all resources on tackling CO2, where instead if we addressed all forms of pollution, and focussed on renewable/biodegradable materials for every element of human life - CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced.

I liken it to going to the gym. If you focus only getting huge muscles, you probably won't achieve your goal as your focus is all wrong. If instead you focus on strength and power, those big muscles will be gained without even thinking about it.

That metaphor applies to human CO2 emissions, since everything in this universe has a CO2 footprint. Address the pollution the planet cannot easily deal with, and before long all CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced.

If at that point the climate is still changing (and it will, that's how this planet and universe works: in cycles) - for better or for worse - so be it. Humanity is resilient. In the middle ages, the Maunder Minimum didn't halt human progress, though it did slow it down. In the Roman era, the Roman Climatic Optimum didn't see everyone self combust - though it did accelerate the progress of a civilisation with less pestilence and famine.

From my perspective, CO2 is one form of pollution that we must urgently address, but it is not the only one. The fixes for CO2 cannot ignore other pollution or create more.

And I’m not sure that’s what religious people believe, or at least all religious people.

 

[RingoDingo]

Climate change is a huge thing for me - my business has been carbon neutral (sadly 30% through offsets, the rest through reduction but we're working on reducing use of offsets to avoid greenwashing) for 6 years, we reduce and reuse at home, we have solar with battery storage, we drive less than we used to, try to buy UK food where possible. My main concern is what we're leaving behind for my 7 yr old daughter to deal with - oppressive heatwaves, fires, floods, winds. It'll be a case of those with money survive, those without suffer. The wealthy will simply buy aircon and move to higher ground, the poor will be displaced.

However despite spending a lot of money on this sort of stuff I sadly think we're already stuffed as a species. Too many people do nothing, governments prioritise money and power...how is my carbon neutral office offsetting the high street that has all the shop front lights on all night every night? Instead of fixing the issue, the worlds wealthiest are working on going to other planets so we can leave the issue behind. The film "don't look up" was entertaining but scarily true in equal measures.

An EV isn't helping anyone unless you keep it for a long time...ditching a perfectly usable ICE car for a brand new EV is a false economy in terms of climate impact - the engineering and materials to create the EV alone are huge let alone the distribution.

This is a false logic. Buying an EV to replace an ICE vehicle, even if it created more waste or inefficiency on a short term, net basis, is a long term net gain. It provides confidences in the medium and requires a build out of the infrastructure necessary for mass adoption. As a “car guy” i was a huge EV skeptic. And then i started to see all these Teslas driving around Austin. And so i test drove one and woah - it’s a real car, and a nice one at that. This might work. Had Tesla not created a viable proof of concept, nobody would be driving Taycans right now. Are all these new Teslas and new factories a net gain for the environment in the short term, no, of course not, but in the long run moving to green technology broadly is the only thing that will save us, and that doesn’t happen as long as we’re dependent on oil for our primary transportation needs.

also, the WSJ opinion section is hardly an unbiased piece of journalism. If something threatens Exxon’s profits, they’ll quick get their quills out and start pumping out the propoganda.

 

[Jhenson29]

Had Tesla not created a viable proof of concept, nobody would be driving Taycans right now.

I don’t think everyone agrees with that.

I’m not interested enough to hash out the debate again; but interested enough to offer my dissent.

 

[RingoDingo]

I don’t think everyone agrees with that.

I’m not interested enough to hash out the debate again; but interested enough to offer my dissent.

All I have to offer is ya know - what existed before mass adoption of the Tesla Model S and what has happened since. But you can’t disprove an alternate history that didn’t exist other than hypothetically.

 

[Dabz]

Totally agree, you’ve got to hand it to Tesla for proving that we can get past a 40 mile range on an EV. They moved the market forward far quicker than it otherwise would have moved

 

[proficient_mathematician]

Totally agree, you’ve got to hand it to Tesla for proving that we can get past a 40 mile range on an EV. They moved the market forward far quicker than it otherwise would have moved

Agreed. I’m not a big fan of that Elon guy, but without Tesla the legacy brands would still probably be dragging their feet with regard to the EV transition.

 

[moon]

People with 150K car (or even worse, more of them) will never do anything about CO2 or pollution. If they will , then never buy overpriced toys. Life is possible with 35m2 house and without a car.
No need to work or move (breathe?)
What a small CO2 footprint!

It's all just fake moralizing and soul washing.

PS:I buy taycan because it's just good looking car, that suits my needs.

 

[f1eng]

People with 150K car (or even worse, more of them) will never do anything about CO2 or pollution.

Rubbish.

 

[Dabz]

I have a really big house but it’s powered by solar with battery storage, heavily insulated and we pay to offset our tiny gas use…I’d argue it’s no worse than a smaller house running off the grid.

Sponsored