1 1
brenthutch

Belief in man made climate change declining

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“Despite a general consensus that the country needs to act urgently to fight the growing crisis around climate change, Germans are less convinced when this involves bans or costly investments.”

If we, as a species, we’re worth half a shit at weighing long-term risks vs short term costs, there would be fewer McDonalds and Lipitor in the world. 
 

You’re focusing on the second half of the sentence quoted above: while it may unfortunately be true, it doesn’t negate the first half. 
 

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m headed back to my hotel in Ankara to take a shower. I’m a bit nasty from walking through a bunch of flooded streets today. While it’s not unheard of to flood here, apparently it’s happened more this year than anybody can remember. (I wrote that just for you Brent….this time, you can focus on the first half of the sentence and ignore the second).

 

p.s. with only two bookends, it sounds like you have a pretty shite library. :$

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lippy said:

While it’s not unheard of to flood here, apparently it’s happened more this year than anybody can remember. 

 

p.s. with only two bookends, it sounds like you have a pretty shite library. :$

And that is why we keep actual records instead of relying on people’s faulty memories.

Who said I only have two bookends?

Share this post


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

So, what you're missing is that there are multiple problems. One of which is a warming planet and another of which is the prevalence of short term, selfish thinking based on lame assed arguments that the cost is too high. You know, like the old AAD arguments. No matter, with or without you it's happening.

Hi Joe,

Re:  lame assed arguments that the cost is too high

Those that sat in gas lines during the fuels shortage of the '70's did not concern themselves with the costs.  They just wanted their cars to get them going again.

When there is no more, the costs will not be something to be concerned about.

BTDT,

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So, what you're missing is that there are multiple problems. One of which is a warming planet and another of which is the prevalence of short term, selfish thinking based on lame assed arguments that the cost is too high. You know, like the old AAD arguments. No matter, with or without you it's happening.

But Joe, it's his thread, so you know, he can decide what to believe in!  

Share this post


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

Hi Joe,

Re:  lame assed arguments that the cost is too high

Those that sat in gas lines during the fuels shortage of the '70's did not concern themselves with the costs.  They just wanted their cars to get them going again.

When there is no more, the costs will not be something to be concerned about.

BTDT,

Jerry Baumchen

Some in SC have been far to hard on Brent. Yes he cherry picks stories but when FOX and the right wing media pummels his brain with misinformation. Its just very difficult for Brent to be objective.

So the facts in Germany: Germany pledges US$2.2 billion to Green Climate Fund, on May 3rd. Money to help other countries meet climate objectives. Then three days later "Ramping up renewable power production rather than subsidies is the key to lower electricity prices for Germany's energy-hungry industry, Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Saturday, in an apparent dig at proposals by his government's economy minister." "The German government insists that protecting the climate is one of its central concerns. It has said it wants to slash greenhouse gas emissions by at least 65% from 1990 levels by 2030 and has plans in place to sharply boost renewable energy production while phasing out fossil fuels."

For Brent, 2030 is like seven years from now. Imagine Brent.... phasing out coal....oil....gas....diesel and even nat gas.

Share this post


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

For Brent, 2030 is like seven years from now. Imagine Brent.... phasing out coal....oil....gas....diesel and even nat gas.

It would be some hellish Mad Max wasteland where everyone is scrambling for gasoline, almost no one can drive and the environment has been DESTROYED!

Well, exactly the opposite, actually.  But what's important is that you FEEL it will be bad.

Share this post


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

It would be some hellish Mad Max wasteland where everyone is scrambling for gasoline, almost no one can drive and the environment has been DESTROYED!

Well, exactly the opposite, actually.  But what's important is that you FEEL it will be bad.

Many gun loving right wingers dream about survivalist living in a apocalyptic world. Where their AR-15s make them relevant, for once.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Many gun loving right wingers dream about survivalist living in a apocalyptic world. Where their AR-15s make them relevant, for once.

And they are finally - FINALLY! - seen as powerful, and they get the respect they feel they are owed from their lessers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, olofscience said:

But talking about actual records requires you to do actual maths.

You've never really been up to it

If the climate change advocates are wrong; nothing happens. 

If the climate change skeptics are wrong . . .

 

Edited by BIGUN
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If the climate change advocates are wrong; nothing happens. 

If the climate change skeptics are wrong . . .

 

Well, the skeptics would say that by being wrong on climate change, we impacted them!!! I.e. they had to pay more for something, pay for something they disagreed with, or go farther to get gasoline, or buy a smaller vehicle than a Freightliner

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

they had to pay more for something, pay for something they disagreed with, or go farther to get gasoline, or buy a smaller vehicle than a Freightliner

Yeah, well . . . prolly the same argument the horsemen had about the horseless carriage. Time to move up and on as a society. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I know, right? The opportunity to own an EV that will cost less and the opportunity to invest that money that one loses on CE. 

“Electric vehicles generally experience depreciation from the moment of purchase, with the most significant impact occurring within the first three years of ownership. There have been reports that EVs lose up to 52% of their value just after three years as compared to ICE vehicles' 39.1%.”

Looks like someone needs to take some financial literacy courses.

Share this post


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

Looks like someone needs to take some financial literacy courses.

And that would be you.

The reason for the higher depreciation for used electric cars is the Federal tax rebates - that meant they were already thousands below list price the moment they were purchased.

 

With supply of electric vehicles far below demand, they actually hold value better, especially during the chip shortage that caused car manufacturers to stop production of many models.

Not to mention their much higher reliability due to having a tiny fraction of moving parts and high temperatures of a standard ICE vehicle.

Source

Share this post


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

“Electric vehicles generally experience depreciation from the moment of purchase, with the most significant impact occurring within the first three years of ownership. There have been reports that EVs lose up to 52% of their value just after three years as compared to ICE vehicles' 39.1%.”

Looks like someone needs to take some financial literacy courses.

Ahh yes the most solid evidence of "there have been reports." This is only bettered by "all the best people say."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

The reason for the higher depreciation for used electric cars is the Federal tax rebates - that meant they were already thousands below list price the moment they were purchased.

In addition, Tesla just dropped the price of their cars.  So if you buy a $45,000 car, and that car drops in price to $42,000 right after you buy it, you "lose" $3000 in value.

And there have been reports that most EVs go UP in value the instant they drive off the lot, since there are long waiting lists for many EVs and people would rather get them sooner.

Share this post


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

“Electric vehicles generally experience depreciation from the moment of purchase, with the most significant impact occurring within the first three years of ownership. There have been reports that EVs lose up to 52% of their value just after three years as compared to ICE vehicles' 39.1%.”

Looks like someone needs to take some financial literacy courses.

Looks like someone needs to cite their source and not cherry pick just the parts for their argument. 

From  your source: https://ev-lectron.com/blogs/blog/do-electric-cars-depreciate-faster#:~:text=There have been reports that,34.3% drop within three years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2023 at 2:56 AM, Phil1111 said:

.......  "The German government insists that protecting the climate is one of its central concerns. It has said it wants to slash greenhouse gas emissions by at least 65% from 1990 levels by 2030 and has plans in place to sharply boost renewable energy production while phasing out fossil fuels."........

While germans have a talent for formulating goals, we are well behind getting the needed infrastructure.
The windpark next to my village, for years does not harvest about 25% of the energy because there are not enough powerlines to transport it.
The above mentioned goal requires the construction of 5 windturbines daily for years, already well behind.

Good goals but no realistic plan to reach them or no realistic goals for what actually can be done.

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