this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
377 points (99.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5100 readers
491 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The higher the number, the greater the government’s justification for compelling polluters to reduce the emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.

The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There are plenty of electric cars under $40k these days. And guess what? If the demand rises, then economy versions will be released.

[–] pythonoob@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

I was able to get my EV for about 33k after trade in and some haggling. It made sense for our monthly cash flow because I was still paying on the gas car though.

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee -4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Plenty of electric cars under $40k? Name five good ones, ones where they don’t rattle incessantly and when you shut the door you don’t feel surrounded by a sea of the cheapest plastics (offgassing the whole time naturally). I can tell you from personal experience the Bolt isn’t a good one. And just to be clear, my standard isn’t Lexus or Maybach, I’m comparing with Honda Accord/Toyota Camry/Mazda CX-5 for interior and overall quality.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I love this comment. It's like 'Yea, I want to help , but have you seen electric cars? Oh my gross! Oh well, come on kids, hope in the gas car, let me drive you to the crematorium.'

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

More like, “Hey kids, do you want to be in a vehicle that filled with plastics that happens to catch fire?”

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/recall-all-chevy-bolt-vehicles-fire-risk

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/consumer-alert-important-chevrolet-bolt-recall-fire-risk

Electric vehicles could be good, the cheap ones , specifically the Bolt, are not.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can't imagine stressing about a several years old resolved recall, lol, Jesus Christ.

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s indicative of the quality, or lack thereof, or a Bolt. Imagine having a vehicle literally declared non-operational for that nonsense and how long some customers had to wait for a fix. That’s time they don’t get to use the car they paid for, and I doubt their bosses are going to blame GM when they can’t get to work on time. Yeah, I stress about a recall like that, a car you can’t use is worthless.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'd guess I'd have to imagine it since that isn't what happened with those Bolt recalls.

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My relative with the Bolt was literally warned to not drive it until they could get parts to deal with the seat belt fire (yes, that’s one of the two fire related recalls), which took almost a month. You tell me how that’s not a problem for, say, working people.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

GM did not ask drivers to stop operating the vehicle. It was not part of the recall instructions. Another imaginary concern.

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can only relay what I was told by the owner. They were fortunate enough to have another vehicle, so they made it work for the time it was grounded, but go off, you clearly know what every owner of the hundreds of thousands of Bolts out there were told by every dealership. Since you’re omniscient, can you hook me up with the Powerball numbers for the next drawing?

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No, actually, you can do much better than, charitably, mis-remembered hearsay. Especially considering how committed you seem to be to spreading misinformation. For example:

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCRIT-22V930-9322.pdf

You can read the recall letter impacted owners got here, page 14, including the onerous instructions that owners schedule a service appointment. You'll see, or actually not see, any instruction that vehicles not be used.

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"I had a bad experience with a single EV, so all of them must be bad."

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I continue to say there are probably good EVs out there, the Bolt isn’t one of them. That’s all I’ve ever said, and people keep interpreting that as an attack on EVs in general. I want an affordable EV with the usable space and interior quality of my 2010 Mazda3. Is that a condemnation of all EVs, and if so, what does that say about EVs?

[–] FatCrab@lemmy.one 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In case this is an actually sincere question, Hyundai kona ev can be purchased for 30k range with federal and state incentives and is fine for 90% of commuting needs and has good range for longer trips. With a child and 65 lbs dog, it's been our primary/ only vehicle for a few years now and no real issues. Do I want a good electric van when one hits the market at a reasonable price? For sure. But if you actually want an ev for family use, there isn't much truly stopping you.

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Hyundai/Kia offerings look interesting but the nearest dealership is 40 miles away and that’s more than I can do to go test drive a car. How’s the interior, equivalent to a Honda at least?

[–] FatCrab@lemmy.one 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's pretty fine. Some areas are a bit cheaper build quality than I'd like but I've never really had any significant complaints. But I also have a relatively high tolerance--so long as it works and does its job, I'm good as far as cars go.

[–] Followupquestion@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I don’t think of myself as picky, but large panel gaps and cheap materials like on an armrest or the seats themselves just really grate on me. When I bought my last vehicle, I test drove like 15 vehicles, and while I liked the economy of the Prius V, the places they cheaper out (no air vents for rear passengers for instance) stuck out like a sore thumb. Hopefully my next vehicle can be an EV, I just can’t square the circle of trading in a reliable, paid off car for a new EV with a monthly payment.