GM is pulling back on EVs

[tripleyellowmustang]

Muh forced mandates. It’s for the good of the people they say. Who wants to be a guinea pig?

https://news.yahoo.com/forcing-hydrogen-boilers-homes-branded-172626870.html

“A peer who helped draft the UK's Climate Change Act has described forcing households to accept hydrogen boilers as a ‘potentially dangerous and expensive experiment‘ amid a mounting Lords rebellion over the plans.”

“Under the new legislation, GDNs will have the right to enter anyone's home for any reason connected to the installation.”

“‘for the hydrogen trials to be safe, all the appliances and pipes in every home in the trial area would either have to be changed to run on hydrogen or be disconnected from the gas grid.’”

“‘If any household refused to collaborate, then in theory the draft of the Energy Bill gives gas companies the right to forcibly enter their homes.’”

“Northern Gas Networks said it would have to enter someone’s home if they refused to be taken off gas because it would stop the trial from going ahead safely.”

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

“Under the new legislation, GDNs will have the right to enter anyone's home for any reason connected to the installation.”

“‘If any household refused to collaborate, then in theory the draft of the Energy Bill gives gas companies the right to forcibly enter their homes.’”

Just thought I'd repeat these in case anyone thinks it is not being done by force.

I remember the cartoon "wizard of ID"

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

John Kerry is still trying to defend his hypocrisy and phoniness. And the sad fact is that many buy into his excuse making and deflection; after all, he is working harder than most.

https://news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-rushes-defense-climate-180552774.html

”In an interview with Yahoo News, Kerry took issue with criticism levied against leaders who fly on private jets despite lofty climate ambitions, saying those individuals are ’working harder’ than most to fight climate change. He also echoed an argument defending private jet travel he has previously used, suggesting so-called carbon offsets justify such high-carbon-footprint travel.

‘They offset — they buy offsets, they offset, and they are working harder than most people I know to be able to try to effect this transition,‘ he told the outlet late last week.”

“Fox News Digital recently reported that Kerry's family sold its private jet, a Gulfstream GIV-SP, last year amid intense criticism over its carbon footprint. As of July, the month before the sale occurred, the jet had made a total of 48 trips lasting more than 60 hours and emitted an estimated 715,886 pounds, or 325 metric tons, since President Biden appointed Kerry to the position.”

”Private jet travel, which is by far the most carbon-intensive mode of transportation, emits 10 times more carbon than commercial planes and 50 times more carbon than trains, according to a 2021 report from the group Transport & Environment.”

 

[HoosierDaddy]

carbon offsets justify such high-carbon-footprint travel.

‘They offset — they buy offsets, they offset, and they are working harder than most people I know to be able to try to effect this transition,‘

I asked a neighbor if he had any moral qualms about being an abortionist. He answered no because of his offsets. He knocks up 2 women for every abortion he performs.

 

[ice445]

Reading this thread is just proof that we're doomed, honestly. Society is backed into a corner, riding immense inertia from people who greatly benefit to have as minimal change as possible. We can't even agree that there's a problem looming, let alone how to solve it.

Oh well. Gonna do my part on releasing mass amounts of carbon while I still have the privilege.

 

[sk47]

Reading this thread is just proof that we're doomed, honestly. Society is backed into a corner, riding immense inertia from people who greatly benefit to have as minimal change as possible. We can't even agree that there's a problem looming, let alone how to solve it.

Oh well. Gonna do my part on releasing mass amounts of carbon while I still have the privilege.

Hello; Interesting in that i had a similar outlook in the early 1970's. Different sets of crisis tho. In my area back then the strip mines were cutting ugly roads on the sides of the low mountains. The highwalls could be seen for miles. Lack of erosion control had sediment clogging streams.
A river in Ohio was catching fire from time to time from volatile pollutants.
Driving thru Cincinatti made my eyes sting in places. We were facing a new ICE AGE.
Not sure when it stopped but cars still had leaded gas and asbestos clutch and brake linings.
At some point back then it became risky to drink from streams.
I could go on and for sure have omitted many of the dire problems of the days.

