SageBrush
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:39 pm

iPlug wrote:These are among the examples of why climate action is not primarily a deficit in education but a deficit in caring/action.
I disagree. These people are clueless how much their current behavior costs and they want to keep it that way. What they do know is that they do not have to pay it today, and they vaguely hope the costs can be dumped on someone else in the future. Their kids, for example.
Last edited by SageBrush on Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

User avatar
Nubo
Posts: 5654
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:01 am
Delivery Date: 31 Oct 2014
Location: Vallejo, CA

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:42 pm

iPlug wrote:These are among the examples of why climate action is not primarily a deficit in education but a deficit in caring/action.

Most people, as noted on both sides of the aisle, see the gravity of the situation. Then one is asked if (s)he will pay a tiny amount to help the cause. A minority but significant amount say yes. Yet then in practice, only a small amount of these actually pay the few extra bucks. :(

Talk is cheap and hence polls like these grossly overstate what people actually would do. How one stirs more folks to caring about a cause greater than themselves by actions, not words, is the arduous and elusive goal.
Adding to reluctance is the realization that even if a large number of Americans sacrificed to meet a target, it would have little significance compared to the world-wide production of CO2. Essentially it means cheaper fuel for poorer countries, and they will quite naturally be compelled to utilize it. The world will use as much fossil fuels as the world can use. The only sure way to curb that is to make other forms of energy CLEARLY ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR. The solution doesn't lie in enforcing austerity but in creating abundance.
I noticed you're still working with polymers.

SageBrush
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:51 pm

Nubo wrote: Adding to reluctance is the realization that even if a large number of Americans sacrificed to meet a target, it would have little significance compared to the world-wide production of CO2. Essentially it means cheaper fuel for poorer countries, and they will quite naturally be compelled to utilize it. The world will use as much fossil fuels as the world can use. The only sure way to curb that is to make other forms of energy CLEARLY ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR. The solution doesn't lie in enforcing austerity but in creating abundance.
That is much more an excuse than a reasoned conclusion.
First, the poorer countries use only a small fraction of energy per capita. The USA uses about 25% of the worlds fossils. We cannot ignore our contribution to AGW.
Second, coal is not fungible, and NG only marginally so if export is subsidized.
Third, it is already cheaper for poor countries to adopt clean energy for new generation. See: India
Fourth, the trumpers are your proof that the entire argument is specious: when it became clear that China was going to aggressively counter climate change the message changed from 'What about China !?' to 'China is trying to dominate USA economically by embracing clean energy', AKA the AGW "hoax."
Fifth, so long as we do not have a central Earth government or an enforced treaty, each country has to act responsibly or we end up in a self-defeating circular logic trap -- exactly what the trumpers want.
Last edited by SageBrush on Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

cwerdna
Posts: 10406
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jul 2013
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:29 pm

GRA wrote:
More than half of Americans either strongly or somewhat support the idea of weaning the United States off fossil fuels entirely within 10 years — the central tenet of the Green New Deal — including a third of Republicans and 57% of independents.
...
Currently, about 1 percent of cars sold in the United States in 2017 were electric, according to EVAdoption.com, which tracks the industry. Meanwhile, about 2 percent of U.S. homes had solar installations at the start of 2019, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association. . . .
The first part is pretty comical given the low adoption of EVs. They support it yet aren't willing to do their part. As I complained about at https://priuschat.com/threads/consumer- ... st-1418435 re: Americans wanting higher fuel economy standards, well, even before any EVs/PHEVs were available, Americans could always buy a fuel efficient vehicle. No need to wait for the govt to raise standards.
DarthPuppy wrote: What surprises me is the number of multi-car households that don't have a plug-in. After current tax credits and rebates, they can cost same or less than a comparable ICEV and are far more efficient on total life time ownership cost. But change is hard and scary. Even those with an ICEV in the family for the infrequent trips that require longer range, aren't willing to make the switch.
Outside of CARB emission states, I suspect the problem is lack of marketing and awareness and in some cases, even availability. For the US market, many EVs and some PHEVs are CA or CARB emission states only.

