Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.I think there will always be a need for the combustion engine in some capacity. Moving in a greener direction doesn't necessarily mean we will have electric freight trucks.
The first step they will force is that all citizen (non company vehicles) to be powered by electric/non-petro.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.
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.
I think we ought to go with the flow myself.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. .
World events say otherwise
So, lets burn a whole lot of coal and fossil fuels to create that "clean" electricity.
Volvo is owned by a company in Sweden. I 100% know this my husband works for volvo
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:
Those figures are from 2003; if anything, they've only gotten greener since then.
- nuclear: 74.5%
- hydro-electric: 16.3%
- thermal: 9.1%
- wind power and other renewable sources: 0.1%
BingoI believe they're referencing all new Volvo designs will be electric, not that they're stopping production of IC engine-driven cars then.
They still need oil in their tanks for them to travel in reverse.Umm, dude, French and military are mutually exclusive. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me, than a French one behind" - Patton
Volvo Trucks is still separate and Swedish owned. The cars are Chinese owned.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]"
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.
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)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.
It's scary that you are willing to use 'facts' from a publication that has the title of;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.
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?
So, lets burn a whole lot of coal and fossil fuels to create that "clean" electricity. But, tell me this, how is the government going to replace its lost revenue from the gasoline tax when everything is electric? This is the problem the US is facing because of greater fuel efficiency mandates. If anything, the government should want worse gas mileage so that it collects more taxes. Are they going to charge per mile? How do you enforce? Put a GPS in every car that the government can monitor? Is the mileage tax paid monthly, quarterly, yearly? The only reason we have decent collection of FICA/FUTA/SALES taxes is that the store/owner is responsible for collecting. How many consumers avoid this by using cash/barter? Get ready for your taxes to go up significantly higher in the future ...
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?
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.
Uh oh! This means that Hendricks is in negotiations with the purchase of General Electric!Old news. Was announced 7/6/2017.
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 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.
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.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.