My boogey man was a combination of logic and undergrad + graduate study of population biology. I reasoned that too many people doing things was the base cause of most issues. If a thousand people using electricity, driving cars, heating homes, plowing fields, paving over land to build and make ever bigger roads caused issues, then ten thousand doing the same thing created even more effects.
Then I thought of the billions of new humans predicted to come along. The doubling rate of human population exponentially taking less and less time. (the hockey stick curve of population) There were many studies of population dynamics for animal populations. With nature & biology being equally applicable to people as they are to any organism.

It is over 50 years later for me. Some of the dire expectations have come about. Some are not so bad. That bottled water is so commonplace has been a big red flag for me. On the other hand, cars are so very much less polluting. However, there are so many more cars.

Here is one way it appears to me. With the human population as big as it has gotten it seems that if every individual resorted to a bare minimum lifestyle there must still needs be ever increasing pollution. Human waste alone cannot be wished away.
People absolutely need to grow food as hunting/gathering was not enough anymore not long after the first green revolution. (Green in this case for preindustrial lightly mechanized agriculture) Now we are at the industrial farming stage.
Someone estimated a population of maybe 5,000,000,000 (five billion people) could have been supported in the past with lightly mechanized agriculture. We now have something well over 7,000,000,000 (seven billion) and increasing. We require modern industrial agriculture to just about feed people. Actually, millions go hungry as i type.

One major thing is artificial fertilizers made from natural gas. The land itself cannot grow enough food without it anymore. Add to that requirement all the heavy equipment needed to work the land then process the food and finally to transport the food. Transport to the mini malls which spring up everywhere with supermarkets that need lots of electricity to cool and keep the food for us. Mini malls which are so very often placed on what used to be good farmland. You know the nice sections of flat land that make such good parking lots.

So yes, we have painted ourselves into a corner to use an old cliché. Now that we are in this situation there are no good ways out. My preferred fix failed 50+ years ago. That being we intelligent humans could stabilize our population. Such did not happen.
Now we have a cadre of fanatics who have latched onto a flawed notion there is a workable way out of this dilemma. The consequences of how we got to where we are going to be dire. The consequences of the green energy + EV dream are going to be dire.

Enough from me. I decided to have a smaller footprint some decades ago. Not a do without smaller footprint as I have not given up heating my home nor driving. I do keep the house less warm than I could and i generally only drive for a purpose and not joyride anymore. I like V8 engines still.

 

[K4fxd]

One major thing is artificial fertilizers made from natural gas. The land itself cannot grow enough food without it anymore.

That is the beauty of warming. The growing zone moves north, in the northern hemisphere, ans I would suppose the same in the southern. Canada has very fertile soil, just not long enough growing seasons to feed the world. This natural warming lets us use more fertile soils for food. The planet is not trying to get rid of us it is trying to help us.

After many hundreds of years the northern soil will be depleted and the earth will cool, thus allowing the growing seasons to move south. Where it was too warm to farm efficiently. Since the dirt was not farmed it has been replenished naturally and the circle starts over again.

Call me a Kook I don't care, just look at history and apply logic.

 

[sk47]

That is the beauty of warming. The growing zone moves north, in the northern hemisphere, ans I would suppose the same in the southern. Canada has very fertile soil, just not long enough growing seasons to feed the world. This natural warming lets us use more fertile soils for food. The planet is not trying to get rid of us it is trying to help us.

After many hundreds of years the northern soil will be depleted and the earth will cool, thus allowing the growing seasons to move south. Where it was too warm to farm efficiently. Since the dirt was not farmed it has been replenished naturally and the circle starts over again.

Call me a Kook I don't care, just look at history and apply logic.

Hello; There are large tracts of land around Russia for which what you write may apply.

We in the USA were blessed with the plains a couple centuries ago. In some places the fertile topsoils were ten feet or there abouts thick. We also have the vast underground aquifers under several states. Both have been used up much faster than they can be replenished.
I seemed to know at one time it takes maybe 500 years for natural processes to make an inch of topsoil. we are removing something like a 1/4 inch of topsoil a year in places. Some of the early settled east coast states had their soils depleted long ago.

