OT: France to ban the internal combustion engine in 2040.
- Thread starter Thigh Man
- Start date
Peddle carsThe French.Well they better start making their own cars and lots of them.
It will take many decades to develop earth-moving and other construction equipment which run on electricity that will do the work of their petroleum engine counterparts.
The first step they will force is that all citizen (non company vehicles) to be powered by electric/non-petro.
Energy dependency is 90% of why we have a terrorist problem today. So much money for such a long time has funneled into regions that were either not prepared for the cultural changes that would be required with this new wealth or controlled by a dictator that used that money to control their own country even more.
We talk about the disparity of wealth here... but it's absolutely nothing compared to the middle east. Nothing...
Dubai
Abu Dhabi
I'm all for moving toward renewable sources of energy, not only for the environment, but due to the geopolitical issues that arise from so many countries being dependent on hostile foreign powers simply due to their oil, natural gas, or coal reserves, and the fact that many cleaner, renewable technologies are already cheaper on a $ per kWh basis.
That said, the REAL problem behind all this is population growth. The fact that we've gone from 2.7 billion people to 7.5 billion just since 1950 is the reason we have such huge strain on global resources. Consider what that means for energy, water, fishing, farming, mining, deforestation, and pollution. It's also responsible for the spread of disease, famine, war, mass migration, etc.
Fortunately, the population growth rate is finally slowing down and expected to continue slowing in the future. But even with a lower growth rate, the overall population could reach 10 billion by 2050.
That said, the REAL problem behind all this is population growth. The fact that we've gone from 2.7 billion people to 7.5 billion just since 1950 is the reason we have such huge strain on global resources. Consider what that means for energy, water, fishing, farming, mining, deforestation, and pollution. It's also responsible for the spread of disease, famine, war, mass migration, etc.
Fortunately, the population growth rate is finally slowing down and expected to continue slowing in the future. But even with a lower growth rate, the overall population could reach 10 billion by 2050.
I'm all for moving toward renewable sources of energy, not only for the environment, but due to the geopolitical issues that arise from so many countries being dependent on hostile foreign powers simply due to their oil, natural gas, or coal reserves, and the fact that many cleaner, renewable technologies are already cheaper on a $ per kWh basis.
That said, the REAL problem behind all this is population growth. The fact that we've gone from 2.7 billion people to 7.5 billion just since 1950 is the reason we have such huge strain on global resources. Consider what that means for energy, water, fishing, farming, mining, deforestation, and pollution. It's also responsible for the spread of disease, famine, war, mass migration, etc.
Fortunately, the population growth rate is finally slowing down and expected to continue slowing in the future. But even with a lower growth rate, the overall population could reach 10 billion by 2050.
And with the explosion of growth built mostly on the cheap food (relatively) made possible by the production and logistical power of fossil fuels. I really do not have a problem with whatever energy source is used....as long as everyone understands the implications to switching. The cost is more than just what is advertised by interest that want it to occur ASAP. I never hear about the effect of what higher cost of transportation will have on the lowest rungs. The wars and disease that will ensue if a fall in availability and cost....or who will have to pay to keep these in check.
IMO there are a number of problems that should be addressed first before we embark on changing the worlds way of doing business. .
No they don't. France is synonymous with being dysfunctional.
LOL at France. They'll be a territory of the Muslim Brotherhood by then. Those spineless cowards will be driving what Jihadist tell them to drive
Umm, no. France doesn't burn coal and fossil fuels to generate electricity. Here's the actual breakdown, if you'd care to be informed:
- nuclear: 74.5%
- hydro-electric: 16.3%
- thermal: 9.1%
- wind power and other renewable sources: 0.1%
You're wrong. It's owned by a Chinese conglomerate. The Chinese just let the Swedish continue to operate in its own way.
"Ford Motor Company offered Volvo Cars for sale in December 2008, after suffering losses that year.[23] On 28 October 2009, Ford confirmed that, after considering several offers, the preferred buyer of Volvo Cars was Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, the parent of Chinese motor manufacturer Geely Automobile.[24][25] On 23 December 2009, Ford confirmed the terms of the sale to Geely had been settled. A definitive agreement was signed on 28 March 2010, for $1.8 billion. The European Commission and China's Ministry of Commerce approved the deal on 6 and 29 July 2010, respectively. The deal closed on 2 August 2010 with Geely paying $1.3 billion cash and a $200 million note. Further payments are expected with a later price "true-up".[26][27] It is the largest overseas acquisition by a Chinese automaker.[28]"
Volvo Trucks is still separate and Swedish owned. The cars are Chinese owned.
BTW- It's not just people growth. If you add our pets and livestock, we now make up 97% of the vertebrate biomass on the planet.I'm all for moving toward renewable sources of energy, not only for the environment, but due to the geopolitical issues that arise from so many countries being dependent on hostile foreign powers simply due to their oil, natural gas, or coal reserves, and the fact that many cleaner, renewable technologies are already cheaper on a $ per kWh basis.
That said, the REAL problem behind all this is population growth. The fact that we've gone from 2.7 billion people to 7.5 billion just since 1950 is the reason we have such huge strain on global resources. Consider what that means for energy, water, fishing, farming, mining, deforestation, and pollution. It's also responsible for the spread of disease, famine, war, mass migration, etc.
