Tech Global warming: greatest sham in science

"Practice what you preach" - So you want me to leave zero footprint while you tromp all over the environment? Something seems wrong with that picture.

 

I believe in climate change to an extent, but there are definitely policy makers out there trying to turn it into a cash grab. Global warming=more taxes. Can anyone tell me how a slimy politician giving our money to his friends at some rockefeller-funded pseudo-science Institute helps solve the problem of climate change?

Seems odd that the government telling me were all gonna die in ten years because of CO2 emissions is the same government that literally acts as a bodyguard for big oil interests. There is technology out there that makes petroleum burning engines obsolete. Our own government regulates these technologies out of existence then turns around and tries to charge the ones already getting fucked (us) even more in the form of a carbon tax as a penalty for participating in the paradigm they helped create. They are literally playing both sides of the field and fucking us to death.

Make petroleum burning the only available option, then penalize for petroleum burning.

Its like when they put crack cocaine in the cities then cracked down on it. But now we're all the crackheads.

Im noticing a theme here.

 

It was a long-standing dispute between SPD and Denny. SPD would comment on health of fisheries and aquatic life. At some point SPD said the oceans are dead. Denny decided they weren’t dead and then decided to bring it up in every thread he could find. Now you are caught up.

 

So the entire world community, it’s scientist, are all part of the cash grab conspiracy?

 

The "entire world community" isn't on board with carbon taxes. Take a look at Paris right now....

 

So what is it. Real or not? Is it the govt making it up as a cash grab or is there man made climate change occurring. Both?

 

Yes, both. I will not give you a blunt, yes or no answer. Pollution and carbon emissions are bad, and real... but data is also manipulated. Politicians and corporations capitalize on fear and the need for safety so its only natural they would fund the same studies that perpetuate this fear, while asking for tribute to help solve the problem (which they cannot realistically do). Money in the pockets of lobbying corporations and politicians will not fix this problem, or any problem for that matter. It never has.

Allowing clean, viable alternatives to petroleum will solve the problem, but these ideas get patented and locked away, or regulated out of existence. Oil lobby is literally helping fund the climate change initiative, think about that for a moment. They get exclusive market rights to sell their product, and their "researchers" get tax dollars. Win win.

 

Send a letter to your president as he doesn't seem to think reducing or eliminating regulations for clean air and water are going to hurt. He thinks we need to drill for more oil and open more coal mining and the hell with any alternatives.

 

Duh.

 

If the market was fair and lobbyists didnt write the laws, it wouldn't matter what Trump thought. Any competition to petroleum is snuffed out by obscure laws and regulations and it's been that way long before Trump. Regulations dont hurt oil companies when they are only game in town.

 

So, it's all a pissing contest.

 

Two different forces at work with these two examples. The hybrid car will never save enough fuel to pay the additional up front expense. I don't even know if it will replace the battery. My daughter has one though, pleased as can be with it.

Natural Gas is so much cleaner and less expensive than oil. Oregon was way late in making it available and even then it is only in the Willamette valley.

We payed through the nose to get a pipeline into Coos County about twenty years ago. No one can use it, we do not have one industry using it even though that was the prime reason for the laying the pipeline. Jobs. The Governor opposes the only proposal on the table to get a user in the county.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/how-eco-friendly-are-electric-cars/a-19441437

 

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/hybrid-electric-cars-hype-justify-price

"For example, compare a hybrid that sells for $30,000 and gets 48 mpg with an identical gas-powered car that sells for $27,500 and gets 28 mpg.

If you drive 1,250 miles each month and pay for gas at $3 a gallon, the hybrid would save you $56 a month, and it would take you 45 months to pay back the premium, according to Edmunds. However, if gas jumped up to $4 a gallon, the hybrid would save you $74 a month, and it would take you only 34 months to pay off the premium. In this sense, owning a hybrid can provide some peace of mind because it’s insurance against future gas price hikes."

I just checked if the difference in price is reasonable - and it seems to be more or less so - A 2019 Camry LE MSRP is $24,350, a 2019 Camry Hybrid LE MSRP is $28,150 - that's $3800. The price difference of a RAV4 to RAV4 hybrid is just $3000 - so it kind of seems reasonable.

With this in mind, I would guess that a 5 - 6 years period will have the hybrid cover the cost difference for the average driver (people under 55, after that, the average yearly mileage goes down from 15K to 12K).

 

The difference between my wife's Toyota Yaris and my Daughters Toyota Prius is more than $11,000 and 17MPG
It would take my wife nearly 40 years to save the difference in price in gas savings. Then that isn't going to happen as the battery will not make it anywhere near that long. I guess it takes 8000 to replace it but I don't know how long it will last. They don't know.

 

The Yaris and Prius are different size and class vehicles. (The Yaris cargo interior volume is 15.6 cu-ft, the Prius is at 27.4 for example)

The comparison does not make sense. That's why I gave you the price difference of the exact same car with the exact same trim.