A friend from my past was a good heavy equipment operator. He got a job working on the Trans Amazonian Highway in the 1970's. That single road started an ongoing process. Have a look at the aerial photos from back then to now.

 

[ice445]

Hello; There are large tracts of land around Russia for which what you write may apply.

We in the USA were blessed with the plains a couple centuries ago. In some places the fertile topsoils were ten feet or there abouts thick. We also have the vast underground aquifers under several states. Both have been used up much faster than they can be replenished.
I seemed to know at one time it takes maybe 500 years for natural processes to make an inch of topsoil. we are removing something like a 1/4 inch of topsoil a year in places. Some of the early settled east coast states had their soils depleted long ago.

A friend from my past was a good heavy equipment operator. He got a job working on the Trans Amazonian Highway in the 1970's. That single road started an ongoing process. Have a look at the aerial photos from back then to now.

Yep, topsoil depletion is a big issue. Another issue is that we need to be paying farmers to idle fields more often. Farmers HAVE to grow stuff every year to not go broke. Fertilizers also cause their own issues with runoff when they're used year after year. Water supplies are also a big issue. Not only is the Colorado watershed depleted, but the Ogallalla aquifer under much of America's bread basket (and the primary feed stock for our crop output) is being depleted rapidly. I forget how much the ground has sunk, but satellite tracking over time has showed a pretty big drop. It's definitely incapable of refilling faster than we use it, and once it dries up, we're fucked.

And that's really the issue, there's just so many "loans" coming due in the near future that I don't see how we're getting out of it without massive changes or dissolution. We've literally just been stealing from the future for ages now to be more comfortable in the present, lol.

 

[sk47]

Yep, topsoil depletion is a big issue. Another issue is that we need to be paying farmers to idle fields more often. Farmers HAVE to grow stuff every year to not go broke. Fertilizers also cause their own issues with runoff when they're used year after year. Water supplies are also a big issue. Not only is the Colorado watershed depleted, but the Ogallalla aquifer under much of America's bread basket (and the primary feed stock for our crop output) is being depleted rapidly. I forget how much the ground has sunk, but satellite tracking over time has showed a pretty big drop. It's definitely incapable of refilling faster than we use it, and once it dries up, we're fucked.

And that's really the issue, there's just so many "loans" coming due in the near future that I don't see how we're getting out of it without massive changes or dissolution. We've literally just been stealing from the future for ages now to be more comfortable in the present, lol.

Hello; Interesting that Gregs and Key liked your post. By that meaning these issues have nothing to do with warming or climate. Yes farmers have to grow to stay in business but the food supply also is critical.
You are also correct in that land needs to rest every now and then. I knew it as crop rotation with maybe a third of a framer's land lying fallow at any time. The fallow land could be planted with nitrogen fixing plants, (associated bacteria living on the roots I think)
The Ogallalla is the aquifer I was thinking of but could not recall how to spell it. The clue before fancy satellite imaging was how deep new wells had to be dug/drilled over time.

We are in a tough spot in that any reduction in food crop output puts people at risk of hunger and starvation. So not likely much land will lie fallow, nor much ground water use reduced. On top of using up the ground water there is another issue. Ground water is loaded with mineral salts. There are places where center pivot watering rigs were used so long the topsoil becomes too "salty" to grow many food crops. Saw that in Texas back in early 1990's. So not very likely the topsoils nor the water will be spared.

The Colorado river is redirected to keep cities in California going. Now that is not enough water. I read they want to tap the Mississippi soon. An Irony is the fight between the cities and the California farmers over water. The cities have many times the number of people/voters than farmland has voters so the cities likely will win the argument. Wonder what sort of answer the cities will come up with when food supplies diminish. Again, nothing to do with climate nor warming.

The massive change you mention is vague enough that i am not sure what you mean. Is it a big reduction in population? Is it perhaps only a massive change in our energy systems? After all people will continue to need food and water and the energy source will not much matter with respect to land or water use. Also, since some people currently are at or near starvation levels it is not a 50 year in the future someday problem.
Dissolution is easier to figure. Means , I guess, that lifestyles will become hard and lots of folks will die. Here is something to ponder. Back in the late 1960's and early 1970's I figured the future was destined to become unlivable for most people by the 1990's. Things are not great to be sure but we are 30 years beyond my worst date currently with many of us living decent lives. So much for my particular predictive abilities. On the other hand a number of my more worrisome prediction are come about.

