[blueash]

Originally Posted by biker1

..The US has bent the curve down while India and China are increasing their rate of emission.

It really is not fair to look at CO2 per nation as some nations have a whole lot more people than the USA. A fair comparison would be how much CO2 does each person in that nation produce, or tonnes per capita production:

China 6.18
India 1.64
USA 17.5

So each American produced triple that of one in China and 10x that in India. In fact we have the worst, highest, CO2 per person of any developed country

So whatever all those other countries are doing is making each nation more CO2 responsible than each of us.

China is still burning too much coal but has stopped issuing any new permits. It also has invested heavily in clean energy.. you know all those solar panels they make. Additionally a lot of Chinese manufacturing which produces CO2 is making stuff for us.

Which gets back to the assertion that because we "only" make 15% of the pollution what we do is unimportant. Every step in the right direction helps. Just like more fuel efficient cars, water efficient showers, LED lights instead of incandescent (remember all the screaming by some about how we needed to keep our old light bulbs), every act of kindness or charity. Every step helps so why would anyone fight it? But people do.

[Hoosierb4]

This is an interesting discussion on an important topic. I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but have done some work relating to global warming in a former life, not as an academic or bureaucrat, but working in a technical capacity for private industry. I believe that what the scientists have predicted and measured is real...emissions from human activity have contributed to the warming that has been documented. There is no doubt that other naturally occurring factors also play a role. But, what we do does matter. Whether I drive an EV or not won’t move the needle. But, as a society we need to move in new directions. With today’s electric generation facilities still using a lot of coal and oil, there may be little or no benefit to driving an EV. But, when most of the generating capacity comes from solar, wind and nuclear and most vehicles are electrically powered, then significant reductions will occur.

I think that the largest impact on emissions must come from moving toward these “clean” sources of energy at the power plants because otherwise there will still be a lot of emissions due to the energy used to heat and cool our homes, power computers, and do a thousand other things. Fortunately, some of the new technology is already cost competitive with fossil fuel technology, so it is starting to happen. I hope that we can make it happen fast enough so that our great grandchildren will be able to live in a decent environment.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by blueash

It really is not fair to look at CO2 per nation as some nations have a whole lot more people than the USA. A fair comparison would be how much CO2 does each person in that nation produce, or tonnes per capita production:

China 6.18
India 1.64
USA 17.5

So each American produced triple that of one in China and 10x that in India. In fact we have the worst, highest, CO2 per person of any developed country

So whatever all those other countries are doing is making each nation more CO2 responsible than each of us.

China is still burning too much coal but has stopped issuing any new permits. It also has invested heavily in clean energy.. you know all those solar panels they make. Additionally a lot of Chinese manufacturing which produces CO2 is making stuff for us.

Which gets back to the assertion that because we "only" make 15% of the pollution what we do is unimportant. Every step in the right direction helps. Just like more fuel efficient cars, water efficient showers, LED lights instead of incandescent (remember all the screaming by some about how we needed to keep our old light bulbs), every act of kindness or charity. Every step helps so why would anyone fight it? But people do.

I hate hate hate LED lights. My god how I loathe them with every fiber of my being. The light is far too direct and pointed, blinding even if it's aimed downward. They switched from fluorescent to LED back home on the light poles and the light shone in a VERY narrow column straight down. So you'd be driving at the 40mph speed limit and think you were riding through strobe lights. Light dark light dark light dark light dark - very abrupt, very distinctive.

With the older lights, the light was more diffused, the beam was broader and the edges more subtle from one light pole to the next. It was more - light, less light, light, less light.

My flashlight is a bunch of LED bulbs too and I hate it. I want a more subtle wide-angle light, not a sharp brilliant blinding beam.

Fluorescent lights are okay but the color is weird, and they flicker when they get old and take awhile to illuminate when the temperature is cold (such as in a garage in the winter).

Incandescent lights were perfect. I miss them.

[biker1]

Electric power generation from coal is down to about 20% for the US and oil use is very small.

Originally Posted by Hoosierb4

This is an interesting discussion on an important topic. I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but have done some work relating to global warming in a former life, not as an academic or bureaucrat, but working in a technical capacity for private industry. I believe that what the scientists have predicted and measured is real...emissions from human activity have contributed to the warming that has been documented. There is no doubt that other naturally occurring factors also play a role. But, what we do does matter. Whether I drive an EV or not won’t move the needle. But, as a society we need to move in new directions. With today’s electric generation facilities still using a lot of coal and oil, there may be little or no benefit to driving an EV. But, when most of the generating capacity comes from solar, wind and nuclear and most vehicles are electrically powered, then significant reductions will occur.

