Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[Edge-]

Shhh don’t tell the Californian’s driving their Lithium-Ion Tesla’s that! They couldn’t bear to know how much diesel is used (mining equipment/ship) to make one battery, or how much earth is moved (mining equipment).

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...rs/5054519001/

Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.

If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years — but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its "higher carbon electricity mix." The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy.

Man, the old, "Your EV battery is worth a decade of gasoline pollution!" viral Facebook posts from grandma are still doing the rounds, I see.

[muto]

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...rs/5054519001/



Man, the old, "Your EV battery is worth a decade of gasoline pollution!" viral Facebook posts from grandma are still doing the rounds, I see.

Lol except California also recently put out a message telling people not to charge their Tesla’s for a while too because their power grid couldn’t handle it. But you know “green”. Electric Cars are soooooo good for the environment.

/sarcasm.

Also Strip mining. Strip mining is horrible for the environment. Electric Cars = more strip mining.

[Bakis]

I have to admit that when I saw the above double tornade picture my first thought was a recollection of Trumps comment about CA not raking the forest floor and thats why CA had disastrious fires.
Followed by imagining Trump putting forward another genius solution this time with tornados:

"Easy to fix tornados, just plant more mountains and hills"

[Edge-]

Lol except California also recently put out a message telling people not to charge their Tesla’s for a while too because their power grid couldn’t handle it. But you know “green”. Electric Cars are soooooo good for the environment.

/sarcasm.

What does energy conservation during times of high demand and high fire risk have to do with green energy? Texas isn't doing any better?

Also Strip mining. Strip mining is horrible for the environment. Electric Cars = more strip mining.

"I'm wrong and was shown I was wrong, but I'm just gonna double down and be even more wrong because reasons!"

That's quite an argument.

[Endus]

Lol except California also recently put out a message telling people not to charge their Tesla’s for a while too because their power grid couldn’t handle it. But you know “green”. Electric Cars are soooooo good for the environment.

Better than the alternatives.

Also, most of the negatives are associated with legacy systems, which can and should be renovated as well. Arguing that we shouldn't continue the transition to green energy systems because we haven't yet finished transitioning is, well, deliberately dishonest. No other way to put it.

Also Strip mining. Strip mining is horrible for the environment. Electric Cars = more strip mining.

Also unnecessary for the extraction of the minerals required. It's one single method, not the only method.

Plus, strip mining is only "horrible" for two basic reasons; the first is damage to the surface environment, which is admittedly greater as the entire surface is removed, but that surface environment can also largely be replaced after a strip mine is shut down; it's a temporary impact during the life of the mine itself. The second is the chance of runoff and leaching, and that is an issue of sloppy environmental regulations, which is a failure of whatever government has jurisdiction, not the strip mining itself.

[cubby]

Better than the alternatives.

Also, most of the negatives are associated with legacy systems, which can and should be renovated as well. Arguing that we shouldn't continue the transition to green energy systems because we haven't yet finished transitioning is, well, deliberately dishonest. No other way to put it.

He was lying? Sorry, purposefully dishonest? I'm am Jack's Shocked Appendix.

Also unnecessary for the extraction of the minerals required. It's one single method, not the only method.

Plus, strip mining is only "horrible" for two basic reasons; the first is damage to the surface environment, which is admittedly greater as the entire surface is removed, but that surface environment can also largely be replaced after a strip mine is shut down; it's a temporary impact during the life of the mine itself. The second is the chance of runoff and leaching, and that is an issue of sloppy environmental regulations, which is a failure of whatever government has jurisdiction, not the strip mining itself.

I didn't know that strip mining damage could be repaired/rectified. Interesting.

[Endus]

I didn't know that strip mining damage could be repaired/rectified. Interesting.

It's a matter of scale and such. The problem is generally that mining corporations aren't obliged to clean up afterwards, so they leave enormous gaping wounds that will take decades if not centuries for nature to reclaim. If they are so obliged, though, the sites can be cleaned up, soil can be brought in, and local plants can be seeded throughout. It's a lot like landfill reclamation, even down to needing to ensure that there's no chance of poisons leaching into that topsoil you're putting down. Once that's done, it's more like 10-20 decades for forests to move back in rather than 80+.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation

Mining companies, of course, hate it, because it costs money and gives them nothing back. You need to make it a requirement of their permit to exploit the resource.

[Forogil]

And for those not paying attention, when the ice caps melt and the sea levels rise 230 feet, Earth loses 33% of human civilization's current habitability. Imagine what would happen to the United States if/when 109 million people need housing, and at the same time, we lose literally all our shipping ports.

There will almost certainly be time to adapt, estimates of Greenland melting are normally at least half a millennia away, and Antarctica seems even further away - and both of those changes would also open up new areas to live in.

I'm not saying that it will be good or anything, it's just that even in the worst case people will adapt - even pre-industrial humans lived from the artic to the deserts.

[cubby]

There will almost certainly be time to adapt, estimates of Greenland melting are normally at least half a millennia away, and Antarctica seems even further away - and both of those changes would also open up new areas to live in.

