Sadlsor
Site Supporter
It all depends on what the flavor of the month is that they're unhappy about.I wonder what they will blame that on
UK to Ban Sales of New Petrol Fuelled Motorcycles from 2040
- Thread starter Fawlty
- Start date
rwthomas1
Site Supporter
You'd think the UK would be banning cows
The Global Methane Emission From Cows Issue - HomeBiogas
"The beef and dairy cattle industry is responsible for about 14.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and more than half of this gas is methane. This potent greenhouse gas traps heat in the atmosphere 25 times more effectively than carbon dioxide."
Of the top 5 methane producing industries, "agriculture is at the top, and cow methane emissions make up almost 70% of the total emissions in this area. How is that possible? Each cow produces about 220 pounds of methane annually. Multiply that by 1 billion cows, and you will better understand why something needs to change in the beef and dairy industry to make agriculture more sustainable and eco-friendly.
Why is this so crucial and urgent? Methane has 80 times the short-term warming potential of carbon dioxide, making it one of the most potent greenhouse gases. In fact, scientists estimate that half of the warming occurring over the following two decades will be caused by the increasing amounts of methane in the atmosphere. "
Crazy world isn't it? Won't even be able to get a decent steak or burger someday if the greenies get their way
Stuff like this leaves me asking why would 28 million cows in the US be an issue? They estimate 30+million bison in the past. Do bison not fart? Were the bison a problem greenhouse gas producer?
That's a good question, but keep in mind that the current greenhouse gasses produced by cows are in addition to greenhouse gasses produced by an industrialized world. The large herds of bison didn't live in this world.
.
Some people think they could even be part of the solution........
.
Some people think they could even be part of the solution........
.
Co2 is 10-6, Methane is 10-9...
We just need to capture it and burn it to make electricity for all those EV's......
We just need to capture it and burn it to make electricity for all those EV's......
the Ferret
Daily rider since May 1965
.Some people think they could even be part of the solution........
.
Well, how about THAT?
TATANKA
ReSTored
Site Supporter
Whether or not you believe in "Climate Change" the climate is changing, and it appears to be doing so at a relatively fast rate compared to historical records.
Some governments recognize this, many don't. I think we're in a bit of a death spiral where things will get worse before they get better.
Try to convince China to stop building more coal fueled power plants, good luck. Is Russia going to stop using and selling oil? They can't, it's their life blood financially.
I have kids and grandkids and I worry about what the world is going to look like in 50 - 75 years, climate wise.
Some governments recognize this, many don't. I think we're in a bit of a death spiral where things will get worse before they get better.
Try to convince China to stop building more coal fueled power plants, good luck. Is Russia going to stop using and selling oil? They can't, it's their life blood financially.
I have kids and grandkids and I worry about what the world is going to look like in 50 - 75 years, climate wise.
My thing is I wonder how little it would add to the thinking that if we got rid of fossil fuels the earth would self correct itself? I have doubts. Even all the scientist cannot agree on the degree of man made emissions that are a 100 percent cause of global warming. I think the earth will continue warming as the ice core samples show then slowly go the other way and the earth will be covered by 1 mile thick ice glaciers....the fossil records show that also. Finally current techology cannot stop these events from happening.
ReSTored
Site Supporter
I think the key difference now is the rate of change. Yes, we've had multiple ice ages and periods of extreme heat. But these changes took place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
Anyways, people will believe what they want, can't change that.
Interesting case, China, last year, the rest of the world together barely matched that one country investments in green energy.
They are trending quite well with wind and solar
They do have the same issue we have here: the capacity is not produced close to where it is needed, hence their still having to rely on coal more than they would like to (and us happily selling them the coal we are no longer burning but still producing!). The difference is that they are doing something about it, developping an impressive low loss UHV distribution network (1 million kV lines) to deliver the power where it is needed. How many UHV lines in the US? Zero! (Even Canada is doing better on that....!).
And although the country CO2 emmission is monstruous.....their per capita emmision is still only about half the US.
Not a clear case figuring out who is falling behind at this time.
Now, what are they going to do with their larger cities subsiding at a rate of close to 1/2 in per year while they happily pump out the underground water, that's another question (Houston not falling behind on that though, still in the top 10 world sinkers).
ST1100Y
Site Supporter
Yeah... the green-washing...
Within the EC all noticeable industries got forced to close-down/relocate/outsource due to extreme and over-boarded environmental protection requirements...
So products like the oh so environmental friendly PV-panels, inverters, down to the aluminum rails and brackets for roof installation are produced exclusively in China and hauled around the globe on crude oil freighters...
Sure... the Great Wall reaches up to the stratosphere, positive that all the pollution would never come over here...
And those imbeciles pulling the same stunt with the entire local agriculture... ban of pesticides, keeping stables, etc... we're so good, green and progressive...
Like no sugar beet cultures anymore, farmers loosing their yards, the entire sugar production industry behind it has to shut down...