I think that the largest impact on emissions must come from moving toward these “clean” sources of energy at the power plants because otherwise there will still be a lot of emissions due to the energy used to heat and cool our homes, power computers, and do a thousand other things. Fortunately, some of the new technology is already cost competitive with fossil fuel technology, so it is starting to happen. I hope that we can make it happen fast enough so that our great grandchildren will be able to live in a decent environment.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Hoosierb4

This is an interesting discussion on an important topic. I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but have done some work relating to global warming in a former life, not as an academic or bureaucrat, but working in a technical capacity for private industry. I believe that what the scientists have predicted and measured is real...emissions from human activity have contributed to the warming that has been documented. There is no doubt that other naturally occurring factors also play a role. But, what we do does matter. Whether I drive an EV or not won’t move the needle. But, as a society we need to move in new directions. With today’s electric generation facilities still using a lot of coal and oil, there may be little or no benefit to driving an EV. But, when most of the generating capacity comes from solar, wind and nuclear and most vehicles are electrically powered, then significant reductions will occur.

I think that the largest impact on emissions must come from moving toward these “clean” sources of energy at the power plants because otherwise there will still be a lot of emissions due to the energy used to heat and cool our homes, power computers, and do a thousand other things. Fortunately, some of the new technology is already cost competitive with fossil fuel technology, so it is starting to happen. I hope that we can make it happen fast enough so that our great grandchildren will be able to live in a decent environment.

Great post. To which, I would like to add one detail. Concrete plants give off a lot of pollution. And since the US is the greatest producer of the problem gases like CO2 and methane PER person. The logical thing is for the US to try to keep its population as low as possible. This would be considered by the average American to be un-American. In America back from the time of the westward expansion, it was considered WONDERFUL for the US population to keep GROWING. To speak otherwise was / is considered BLASPHEMY. What I am saying is - new times need NEW solutions and philosophy.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Great post. To which, I would like to add one detail. Concrete plants give off a lot of pollution. And since the US is the greatest producer of the problem gases like CO2 and methane PER person. The logical thing is for the US to try to keep its population as low as possible. This would be considered by the average American to be un-American. In America back from the time of the westward expansion, it was considered WONDERFUL for the US population to keep GROWING. To speak otherwise was / is considered BLASPHEMY. What I am saying is - new times need NEW solutions and philosophy.

My hero! Whether you like it or not. 😃😉

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by blueash

It really is not fair to look at CO2 per nation as some nations have a whole lot more people than the USA. A fair comparison would be how much CO2 does each person in that nation produce, or tonnes per capita production:

China 6.18
India 1.64
USA 17.5

So each American produced triple that of one in China and 10x that in India. In fact we have the worst, highest, CO2 per person of any developed country

So whatever all those other countries are doing is making each nation more CO2 responsible than each of us.

China is still burning too much coal but has stopped issuing any new permits. It also has invested heavily in clean energy.. you know all those solar panels they make. Additionally a lot of Chinese manufacturing which produces CO2 is making stuff for us.

Which gets back to the assertion that because we "only" make 15% of the pollution what we do is unimportant. Every step in the right direction helps. Just like more fuel efficient cars, water efficient showers, LED lights instead of incandescent (remember all the screaming by some about how we needed to keep our old light bulbs), every act of kindness or charity. Every step helps so why would anyone fight it? But people do.

A brilliant post and I LEARNED a lot. I believe that it is an example of the value of a talk network like TOTV. I used the expression "baby steps" when I write about the value of doing something about the excess CO2 and Methane being produced in the US and worldwide. Since America is still the #1 thought leader in the world, what we do is a serious example to the world. We need to have the "high ground" in the 1st recognition of the problem of excess CO2 and methane production, which is allowing HEAT to be REFLECTED back to Earth. The polar regions with 4 times the heat are just one example that is easy for people to research and understand. The coral reef loss and other problems with ocean fish and mammals is another Global warming problem that is EASY to read about and understand. When PEOPLE cause problems with nature, then nature fights back. Hence stronger Hurricanes, which next summer likely will be stronger. The Villages have a lot of smart people residing here, but as an older population, they are intrinsically resistant to change, which becomes like a "dirty" word.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

