Green Cars? Now Green Eggs on Face!

4,546 views • 50 upvotes • Made by Memedave 4 years ago in politics
60 Comments
Taleladar
13 ups, 4y, 2 replies
Yup. It's almost like the law of conservation of mass. Efficiency, simplicity, and freedom in a free market are much better emission reducers than new technology crap forced on us, likely just to subsidize a friend's "green" company.
Memedave
7 ups, 4y
deadboxprime
6 ups, 4y
Exactly. I am not "a climate change denier." What I deny is all the things we we're told we must do about it, because most of them are ways to enrich others.
[deleted]
12 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Memedave
9 ups, 4y
7.ups
11 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Memedave
10 ups, 4y
sharps45
10 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Memedave
7 ups, 4y
Dr.Strangmeme
6 ups, 4y
deadboxprime
5 ups, 4y, 2 replies
A lot of what we are told about climate change is just so someone else can make money. 



That said, there is reason to question the logic here. Every green initiative involves an investment of CO2. For example, nuclear and hydrothermal require massive amounts of concrete, which produces CO2 as it cures. However, once built, theese options produce electricity without further carbon investment.



Petrol/diesel vehicles also have a carbon investment in their production, and but continue to produce CO2 throughout their service lives. Even with electric batteries producing CO2, the electric vehicles will have a net lower CO2 output over the course of their service lives.
Taleladar
1 up, 4y, 1 reply
But how long do the batteries last? All batteries die eventually, and I'd be hard pressed to find an auto battery that lasts more than 5 years...
deadboxprime
0 ups, 4y
Good point! It seems to depend upon the manufacturer. EV's are warrantied to 8 years, 100K miles, minimum. Tesla and Hyundai warranty much further. But it is definitely part of the equation.
7.ups
0 ups, 4y, 2 replies
Electric vehicles can generate more carbon emissions over their lifecycle – from procurement of raw materials to manufacturing, use and recycling – than petrol or diesel cars.
deadboxprime
1 up, 4y
This whole argument aside, I think people focus on vehicle emissions because they either do not know that electricity generation is the larger contributor of CO2, or don't know what to do about it. Reduction of vehicle emissions has been ongoing for 50 years. Your car is not the problem, your demand for electricity is. So, yeah, let's make electric vehicles so we can have a new measure of how stupid people can be.
synthetic-Mantis
0 ups, 4y, 1 reply
they're better at reducing emissions per person than a diesel car.
7.ups
0 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Set your source. Here’s mine

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/battery-batteries-electric-cars-carbon-sustainable-power-energy/
7.ups
0 ups, 4y
*site
ThparkyM
4 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Power has to come from somewhere...
Memedave
6 ups, 4y
WayneUrso
4 ups, 4y
 And the USA is a net importer of electricity. We do not make enough electricity to satisfy our needs without buying it from Canada. 



What's more, there is not a source of electricity that will not offend large portions of the population. So discussions about splitting atoms, rivers dammed up for hydropower, burning coal or natural gas, wind farms, etc., always end up in arguments and protests, and it becomes very difficult for new sources of electricity to be built.
NonDescript
3 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Memedave
3 ups, 4y, 1 reply
7.ups
1 up, 4y, 1 reply
Memedave
1 up, 4y
nopa
3 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Memedave
2 ups, 4y
PorQpine2151
2 ups, 4y, 1 reply
if only there was a way the us could stop relying on these fossil fuels and switch to some other means of generating energy, like what if we could generate energy from geothermal vents or wind or sun or water, but nah, technology like that doesnt exist and even if it did, why should the us switch to it? it's not like we easily could and just choose not to because of corporate interests dominating the legislative branch
Memedave
1 up, 4y
😆👍. Right on!
who_am_i
2 ups, 4y
 Truth
[deleted]
1 up, 3y, 1 reply
Lmao I own an electric car you don’t know what you be talking about
Memedave
0 ups, 3y
You're right, I don't.
KylieFan_89
4 ups, 4y, 1 reply
This observation about the environmental impact of electric car batteries doesn’t “own the libs” so much as underscore just how difficult it is going to be to get global warming under control.



We need to build our cities more densely and pour massive investment in public transit rather than pretending electric cars are going to save us.



Beyond transportation and energy, there are many other economic sectors that will need significant green-friendly overhaul — construction, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.



Exactly the sort of comprehensive and broad-based approach that the GND is about
deadboxprime
3 ups, 4y, 1 reply
No thanks. The last thing humanity needs is more dense cities. But it would protect the environment - through our extinction. Dense cities are a giant petri dish for things like SARS, coronavirus and MRSA.



Hyperdense population centers are also responsible for many of the problems humans face because they induce hyper-competition for scarce resources. 



And while we're on the topic, can we all dispense with this stupid idea that there are only two positions on climate change? "Yer either fer us or agin us" is not helpful. 



I also disagee with you about the GND. It is a pipedream sponsored by a woman who managed to get a degree in economics without understanding money and the rules of the game. It is a closed system, and nothing gets done until you solve the money problem.
KylieFan_89
1 up, 4y, 2 replies
NYC is the greenest U.S. city per capita. Not somewhere I’d want to live myself, but it seems that plenty of people don’t mind it. I could see myself in a city like Chicago.