Yep... because that darn Mercosur trading agreement must become reality by all means... err... the profits out of it...
So Vienna coffeehouses will serve the Melange with cane sugar now... that's gonna be something...
How do you bake a Sacher Torte in the future?
And all the folks being cheated out of their jobs live happily ever after... on welfare...
Bison farts have less fat and cholesterol than cow farts.
rwthomas1
Site Supporter
There's a book by Vaclav Smil called How the World Works that is a pretty good read. I don't deny the climate is changing, it always has and always will. The question is the rate of change, how much influence has humanity had on it, and most importantly, will it make any difference at all at this point.
And for me that is the crux of the problem. There is no way to know, no metric that will definitively show that our efforts are working. Smil points this out, any changes we make will take 60-80yrs to take effect measurably. There isn't even a target that everyone agrees on. Its like they are tossing crap against the wall to see what will stick. If changes are made to reduce greenhouse gases, and the climate changes for the better, hooray! It worked! If changes are made to reduce greenhouse gases, and the climate changes for the worse, we didn't do enough. No one can tell how much "enough" is.
Not that efforts shouldn't be made, they absolutely should. Smil also points out we are missing a whole lot of "low hanging fruit" while chasing the large undefinable problems. And that is the insanity of it. My understanding is that the dikes/levies in New Orleans were rebuilt after Katrina to the same standard as before. Why? Why were they not built bigger and stronger? Was anything done in NYC and NJ after "super storm Sandy" to keep it from happening again? Not that I know of. And on it goes.
There is a storm approaching. Do you batten down the hatches, as it were, and prep for the storm, or do you run out and buy a Prius and a solar array and hope the next storms aren't as bad? Because that is what we are doing. If we are really concerned about it, why aren't we trying to repair, reinforce, upgrade and rebuild our infrastructure to handle the extreme climate that is supposed to be coming? If storm intensity is increasing, why is coastal development increasing, housing being constructed in flood plains, etc? I work in critical infrastructure and its all crumbling. Dams, bridges, roads, water and wastewater plants and pump stations, power generation, etc. are all extremely vulnerable to extreme weather. And next to nothing is being done to fix this problem. And when they do actually spend money on infrastructure, its so rife with pork and corruption its a joke.
Will the wind farm off the coast survive a big hurricane? Will all those solar panels on roofs, and in once beautiful open fields be there after the hurricane? I can say with certainty that the damages to the facilities I work on will be in the hundreds of millions. Because they are going to fail. And that is just one little city. Will it matter that you can't charge your EV if there isn't potable water and the toilets don't flush? I'll start taking this seriously when the people insisting I'm the problem stop flying about in private jets, to and from their multiple beachfront properties actually start making sense.
And for me that is the crux of the problem. There is no way to know, no metric that will definitively show that our efforts are working. Smil points this out, any changes we make will take 60-80yrs to take effect measurably. There isn't even a target that everyone agrees on. Its like they are tossing crap against the wall to see what will stick. If changes are made to reduce greenhouse gases, and the climate changes for the better, hooray! It worked! If changes are made to reduce greenhouse gases, and the climate changes for the worse, we didn't do enough. No one can tell how much "enough" is.
Not that efforts shouldn't be made, they absolutely should. Smil also points out we are missing a whole lot of "low hanging fruit" while chasing the large undefinable problems. And that is the insanity of it. My understanding is that the dikes/levies in New Orleans were rebuilt after Katrina to the same standard as before. Why? Why were they not built bigger and stronger? Was anything done in NYC and NJ after "super storm Sandy" to keep it from happening again? Not that I know of. And on it goes.
There is a storm approaching. Do you batten down the hatches, as it were, and prep for the storm, or do you run out and buy a Prius and a solar array and hope the next storms aren't as bad? Because that is what we are doing. If we are really concerned about it, why aren't we trying to repair, reinforce, upgrade and rebuild our infrastructure to handle the extreme climate that is supposed to be coming? If storm intensity is increasing, why is coastal development increasing, housing being constructed in flood plains, etc? I work in critical infrastructure and its all crumbling. Dams, bridges, roads, water and wastewater plants and pump stations, power generation, etc. are all extremely vulnerable to extreme weather. And next to nothing is being done to fix this problem. And when they do actually spend money on infrastructure, its so rife with pork and corruption its a joke.
Will the wind farm off the coast survive a big hurricane? Will all those solar panels on roofs, and in once beautiful open fields be there after the hurricane? I can say with certainty that the damages to the facilities I work on will be in the hundreds of millions. Because they are going to fail. And that is just one little city. Will it matter that you can't charge your EV if there isn't potable water and the toilets don't flush? I'll start taking this seriously when the people insisting I'm the problem stop flying about in private jets, to and from their multiple beachfront properties actually start making sense.
So far this thread has remained civil and free of political vitriol which has caused other threads to be closed. I'm glad to see that and I hope it continues. I enjoy reading differing perspectives on important and often controversial topics such as this.
As often, no clear cut here either, more like a yes and no.