As I posted at https://www.chevybolt.org/forum/9-2017- ... post507973, there's a guy in Frackville, PA who was somewhat interested in a Bolt yet his Chevy dealer who he's been going to for 32 years isn't interested in carrying them.

I hope he doesn't mind me quoting his post in its entirety:
Speaking of the Chevy Bolt I was just at my local Chevy dealer that I have been going to for 32 years and I asked the owner if he was getting any Bolts. The answer is no as I was the first customer who inquired about one. He did tell me that it will cost him a little over $100,000 investment in the service department. He has to have one service bay, one service tech trained for the Bolt, and various tools and equipment to work on the Bolt. It is the tools and equipment that his holding him back as it would make no sense to buy all that if no one is interested in the vehicle.
He was not surprised that I was the first one to ask about the Bolt. He mentioned it to his wife a few months ago that he bet that when I come in for inspection that I would inquire about one. I told him I would prefer to buy a Bolt for all the local trips I take and just keep my gas guzzling heavy duty pickup for work. I told him it makes no sense to invest $48,000 buying a new pickup and use it for a daily driver anymore. It is cheaper for me to repair and maintain the pickup and invest in the Bolt. He did agree with my thought process on this.
Those that work in the sales department all talked the Bolt down but I suspect that tone will change if the demand started to go up for these vehicles. Heard the various excuses like they like the power and roar on the internal combustion engine when you step on the throttle.
The above was from Sept 2017. I asked him again in Sept 2018 and there was no change.

Also, many states provide little or no cash incentive/rebates or any other incentive (e.g. HOV stickers) to get a BEV or PHEV. Heck, I'm not eligible for the $2500 CVRP because I make too much. I so far have never been eligible for CVRP for one reason or another, but knew that going into it.

'19 Bolt Premier
'13 Leaf SV w/premium package (owned)
'13 Leaf SV w/QC + LED & premium packages (lease over, car returned)

Please don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

User avatar
Nubo
Posts: 5654
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:01 am
Delivery Date: 31 Oct 2014
Location: Vallejo, CA

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:25 am

SageBrush wrote:
Nubo wrote: Adding to reluctance is the realization that even if a large number of Americans sacrificed to meet a target, it would have little significance compared to the world-wide production of CO2. Essentially it means cheaper fuel for poorer countries, and they will quite naturally be compelled to utilize it. The world will use as much fossil fuels as the world can use. The only sure way to curb that is to make other forms of energy CLEARLY ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR. The solution doesn't lie in enforcing austerity but in creating abundance.
That is much more an excuse than a reasoned conclusion.
First, the poorer countries use only a small fraction of energy per capita. The USA uses about 25% of the worlds fossils. We cannot ignore our contribution to AGW.
Second, coal is not fungible, and NG only marginally so if export is subsidized.
Third, it is already cheaper for poor countries to adopt clean energy for new generation. See: India
Fourth, the trumpers are your proof that the entire argument is specious: when it became clear that China was going to aggressively counter climate change the message changed from 'What about China !?' to 'China is trying to dominate USA economically by embracing clean energy', AKA the AGW "hoax."
Fifth, so long as we do not have a central Earth government or an enforced treaty, each country has to act responsibly or we end up in a self-defeating circular logic trap -- exactly what the trumpers want.
If I'm not mistaken we are shipping millions of tons of coal to China, and looking for ways to deliver more coal to the West coast terminals to meet that demand. Our export of liquified petroleum gas is booming.


I'm not trying to "ignore" our contribution to AGW, but rather look at the nature of fossil fuel use with open eyes. The best way to end it is to make something better. I'm not sure what "Trumpers" want other than to "make Liberal heads explode" and return to the 1950's. Someone should tell them the marginal tax rate was 90% :lol: . The huge investment in research I propose is probably is not on their list.
I noticed you're still working with polymers.

SageBrush
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:35 am

Nubo wrote: If I'm not mistaken we are shipping millions of tons of coal to China.
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/dr ... ina-trade/

For context, USA mines have a production capacity as of 2017 of about 1000 million short tons and at that time were producing ~ 750 million short tons. The series of coal mine bankruptcies should tell you something about the export business.

