Laughing Leo

No. China isn't my country, neither is it yours. America is our country, so take care of it if you're really an American.

Good for you that you planted 10 trees.

Over 10, do not havevthe time to actually count them. Now, is the issue really that we have too much polution or are we cutting too many trees for roads and buildings? See, trees can clean up the polution, enhance the air quality and atmosphere, plus they are shelter and home to many animals. I think that is the root of the problem, not polution itself. How many trees have you planted?

About 50 trees near my house. But I didn't plant them, nature did. And also, no, trees alone cannot dictate the air quality. The pollution we create does too.

Do your research on that.

Sure. But you do your research first. And give me your source.

My source us getting out of my house and seeing what goes around me.

A new report from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) outlines recommendations that "could increase the recycling and reuse" of decommissioned wind energy equipment and materials.

I didn’t say they use more fossil fuels. I’m saying we depend on fossil fuels to make things like windmills. Can’t find any wind or solar powered trucks, ships, heavy machinery, etc. And all those windmills use petroleum lubricants.

"In 2024, President Biden said he wanted 56% of all new cars sold in the United States to be electric vehicles by 2032. California Governor Gavin Newsom similarly mandated that 35% of new 2026 model cars sold in the state be zero-emissions vehicles, rising to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.

The European Union announced in 2023 that, from 2035 onward, all new cars coming onto the market could not emit any CO2. The United Kingdom similarly announced a 2030 ban on the sale of new diesel and petrol cars.

The reaction from the U.S. auto industry was blunt. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation said it “will take a miracle” for all states following California’s rules to reach 100% new zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035.

They are correct. The environmental impact would be devastating. The people claiming to save the world with electric cars could end up destroying it.

Replacing every vehicle on Earth with an EV, all 1.5 to 1.6 billion of them, would be effectively impossible. There are not enough minerals to manufacture all of the batteries required. In addition, there is not enough global processing capacity, and such a transition would require incredible amounts of labor. Many of these minerals are already being mined by children and by workers laboring under hazardous and toxic conditions that amount to modern slavery.

Across every dimension examined, the answer is the same: a simultaneous global conversion to EVs is physically impossible and would cause environmental and humanitarian damage that rivals or exceeds the problems it claims to solve.

A standard 75 kWh NMC battery pack requires approximately 9 kg of lithium, 13 kg of cobalt, 40 kg of nickel, 25 kg of manganese, and 66 kg of graphite per vehicle. Copper and aluminum are also required for the battery casing, current collectors, and wiring. Multiply those figures across 1.5 billion vehicles and the total mineral demand runs to roughly 13.5 million metric tons of lithium, 19.5 million metric tons of cobalt, 60 million metric tons of nickel, 37.5 million metric tons of manganese, and 99 million metric tons of graphite."

They never said "all electrict cars by 2035" had to be electric. Its just that cars "coming onto the market could not emit any CO2" or cars being sold from that point on should not emit anything. You got your own point wrong.

And also, gas cars are just as much made by child labor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/business/hyundai-child-labor-lawsuit.html

But they still use less fossil fuels than gas cars or traditional fossil fuel reliant technology.

But they’ll never replace petroleum.

What Science Tells Us

Carbon Dioxide and Climate

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is known as a greenhouse gas because it is one of several gases that have a warming effect on the atmosphere. However, its warming power is small compared to that of the primary greenhouse gas: water in the form of water vapor and clouds. Having even greater influence over long-term climatic changes are solar cycles and variations in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt.

The most important role of CO2 is that of a plant food that makes life on Earth possible. Currently atmospheric CO2 is near historically low levels, and recent increases from human CO2 emissions have been beneficial to both our ecosystems and to humanity. By any scientific measure, CO2 is not a pollutant.

The good news is that Earth is greening, plant life is prospering, humanity is flourishing, and climate change is not a crisis.

Climate change doesn't just involve plants. It also involves weather. And currently, weather is unstable in parts of the world. This is happening more frequently.

Water vapor is more dangerous on its own by molecule by trapping heat, but the problem is CO2 can make it MORE dangerous than it already is. CO2 can trap heat and make our planet hotter. This results in more heat which is trapped by the water vapor, and that TOO heats the planet. All because the CO2 began trapping more heat. So good point, but CO2 is still dangerous and it does play a role in warming our planet.

And no. Earth is not prospering. Actually, Earth's CO2 is at historical high. Go to this source: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Actually, CO2 is not at a historical high...

Did you get this from the Virginia CO2 coalition? That group is not very reliable.

The chart below is in millions of years, the Tertiary Period was from 66 to 2.6 million years ago, the Quaternary Period is 2.6 million years ago to present.

From something like 35 or 33 million years ago, levels of carbon in the atmosphere started going down, and scientists can't explain why. The planet was tropical back then. Of course part of that has to do with location of land masses (which would affect ocean currents), but majorly it's because of the difference in atmosphere back then.

Thanks for telling me Modda.

You're welcome

They'll use it much less than before though. And we'll continue finding ways to narrow things down.

Not really. The demand for electricity is outpacing what windmills and solar farms can generate. To make a significant reduction in fossil fuel generated energy, we need to invest more in nuclear.

It’s true that renewable energy is making gains and fossil fuel energy is declining, but there is still a huge gap that isn’t going to close anytime soon. The density of energy in petroleum is so much higher than the best batteries so, it’s going to take huge advancements in storage before solar and wind will be able to replace fossil fuels.

Even countries that are investing in renewable energy production are still building more coal power plants as backup because wind and solar energy isn’t reliable enough.

And with the increased demand from AI and data centers, renewables isn’t going to keep up.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ais-power-needs-will-destroy-the-renewable-energy-revolution/