Robertscribbler
and his ilk are pretending that Tesla cars are going to save the
world. All nonsense, of course.
The
world is going to hell in a handbasket – WITHOUT TRUMP
Teslas
may produce as much CO2 as gasoline powered cars
28
June, 2018
Touted
by some as the planet’s greenest vehicles, electric Teslas may be
as bad for the environment as traditional petrol and diesel cars, the
latest research reveals.
According
to researchers at the UK-based climate data provider Engaged
Tracking, the production of Tesla cars, as well as fossil
fuel-powered plants used for generating electricity to charge the
vehicles produce nearly the same amount of emissions that
conventional engines do.
Engaged
Tracking analysts used a different approach to studies that usually
produce favorable results for electric vehicles. They explored the
total emissions generated during the construction process of a Tesla
Model S instead of counting how much CO2 is produced by the vehicle
during its lifecycle. The astonishing results show that a Tesla is
not cleaner to run than any other petrol car in Britain.
“The
annual emissions of a UK car is 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide, based on
an average of 7,800 miles a year,” the
research firm’s chief analyst Jonathan Harris told The Sunday
Times. “Both
the Tesla Model S vehicles we analyzed have the same emissions as an
ordinary petrol car of 1.5 tons of CO2 per year.”
The
researcher also compared Tesla Model S to the BMW i3, which is
smaller and produces an annual emission equivalent of 1.3 tons of
CO2, making it 15 per cent more efficient than the Tesla Model S.
According
to Tesla, the comparison between the Model S and an average car was
not fair, because the Tesla was much larger. The company said that
the BMW i3 should be compared to its smaller car - the Model 3, while
Model S should compete with such a vehicle as the Mercedes S-Class
S500. Tesla claims Mercedes produces nearly 300 percent more
emissions than its Model S.
“It
makes no sense to compare Model S to the average annual emissions
figure for cars in the UK, because that average includes a lot of
smaller models that are dissimilar to Model S,” the
company said as quoted by the media. “'Any
fair analysis shows that electric vehicles like Model S and Model 3
generate far less CO2 per mile than any comparable gas-powered car.”
What
do you get when you take a wildfire-prone cauldron of violence,
political antipathy, racial, class and gender hostility and add
flamethrowers to the mix?
You
get Elon Musk’s marketing gimmick/financing plan to save Los
Angeles.
Musk,
you see, wants to build a series of tunnels underneath Los Angeles in
an effort to alleviate the city’s admittedly horrendous traffic
woes. To raise funds and awareness for this plan, Musk has decided to
make and sell futuristic-looking flamethrowers.
Doing well, "saving the world" aren't we? Lol
THIRTY
YEARS LATER...WHAT HAS CHANGED?
THIRTY
YEARS AGO, while the Midwest withered in massive drought and East
Coast temperatures exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit, I testified to
the Senate as a senior NASA scientist about climate change. I said
that ongoing global warming was outside the range of natural
variability and it could be attributed, with high confidence, to
human activity — mainly from the spewing of carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. “It’s time to stop
waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the
greenhouse effect is here,” I said.
This
clear and strong message about the dangers of carbon emissions was
heard. The next day, it led the front pages of newspapers across the
country. Climate theory led to political action with remarkable
speed. Within four years, almost all nations, including the United
States, signed a Framework Convention in Rio de Janeiro, agreeing
that the world must avoid dangerous human-made interference with
climate.
Sadly,
the principal follow-ups to Rio were the precatory Kyoto Protocol and
Paris Agreement — wishful thinking, hoping that countries will make
plans to reduce emissions and carry them out. In reality, most
countries follow their self-interest, and global carbon emissions
continue to climb (see graph above).
It’s
not rocket science. As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be
burned and emissions will be high. Fossil fuel use will decline only
if the price is made to include costs of pollution and climate change
to society. The simplest and most effective way to do this is by
collecting a rising carbon fee from fossil fuel companies at domestic
mines and ports of entry.
Economists
agree: If 100 percent of this fee is distributed uniformly to the
public, the economy will be spurred, GNP will rise, and millions of
jobs will be created. Our energy infrastructure will be steadily
modernized with clean energies and energy efficiency.
The
clinching argument for a carbon fee, as opposed to ineffectual
cap-and-trade schemes dreamed up by politicians, is that the fee can
be imposed almost globally via border duties on products from
countries that do not have a fee, based on standard fossil fuel
content of the products. This will be a strong incentive for most
countries to have their own fee.
Any
cap approach, by contrast, leaves the impossible task of negotiating
190 caps on all the world’s nations. Governments of some countries
may keep a carbon fee as a tax. However, in democracies uniform 100
percent distribution of the funds will be needed to achieve public
support.
A
carbon fee is crucial, but not enough. Countries such as India and
China need massive amounts of energy to raise living standards. The
notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all
needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of
the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material
disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.
Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent
renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate
change grows.
The
United States and Europe burned most of the global carbon budget that
we are permitted to burn if climate is to be stabilized. As such, we
have a moral obligation to the developing world, and a practical
problem, because we all live on the same planet.
Young
people are puzzled that, 25 years ago, President Clinton terminated
R&D on next-generation safe nuclear power, the principal
alternative to fossil fuel electricity. It is not too late. My advice
to young people is to cast off the old politics and fight for their
future on technological, political, and legal fronts.
It
will not be easy. Washington is a swamp of special interests and,
because of the power of the fossil fuel industry, our political
parties are little concerned about the mess they are leaving for
young people.
Young
people have great potential political power, as they showed in their
support of Barack Obama in 2008 and Bernie Sanders in 2016. However,
it is not enough to elect a leader who spouts good words. It is
necessary to understand needed policies and fight for them.
The
best way to fight for the carbon fee and dividend is to join
Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which now has more than 90,000 members but
needs more, especially young people. CCL members are appropriately
polite and respectful as they cajole politicians in Washington. If
they were joined by the fire of young people that was demonstrated in
2008 and 2016, even the mighty fossil fuel industry would take
notice.
The
fossil fuel industry afraid of kids? They might be when they notice
who is standing behind the kids: the United States Constitution. Kids
are people with constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.
Many
lawsuits are being filed, in the United States and around the world,
on behalf of young people. They include stopgap efforts, such as a
suit to block the Trump administration from opening the Powder River
Basin in Montana to coal exploitation (with potential to exceed US
emissions of the past 50 years), and the Our Children’s Trust
lawsuit, demanding government policies to reduce fossil fuel
emissions at a rate that the science indicates is needed to support a
healthy climate.
Chances
of winning lawsuits grow as incontrovertible evidence of climate
change grows. The judiciary is less subject to bribery from the
fossil fuel industry than are the other branches of government. Yet
in this case, justice delayed may be justice denied. Young people
cannot afford the “all deliberate speed” that followed the Brown
v. Board of Education decision regarding civil rights in 1954.
Young
people and old people must understand the implications of the
accompanying graph. The fight to phase down fossil fuel emissions is
not yet being won. We all must understand needed energy policies and
fight for the future of our young people. We must use all the levers
of our democracy to force the fossil fuel industry to become a clean
energy industry.
James
Hansen, retired director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, directs the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions program
in the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Posts
