How to fight climate change... for reals.

[Ashful]

Point #2 really needs to stop.

Which was point #2? I thought woodgeek's post was a pretty good summary of recent history, followed by a commentary on the deception present in "news for entertainment," which many others have already previously noted in other threads. No political bias required, to observe this, and nothing offensive detected.

 

[DuaeGuttae]

Which was point #2? I thought woodgeek's post was a pretty good summary of recent history, followed by a commentary on the deception present in "news for entertainment," which many others have already previously noted in other threads. No political bias required, to observe this, and nothing offensive detected.

It was in an earlier post about what will end ICE cars: 1) Rust, 2)Scorn. I think the comment wasn’t referring to the post actually quoted, so it got confusing. (I will say that I will never scorn my 85-year-old mother for continuing to drive her 1986 Toyota Camry, even though she could afford an EV. She drives less than 2,000 miles a year because she has always made sure not to make unnecessary trips “to town.” I was proud of her the other day for completing her annual oil change herself.)

On a side note, Ashful, I have no idea about what you were seeing misquoted on your threads, but I’ve never seen any different text from what is there now. I’ve been sick in bed this week and looked at this thread a number of times. After you noted the correction, I went back to see what you really said, and I still see what it said before. That’s very strange.

@Poindexter came up with a nice list of personal contributions, and that discussion was much more up my alley than cars (even though I’m a very happy driver of a 2017 LEAF, purchased used). My addition to that list is that one can easily make a number of foods that come in a lot of wasteful packaging and use a lot less packaging to do so. Yogurt was the first to come to mind, but I can add in mayonnaise, salad dressings, and sauces. Yogurt is the most obvious, though, because it is so frequently sold in single-serve containers.

 

[sneefy]

Which was point #2? I thought woodgeek's post was a pretty good summary of recent history, followed by a commentary on the deception present in "news for entertainment," which many others have already previously noted in other threads. No political bias required, to observe this, and nothing offensive detected.

This, referred to as 'point 2', is what needs to stop:

For folks clinging to older model ICE cars past 2040... they will be taken care of by two things... (2) The scorn of their children and neighbors.

I believe ABMax24's point is that scorn and shaming (implied to be a approved method by woodgeek, and I believe demonstrated by some of his posts in this thread) as a method of affecting change is too prevalent in society at large. It only furthers division and anger, both on the part of the person inflicting and the person receiving.

To the person doing the shaming shaming, it encourages in their mind the view that the target group or individual is simply less. Not deserving of rational conversation, consideration. or even dignity. They are 'othered'.

For the recipient, well, that's exactly what they receive.

 

[Ashful]

I'm impressed. I'll be happy if I'm able to still do my own oil changes at 85.

I guess I should've taken the time to copy/paste the altered posts to notepad. I quoted them, not really expecting them to be changed back, and also not remembering the exact wording of what I had originally written, which has since been restored. Weird, maybe webfish was trying to clean up something he saw going in an offensive direction, no big deal. It would be nice if a mod PM'd you when doing this, just so folks are aware, but I wasn't losin sleep over it.

 

[Riverbanks]

85 year young mom changed her own oil?God bless that woman

 

[sneefy]

85 year young mom changed her own oil?God bless that woman

Seriously. Good for her!

 

[Ashful]

This, referred to as 'point 2', is what needs to stop:

For the recipient, well, that's exactly what they receive.

That bothers you? You need thicker skin, my friend.

... and that comes from one more likely to receive than to deliver scorn. My present fleet of vehicles all average under 15 mpg.

 

[woodgeek]

Fair enough... I wasn't proposing that they be stoned or put in stocks in the public square, or shamed on social media.

I agree that shaming (and stoning) are bad things. If I'm allowed to say 'bad' without making people upset.

I guess I should've said that people are social animals, and tend towards conformity. Its a powerful draw. I could heat my home with coal and save $500/year (and accept a certain amount of labor in exchange, less than wood). But I just don't want to. Do I think me doing so would hurt the climate (or anyone else)? Naw. So maybe its just conformity speaking.

When everyone is buying EVs in 2040, they are cheaper than ICE cars, both new and used, it will take a rather unusual non-conformist to stick to ICE. And they will be negligible for the climate, and are free (in my opinion) to fly their freak flag however they want.

 

[sneefy]

That bothers you? You need thicker skin, my friend.

It does, as a matter of fact. Primarily because I used to be someone who casually and callously levied such scorn against others.

