Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2379316)

Why do some folks always want others to do the research and provide all the data?

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2379295)

So, you recommend adopting the lowest standards rather than setting the highest? That's an interesting concept. 🤔

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2379224)

Many would dispute that statement, and not be wrong.

Originally Posted by CODYCAT (Post 2379515)

What kind of damage is the manufacture of lithium batteries doing ?

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2379286)

For what it's worth, China, USA, India, then all the also-rans!

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2379335)

"Much of the world" isn't doing enough, and the other "much of the world" is short sighted simply trying to survive as the whole world around is getting less habitable.
And, Mother always liked you more..

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2379279)

We could split hairs about the who has the best among relatively similar standards, but it is irrelevant. The problem is China and India.

Originally Posted by skarra (Post 2379119)

We can certainly measure the increasing ocean water temperatures which has a direct impact on the severity of the storms we've been experiencing. But something that Musk highlighted during his recent conversation with a certain ex-President was the effect the rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will have on the human race.

In addition to the need to be moving to a more sustainable energy economy meaning getting away from oil and gas (demonstrating how short sighted a drill baby drill strategy is), he pointed out that as CO2 levels continue to rise we will be subjected to physiological problems like headaches and nausea and then ultimately it even becomes uncomfortable to breathe. The levels we are talking about are 1,000 PPM which based upon on the trajectory we are on will be by the end of this century (the actual trajectory since 1960 has been a straight line upwards thanks to industry and our addiction to fossil fuels - Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory and Scripps CO2 Program).

So rather than climate change and the warming of our planet, maybe we should be thinking about the problems associated with elevated CO2 levels including our ability to breathe. Based upon that, burning more fossil fuels will only exacerbate that problem. That's at least one thing that I think Musk is getting right.

Food for thought. Makes me want to buy an EV or at least a hybrid next time I buy a car.

Originally Posted by skarra (Post 2379239)

Now you're mixing the heating problem with the gas problem I'm highlighting.

Early homo sapiens have NEVER existed with CO2 levels at the 2500 PPM level, and the end of this century is nowhere long enough for us to evolve to be able to. You have to go further back than about 16 million years ago to see where it was higher than 1,000, but then it was dinosaurs that had to deal with it and not humans. In the 30,000 years we've been around, the levels were much lower than today.

You can do your own research to find out what effect CO2 levels has on us. But Elon got it right - it is dangerous to our health and we're not even talking about it. The higher the level, the less our lungs are able to remove it from our blood and you end up with the effects Elon highlighted.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2379284)

What if? Let's give it a try and see! Or, we could sit on our thumbs and do nothing.

Originally Posted by Laraine (Post 2379732)

The charts show an increase of about 100ppm in 60 years, so assuming you're correct about the problems with CO2, your time frame is a little off to reach 1000ppm. At the rate on the charts, you're looking at 360 years, or close to the end of the 2300's, not the 2000's. Also, to those mentioning carbon monoxide poisoning, that is CO, not CO2--there's quite a difference.

Originally Posted by skarra (Post 2379119)

We can certainly measure the increasing ocean water temperatures which has a direct impact on the severity of the storms we've been experiencing. But something that Musk highlighted during his recent conversation with a certain ex-President was the effect the rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will have on the human race.

In addition to the need to be moving to a more sustainable energy economy meaning getting away from oil and gas (demonstrating how short sighted a drill baby drill strategy is), he pointed out that as CO2 levels continue to rise we will be subjected to physiological problems like headaches and nausea and then ultimately it even becomes uncomfortable to breathe. The levels we are talking about are 1,000 PPM which based upon on the trajectory we are on will be by the end of this century (the actual trajectory since 1960 has been a straight line upwards thanks to industry and our addiction to fossil fuels - Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory and Scripps CO2 Program).

So rather than climate change and the warming of our planet, maybe we should be thinking about the problems associated with elevated CO2 levels including our ability to breathe. Based upon that, burning more fossil fuels will only exacerbate that problem. That's at least one thing that I think Musk is getting right.

Food for thought. Makes me want to buy an EV or at least a hybrid next time I buy a car.

