Europe to cut greenhouse gasses by banning sales of CO2-emitting cars from 2035

[scavengerspc]

Funny, that's the feeling I get every time an EV warrior refutes the need for nuclear power in their magical dream future of everything being electric. Somehow "solar does not work at night" just doesnt seem to click.

Maybe you are still watching TV shows from the 70s. Your info is about that good. I know there are a big majority of greenies (Im not one, by the way) are in full favor of nuke power and have been for nearly 2 decades. If you EVER have time for facts, take notice of the next anti-nuclear power protests (If you can find any). Those protests have lost more participation than a tRUMP rally. In fact, the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia while under construction have had little protests. Some tried. But it was a sad showing.

And solar does work at night. Because of the dozens of methods of storing power generated thru the day.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I can find predictions of 2050 to the end of the century.

But if what you claim was that common, it should be easy to find. So find them.

Here's one for you:

A 1989 AP Report: Nations “Wiped Off Face of the Earth” by 2000

While stories like the one below should not dismiss an intelligent discussion about the environmental challenges we face today, this 1989 report does raise legitimate questions about the apocalyptic and absolute predictions promoted by many who support a similar narrative in 2019. From a...

tallahasseereports.com

Some interesting quotes in there from this U.N. enviromental official. Like "He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

Sounds familiar right? Except he was saying this in 1989.

This sire has a nice collection on news articles from "biologists" and "climate scientists" and the usual tat dating back to the 60s

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

So when you post the current alarmists screaming about how we'll be doomed by 2050, all I can say is : cope and seethe. It's not gonna happen. It's been predicted for 60 years and that doomsdate, much like every megachurch's predictions about the antichrist, conveniently get pushed back another 5 years.

I'm quite sure you read that about planet wide usage, not realizing, of course, that here in the US we get less than 20% of our power from coal.

I was actually referrign to germany. You know, one of the countries in this article.

The same country that is still sticking to its plan to phase out nuclear by 2023.

Germany extends lifetime of remaining nuclear plants – DW – 10/17/2022

After coalition wrangling over nuclear power, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has decided that all three plants should run throughout the winter. Germany has been scrambling to reorganize its energy mix amid gas cuts.

www.dw.com

Dont forget that germany is returning to coal power instead of that icky nuclear stuff

Greta: Germany making 'mistake' by ditching nuclear for coal – DW – 10/11/2022

The Swedish climate activist said it would be a "bad idea" for Germany to focus on coal when nuclear power plants were already in place. German politicians looking to extend the running times pounced on the comments.

www.dw.com

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Maybe you are still watching TV shows from the 70s. Your info is about that good. I know there are a big majority of greenies (Im not one, by the way) are in full favor of nuke power and have been for nearly 2 decades.

Im actually referring to right now, where politicians and environmental groups are still advocating for the shutdown of nuclear.

but you know, its hard to admit you are living a fantasy where magic electricity just works

And solar does work at night. Because of the dozens of methods of storing power generated thru the day.

So no, solar does nto work at night. Batteries work at night. Those same battteries that are massively expensive, create a ton of CO2 when made, need replaced regularly, and can cause catastrophic house fires.

Those batteries.

Right......that will surely save us! Just make every american buy $120k in house batteries! LMFAO.

 

[gamerk2]

Maybe you are still watching TV shows from the 70s. Your info is about that good.

Yet you have zero issue quoting scientific predictions from the 70's...

 

[scavengerspc]

Yet you have zero issue quoting scientific predictions from the 70's...

Did I do that?

 

[scavengerspc]

Some interesting quotes in there from this U.N. enviromental official. Like "He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I would never deny crackpot predictions, but I was quoting your specific statement, claiming that predictions were"Florida would be underwater by 2020".

Europe to cut greenhouse gasses by banning sales of CO2-emitting cars from 2035

Starting in 2035, new cars sold in Europe will have to use alternatives to combustion fuels. The European Union recently took the unprecedented decision to ban sales...

www.techspot.com

 

[gamerk2]

Oh, so they wern't serious now, since their prediction didn't come true?

But NOW they are super serious and totally not screaming about the sky falling yet again.

Gotcha. And in 2050 when none of the current predictions come true and they scream about florida being underwater by 2070 so you need to stop eating meat and get in the pod, I'm sure you'll believe them again.

Despite all that technology these "climate scientists" still cant seem to get a single prediction right. Mogadishu was supposed to be underwater 20 years ago.

The problem with predictions are they are based on assumptions. For example, it was assumed (for example) the oceans could absorb a lot less CO2 then they actually could, which pushed the worst predictions out to the right. Another example: It's unknown how much sunlight the ice caps really reflect; scientists take their "best guess" based on other parameters and observed results. And so on.