The GND is not my first-choice policy preference — a carbon tax is — but there is very little political momentum from either side behind this relatively moderate solution.



Our choices are basically on the one hand: (1) The full-blown GND or a GND-lite program (depending on which Democrat we’re talking about), or on the other hand, (2) Nothing or worse than nothing on the Republican side (i.e. actively withdrawing from climate treaties, rollback of other environmental protections).
lokiare
2 ups, 4y, 1 reply
You mean worthless treaties that do nothing to address anything like the Paris treaty that would lower the temperature by 1 degree over 100 years.
KylieFan_89
1 up, 4y
1 degree's better than nothing. But we should be more aggressive than that. Got a better idea?
deadboxprime
1 up, 4y
Don't let them fool you into thinking there are only two choices.
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Memedave
10 ups, 4y, 1 reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 4y, 3 replies
making the batteries themselves requires no CO2 production. charging the batteries requires CO2 production only if the original fuel source is carbon-based. if it's a green base like solar- or wind-based, on the other hand, again no CO2 production is involved.
sharps45
10 ups, 4y, 1 reply
How do you mine minerals used for battery production? I know of no solar and wind powered heavy equipment. What solar powered smelters do they use? What solar or wind powered shipping do they use? All electrical production goes into a grid, you cannot just pull green energy out of it.
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted]
1 up, 4y, 1 reply
sharps45
6 ups, 4y
No I can't imagine it, and neither can current science. Most of the metals going into green energy are mined in Africa or China, and it will be years before they are using any green energy to mine them. Never mind the child labor involved.
Kerge
7 ups, 4y, 1 reply
“The production of lithium-ion batteries for light electric vehicles releases on average 150-200 kilos of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt-hour battery. One of the smallest electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf, uses batteries of approx. 30 kWh; many new models have batteries of 60 and 100 kWh. An electric car with a 100kWh battery has thus emitted 15-20 tons of carbon dioxide even before the vehicle ignition is turned on.”
low rated comment (click to show)
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y, 2 replies
Kerge
8 ups, 4y
Please don't say a statement is false simply because you do not agree with it.



I don't resist green technology at all. 

It's just that in it's current form it is still yet in it's infancy. We use large amounts of fossil fuels to produce such large lithium batteries. Saying we don't have to use fossil fuels to manufacture these batteries does not change the fact that we do use fossil fuels to manufacture them. Hence, the statement is true and has been proven true by scientists.



So for the sake of true transparency, 

- Yes electric cars produce zero emissions while driving

- Yes the manufacture of the batteries for these cars produces a large amount of emissions



And the source is very much pro electric car and emission reduction. Swedish Environment Institute and energyindepth.org are my sources.
7.ups
0 ups, 4y
“It takes nine years for an electric car to be greener than a diesel car, on average.“



“Batteries powering electric vehicles are forecast to make up 90% of the lithium-ion battery market by 2025. They are the main reason why electric vehicles can generate more carbon emissions over their lifecycle – from procurement of raw materials to manufacturing, use and recycling – than petrol or diesel cars”



This comes from the World Economic Forum which doesn’t have a vested interest in resisting green technology.
Memedave
5 ups, 4y, 3 replies
Isn’t CO2 good for the atmosphere? I mean, trees love that stuff! Even if it was, it’s not that humans produce more than a couple volcanos going off though... I don’t think it’s enough to be scaring everybody over...
President-Elect_christine7
2 ups, 4y, 1 reply
http://www.co2science.org/video/gope2.php
DrSarcasm
1 up, 4y
[deleted]
3 ups, 4y, 1 reply
it's not my area, but CO2 and trees and grass, etc., are all part of the planet's 'carbon cycle'. there's basically a fixed amount of carbon atoms on the planet, and they all have to be somewhere. in recent history, about one percent of the atmosphere is CO2. if we make more CO2 through industrial activity than the planet's plants can absorb, and if we keep reducing greenspace on the planet through deforestation, all that CO2 will build up at higher concentrations in the atmosphere. the more there is up there, the stronger the greenhouse effect will be down here.
sharps45
9 ups, 4y, 1 reply
Except CO2 is a very inefficient greenhouse gas, and temperature levels raise before CO2 levels
[deleted]
3 ups, 4y
you also have to consider the absolute amounts being generated and their atmospheric lifetimes. nitrous oxide, another by-product of fossil fuel consumption and deforestation, is a much more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2, but it's produced in much smaller amounts and has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime.
[deleted]
4 ups, 4y, 1 reply
also, increased atmospheric CO2 will lead to more CO2 absorption by the oceans. this will mean enhanced acidity and algae growth, which will unbalance the historic oceanic ecosystems. again, though, it's not my area. i just don't like to imagine that messing with the status quo is okay until nature screams at us.
sharps45
7 ups, 4y, 1 reply
In the past CO2 was much much higher than anything feared today, and the oceans did just fine.
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y, 1 reply
LOL the oceans did just fine, Brian Williams? prehistoric ecosystems evolved slowly to function at the then-current levels of CO2 over hundreds of millions of years, not a few decades of human industrial activity. do you have stock in CO2? why so eager to defend damaging the planet?
President-Elect_christine7
3 ups, 4y
Show More Comments
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
4D686A63-115B-424C-A72C-4E5EE893BFFF.jpeg
Parks and Recreation