Originally Posted by MorTech (Post 2379129)

Carbon dioxide does not cause warming because it cannot hold heat - cuz its a heavy gas that stinks to ground level. Humidity holds heat so that would make atmospheric water a huge problem :) People working in greenhouses that burn propane to increase CO2 levels far beyond 1000 ppm are not suffocating...Are they? Early Homo species were surviving quite nicely with CO2 levels above 2500 ppm. Early mammals and dinosaurs at 8000 ppm.

If the planet ever warms to its optimal 69F temperature (It is at 60F today), then atmospheric CO2 will be about 1200 ppm. It is really too bad man can't cause global warming...It would be ideal.

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy (Post 2379173)

the real and present danger is the collapse in biodiversity
example: kill enough bees and pollination falls far enough where it affects fruit and vegetable production.

but no need to worry, it won't completely collapse because increased CO2 helps plants and vegetation grow faster.

Originally Posted by skarra (Post 2379227)

I think you completely missed the point. It's not sulphur, mercury, and all those other nasties that could severely impact our health - it's also what you can't see. Think of Carbon Monoxide in your home - invisible and yet kills. We may think everything is "clean", but as CO2 levels rise you will find it harder to breathe and as Elon points out we will all start to suffer. Sort of like a frog in a pot of water slowly being brought to the boil.

My intent is to point out that besides climate change, elimination of biodiversity, and all the other problems a reliance on fossil fuels creates - CO2 is a very simple one to understand. It's easy to measure, and the charts make it very plain as to what is going on.

Maybe it's a case of the Millenials and Gen Z's will have to deal with this because we will all be dead when it starts to rear it's ugly head. But whatever the case, we (the not so "wise" old ones) are not leaving the world in a great place for our grand children.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2379648)

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2379304)

I was. You think the air is cleaner now? Thank the "tree huggers" of that era for they brought polution to our attention, forcing regulations to make big poluters clean up their act.

Originally Posted by rsmurano (Post 2379486)

drill baby drill. EVs are decades away from being practical. When I have as many chargers as gas stations, when I can charge an EV in the same time as it takes me to fill up a tank of gas, when I don’t have to wait hours being 3rd or 4th in line for a charge, when EVs aren’t so ugly, and when comparable cars cost about the same, then maybe I’ll look at them.

Originally Posted by SHIBUMI (Post 2379752)

If we could only control the cow flatulence all of these issues would be resolved. Simply would take a flatulence bag diaper on cows to get this done. It would reduce the bad air expulsion by 75%. This is doable. Not so sure it wouldn't do the same for this post. :BigApplause:

Originally Posted by cafesalsa1@yahoo.com (Post 2379528)

We all want to improve the environment. All engineering disciplines are working to improve the environment. Sometimes mistakes are made (examples, forever chemicals and micro plastics). The human condition is to move forward and eliminate the mistakes that we learn from. The solutions we have come up with so far continue to be imperfect
Lots of work opportunities. Be optimistic!!

Originally Posted by opinionist (Post 2379547)

CO2 is essential to the life cycle on Earth. Without CO2, plant life would die, and animals would soon follow. In a closed environment of a space vehicle or submarine, CO2 produced by humans must be removed, and oxygen consumed by humans must be replaced. The Earth's plant life performs this function without human intervention. If you want to fight against higher CO2 levels, plant a tree.

Originally Posted by Markus (Post 2379599)

EVs consume some type of energy which has an effect on the environment. To think EVs will solve anything is really untrue. The ONLY way to help the environment is to consume less of everything. To become minimalists.

IF we wanted EVs to really help the environment we would have small vehicles and micro cars, not large SUVs and HUMMERS. We would not promote how fast they are 0 to 60. We'd have to relook at all of these mandated items that add weight to all cars. But that is not where we are.

Originally Posted by skarra (Post 2379119)

We can certainly measure the increasing ocean water temperatures which has a direct impact on the severity of the storms we've been experiencing. But something that Musk highlighted during his recent conversation with a certain ex-President was the effect the rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will have on the human race.