Fortunately, the population growth rate is finally slowing down and expected to continue slowing in the future. But even with a lower growth rate, the overall population could reach 10 billion by 2050.
The thing is the rest of the world (with the single exception of the American GOP) gets it on climate change and is moving ahead without us. There was a time after WWII when the US had over 50% of the worlds wealth. Not any more. The EU has more people and a bigger economy. China certainly has more folks and is gaining on our economy pretty fast.
The rest of the world is under no obligation to follow our lead. Renewable energy is coming but we won't be the ones to develop it. We'll be net buyers rather than sellers and that will be very expensive in the long run.
The rest of the world is under no obligation to follow our lead. Renewable energy is coming but we won't be the ones to develop it. We'll be net buyers rather than sellers and that will be very expensive in the long run.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Yes, Chinese economy is roaring ahead and probably shouldn't be considered still a developing country.... But they are decades... DECADES from actually doing anything beneficial about climate change. It's been slow but the US is making gains. China pollutes twice as much as the US and they are actually INCREASING per year. They are allowed to do this because they are still a 'developing country' (don't give me the per capita crap)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Another bit; when the US breaks this list with a city, let me know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration
Your blind hatred of the GOP shows you really don't understand why the US backed out of regarding the Paris agreement.
Everyone is 'moving ahead'? The US backed out of that agreement because we would be forced to follow a timetable that the US didn't control and would be paying for countries like China and India to continue to pollute even more simply because they are a 'developing country'.
The rest of the world 'gets it' on climate change - easily debatable
US had over 50% of the world wealth after WWII - again, easily debatable http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/
EU has more people - slightly, whats the point?
EU has a bigger economy - slightly debatable on your stance of economy; once Brexit happens though, this definitely won't be true.
China has more people and gaining on our economy - totally agree with this one
You are bouncing all over the place on your opinions and facts and I'm not quiet sure what point you are trying to prove. What are you trying to connect regarding % of world's wealth, population, and economy with climate change?
It's scary that you are willing to use 'facts' from a publication that has the title of;
'A webcomic of romance,sarcasm, math, and language.'
https://xkcd.com/1338/
And not only that... but to use a source that directly manipulated the context of the study they tried to do. (I'm assuming you used reddit... that's funny in itself. There's not much indexed on this article)
https://thefreeonline.wordpress.com/2017/07/15/human-and-our-livestock-are-90-of-mammals/
xkcd is asking the real questions; like
https://what-if.xkcd.com/155/
Would a toaster still work in a freezer?
They all point to Europe as some sort of lighthouse in the dark...yet they have to get the US to adopt or it will not fly. The reason why is because the EU or for that matter China does not have the market power that the US has and they never will. They are tied to political systems that limit personal wealth..therefore if the US markets are not buying..they are up the creek without a paddle.
I promise you that NC will figure out a way to raise taxes on fuel regardless of how much the fuel usage drops.
Last edited:
Actually I used that source as a confirm. The first I heard the figure was from the book "Sapiens" and used again in "Homo Deus." both by Yuval Harari. Yes it's land based- I should have said that. It was late. And that biomass is dwarfed by bacteria etc.; however, what I guess I was driving at (it was late and a couple days ago) was that we have added so many people and so many animals that there is a climate consequence to the extra CO2 and methane. Germs don't breathe or fart as much as cows.
I knew someone who was afraid that if everyone jumped up and down at the same time it would throw the earth out of orbit. Worrying about cows and their breathing and farting is a similar worry.
Yes believe it or not CO2 is part of the plant-animal cycle without it we do not exist. And yes climate change has been an ongoing thing since Earth's creation without humans, imagine that. This scam is all about globalism and one big government for all telling you what to do and when to do it. The alarmists have been dooming us with ice age, ozone depletion, global warming and now just transform it into climate change.
Uh oh! This means that Hendricks is in negotiations with the purchase of General Electric!
I would note that prior to 1800 there were more than 60,000,000 bison the area now known as the US. Today, there are 9,300.000 dairy cows, and 30,500,000 beef cows totaling 39,800,000. So has global warming been cut by a third?
This entire argument is a distraction. The guy who responded to my post was simply noting that when human population rises, you see a corresponding rise in domesticated animals.
Bottom line is this. When you triple the world's population in just 60 years, it affects EVERYTHING. It results in far more energy usage, water consumption, waste, sewage, pollution of all kinds, deforestation, mass farming, mass fishing, famine, disease, poverty, mass migration, and even war.
I don' share this to suggest that our clean energy efforts are a waste of time. We should still do what we can. But the true source of the problem is the fact that 7.5 billion people (soon to be 9-10 billion) are sharing a planet that can realistically only support about half that many without rapid depletion of resources.
... And a corresponding decrease in non-domesticated animals, that was my point. It is misleading to "note" that you see a corresponding rise in domesticated animals, if the net animal density is a decrease due to the hunting and extermination of non-domesticated animals.
The problem is that even a population of worlders with IQs over 200 would still be a problem but it seems that those who can least afford to support children are the ones having the most.
