1 1
brenthutch

Broke down and bought a hybrid

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Exactly, and many are still having trouble joining the 20th century, let alone the 21st..   In their mind, what's going to get them their more quickly?

 

What I'm talking about goes beyond just transportation. 

 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.  Stretching it 50 more years probably isn't enough.  It seems like we'd have to extend it by 100 or 200 years, probably even more.  Yet while the western world decreases it's use of fossil fuels, global demand and consumption continue to rise.

 

I found this article that explains the point I'm trying to make:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/27/the-world-is-not-going-to-reduce-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-50-by-2030-now-what/#1bf7b5933794

 

"the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that “limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” Specifically, “Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050.”

Here I’ll show you the simple mathematics of what achieving the 2030 target entails. The evidence shows clearly that the world is far from being on a path that will come anywhere close to that goal. That is not an opinion, it is just math . . .

. . .Despite the overwhelming evidence on the unlikelihood of meeting the 2030 target, such realism has yet to take hold in climate policy discussions. Some even go so far as to claim that presentation of this type of analysis amounts to climate denial. For those making such claims, I’ve got news for you – the world is going to miss the 2030 target whether we talk about that reality or deny it, so we had better get to work on rethinking climate policy."

Yes and thats why its important to start now rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I wonder what we're allowed to call you for that tired old misogynistic joke?

You're not allowed to call him anything. But you're welcome to identify the joke as being both tired and misogynistic. And to say that what someone says colors your opinion of them. There are a lot of variations; some of the posters here are masters at telling someone exactly what they think of them without saying the words. Or simply ignoring them. 

My reaction to that joke was on the order of jeez that's stupid. Another tick mark on the personal (not moderation) opinion sheet.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ya, we need to start thinking about wft will actually work.

I have a feeling that your post on "use it all up while you can" was rather ruefully tongue-in-cheek, and not actually describing your goal. And wtf will actually work is small things that different people do, until bigger ones begin to be coalesced around. Solar power seems to be gaining some traction, especially in jurisdictions that don't penalize it (in the name of "adjusting for balance" or whatever).

Companies, organizations, and governmental entities have to be willing to take some risks, and not put them entirely on individuals, who, alone, generally have considerably less clout.

Of course, our whole "social media influencer" career path seems to be making that untrue, weird as it sounds as a career path to me. By any other words, it sounds like "community organizer," except that the influencer is more of a capitalist in search of money, rather than wanting to change some system or anohter.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ya, we need to start thinking about wft will actually work.

The issues are massive and individuals,corporations and others seem to be ahead of governments. IMO personal responsibility is the first place to start. The cost to address this are such that whole concepts like GDP growth are going to have to be re-evaluated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, airdvr said:

hehe...reminds me of an old joke..

Mom is explaining the facts of life to her daughter.  "If you ever have any questions just ask."

Daughter says "I do have a question.  The other night i walked past your bedroom and you had daddy's thing in your mouth.  Do baby's come from there too?"

Mom laughed and said "No honey.  That's where jewelry comes from."

How offensive, suggesting that men are just a bunch of easily manipulated fuck toads!

What are you, some type of manophobe!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The issues are massive and individuals,corporations and others seem to be ahead of governments. IMO personal responsibility is the first place to start. The cost to address this are such that whole concepts like GDP growth are going to have to be re-evaluated.

I think you have an excellent point about GDP growth. Our entire model is based on the growth of population and consumption. Unfortunately, that may not be the new normal in a lot of places, and relying on the decreasing number of people who can consume hugely to prop up those numbers is probably not the best idea.

That said, the focus that capitalism puts on consumption seems to lead to more innovation; maybe not all of it's useful innovation (who really actually uses a hot dog cooker that you impale 4 hot dogs on?), but longtime more cooperative (i.e. less competitive) societies don't seem to show as much innovation. So even environments that foster innovation may not be entirely without problems.

Man, all those easy answers to complicated questions down the drain!