A brilliant post and I LEARNED a lot. I believe that it is an example of the value of a talk network like TOTV. I used the expression "baby steps" when I write about the value of doing something about the excess CO2 and Methane being produced in the US and worldwide. Since America is still the #1 thought leader in the world, what we do is a serious example to the world. We need to have the "high ground" in the 1st recognition of the problem of excess CO2 and methane production, which is allowing HEAT to be REFLECTED back to Earth. The polar regions with 4 times the heat are just one example that is easy for people to research and understand. The coral reef loss and other problems with ocean fish and mammals is another Global warming problem that is EASY to read about and understand. When PEOPLE cause problems with nature, then nature fights back. Hence stronger Hurricanes, which next summer likely will be stronger. The Villages have a lot of smart people residing here, but as an older population, they are intrinsically resistant to change, which becomes like a "dirty" word.

Nicely put .

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I hate hate hate LED lights. My god how I loathe them with every fiber of my being. The light is far too direct and pointed, blinding even if it's aimed downward. They switched from fluorescent to LED back home on the light poles and the light shone in a VERY narrow column straight down. So you'd be driving at the 40mph speed limit and think you were riding through strobe lights. Light dark light dark light dark light dark - very abrupt, very distinctive.

With the older lights, the light was more diffused, the beam was broader and the edges more subtle from one light pole to the next. It was more - light, less light, light, less light.

My flashlight is a bunch of LED bulbs too and I hate it. I want a more subtle wide-angle light, not a sharp brilliant blinding beam.

Fluorescent lights are okay but the color is weird, and they flicker when they get old and take awhile to illuminate when the temperature is cold (such as in a garage in the winter).

Incandescent lights were perfect. I miss them.

I am confused because LED lights were only about 1/4 of a percent of the excellent article where CO2 per person in the US was the dominant idea. However, I found the idea about the negatives of LEDs to be a legitimate concern. Personally, I like LEDs because they last longer and I have a kitchen fixture that is hard to access. I also like the white light LEDs better than the yellowish ones. I never had a problem with the white light LEDs. It would be interesting if we could make a survey of The Village to find out what % of Villagers dislike LEDs. Please be assured that I find that post to be all positive.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I am confused because LED lights were only about 1/4 of a percent of the excellent article where CO2 per person in the US was the dominant idea. However, I found the idea about the negatives of LEDs to be a legitimate concern. Personally, I like LEDs because they last longer and I have a kitchen fixture that is hard to access. I also like the white light LEDs better than the yellowish ones. I never had a problem with the white light LEDs. It would be interesting if we could make a survey of The Village to find out what % of Villagers dislike LEDs. Please be assured that I find that post to be all positive.

I like the brightness of LED's when I use them. Not so much when there aimed at me coming down the road. 🙂

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I like the brightness of LED's when I use them. Not so much when there aimed at me coming down the road. 🙂

LED headlight are difficult to deal with. I try to look at the white center line or the side of the road while the oncoming car passes. I think that there is some official government attempts at dealing with LED headlights, but I am not aware of the details.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by hypart

Sure, there is. Humans can get their energy from Nuclear and renewable sources rather than fossil fuels. Also, planting more trees will help. It's not hard or complicated.

The problem is the oil and coal industries are fighting like hell to keep it from happening by spreading misinformation. And so much of that misinformation is spread in posts like these.

You DO know that "nuclear" energy causes a great deal of heat, right? Just saying.
If one believes that man is causing climate change, ie. global warming, then the ONLY solution is to get rid of all mankind. Since it won't matter anymore, once mankind is gone, then the whole issue is a moot point.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

my hero! Whether you like it or not. 😃😉

not!!!!!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

LED headlight are difficult to deal with. I try to look at the white center line or the side of the road while the oncoming car passes. I think that there is some official government attempts at dealing with LED headlights, but I am not aware of the details.

Not fond of having LED headlights either. They aren't broad-beam. They're just bright narrow cones. Incandescent illumination is expansive. LED illumination is restrictive.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

We need to have the "high ground" in the 1st recognition of the problem of excess CO2 and methane production, which is allowing HEAT to be REFLECTED back to Earth.

Why even focus on CO2? One large volcanoe eruption and all that of that CO2 problem is wiped out. I would agree that volcanoes do produce CO2 but, eruptions often produce volcanic ash and aerosol particles that reflect solar heat away from the earth for years to come.

Baby steps are wiped out boom, like that. Don’t get me wrong, we can do a better job keeping our place clean, but we won’t stop warming or cooling much. Let’s just make this place a better place to live instead.

Heck, I would be good with people just picking up their trash.