[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

But people still have debris burning all over the country. One good burn pollutes neighbors for miles. What does that do to the environment?

There are not 300 million debris fires every day for hours.

It's a magnitude issue. There are a LOT of things we do that pollute. We can start at the top of the list and fix the most egregious sources first, and work our way down to barbecues and debris fires.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Total US pollution and smog EQUALS pollution produced by the average citizen TIMES the number of citizens.
.....Or P (total) = P (average) X N (US population) ......Therefore, total pollution may be LOWERED by either lowering the average citizen's pollution by smog controls on ICE vehicles or giving tax breaks for EVs .....OR preventing overpopulation. Incidentally..... I personally own an Ebike!

Word salad... YOU stated that everything was great when we had 200 Million people. No need for $2000 worth of pollution controls on cars.

I showed you where you were wrong about that...

And how in the hell can "tax breaks" lower pollution?

So you don't own a car at all?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

We can only control what we do. We can encourage the rest of the world as we have always done through economic and political pressure.

MOST of the world are not Christian, so, should Christians stop?

Let's not forget that we (5% of the worlds population) generate 25% of the worlds carbon emissions. We were #1 in the world in emissions for a LONG time, but now China is competing for that position.

And the air and water in the US is cleaner than it has been in over 100 years...

People in China have been wearing masks for decades. Not due to any virus, but due to the pollution...

[Brad-tv]

Originally Posted by Jimbob the Newbie

Not even close. Tesla Model X.

Well that makes a heck of a lot more sense I saw MX and looked it up (100 mpc crazy) The model X is a beautiful piece of machinery/ technology That’s definitely on my bucket list but I have the M3 now and I love it!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

But people still have debris burning all over the country. One good burn pollutes neighbors for miles. What does that do to the environment?

That IS a question worth answering. I am NOT an environmental engineer. So, hopefully someone else can come up with a better or more complete answer. But, I will spill out what I remember. It has to do with the OZONE layer that protects the earth from TOO MUCH solar radiation. For millions of years lightning caused fires and trees and shrubs would burn (like out west now). This TYPE of burning did NOT adversely affect the OZONE LAYER.

Now the burning of gasoline in a ICE DOES adversely affect the ozone layer. For some reason (?) maybe incomplete combustion the ICE produces carbon MONOXIDE. Whereas, the trees burning produces carbon DIOXIDE, which I believe gets RECYCLED by living trees. The carbon monoxide (CO) drifts upward to the ozone layer and messes it up.

In big cities and with inversion layers the exhaust of the ICE engine, which contains (CO) produces SMOG and makes peoples lungs and eyes ITCH. Inversion layers also trap heat in cities. Population comes into play because the US produced the MOST pollution up until a few years ago when China took over 1st place. And they have terrible SMOG. If the US controlled its population around 250 million people today, the world would be a better place for both the US and the world. Because we would be putting out less pollution and as an additional BENEFIT .....so would China because we are their main BUYER for their polluting industrial OUTPUT. .......... I tried my best to answer that difficult question.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Word salad... YOU stated that everything was great when we had 200 Million people. No need for $2000 worth of pollution controls on cars.

I showed you where you were wrong about that...

And how in the hell can "tax breaks" lower pollution?

So you don't own a car at all?

Tax breaks for EVs lower TOTAL carbon emissions.

[Tvflguy]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Tax breaks for EVs lower TOTAL carbon emissions.

Can this statement be confirmed with facts. Both economic and scientific. From unbiased data?

[Dr.Butler]

Originally Posted by Tvflguy

Can this statement be confirmed with facts. Both economic and scientific. From unbiased data?

Define. Unbiased?
Data from the car manufactures? Data from scientists? Data from the government?

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

That IS a question worth answering. I am NOT an environmental engineer. So, hopefully someone else can come up with a better or more complete answer. But, I will spill out what I remember. It has to do with the OZONE layer that protects the earth from TOO MUCH solar radiation. For millions of years lightning caused fires and trees and shrubs would burn (like out west now). This TYPE of burning did NOT adversely affect the OZONE LAYER.

Now the burning of gasoline in a ICE DOES adversely affect the ozone layer. For some reason (?) maybe incomplete combustion the ICE produces carbon MONOXIDE. Whereas, the trees burning produces carbon DIOXIDE, which I believe gets RECYCLED by living trees. The carbon monoxide (CO) drifts upward to the ozone layer and messes it up.

In big cities and with inversion layers the exhaust of the ICE engine, which contains (CO) produces SMOG and makes peoples lungs and eyes ITCH. Inversion layers also trap heat in cities. Population comes into play because the US produced the MOST pollution up until a few years ago when China took over 1st place. And they have terrible SMOG. If the US controlled its population around 250 million people today, the world would be a better place for both the US and the world. Because we would be putting out less pollution and as an additional BENEFIT .....so would China because we are their main BUYER for their polluting industrial OUTPUT. .......... I tried my best to answer that difficult question.

Years ago there was a Star Trek episode about a world where they solved the problem of overpopulation by having people report for death station at a certain age. Is this where you got the idea of controlling population?

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Tax breaks for EVs lower TOTAL carbon emissions.

Originally Posted by Tvflguy

Can this statement be confirmed with facts. Both economic and scientific. From unbiased data?

Nope

[Tvflguy]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Tax breaks for EVs lower TOTAL carbon emissions.

How about tax breaks for ranchers and farmers to kill 2/3 of their cattle/cows so their flatulence does not produce the HUGE amount of methane gas that pollutes the globe. An enormous problem per scientists.

What not attack this source of pollution too? Tongue in cheek but if they could they would.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Tvflguy

How about tax breaks for ranchers and farmers to kill 2/3 of their cattle/cows so their flatulence does not produce the HUGE amount of methane gas that pollutes the globe. An enormous problem per scientists.

What not attack this source of pollution too? Tongue in cheek but if they could they would.

Well,there are veggie burgers that are high in protein and taste good. Also, I read that some scientists are GROWING meat in vats indoors. Those 2 changes could decrease the demand for cattle beef. And IF, BIG IF, the US and world population does NOT increase, then total POLLUTION should drop as fewer cattle are needed. So, that source of POLLUTION CAN be attacked.

Fish would also have less flatulence than cattle and the protein is probably higher in fish - so, more demand for fish - and utilizing fish farms could cut down on POLLUTION.

Offsetting that, from what I understand, INDIA IS increasing in POPULATION. While the Russian initiated war with the Ukraine is lowering the world's POPULATION.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Well,there are veggie burgers that are high in protein and taste good. Also, I read that some scientists are GROWING meat in vats indoors. Those 2 changes could decrease the demand for cattle beef. And IF, BIG IF, the US and world population does NOT increase, then total POLLUTION should drop as fewer cattle are needed. So, that source of POLLUTION CAN be attacked.

Fish would also have less flatulence than cattle and the protein is probably higher in fish - so, more demand for fish - and utilizing fish farms could cut down on POLLUTION.

Offsetting that, from what I understand, INDIA IS increasing in POPULATION. While the Russian initiated war with the Ukraine is lowering the world's POPULATION.

Ever see a fish farm? Terrible life for the fish one on top of others. PETA would not be amused.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Tax breaks for EVs lower TOTAL carbon emissions.

I'll ask again...

What type of car DO YOU DRIVE?

It's a simple question that you will not answer...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Tax breaks for EVs lower TOTAL carbon emissions.

Care to offer proof of that claim?