I'm not saying that it will be good or anything, it's just that even in the worst case people will adapt - even pre-industrial humans lived from the artic to the deserts.

But as has been pointed out several times, humans will certainly be able to adapt to most anything, but human civilization will not. Oceans rising 230 feet would almost certainly decimate most of civilization, and that doesn't include the consequences of 30%+ population displacement and the virtual halt of shipping and commerce.

[muto]

Better than the alternatives.

Also, most of the negatives are associated with legacy systems, which can and should be renovated as well. Arguing that we shouldn't continue the transition to green energy systems because we haven't yet finished transitioning is, well, deliberately dishonest. No other way to put it.



Also unnecessary for the extraction of the minerals required. It's one single method, not the only method.

Plus, strip mining is only "horrible" for two basic reasons; the first is damage to the surface environment, which is admittedly greater as the entire surface is removed, but that surface environment can also largely be replaced after a strip mine is shut down; it's a temporary impact during the life of the mine itself. The second is the chance of runoff and leaching, and that is an issue of sloppy environmental regulations, which is a failure of whatever government has jurisdiction, not the strip mining itself.

I’ve never heard of extremely large strip mines being filled back up. That’s a lot of resources.

[Edge-]

I’ve never heard of extremely large strip mines being filled back up. That’s a lot of resources.

Money, specifically. Money that companies can afford to spend if they want to destroy the landscape to mine ore/minerals.

You're still wrong about the carbon footprint of battery production in electric vehicles though. Just as a reminder.

[Elegiac]

I’ve never heard of extremely large strip mines being filled back up. That’s a lot of resources.

Gee, maybe the problem isn't actually the feasibility but that you're not questioning the degree to which you've been inculcated with the belief that capitalism is the only viable system, which is why we get lazy recycled gotchas from Facebook rather than substantive arguments.

[Jonnusthegreat]

The big bad of my dreams....

It's like double rainbow dropped out of college, got a job that wasn't cutting it, and decided to make the world pay

[Endus]

I’ve never heard of extremely large strip mines being filled back up. That’s a lot of resources.

It isn't "filled back up": if you scraped down a small mountain, you're not rebuilding the mountain. You're reclaiming the remaining landscape.

And sure. It's not cheap. And? That's the mining company's problem.

[muto]

It isn't "filled back up": if you scraped down a small mountain, you're not rebuilding the mountain. You're reclaiming the remaining landscape.

And sure. It's not cheap. And? That's the mining company's problem.

It's not the mining company's problem when it's China. Have you seen the amount of illegal mining operations they have in Africa? They could give two shits less about the environment.

[Endus]

It's not the mining company's problem when it's China. Have you seen the amount of illegal mining operations they have in Africa? They could give two shits less about the environment.

And that's where you're not talking about inherent harm by the process itself, but lack of regulation.

It's like trying to claim that growing marijuana inevitably leads to you getting shot by police officers, just because that happens in the USA.

[postman1782]

'Tornado Alley' is expanding: Southern states see more twisters now than ever before


The big bad of my dreams....

Yeah, we don't normally have tornadoes here as early as we did this year, usually it is June, July and August, in Iowa. This year, our first tornado warning in my area was fucking March. Almost 3 months earlier than normal tornado warnings. Now I don't normally see them very often in my area, but we did get hit by the Derecho last year. Lost a couple trees and big branches. Some lost everything with that storm.

[Forogil]

But as has been pointed out several times, humans will certainly be able to adapt to most anything, but human civilization will not. Oceans rising 230 feet would almost certainly decimate most of civilization, and that doesn't include the consequences of 30%+ population displacement and the virtual halt of shipping and commerce.

Shipping operations, and a large part of human settlements are built on the coast - if the coast moves they move with it; rebuilding all harbors and coastal cities in the world will be costly, but can clearly be done on these time-scales - as it has already been done on a shorter time-scale.

- - - Updated - - -

I’ve never heard of extremely large strip mines being filled back up. That’s a lot of resources.

You don't necessarily fill it up to the same level, but a strip mine means that you strip of the top-soil, and then dig/dredge underneath that for the thing you want; so you can just put the waste back and then the old top-soil.

[MoeSzyslak]

We in Germany have quite some experience with filling up such mining:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_surface_mine

It is possible but by no means 100% environment friendly. Still better then the alternative.
We have to keep in mind that at the moment we can control the changes which are necessary. In 20 years we can but still have to change. I think the first option is the better one.

[cubby]

Shipping operations, and a large part of human settlements are built on the coast - if the coast moves they move with it; rebuilding all harbors and coastal cities in the world will be costly, but can clearly be done on these time-scales - as it has already been done on a shorter time-scale.

You're assuming some orderly structured rebuilding operation that would replace all cities/ports in a timely fashion. However, the bigger picture would overwhelm any global cooperation because:

1. coastal cities wouldn't exist
2. ports would have to be relocated, rediscovered, and rebuilt from new materials
3. famine, riots, and general civilization collapse

And without shipping, most markets would die, and global trade would effective end. Without trade, which means without supplies, rebuilding those ports and the required infrastructure, would be near impossible.