Then I grew up and realized that everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and dignity. Even those I disagree with and those that hold views and beliefs different than mine.

I don't mind so much when I receive it because I do have fairly thick skin. But over the years I have intentionally softened it so I may better understand how to properly treat people.

Treating others with scorn and shame comes from a place of arrogance, insecurity, and weakness. The strongest, humblest people I have known have usually been the kindest.

Do I fail? Every day. But It's important enough to make the daily effort.

 

[woodgeek]

Cool the vitriol, there, sport. You seem to like to point fingers. You also seem to be assuming where I fall on the political spectrum, yes? Is this just because I badmouthed your Bolt? 🙄

This is why I don't discuss politics with zealots.

Who's proposing it? Really? That's either an unserious or intellectually dishonest question.

Thanks for googling that for me!

I saw a bunch of links to proposals from 2021 from various progressive democrats, like AOC and Bernie and Co that had been rolled into Biden's original BBB bill. Proposals that went down in flames, (and, um, public scorn) last year. Which prompted the OP post and topic of this thread, that such an approach is politically DEAD. And is likely to stay that way, for good reason: it is both politically unpopular AND unnecessary.

Didn't think I was showing you any vitriol or pointed any fingers. Must've missed that. I was pointing out that the only people I see talking about Carbon Taxes now (or the dead bill from last year) are on the Right. I suppose I should add clueless progressives on the Left to my list.

If I don't know what you think... perhaps you could be a little more clear with what you are posting. You are enigmatic.

You don't have to like my Bolt. Its ok. I like it enough for both of us. You do you.

 

[sneefy]

You are enigmatic.

Even to myself, lol.

 

[woodgeek]

This. Nothing divides people more than forcing their opinions and beliefs on the other person. It only serves to push the ends of the spectrum of belief further apart.

I don't think its that simple....

Here's a video, that distinguishes between beliefs and identities, and how people often mix up the two...


We are, among other things, collections of beliefs, some true, some untrue. I think that these beliefs get bundled together, often by other people with an agenda (like pushing one political party, or selling clicks) into identities.

Never saw the point about arguing whether a given fact was true or untrue... do some science, a calculation, or simply go to a reliable source of info (Wikipedia is good in a pinch, the National Academy of Science is ok too).

People DO fight about identities. My identity is based on my values, not what facts I currently believe are true (and make posts about).

 

[stoveliker]

I've read this with interest. I'm guilty of all of the above, but (at least) I try to not be.

I think "scorn" is a bit too strong a word for what was intended. More like peer pressure.
As an example, I enjoy this bumber sticker - but is it scorn?

There is scorn, but there is also commentary on behavior, with a critical undertone, and, if done well, an educational component as well. I see the above bumper sticker (touching on a different subject) in that vein. I surmise that once EVs become 75% majority of vehicles, similar type "commentary" could ensue.

Not all people are susceptible to rational, fact-based explanations of points of view. (Don't we know that, in these last two years...) Sometimes a poking, eye-winking, critical commentary that also points the way to a better solution works well.

This peer pressure is similar to the fact that while a lot of people litter, fewer dare do so in plain public sight. Yes, there are those who do, but there are more who litter trying to not be seen. (I think.)

Anyway, my $0.02

 

[peakbagger]

Given the current political situation, I expect I will see opposition to the elimination of ICE vehicles out of general misinformation.

 

[sneefy]

I don't think its that simple....
We are, among other things, collections of beliefs, some true, some untrue. I think that these beliefs get bundled together, often by other people with an agenda (like pushing one political party, or selling clicks) into identities.
People DO fight about identities. My identity is based on my values, not what facts I currently believe are true (and make posts about).

Absolutely. We are an amalgam of what we believe. Our beliefs come from. experience, teachings, introspection (hopefully), discussion about topics of importance, education, etc. etc. etc. Everything in one's life makes its way into one's character and collection of beliefs.

Which is why attacks on one's beliefs are taken so personally. It's an attack on who the individual is, to varying degrees.

Especially with fundamental beliefs. Religion, politics (also a religion to many), climate change (has become a religion to many), cause du jour (religion du jour) etc. etc. I emphasize the religion point because we are hardwired to worship and venerate something. Some choose faith, some choose the earth, some choose a cause, some choose themselves... This veneration adds weight and even greater importance to those fundamental beliefs. Making the denigration that much more cutting. e.g. Greta Thundberg scolding 'How dare you!'

