Climate change

Jaynelson · Jun 9, 2017

The USA isn't leading the enviro-game by any stretch, and isn't going to go broke doing anything related to that, so I don't think that's a real concern.

If anything, you'll create more/new jobs with emerging tech - there IS a demand for enviro-friendly or more efficient solutions (to anything), and that market is just going to grow. Google Tesla stock price vs. Ford stock price if you want to blow your mind -- investors like new innovative sh!t, even if it's mostly speculation. (Not saying Tesla is necessarily super-eco-friendly, just an interesting example).

Ford as a company slaaays Tesla for actual profit - but people are excited and optimistic for new tech and fresh ideas. So IMO, the money thing is just a scapegoat - or the equivalent of being afraid of the dark. The same amount of $$ will be flying around the country either way, just depends what people spend it on.

Idcatman3 · Jun 9, 2017

Bacon said:
The USA can go broke cleaning everything up we can. Guess what. The rest of the world doesn't give a rats ***. China will still pollute and have too many people to feed. Everyone wants clean air and no pollution. Till you get the rest of the world to follow suit you are spinning your wheels. I don't think anyone wants a polluted environment but spending $2 to save $1 is not the answer. And your all a bunch of hippies. :eyebrows:

China is reducing their emissions. The rest of the world signed on to the Paris agreement, agreeing to reduce their emissions. That's what this whole argument is about.

Pro-8250 · Jun 9, 2017

Mafesto said:
Let's assume for a moment that mankind is affecting climate change.
What actions are having the most significant impact?
Fossil fuels?
Deforestation?
Jet travel?
Urban sprawl?
Polluting the seas?

Deforestation, is the correct answer in your list.

Mafesto · Jun 10, 2017

Pro-8250 said:
Deforestation, is the correct answer in your list.

Thank you.
I'm not against cleaning up existing technology, if done gradually and efficiently.
But the most bang for the buck (ressults for the efforts) step is re-forestization.

It's totally insane that our agricultural equipment has the added costs and maintenance headaches of catalysts and def etc.

05900 · Jun 10, 2017

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

Bacon · Jun 11, 2017

Pro-8250 said:
Deforestation, is the correct answer in your list.

Do you know why the forest is being cut down?

freekweet mods · Jun 11, 2017

Millions of acres burned each year to create wealth for the fire fighting industry.

Pro-8250 · Jun 11, 2017

Bacon said:
Do you know why the forest is being cut down?

Yes I do. Demand for natural resources by too many humans on this planet.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/harvesting-palm-oil-and-rainforests/

Pro-8250 · Jun 11, 2017

This whole climate change is a Chinese hoax that have no alliterative facts to back it up! It's all a bunch of Confefe!

Mafesto · Jun 11, 2017

Pro-8250 said:
This whole climate change is a Chinese hoax that have no alliterative facts to back it up! It's all a bunch of Confefe!

And I keep coming back to the belief that it is cyclical.
However, I am open to the possibility that man's activities contribute as well.

Red Mtn · Jun 12, 2017

Idcatman3 said:
China is reducing their emissions. The rest of the world signed on to the Paris agreement, agreeing to reduce their emissions. That's what this whole argument is about.

Yeah, China wouldn't lie about that.... They lie about just about everything else but certainly they just vowed to change all of that.

Seriously?

black z · Jun 12, 2017

Idcatman3 said:
Try doing a little reading on the subject. I posted quite a few good links that talk about how this stuff is measured.

I've read plenty about it, I've also done plenty of research for the state of MN and the EPA to understand how data can be collected and interpreted. I'm also published in SAE technical papers on ethanol research. You can post all the links you want, you won't convince me.

Bacon · Jun 12, 2017

black z said:
I've read plenty about it, I've also done plenty of research for the state of MN and the EPA to understand how data can be collected and interpreted. I'm also published in SAE technical papers on ethanol research. You can post all the links you want, you won't convince me.

And for some reason, those links are all to left leaning websites.

BLITZKRIEG · Jun 12, 2017

Some BS affecting sledders to the north. Thank god we got trump!
http://www.revelstokereview.com/new...or-carbon-levy-on-snowmobilers-in-revelstoke/

Mafesto · Jun 12, 2017

BLITZKRIEG said:
Thank god we got trump!

Trust me, I have and will continue to do so.

Bacon · Jun 12, 2017

BLITZKRIEG said:
Some BS affecting sledders to the north. Thank god we got trump!
http://www.revelstokereview.com/new...or-carbon-levy-on-snowmobilers-in-revelstoke/

Judging by the comments below the article, there are still some people with common sense.

LoudHandle · Jun 12, 2017

The article was not penned by sledders. Quite the contrary!

BLITZKRIEG said:
Some BS affecting sledders to the north. Thank god we got trump!
http://www.revelstokereview.com/new...or-carbon-levy-on-snowmobilers-in-revelstoke/

Some really bad math in that article, and even worse Chemistry! EVEN IF gasoline was 100 percent carbon atoms it still would take more than 30 gallons per day to even come close to the amount they are claiming.

Since even the most complex gasoline molecule has only 14 carbon atoms and 25 other atoms (23 Hydrogen and 2 nitrogen atoms)(wikipedia). About 36 percent carbon.

So doing some simple math the carbon footprint of gasoline is roughly 1/3 of its content. That would mean we sledders are burning thru 90 plus gallons a day while in Revelstoke (Even in my youth it was a real push to cook thru three tankfuls in 24 hours, even when trail racing).

So I completely agree with your calling Bull sh!t on that article!

If they had said we are producing said weight of CO2, I'd be less aggravated by it. But the fact is; the bulk of the weight of a CO2 atom is from the two Oxygen atoms not the Carbon atom and similarly with the CO atom. Carbon atom weight is 12, Oxygen atom weight is 16. You're welcome to do the math.

Bahumbug!

Jaynelson · Jun 13, 2017

BLITZKRIEG said:
Some BS affecting sledders to the north. Thank god we got trump!
http://www.revelstokereview.com/new...or-carbon-levy-on-snowmobilers-in-revelstoke/

That's retarded and just blatantly wrong on many levels...and not going to get off the ground anyways. But that all aside...we already pay carbon tax on all fuel sold in BC. So if sledders are burning more than another group, they are already paying for it/being penalized regardless. Perfect example of why I can't stand the "extremes" of either side (of anything lol).

Mafesto · Jun 14, 2017

I have a question for those of you anti-coal guys, and this is not an attempt to be a smartazz, it's an honest question.
What's your opinion of the Sierra Club?

Pro-8250 · Jun 14, 2017

Mafesto said:
I have a question for those of you anti-coal guys, and this is not an attempt to be a smartazz, it's an honest question.
What's your opinion of the Sierra Club?

I am not anti coal but I have the same opinion of the Sierra Club as I do of PETA. :face-icon-small-dis

Climate change

Well-known member

MODERATOR: Premium Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Embrace the BRAAAAAAP!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads