[Discussion] Climate Change

This thread is just to post interesting news, thoughts, opinions about climate change.

DoveBrown wrote:

I sort of agree but the numbers get interesting for something like a plug-in hybrid vs ev.

Basically an in-between case, but one that leans ICE in my experience. It's no surprise that a hybrid will be better than a regular car, and possibly approach an EV if all you do is nearby city driveing. But hybrid battery ranges go from tiny to small, and when the engine kicks in, you're back in the ICE world (although regen braking is nice, to a point).

I've owned hybrids, and in Maryland, a state that is mixed urban, suburban and plenty of rural, most of the time when driving the engine was running. As I recall the electric handled starts and low-speed, stop/go stuff (until it was empty); the ICE engine handled highways and runs of more than a mile or so without a stop. But perhaps new ones work differently.

Top_Shelf wrote:

Question for the group:

Is there consensus about whether electric vehicles are better for the environment than ICE vehicles?

I've seen things like, "Tesla's are carbon bombs" because of the energy consumption that goes into producing the battery. Have also seen that it depends on the type of energy used to produce the electricity (so, electric car charging in West Virginia, which uses so much coal, takes longer to offset an ICE car than in Washington, where power is hydroelectric dams). And of course, building a 3000 pound car to move a 200 pound human is ridiculous, but that's a transport issue I as an individual consumer can't solve.

You also need to take into account how the electricity is generated where you live.

For example, up here in Quebec, ALL of our electricity is generated through hydroelectric dams.

Note- this is 100% wrong

Spoiler:

Across the river in Ontario, most of it is coal-fired plants, with a smaller amount nuclear.

That also plays into what needs to be considered.

The one benefit that EVs provide is that they get us away from gasoline infrastructure. As clean power generation grows, the greener EVs get. ICEs will always suck gas, regardless of how green your power plants are.

My limited experience with hybrid/EV was driving a rental Toyota Prius in Ireland on a trip a few years ago for a short stay. It was quite impressive. The electric motor assist kicked in below 60km/h, had the regenerative braking charging thing working. It had a little HUD gauge that showed you how efficient you were in your acceleration / braking to encourage you to adapt your driving to maximise fuel efficiency, which almost felt like a game to me as I cruised around a foreign nation with no idea about what curves or hills I would be tackling along the way.

It had a range of about 800km for one tank. In comparison, the cars I have at home are petrol guzzlers and I can only get about 400-500km per tank. However, a lot of my driving is suburban in nature thus highly inefficient with constant stops/starts in traffic. If I take them onto longer motorway trips, then the fuel efficiency gets closer to 550-600km per tank, particularly if I use higher octane fuel.

As I understand it, a lot of the first wave EVs (Teslas in particular) are about to run into their 7 year battery warranty period, and it costs about AUD 25,000 to replace the fuel cell. I'm assuming it's going to be similar for the rest of the world, so if anyone was thinking of picking up a second hand EV, watch out for this.

Prederick wrote:
Jonman wrote:

This is how i ended up in the PNW....

Oh, I've heard nothing but wonderful things and I absolutely have to come out there soon because I wanna see the Cascades and stuff.

My reasons for not deciding to live out there are a general terror of the Cascadia subduction zone and a general lack of melanin. :lol:

Those are both valid reasons, dude. Though to be fair, while swathes of Eastern Washington is Whitey McWhiteFace, the cities of Western Washington aren't entirely undiverse - census results from 2020 peg Seattle as 60% White.

Running a back of envelope calculation on the Plug-in Hybrid RAV4 vs Tesla.

I am not particularly invested in this argument. Long term cars need to be a minority option for most of the population. Increased urban density, mass transit and cycle/pedestrian infrastructure is where we need to get to.

I’m privileged to live somewhere with great cycling infrastructure and it’s used. We have a e-cargo bike for taking Little DB to nursery (3.5 miles away) and other short trips. My work is 5 miles away which is at the limit of what I will do regularly with a normal commute (any further and I would need to put on cycling clothes and cycle fast enough to break a sweat). The car is for long trips and is a light 2017 1.2 turbo petrol. If the in-laws weren’t 60 miles away on a different train line we could consider getting rid of it.

mudbunny wrote:

Across the river in Ontario, most of it is coal-fired plants, with a smaller amount nuclear.

I don't think Ontario has any coal-fired plants. Even if I'm wrong about there being none, its power generation is certainly not mostly from from coal. My impression is that the most important sources are nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and wind. It's still a much better place than many to run an EV, from a carbon point of view (though Quebec is still better).

Saskatchewan, on the other hand - still lots of coal and natural gas in the mix with few renewables. And they're the only place I know of to put an additional tax on EVs that isn't on ICE cars. Madness.

BushPilot wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

Across the river in Ontario, most of it is coal-fired plants, with a smaller amount nuclear.

I don't think Ontario has any coal-fired plants. Even if I'm wrong about there being none, its power generation is certainly not mostly from from coal. My impression is that the most important sources are nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and wind. It's still a much better place than many to run an EV, from a carbon point of view (though Quebec is still better).

Saskatchewan, on the other hand - still lots of coal and natural gas in the mix with few renewables. And they're the only place I know of to put an additional tax on EVs that isn't on ICE cars. Madness.

Wow. I was completely wrong, and stand corrected.

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...

Ontario has less than 1% petroleum source for electricity.

Those are both valid reasons, dude. Though to be fair, while swathes of Eastern Washington is Whitey McWhiteFace, the cities of Western Washington aren't entirely undiverse - census results from 2020 peg Seattle as 60% White.

Yep. My kids both go to minority-white public schools, as one data point. We'll probably leave the PNW for sunnier climates after the kids are done with school, but it's been good to us. Hopefully we'll be out before the next big quake hits!

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are all great places to dodge climate change effects.

Minase wrote:
Those are both valid reasons, dude. Though to be fair, while swathes of Eastern Washington is Whitey McWhiteFace, the cities of Western Washington aren't entirely undiverse - census results from 2020 peg Seattle as 60% White.

Yep. My kids both go to minority-white public schools, as one data point. We'll probably leave the PNW for sunnier climates after the kids are done with school, but it's been good to us. Hopefully we'll be out before the next big quake hits!

Echoing this. We're just outside of Seattle and I think ranked in the top 10 for cities with the most diversity. Something like 150 nationalities in our school district.

Robear wrote:

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are all great places to dodge climate change effects.

The mid-Atlantic states in general are more or less insulated from climate change. It may get hotter, but we don't get much in the way of major weather events.

Nevin73 wrote:
Robear wrote:

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are all great places to dodge climate change effects.

The mid-Atlantic states in general are more or less insulated from climate change. It may get hotter, but we don't get much in the way of major weather events.

Yeah, they are now, but doesn't climate change suggest that tornado and hurricane zones are going to shift North as northern climes warm?

Jonman wrote:

Yeah, they are now, but doesn't climate change suggest that tornado and hurricane zones are going to shift North as northern climes warm?

My understanding is that the concept of 'zones' for these phenomena will need to undergo a shift.

Minase wrote:
Those are both valid reasons, dude. Though to be fair, while swathes of Eastern Washington is Whitey McWhiteFace, the cities of Western Washington aren't entirely undiverse - census results from 2020 peg Seattle as 60% White.

Yep. My kids both go to minority-white public schools, as one data point. We'll probably leave the PNW for sunnier climates after the kids are done with school, but it's been good to us. Hopefully we'll be out before the next big quake hits!

Just to be clear, I'm not sh*tting on the PNW when I say that. More of a "pleasant ribbing."

Dramatic spike in rain has helped counter California’s extreme drought, data reveals

....yay?

Nowhere will really be safe from the ravages of the climate shifting to ever-greater extremes. Yes, some areas may be less impacted by specific issues (sea level rise, drought zones, that sort of semi-predictable pattern shifting) but the reality is that localized extreme phenomena will continue to worsen as the atmosphere heats up and is able to hold ever more moisture. Maybe your region might get few severe storms, but the ones they get will be even more severe than ever. Maybe you rarely see floods, but the ones you get will be more sudden and destructive. And so on.

Earth is shifting to a new climate, and it will be centuries before it has settled into a new "steady state" which will itself feature more weather extremes than we've been used to for most of human history.

Nevin73 wrote:

The mid-Atlantic states in general are more or less insulated from climate change. It may get hotter, but we don't get much in the way of major weather events.

The Atlantic seaboard, as a rule, will see pretty strong coastal flood events over the next 50 years, all the coastal Mid-Atlantic states included. MD will see many more hot-weather days and more mosquitos as well. Delaware in particular will get whacked.

I think the thing is that due to farmer greed, the drought has brought on damage to aquifers that either can't be repaired or won't be repaired by the MOAR rains.

Robear wrote:

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are all great places to dodge climate change effects.

You won't be dodging them, you'll just be seeing different effects. If you're coming up from more southern states, you'll probably just see more of what you're already used to, so you might think everything is still normal-ish, but it'll be quite noticeably different from what the northeast is used to.

Robear wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

The mid-Atlantic states in general are more or less insulated from climate change. It may get hotter, but we don't get much in the way of major weather events.

The Atlantic seaboard, as a rule, will see pretty strong coastal flood events over the next 50 years, all the coastal Mid-Atlantic states included. MD will see many more hot-weather days and more mosquitos as well. Delaware in particular will get whacked.

Yeah, but that is the beach area's problems. I'm an hour and a half away near Philly.

Nevin73 wrote:
Robear wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

The mid-Atlantic states in general are more or less insulated from climate change. It may get hotter, but we don't get much in the way of major weather events.

The Atlantic seaboard, as a rule, will see pretty strong coastal flood events over the next 50 years, all the coastal Mid-Atlantic states included. MD will see many more hot-weather days and more mosquitos as well. Delaware in particular will get whacked.

Yeah, but that is the beach area's problems. I'm an hour and a half away near Philly.

It kind of blows my mind to think of Delaware having beaches. Like, I know it's a coastal state and, thus, must have beaches. But, the only thing I think of when I think of Delaware is Wayne saying, "Hi, I'm in Delaware."

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Robear wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

The mid-Atlantic states in general are more or less insulated from climate change. It may get hotter, but we don't get much in the way of major weather events.

The Atlantic seaboard, as a rule, will see pretty strong coastal flood events over the next 50 years, all the coastal Mid-Atlantic states included. MD will see many more hot-weather days and more mosquitos as well. Delaware in particular will get whacked.

Yeah, but that is the beach area's problems. I'm an hour and a half away near Philly.

It kind of blows my mind to think of Delaware having beaches. Like, I know it's a coastal state and, thus, must have beaches. But, the only thing I think of when I think of Delaware is Wayne saying, "Hi, I'm in Delaware."

Oh that Wayne.

IMAGE(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.3388142136.9367/flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg)

Now I think of this Wayne

IMAGE(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ed0AAOSwqgFeMKhH/s-l500.jpg)

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Robear wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

The mid-Atlantic states in general are more or less insulated from climate change. It may get hotter, but we don't get much in the way of major weather events.

The Atlantic seaboard, as a rule, will see pretty strong coastal flood events over the next 50 years, all the coastal Mid-Atlantic states included. MD will see many more hot-weather days and more mosquitos as well. Delaware in particular will get whacked.

Yeah, but that is the beach area's problems. I'm an hour and a half away near Philly.

It kind of blows my mind to think of Delaware having beaches. Like, I know it's a coastal state and, thus, must have beaches. But, the only thing I think of when I think of Delaware is Wayne saying, "Hi, I'm in Delaware."

Delaware's more or less the east half of a peninsula, with Delaware Bay to the east of it and Chesapeake Bay to the west (beyond part of Maryland). It's basically surrounded by water, and has the lowest mean elevation of any state. It's on the level of Florida for getting screwed when the sea level goes up.

Stengah wrote:

Robear wrote:

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are all great places to dodge climate change effects.

You won't be dodging them, you'll just be seeing different effects. If you're coming up from more southern states, you'll probably just see more of what you're already used to, so you might think everything is still normal-ish, but it'll be quite noticeably different from what the northeast is used to.

Yes, but the overall suite of climate changes will be less in these states than anywhere else in the US. For example, Northern Vermont will end up with a climate similar to that of today's Massachusetts, under a moderate warming scenario. 66F average temp to 72F. Maryland, on the other hand, will go from 76F to 81F.

This is important because it's not just change relative to location that matters, but change relative to comfortable habitation. So Vermont, with an average (1896 to 2005) of no days with a temperature over 95F, will not see any increase in those days. Maryland, though, will see an increase from 2 days to 12 days per year, which will greatly increase the need for heat mitigation measures, and possible damage to crops, etc.

The point is not that won't be any changes; everywhere will see effects. The difference is that habilitability will be far less affected in Northern New England than anywhere else in the US. If moving to a place where you can dodge the greatest amount of problematic climate change is a goal, then that area is probably the first place to think of in the US.

To add another anecdote: projected climate change was definitely a factor in my decision to settle where I've settled (southeastern PA, after growing up in Manhattan)--my area is roughly 100 miles inland, on top of an abundant aquifer, and not so far south that the average temperature is likely to get unbearable. I'm on the north face of a heavily forested mountain, so the average temperature is usually 3-7 degrees cooler than the local temp during the summer.

I think that for my generation at least (born in 89, which I believe makes me an elder millennial?) the assumption that climate is going to look very different 50 years down the line is kind of baked in to a lot of decision making.

Climate change was definitely a factor in figuring that Newport, OR on the coast would be a good place to end up. Portland and areas in the Willamette Valley are already getting pretty massive heat waves in the summer, and Newport tends to stay cool even compared to other coastal areas in Oregon.

The wildfires are starting to get pretty scary in the summertime. There was a massive one a few years back that turned everything smoky and red even here in Newport.

We managed to get a house and hopefully plan on staying here for the rest of our lives. We didn't have kids. Climate change was probably at least a 25% factor in that decision.

We are really lucky to be here. I think WE'LL be okay. It's going to be a heartbreaking few decades finishing out my lifetime. I believe the biggest heartbreak to come next will be chinook salmon going endangered. It's going to happen sooner or later.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I believe the biggest heartbreak to come next will be chinook salmon going endangered. It's going to happen sooner or later.

THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DID.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I believe the biggest heartbreak to come next will be chinook salmon going endangered. It's going to happen sooner or later.

Well, then stop eating them?

WellAdjusted wrote:

born in 89, which I believe makes me an elder millennial?.

Early 80s would be elder millennial. 89 puts you right in the middle.

My rule is: Did you graduate in or after 2000? Before that you are late Gen X. 2000 or later your an elder millennial.

Not that those mean anything.