First round of barriers were designed for a 200 year storm scenario.
The new dike....hang on for this one....was built for a 100 year storm scenario (not sure what that means anyway, Houston had three 500 year events in 5 years....)
So no, the new barriers were not built to the same standards as the old ones, but to a lower standard (courtesy of US Congress).
But..and hang on for this one again....yes, the new ones were built stronger!
How is it possible, weaker standards but stronger wall, you know the answer, less money in the pocket of the contractors the second time around!
Only part of the issue though. Other side is that NO is also a fast sinker (about 1 in per year, 2 in some area). So the old 1960 walls were not anchored into anything anymore, disappearing foundation. The new barrier is supposed to have better anchoring.
Does it matter?
New Orleans is fast sinking, sea level is rising, surge fronts are higher with each storm, no dike will be high enough for long enough (ask the Dutch why they are looking into "Floating Farms"!).
14 billions $$ to rebuild the levees. 3000 miles of dikes in Lousiana to protect the 3% of the US population that is sinking there.
But people there can see the writing...on the wall. They are bolting out as fast as they can. New Orleans is one of the fastest shrinking cities in the US. No wonder.
The most likely, untold, parameter for the dike design today is that it needs to be just strong enough to protect a number of people sufficient to support the massive petro-chemical plants along the Louisiana coast, that are refining about three of the twenty million barrels of petroleum we burn every day. We need these guys.
....plus the people who are about to resume drilling in the Gulf, now that we finally have the high-pressure control equipment that was missing when Macondo blew up with BP. Talk about phasing out fossil fuels.....
I would love an electric MC as long as it is as fast as my current bike, range is decent, and charging is easily available. For cars we are almost there, and I have already replaced my ICE car with am EV - and not planning to go back for sure. 2039 is a long time from now. I have no doubts that we'll see awesome electric bikes the coming years - bikes that will outperform our current ICE bikes with a whole new perspective on maintenance and running cost. But we'll see (some of us at least 
)
)
ReSTored
Site Supporter
If I owned a home in N.O., on the coast in Florida, or in other storm or flood prone or sinking area I'd be planning to sell and to move to higher or safer ground. Some will do this, but you're also going to have many millions of people who refuse to leave or can't afford to leave and will likely need or expect repeated compensation for flooding and / or storm damage for years to come.
Expect minimal leadership from local politicains looking to be re-elected at some point down the road. A number of difficult discussions have to happen, such as prohibiting all new developement in high risk areas. But it isn't going to happen.
Expect minimal leadership from local politicains looking to be re-elected at some point down the road. A number of difficult discussions have to happen, such as prohibiting all new developement in high risk areas. But it isn't going to happen.
the Ferret
Daily rider since May 1965
I would love an electric MC as long as it is as fast as my current bike, range is decent, and charging is easily available. For cars we are almost there, and I have already replaced my ICE car with am EV - and not planning to go back for sure. 2039 is a long time from now. I have no doubts that we'll see awesome electric bikes the coming years - bikes that will outperform our current ICE bikes with a whole new perspective on maintenance and running cost. But we'll see (some of us at least
I've ridden a Zero S, and would have no issue riding an electric bike if they met the standards you suggest AND were priced competitively with a similar equipped ICE bike ...but that appears to be asking too much.
I paid about 9K for my new Honda NC 750X DCT... so basically an automatic motorcycle capable of a little over 100 mph. It holds 3.7 gallons of gas and my last fill up took 2.36 gals after going 183.3 miles which netted 77.7 mpg and the fill up took all of 5 mins and cost $8.22 and was ready for another 183 miles of combined city and highway (over 250 miles if I wanted to take it to empty). I do have to change the oil every 8,000 miles and the 2 oil filters every 16,000 miles, so there is that expense.
A zero electric S would cost approx $15,000, has about the same top speed, will go approx 113 miles combined city and freeway, and takes 1.3 hours to recharge on a fast charger or overnight on a 110 system at home if I understand the system correctly, but apparently I wouldn't have to change any oil and filters.
Zero Motorcycles S
Sadlsor
Site Supporter
If the EV movement were as necessary as we are told, it would have been done already.
How long have we heard all the foolish dribble about this "existential threat"?
Just think of how quickly we put men on the moon, after Kennedy's announcement.
More time and discussion has been wasted about the demise of our planet, than occurred to design, build, and send Apollo 11 there and safely back, and that was primarily from efforts by the USA.
And today, we have had the entire planet talking about global climate change for years, but it is still not a universal solution?
That shows me it is not the priority they want us to believe.
How long have we heard all the foolish dribble about this "existential threat"?
Just think of how quickly we put men on the moon, after Kennedy's announcement.
More time and discussion has been wasted about the demise of our planet, than occurred to design, build, and send Apollo 11 there and safely back, and that was primarily from efforts by the USA.
And today, we have had the entire planet talking about global climate change for years, but it is still not a universal solution?
That shows me it is not the priority they want us to believe.