To your point about facts: Facts are (unfortunately) secondary. This is why politics is 99% othering and spewing filth these days in flagrant disregard of fact. 'Us vs Them' is a recipe for the downfall of society. It's of course worse with beliefs that are unprovable. Callously disregarding, denigrating, attacking beliefs at that fundamental level is destructive to relationships and society. Writing others off, baselessly accusing them of being something they are not in sweeping terms is easy and categorizes them as something contemptible or of no value. The enemy.

The current state of politics and the increasing shallowness of society just pours gasoline on the blaze.

 

[sneefy]

I think "scorn" is a bit too strong a word for what was intended. More like peer pressure.
As an example, I enjoy this bumber sticker - but is it scorn?

View attachment 298060

There is scorn, but there is also commentary on behavior, with a critical undertone, and, if done well, an educational component as well. I see the above bumper sticker (touching on a different subject) in that vein.

Not all people are susceptible to rational, fact-based explanations of points of view.

Quite. Scorn, finger wagging, maybe at best. This is perhaps the other side of the coin or another facet of the die. People that refuse to be held accountable and take even mild bumper stickers like the above as a personal attack.

To your point about rationality: ROFLMAO! It seems all but dead. Nobody wants to have difficult conversations. Nobody wants to improve themselves. Nobody likes to hear that could be a better person. Nobody has time or desire for introspection and character building.

 

[semipro]

Given the current political situation, I expect I will see opposition to the elimination of ICE vehicles out of general misinformation.

This reminds me of when the Bush administration moved towards the elimination of incandescent light bulbs and the opposition and hoarding that ensued.
I find it funny now that there are boxes and boxes of the things available for almost nothing at my local ReStore.

 

[stoveliker]

This reminds me of when the Bush administration moved towards the elimination of incandescent light bulbs and the opposition and hoarding that ensued.
I find it funny now that there are boxes and boxes of the things available for almost nothing at my local ReStore.

At least that's positive; despite the intial gut reaction of "hell no", people are in fact coming around after seeing what the better alternative can be like. There's hope.

 

[sneefy]

This reminds me of when the Bush administration moved towards the elimination of incandescent light bulbs and the opposition and hoarding that ensued.
I find it funny now that there are boxes and boxes of the things available for almost nothing at my local ReStore.

To be fair, that's mostly because the fluorescents of the time sucked so it was perceived as 'You simple and ignorant peasants must now use this inferior and more expensive product.'

LEDs are (now) soooo much better.

Which brings up a good point. For any tech intended to replace existing tech, the user experience must be worth it or it simply won't catch on. Be it in terms of cost or use or a combination, it has to be perceived as better otherwise there will be pushback, sometimes massively.

No, the force of government is not the right answer, in my opinion.

 

[Riverbanks]

We still have all the old stuff here, probably 75% of the shelves at the local hardware store, no led for flood, spot or bathroom vanity lighting, I have to travel to upgrade, and the worst part is, no disposal allowed for fluorescent bulbs at the transfer station, but I can buy them

 

[begreen]

I didn't know the oil industry coined the term "carbon footprint", but I did know they have been pushing "climate change" vs "global warming", despite both things basically meaning the same thing.

Here's some background on that topic

Surprise! The Term ‘Carbon Footprint’ Was Coined by Big Oil to Blame You for Climate Change

'Carbon footprint' is a marketing term created by a PR firm on BP's payroll! It doesn't matter! Collective action for new policies are the only way.

interestingengineering.com

 

[woodgeek]

To be fair, that's mostly because the fluorescents of the time sucked so it was perceived as 'You simple and ignorant peasants must now use this inferior and more expensive product.'

LEDs are (now) soooo much better.

Which brings up a good point. For any tech intended to replace existing tech, the user experience must be worth it or it simply won't catch on. Be it in terms of cost or use or a combination, it has to be perceived as better otherwise there will be pushback, sometimes massively.

No, the force of government is not the right answer, in my opinion.

The devil is in the details there @sneefy.

Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 'ban' on incandescents in late 2007 scheduled the phase out for 4 years into the future in 2012. The LED bulbs that we know and love were developed DURING that interval. And they were partially developed (and scaled) because of the (not yet happened) ban. When the development did not go as fast as planned, the phase out was extended to 2015 and beyond. The phase out, when it happened, started with lower wattages (which were more readily replaced) before the higher wattage bulbs were phased out.