There are lots more things to bring up is this sort of discussion but i will end with one. That being the legislative decision a few decades ago to start turning food into fuel. Corn made into ethanol to add to gasoline fuel. This was a top down legislative decision loaded with the sort of backroom deal making that almost always happens. Two things have stood out about the results over time.
One is the practice yielded very small amounts of extra fuel. It took almost as much fossil fuel (diesel) to grow, transport and process the corn as the amount of ethanol we got out of it. I may be wrong in my recall but it was something like 9 gallons of fossil fuel to get 10 gallons of ethanol. But the scheme was and apparently still is popular among those making money from it and the donations that follow.
One very immediate outcome was a sharp increase in grain prices around the world. This led to more hunger and starvation. I kept a scientific journal with a long and detailed report about this from 2001 for a long time. Think those old journals did not make the move to my new house.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Interesting that Gregs and Key liked your post. By that meaning these issues have nothing to do with warming or climate. Yes farmers have to grow to stay in business but the food supply also is critical.
You are also correct in that land needs to rest every now and then. I knew it as crop rotation with maybe a third of a framer's land lying fallow at any time. The fallow land could be planted with nitrogen fixing plants, (associated bacteria living on the roots I think)
The Ogallalla is the aquifer I was thinking of but could not recall how to spell it. The clue before fancy satellite imaging was how deep new wells had to be dug/drilled over time.

We are in a tough spot in that any reduction in food crop output puts people at risk of hunger and starvation. So not likely much land will lie fallow, nor much ground water use reduced. On top of using up the ground water there is another issue. Ground water is loaded with mineral salts. There are places where center pivot watering rigs were used so long the topsoil becomes too "salty" to grow many food crops. Saw that in Texas back in early 1990's. So not very likely the topsoils nor the water will be spared.

The Colorado river is redirected to keep cities in California going. Now that is not enough water. I read they want to tap the Mississippi soon. An Irony is the fight between the cities and the California farmers over water. The cities have many times the number of people/voters than farmland has voters so the cities likely will win the argument. Wonder what sort of answer the cities will come up with when food supplies diminish. Again, nothing to do with climate nor warming.

The massive change you mention is vague enough that i am not sure what you mean. Is it a big reduction in population? Is it perhaps only a massive change in our energy systems? After all people will continue to need food and water and the energy source will not much matter with respect to land or water use. Also, since some people currently are at or near starvation levels it is not a 50 year in the future someday problem.
Dissolution is easier to figure. Means , I guess, that lifestyles will become hard and lots of folks will die. Here is something to ponder. Back in the late 1960's and early 1970's I figured the future was destined to become unlivable for most people by the 1990's. Things are not great to be sure but we are 30 years beyond my worst date currently with many of us living decent lives. So much for my particular predictive abilities. On the other hand a number of my more worrisome prediction are come about.

There are lots more things to bring up is this sort of discussion but i will end with one. That being the legislative decision a few decades ago to start turning food into fuel. Corn made into ethanol to add to gasoline fuel. This was a top down legislative decision loaded with the sort of backroom deal making that almost always happens. Two things have stood out about the results over time.
One is the practice yielded very small amounts of extra fuel. It took almost as much fossil fuel (diesel) to grow, transport and process the corn as the amount of ethanol we got out of it. I may be wrong in my recall but it was something like 9 gallons of fossil fuel to get 10 gallons of ethanol. But the scheme was and apparently still is popular among those making money from it and the donations that follow.
One very immediate outcome was a sharp increase in grain prices around the world. This led to more hunger and starvation. I kept a scientific journal with a long and detailed report about this from 2001 for a long time. Think those old journals did not make the move to my new house.

Hello; here is a sobering link. 11,591 will die from hunger today.