In addition to the need to be moving to a more sustainable energy economy meaning getting away from oil and gas (demonstrating how short sighted a drill baby drill strategy is), he pointed out that as CO2 levels continue to rise we will be subjected to physiological problems like headaches and nausea and then ultimately it even becomes uncomfortable to breathe. The levels we are talking about are 1,000 PPM which based upon on the trajectory we are on will be by the end of this century (the actual trajectory since 1960 has been a straight line upwards thanks to industry and our addiction to fossil fuels - Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory and Scripps CO2 Program).

So rather than climate change and the warming of our planet, maybe we should be thinking about the problems associated with elevated CO2 levels including our ability to breathe. Based upon that, burning more fossil fuels will only exacerbate that problem. That's at least one thing that I think Musk is getting right.

Food for thought. Makes me want to buy an EV or at least a hybrid next time I buy a car.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2379652)

Originally Posted by HORNET (Post 2379584)

Remember, THEY scared us with Acid Rain !!!

Originally Posted by JRcorvette (Post 2379618)

Our Climate has been changing sine the beginning of mankind. We are not causing it and we certainly can Not control it. Now send me your Money 💰

Originally Posted by CybrSage (Post 2379628)

It is always the responsibility of the claimant to support their own claim when asked.

It is never other people's responsibility to do it for the claimant.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2379635)

Where have you been for last 40 years? EPA has highest standards, why do you think companies leave USA. Greed, profit, and NO EPA standards to deal with.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2379784)

The US made improvements in air quality. But since 1950 world population exploded (look at a graph) and cause more automobiles and factories to spew out more CO2 and methane which has caused world temperatures (especially in polar regions) to go up rapidly in the last 5 years. Also, rapid sea level rise, which can only be explained by Global Warming. Look at a graph of world temperatures for the last 30 years to see the rapid rise.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2379791)

But, can you plant trees faster than the world human population is growing ???????????

Originally Posted by OhioBuckeye (Post 2379824)

I heard one Dem. say it would take 93 trillion to fix global warming, how well they pay Mother Nature? Some people think 1 trillion is candy sucker money. Well 1 million is 999 (thousand) 9 hundred, &999 dollars + $01 to make 1 million. You would have to do this again to make 1 billion, Then you would need 999 (billion)999 (million) 999 (thousand) dollars plus $.01 to make 1 trillion dollars & you would have to do this 93 times. One trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. 93 times, & that means taxes would cost every person in America $23,000. a yr. for every person alive today to pay for it until we all die!

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 2379833)

You have now posted this link as a reply four times. It has nothing to do with what the post was about. There were comments about what nations produce the most CO2 pollution which an entirely different question than air pollution in a city which does not even take CO2 into account. Air pollution at the level of a city is about dirty stuff in the air.

There were also comments about which nation has the highest requirements for pollution control. Again a totally different issue than what the air is like in a particular city.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2379998)

I’ll post it 100 times it I want.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2379846)

Right here, most of the time. And I agree with you! So what does that tell you about corporate big wigs. They care nothing about you or anyone. They care nothing about doing the right or ethical (or "Christian") thing. Nothing stands in the way of money and power. And what do we get? A recycled old slogan, misinformation, lost jobs and a dirtier planet.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2380041)

I agree for the most part. Except GOOD Government can "stand in the way of money and power". There are laws against monopolistic behavior, for example. There are laws about clean air in the US used by the EPA. The question is - Do we always have Good Government decisions. in the US it is most of the time, but NOT always. Another example of the importance of voting. We also need a well functioning public education system so that the most number of citizens are able to understand the modern complex problems. Money spent on having a well educated America is money well spent.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2380041)

I agree for the most part. Except GOOD Government can "stand in the way of money and power". There are laws against monopolistic behavior, for example. There are laws about clean air in the US used by the EPA. The question is - Do we always have Good Government decisions. in the US it is most of the time, but NOT always. Another example of the importance of voting. We also need a well functioning public education system so that the most number of citizens are able to understand the modern complex problems. Money spent on having a well educated America is money well spent.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2379840)

Bullspit! Believe it, or don't. If you don't, then you figure it out. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2380041)

Except GOOD Government can "stand in the way of money and power".