'You simple and ignorant peasants must now use this inferior and more expensive product.'

Who ever said that? This was not the case of some sneering govt bureaucrats (or Al Gore) deciding in 2007 to ban incandescents in 2008, forcing us all to switch to inferior and more expensive products. It was a case of a well-designed, engineering-informed public and industrial policy driving a technology enabled transition over the course of 8+ years, giving time for the technology to mature, scale and get cheap due to learning curves.

Without the phaseout... the whole transition would've happened, but would've taken much longer. New tech doesn't improve and get cheaper magically by itself. It takes major investment (by folks that are worried about getting their money back) and learning curves from actually trying to scale production. Did the govt engineer the bulbs? Nope. Did they fund the R&D to make them happen? Nope. They just provided a regulatory environment where private investment would make it happen

Ofc, we are all now enjoying cheap, durable, LED bulbs with much lower Total Cost of Ownership, and saving energy and CO2.

Are LEDs inferior? Of course they are. They have poorer color rendering index (CRI). Folks that care about that? They spend a little extra to get high CRI bulbs.

Similarly, if/when ICE vehicles are banned (which I doubt in the US), EVs will be widely available, a good/popular substitute and much cheaper on a TCO basis.

 

[Ashful]

Good post, woodgeek. BUT, I'd like to debate this line:

we are all now enjoying cheap, durable, LED bulbs

Sorry to pick apart your sentence, but my experience has been counter to this, more dramatically and consistently than I'd have ever predicted.

One example that comes to mind is my three lamp posts, each of which was populated with three 25W candelabra base tall bent tip bulbs. Always worked fine with incandescents, but since they're on several hours every night, I figured they'd be a good candidate for replacement with LED.

I bought what appeared to be a quality product at the local Lowes, and after learning you can't run all LED's in a lamp post in winter (they frost up badly due to lack of heat), I settled on putting one incandescent with two LED bulbs in each of the three lamp posts. This put enough heat into the lamp to keep it from frosting on cold winter nights, and I figured I'd be changing the incandescent once every year or three, but the LED's would last forever. Unfortunately, here's what happened:

• After less than 6 months, half the LED's were dead. Zero incandescent failures. I replaced each blown LED with an incandescent bulb.
• After 12 months, ALL the LED bulbs had died. I replaced the remainder with incandescents.
• Now, I believe 3 years since the experiment began, I'm just having to replace the first few incandescent bulbs.

The usage case may not have been ideal for LED's, although a PVC lamp post with a heavy brass topper that gets buffeted around in the wind all winter sure seemed to be an ideal situation for favoring anything other than a tungsten filament rattling about in a vacuum bulb.

I have a few LED bulbs in this house, attics and the garage, and likewise have found them to not last any longer than an incandescent. The case for spending several times more, for a bulb that both looks worth and has equal to lesser real-world lifespan, doesn't seem to be there... yet.

And yes, I do understand the LED is likely fine, it's other passive components within the bulb circuitry almost certainly failing before the LED. But the end result is the same, it's a dead bulb assembly, headed for the landfill.

 

[Poindexter]

Ok. Serious question about ICE, I bet some of you know this one already.

I saw an "image" on facebook and I don't know, I am asking, can this be true.

The point of the image was a modern one ton full size pickup truck could be driven on an insane road trip, something like Prudhoe Bay to Las Vegas, and have the same total emissions as a 2 cycle leaf blower run at full throttle for 20 minutes.

Is this an exaggeration? I know ICE automotive technology has come an insanely long way in the last 40 years or so. Asking for a friend that has 2 cycle ICE on his boat.

 

[peakbagger]

This seems to line up with your graphic. I havent vetted it. https://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0897/et0897s2.html

As stated, most of the oil injected into two stroke does not burn, it just goes out the exhaust. Go to any marina and there is a sheen of oil on the water although modern large two strokes have variable oil injection Modern 4 stroke ICE engines on vehicles practically do not burn oil, what oil that did make it to the exhaust would be dealt by the catalyst. they put out so little carbon monoxide that suicide by parking in a closed garage with the engine running no longer works very well.

Thus the move to swap to 4 strokes on small engines and preferably electric. The two stroke situation is particularly noticable with snowmobiles, I think the exhaust from a boat motor condenses the oil particles quickly in the water forming a sheen on the water while oil particles from a snowmachine tend to form a vapor cloud of oil that saturates anyone and anything nearby.