Worldometer - real time world statistics (worldometers.info)

 

[ice445]

Hello; Interesting that Gregs and Key liked your post. By that meaning these issues have nothing to do with warming or climate. Yes farmers have to grow to stay in business but the food supply also is critical.
You are also correct in that land needs to rest every now and then. I knew it as crop rotation with maybe a third of a framer's land lying fallow at any time. The fallow land could be planted with nitrogen fixing plants, (associated bacteria living on the roots I think)
The Ogallalla is the aquifer I was thinking of but could not recall how to spell it. The clue before fancy satellite imaging was how deep new wells had to be dug/drilled over time.

We are in a tough spot in that any reduction in food crop output puts people at risk of hunger and starvation. So not likely much land will lie fallow, nor much ground water use reduced. On top of using up the ground water there is another issue. Ground water is loaded with mineral salts. There are places where center pivot watering rigs were used so long the topsoil becomes too "salty" to grow many food crops. Saw that in Texas back in early 1990's. So not very likely the topsoils nor the water will be spared.

The Colorado river is redirected to keep cities in California going. Now that is not enough water. I read they want to tap the Mississippi soon. An Irony is the fight between the cities and the California farmers over water. The cities have many times the number of people/voters than farmland has voters so the cities likely will win the argument. Wonder what sort of answer the cities will come up with when food supplies diminish. Again, nothing to do with climate nor warming.

The massive change you mention is vague enough that i am not sure what you mean. Is it a big reduction in population? Is it perhaps only a massive change in our energy systems? After all people will continue to need food and water and the energy source will not much matter with respect to land or water use. Also, since some people currently are at or near starvation levels it is not a 50 year in the future someday problem.
Dissolution is easier to figure. Means , I guess, that lifestyles will become hard and lots of folks will die. Here is something to ponder. Back in the late 1960's and early 1970's I figured the future was destined to become unlivable for most people by the 1990's. Things are not great to be sure but we are 30 years beyond my worst date currently with many of us living decent lives. So much for my particular predictive abilities. On the other hand a number of my more worrisome prediction are come about.

There are lots more things to bring up is this sort of discussion but i will end with one. That being the legislative decision a few decades ago to start turning food into fuel. Corn made into ethanol to add to gasoline fuel. This was a top down legislative decision loaded with the sort of backroom deal making that almost always happens. Two things have stood out about the results over time.
One is the practice yielded very small amounts of extra fuel. It took almost as much fossil fuel (diesel) to grow, transport and process the corn as the amount of ethanol we got out of it. I may be wrong in my recall but it was something like 9 gallons of fossil fuel to get 10 gallons of ethanol. But the scheme was and apparently still is popular among those making money from it and the donations that follow.
One very immediate outcome was a sharp increase in grain prices around the world. This led to more hunger and starvation. I kept a scientific journal with a long and detailed report about this from 2001 for a long time. Think those old journals did not make the move to my new house.

I agree that food is important, but I believe most issues with food relate more to access versus outright availability, other than in very poor countries. I know Americans (me being included) are bad about throwing away lots of food that they don't feel like eating or let expire. I do love having fully stocked grocery stores at all times though.

As far as what big changes I mentioned, there's really only two options. Either a lot of people die and aren't replaced, or individual consumption goes way down. I'm not sure if this is accurate, but supposedly the average American consumes 22 barrels of oil each year. Such wanton use of a finite resource simply isn't intelligent, regardless if it makes our life easy and convenient. Don't mistake this point as me deciding I'm the arbiter of choice, and that people are the problem, because while they are in a technical sense, they're simply making use of the system as it is provided to them. That's nobody's fault really. All of us in this thread benefit massively from living in first world nations and having the privilege of arguing over the internet on our cutting edge computers. So why would anyone want to give any of that up? How could you even make people do so without using China esque state control? That's why I talked about inertia before. There's a whole shitload of it shaping our decision making and available pathways. And what's even more annoying to me, is there are several softer landings that we should have been investing in ages ago, like nuclear energy. But the lobbying and nimbyism killed that and we all didn't really pay attention. Now, the cost to do that has probably tripled and will only get worse from here.