LNG is "booming" since it started at ~ zero.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

iPlug
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:47 pm
Delivery Date: 25 Apr 2016
Location: Rocklin, CA

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:43 am

SageBrush wrote:I disagree. These people are clueless how much their current behavior costs and they want to keep it that way. What they do know is that they do not have to pay it today, and they vaguely hope the costs can be dumped on someone else in the future. Their kids, for example.
I see more agreement here, semantics, perhaps...would argue these aren't mutually exclusive.

As you note, a great many don't know the granular details, not for lack of education, but because that sort of willing or forced digging deeper brings personal responsibility closer to their fore. That's why I don't see much benefit to beating the teaching stick at them after a point. Would like to find how to make them want to care to know the individual behavior costs and care to actually do something tangible about that.
Nubo wrote:The world will use as much fossil fuels as the world can use. The only sure way to curb that is to make other forms of energy CLEARLY ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR. The solution doesn't lie in enforcing austerity but in creating abundance.
I'm a little more optimistic with an all in approach on my side, including taking personal responsibility and having local, regional, and federal governments with the will to "do the right thing" as a large part of the solution.

Statistically some countries are virtually guaranteed to forgo clean energy and continue to pass their external costs on to others. Indeed this is a large and real challenge. For these entities, it is unfortunately true that creating lower cost clean solutions may be the only substantial way to retire fossils from their armaments, speaking only to their internal costs. Unfortunately, a few countries in higher latitudes would actually benefit from many of the AGW climate changes (fossil extraction and exports also happen to be a large percent of their GDP).
'19 Model 3 SR+ (own), '19 Leaf SV (leased), '12 Plug-in Prius (sold 3/19), '16 Leaf SV (prior lease), 11.43kW Solar PV (16MWh/yr real production), 20.5 SEER/13.0 HSPF ducted air-source heat pump, 3.70 UEF heat pump water heater, Induction Cooktop

User avatar
Nubo
Posts: 5654
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:01 am
Delivery Date: 31 Oct 2014
Location: Vallejo, CA

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:53 am

SageBrush wrote:
Nubo wrote: If I'm not mistaken we are shipping millions of tons of coal to China.
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/dr ... ina-trade/

For context, USA mines have a production capacity as of 2017 of about 1000 million short tons and at that time were producing ~ 750 million short tons. The series of coal mine bankruptcies should tell you something about the export business.
My point is that coal IS fungible. The amount exported isn't intrinsically limited, it's a function of port capacity. Coal can also be gasified or converted to liquid fuels. We need to make sure there are more economically sound alternatives.
I noticed you're still working with polymers.

iPlug
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:47 pm
Delivery Date: 25 Apr 2016
Location: Rocklin, CA

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:13 am

In regard to Nubo's point, one particular place will rise from being one of a few leaders to the main leader in preempting AGW mitigation.

https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualiz ... show/2017/

Among a few reasons:
-remains a primitive economy (except for WMD/military industrial complex tech) with heavy reliance on raw and low tech output as a percent of GDP and exports
-massive fossil fuel reserves
-current and long history of kleptocracy/oligarchy governance
-kleptocracy/oligarchy survival is greatly enhanced by geopolitical instability elsewhere
-climate warming will benefit farming and make for more comfortable winters; as faming output of other countries falls from AGW, they will be able to increase farming productivity to sell to these markets
-a Northeast Passage open more of the year has substantial economic benefits
'19 Model 3 SR+ (own), '19 Leaf SV (leased), '12 Plug-in Prius (sold 3/19), '16 Leaf SV (prior lease), 11.43kW Solar PV (16MWh/yr real production), 20.5 SEER/13.0 HSPF ducted air-source heat pump, 3.70 UEF heat pump water heater, Induction Cooktop

SageBrush
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:15 pm

Nubo wrote: My point is that coal IS fungible.
I'm skeptical. The cost of transport limits its export potential. I thinkk that is why the lion's share of coal exports are not thermal coal
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”