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I think you have an excellent point about GDP growth. Our entire model is based on the growth of population and consumption. Unfortunately, that may not be the new normal in a lot of places, and relying on the decreasing number of people who can consume hugely to prop up those numbers is probably not the best idea.

That said, the focus that capitalism puts on consumption seems to lead to more innovation; maybe not all of it's useful innovation (who really actually uses a hot dog cooker that you impale 4 hot dogs on?), but longtime more cooperative (i.e. less competitive) societies don't seem to show as much innovation. So even environments that foster innovation may not be entirely without problems.

Man, all those easy answers to complicated questions down the drain!

Wendy P.

Canada has for example a fairly open immigration policy, which I'm in favor of. It allows two rich/educated immigrants for every compassion/poor immigrant. The problem arises because all three of those immigrants want a western style consumption standard of living. A single detached home, two cars per family, vacations in the winter etc.

All of which makes its signed climate accords more and more impossible to meet. For farmers the issues which have driven Central Americans farmers to flee now unproductive land.. Are affecting farming here as well with more irregular weather, reducing yields.

Canadians by a majority accept that actions must be taken but the costs have never been fully laid out by any political party as to what those costs will be.

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

More like the Johnson era.

Hi Brent,

As long as we are 'throwing the blame' around, let us not forget the Nixon era.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  IMO it is not the legislation that creates programs for people, it the lack of funding as time goes by.  That is the real tragedy of the legislature; from both parties.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Brent,

As long as we are 'throwing the blame' around, let us not forget the Nixon era.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  IMO it is not the legislation that creates programs for people, it the lack of funding as time goes by.  That is the real tragedy of the legislature; from both parties.

 

I think a lot of our problems could be solved with a balanced budget amendment.  Everyone loves free stuff from the government and everyone want to pay less in taxes.  If we were forced to cut programs to pay for tax cuts or raise everyone’s taxes to pay for new programs, it would focus our collective minds in a way the current system does not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

That’s not a tick.

This

image.jpeg.4f3af1ebfbc0d31faa21fb0f716dbd98.jpeg

Is a tick and not just a tick, he is The Tick

On the offchance you aren't aware, there's been two different live action versions of the show over the years - I have no idea where you could get ahold of the older one but I'm pretty sure the more recent take streams on Amazon Prime. Both quite good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Brent,

As long as we are 'throwing the blame' around, let us not forget the Nixon era.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  IMO it is not the legislation that creates programs for people, it the lack of funding as time goes by.  That is the real tragedy of the legislature; from both parties.

 

How many of us are tired of politicians making grandiose promises during elections, but having them crushed by the Treasury Board a year or two later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Drive it til it drops" used to be a viable strategy, but that has changed in recent years.

Last weekend, I had dinner with a old friend who used to own a Pontiac Vibe (Toyota Matrix with a different label) a couple of years older than mine. Mine is now 14 years old and running smoothly with only 160,000 kilometres. I have only replaced consumables like tires, spark plugs, oil, wiper blades and a battery. Trade-in value is almost zero, so I will probably drive it until it needs a major repair. ... kind of like my previous van.

My friend said that he retired his Vibe when the cost of spare parts got ridiculous! For example, his wife refused to drive it after dark because the headlight lenses were foggy and emitting little light. New lenses start at $300.! Yikes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lenses can be polished; then they're no longer cloudy at least, and don't trap dirt as much.

My Honda is 14 and going strong with 140,000 miles (225,000K). Either I'll drive it into the ground, or I'll give it to my niece (14 now) so she can drive it into the ground. One decision point will be if I can find a car with a suitably small amount of automation and full-screen apps that I have to navigate; I prefer knobs because I can feel them while driving.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2020 at 8:44 AM, Phil1111 said:

The problem arises because all three of those immigrants want a western style consumption standard of living. A single detached home, two cars per family, vacations in the winter etc.

Most people are in favour of the ongoing immigration exactly because of that.

From 2000 to 2009 home prices have increased by 79%

From 2009 to 2012 they rose 24%

From 2012 to 2015 they rose 16%

From 2016 to 2019 they rose another 28%

That is a lot of wealth generation in large part driven by immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1