As a sidenote and potentially offensive opinion, I think capitalism has some really stupid elements that are fundamentally necessary to drive improvement, but are also incredibly wasteful. I like using the optic of furniture to drive this point. Why do we need 250+ different kinds of dressers being made and shipped everywhere? 250+ kinds of bed frames? Why does every walmart supercenter need to be filled to the brim with random crap? Who's even buying that? In principle we can obviously do with less, FAR less and not have a fundamentally worse life experience compared to before. But then I get in my stupid, pointless, incredibly wasteful yet joyous sports car and accept that that same paradox also makes my life more enjoyable. So it's a catch 22 that doesn't benefit me to solve. Therefore I have given up, lol. Economics is our only savior, because at some point when resources are depleted, price will shoot up and literally force people to change their behavior. Until then, I have zero faith in any sort of major corrections.

 

[sk47]

I agree that food is important, but I believe most issues with food relate more to access versus outright availability, other than in very poor countries.
Hello; Had this discussion person to person over the decades. Same counter argument that there is plant of food just problems getting it to where it may be needed. Lack of ports. lack of trucks and good roads or rail in areas of need. Guess some of the answer has to do with how much folks in well stocked areas are willing to do with less so other can have a bit more. (Sorry but it is just too tempting to get a dig in at the green champions in Denmark i think. A Nordic area country anyway. The leaders are going to make farmers get rid of lots of cows over cow farts. )

....only two options. Either a lot of people die and aren't replaced, or individual consumption goes way down.
Hello; One thing about biology and nature any animal population that uses the land beyond carrying capacity will pay the price. Happens in human populations same as animals. A theory about what happened on Easter island for an example. There are others. Several areas with famine common in the last six or so decades have overused the land usually with a population beyond the carry capacity of the land. The land supported a lower population but could not support a larger population. So, yes nature will solve the issue a hard way.
Lots of luck getting folks to consume less. Had a similar conversation with a successful dentist and sometimes coal mine investor. He basically said he did the effort to make the money and was going to use it while he had it.
Note- this idea of everyone with plenty getting along with less will spoil Gregs offset ideas. He justifies having ICE vehicles because he has solar panels. A John Kerry way is that his family buys carbon credits, so his private jet use is just fine. (I get the Kerry's recently sold a jet)

Don't mistake this point as me deciding I'm the arbiter of choice, and that people are the problem, because while they are in a technical sense, they're simply making use of the system as it is provided to them. That's nobody's fault really.
Hello; i may address this at a future time, but kinda has to be fault somewhere.

How could you even make people do so without using China esque state control?
Hello; Fair enough. People get too much body fat, put them in labor camps. People with Mustang GT's have them taken away and replaced with something awful. Maybe bicycles if they live in a city.
Who will get to be in control of the China like levers of control? I suspect the Chairman in China is not doing without too much. Tell you what, if i can be one of the privileged few i will support your idea. I may leave you as part of the masses as doing without was your idea.


I think capitalism has some really stupid elements that are fundamentally necessary to drive improvement, but are also incredibly wasteful.
Hello; This is a bit confusing. Near as i can figure the west prospered with capitalism and places like China started prospering after they essentially started using something very close to capitalism.

In principle we can obviously do with less, FAR less and not have a fundamentally worse life experience compared to before.
Hello; Thank you for this comment. I have been critical of the "green" champions by saying green embodies a do without lifestyle as part of the plan.

But then I get in my stupid, pointless, incredibly wasteful yet joyous sports car and accept that that same paradox also makes my life more enjoyable. So it's a catch 22 that doesn't benefit me to solve. Therefore I have given up, lol.
Hello; Fair enough. I get it. Hang onto a flush lifestyle and let all the noble words be just so much electronic graffiti. Enjoy while you can.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/car-breathalyzer-only-few-years-164000487.html

Another present from our elected critters.

 

[sk47]

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/car-breathalyzer-only-few-years-164000487.html

Another present from our elected critters.

"if this sounds a bit sudden, it actually isn’t. According to Automotive News, the rule was hidden in the depths of President Biden’s $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act from late 2021, but by next year a final rule must be issued on the new regulation. "

"There’s just one real problem: that piece of technology doesn’t really exist yet for a commercialized application."

Hello; Got to love it. Took a page from the green and EV crowd. make a law for something not yet ready.

Sponsored