Data as far back as the early-90's was spotty at best, due in large point to a lack of data. The general idea that CO2 traps heat is well understood (and basically undisputed), the problem is understanding how fast this occurs. Nowadays we have CO2 and temperature records going back centuries, and there is *much* more data which has allowed various parameters to be figured out (to a reasonable degree).

 

[Nobina]

I'll drive an EV but I'm not buying one myself. I also don't want any unnecessary software that can be tampered with.

 

[Impudicus]

Great, ban combustion cars, put all your eggs in one basket. Alternatives are great, mandates are not. By 2035 things might look different, but even now resources for this are scarce and relay heavily on unethical labor practices.

 

[dangh]

I'm very happy with this approach, no oil change, less breaking parts, quiet, and prices of batteries constantly gaming down(20pct in last 3 months). It is very time to get this thing up and running, and it is as well time to get rid of combustion engines. The only thing left to do is to standardize chargers and introduce some solid mechanism for battery swap for larger cars.

 

[scavengerspc]

Im actually referring to right now, where politicians and environmental groups are still advocating for the shutdown of nuclear.

but you know, its hard to admit you are living a fantasy where magic electricity just works

I think, if I may use a swear word for you, you research you will find far, far fewer anti nuclear power types. Especially now that we have seen how minor the protests were for the new Georgia reactors.

And electricity does "just work". Turn on a light. Then you will see.
Be back for the rest of your "thoughts" soon.

 

[scavengerspc]

Great, ban combustion cars, put all your eggs in one basket. Alternatives are great, mandates are not. By 2035 things might look different, but even now resources for this are scarce and relay heavily on unethical labor practices

That's hard to respond to, because I'm laughing so hard. But I will.

We already put our "eggs in one basket" with fossil fuel. Look where that got us.

 

[Crabjuice]

Despite all that technology these "climate scientists" still cant seem to get a single prediction right. Mogadishu was supposed to be underwater 20 years ago.

Incorrect. https://www.science.org/content/art...ate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

 

[Crabjuice]

Here's one for you:

A 1989 AP Report: Nations “Wiped Off Face of the Earth” by 2000

While stories like the one below should not dismiss an intelligent discussion about the environmental challenges we face today, this 1989 report does raise legitimate questions about the apocalyptic and absolute predictions promoted by many who support a similar narrative in 2019. From a...

tallahasseereports.com

Some interesting quotes in there from this U.N. enviromental official. Like "He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

Sounds familiar right? Except he was saying this in 1989.

Some unknown, unnamed "environmental official" made a prediction. There is no evidence he/she was a scientist or even working in the field of environmental science. Most likely a politician.

This sire has a nice collection on news articles from "biologists" and "climate scientists" and the usual tat dating back to the 60s

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

What you have is a tiny list (more than one made by the same biologist) dredged up by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has a vested interest in believing that CO2 emissions aren't a problem. What's their evidence? A bunch of old news articles. Sheesh, in one example they even claim the ozone hole was never a problem, but neglect to mention that it was never a problem because we actually did something about it! It's also interesting that they focus only on failed predictions - you will never see an article on CEI about what was correctly predicted. Not because correct predictions don't exist - but because that would go against their narrative. They are a political organization after all. Admitting to any negative consequences from unrestricted capitalism or the possibility that government intervention might be required is blasphemy to libertarians. They just won't do it.

I will agree with you on one thing. Not including nuclear power as a form of energy generation is a horrible, irrational decision.

 

[scavengerspc]

Some unknown, unnamed "environmental official" made a prediction. There is no evidence he/she was a scientist or even working in the field of environmental science. Most likely a politician.


What you have is a tiny list (more than one made by the same biologist) dredged up by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has a vested interest in believing that CO2 emissions aren't a problem. What's their evidence? A bunch of old news articles. Sheesh, in one example they even claim the ozone hole was never a problem, but neglect to mention that it was never a problem because we actually did something about it! It's also interesting that they focus only on failed predictions - you will never see an article on CEI about what was correctly predicted. Not because correct predictions don't exist - but because that would go against their narrative. They are a political organization after all. Admitting to any negative consequences from unrestricted capitalism or the possibility that government intervention might be required is blasphemy to libertarians. They just won't do it.

I will agree with you on one thing. Not including nuclear power as a form of energy generation is a horrible, irrational decision.

I applaud you. But many have been there with him before.
He is a damn good guy, but on this, he doesn't want the truth. Or the facts. Or the historical data.

Next EV thread he will say the same things.

 

[scavengerspc]

I'll drive an EV but I'm not buying one myself. I also don't want any unnecessary software that can be tampered with.

Do you think an EV has so much more software than a smoker?