Yes and it was widely known at the time that they were specifically being targeted while most manufacturers were using defeat devices because they were outcompeting American auto makers.
If only there was a cost effective and fuel efficient way to get large amounts of cargo across the US... Oh wait, we figured that out 150 years ago at promontory Utah didn't we? What happened with that? Oh yeah, that panama canal thing was cheaper...
Modernization and electrification of rail is the answer to this problem, and quite a few others. Expand that OG rail run through Utah, and add one through the south end of the Rockies from LA to Atlanta. Full double set of electrified rails to run bidirectional traffic coast to coast in a northern and southern corridor.
Lol... 3/4 of the traffic is US bound. The Pacific is half the planet, so anything not stopping in the Americas has a shorter route in the other direction.
No it isn't. 72% total is coming OR leaving the US. Not US bound. The US actually exports quite a lot. Also, it would not be cheaper to go by rail across the country to use a ship on the closer side of where the stuff is destined for, no matter how good the rail system is.
Boy, Just In Time delivery sure is not going respond well to the Suez Canal / Red Sea being too unsafe to ship through AND restrictions on the Panama Canal.
Time for everything you have to routinely buy to get more expensive.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but given what I know a small bit about planetary poverty, if you're reading this from a place with heaTing or air conditioning, on your own personal smart device or computer, you aren't in that bottom 50%.
If I remember right, even with my problems I'm not even in the bottom 60%. Some places make in a month what I make in a day, when I have work.
Guaranteed if you own a house in the US you're part of the world's top 10% in terms of wealth.
That doesn't translate directly to emissions, though, because the vast majority of emissions are industry and travel, so what you buy and how you live are much greater factors than heating and cooling. Go vegan and you instantly drop out of that "contribute to 50% of lifestyle emissions" zone.
Is it weird that the only celebrity who's getting a public print of emissions is one that is despised by a political party for getting people out to vote?
I don't really care much about her, but this feels like "how do we get young people to not listen to this person... ah, let's go with emissions".
Making the Good into the enemy of the Perfect, yet again. We all generally understand that the adoption of Carbon Removal will probably mean polluting industries are theoretically slower to phase out. What concern over that ignores is the much more realistic understanding that those polluting industries aren't actually going to phase out in a sufficiently timely manner (if ever) even without carbon removal. We can't afford to hold out for perfect solutions at the expense of partial fixes, because those perfect solutions are never going to happen. We need to take what we can get while it might stand a chance of making a difference, and hope it buys us the time to actually fix something.
The article states it very clearly: the technology does not actually exist. When people talk about how carbon capture will be necessary to reach net zero, they're talking about a speculative technology, not a real one.
But it's a very appealing speculation. So appealing that fossil fuel companies and heavy polluters are using simply the idea of it to make the public complacent and avoid conversations about how seriously we need to transform society to avoid total collapse.
And it would be a mistake to assume that some kind of engineering wizardry will make the technology suddenly feasible on a timeline that lets us avoid collapse if we just throw enough money at it (which we're not even doing at the moment). Fossil fuel companies prey on the public's "science optimism", the comforting belief that science can magically solve our problems.
But scientists and engineers still need to contend with the laws of physics and so far entropy has always had the upper hand on us. It would be delusional to think that's going to change any time soon.
The only realistic answer forward is to massively transform society or go extinct. If you believe that we can't get a handle on these polluting industries in a rapid time scale (and you may very well be right) then brace yourself for extinction.
You're making your own misconceptions and possibly desires the enemy of reality.
The technology doesn’t yet exist at the scale necessary to offset even modest levels of residual emissions.
Let me repeat the important part:
at the scale necessary
You're making it sound like we need to figure out a problem like nuclear fusion from scratch. Scaling up something that already exists is a lot easier. It's still difficult, but definitely possible, although it seems kind of dumb to remove the CO2 instead of preventing its release in the first place.
Scale is everything in engineering and nuclear fusion is a good example.
It took 10 years to go from the first nuclear fission bomb to the first nuclear fission power reactor. Not bad, right? Because while the heat produced by nuclear fission is very high, it's still at a scale that can be handled by ordinary materials on Earth.
Meanwhile it took 70 years from the first nuclear fusion bomb to the first nuclear fusion reactor capable of breaking even (meaning it could output as much energy from the reaction as what needs to be input into it to maintain the reaction). That's still not a viable technology, even after 70 years. It's not guaranteed to become economically viable even if progress has been made. Only an absolute fool would stake the continued existence of all civilization on something as risky as nuclear fusion.
Before you let predatory industries exploit your science optimism, ask yourself: What do you actually know about carbon capture and its difficulties?
There's already decades of history of carbon capture filtration efforts (capturing carbon directly from exhaust with a filter) that have utterly failed to reach any useful effectiveness levels (typically falling below 10%) despite enormous investments.
Pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere itself is utterly deranged with how low the concentration of carbon dioxide is (it doesn't actually take a very high concentration of CO2 to heat up the planet). The energy spent on running the giant vacuum would be more than the power generated by the fossil fuels that put the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place. That's just the laws of thermodynamics, and clever engineering isn't going to fix it.
And then even once you've captured the carbon, where do you put it? It will still be a gas so what happens if your storage leaks? Where is there even space to fit the billions of tons that we need to store? You know the brilliant idea the carbon producers have? We should pump that CO2 under the same shale rock that we frack oil out of, then seal up the hole with more shale rock. Given how fracking is known to cause all sorts of gas and oil leaks already because of how much damage it does to the bedrock, they must think we're absolute morons to believe we can safely store carbon dioxide in previously fracked caverns.
People trying to promote carbon capture to you are taking your for an absolute fool. Regrowing forests (not just planting trees but resuscitating forests that we've destroyed with their original biodiversity) is by far the most effective carbon capture technology in existence but it still can't nearly keep pace with our carbon production. It's absolutely necessary but not at all sufficient.
Transform society or go extinct. Those are your only real options and the sooner you come to terms with it the better chance we actually have at surviving as a species.
Oh what rubbish, and so much of it too. Where to start? An uncontrolled nuclear reaction vs controlling a sustained plasma reaction with electromagnets or crazy lasers? You gtfo with that absolute crap comparison. 70 years, lol, yeah 70 years of tangentially related technological development. It was a very cute attempt at using my own example against me.
Then you really broke down the carbon capture and storage bit into its itty bitty steps to make it sound soooooo big and impossible. You're a master of disingenuous rhetoric. Here's a source with the opinions of several scientists discussing the topic. They make it sound hard, but not impossible to do.
You've ended two comments on "transform society of go extinct" or something to that effect. You seem very invested in the other side of this supposedly impossible problem we have. Perhaps you should open up to the possibility of compromise, cuz I wager we're going to get a bit of societal transformation and a bit of CO2 capture. It's not going to be all one or the other.
Lastly, you'll get a lot further with people when you use honey instead of vinegar.
Nature is a paywalled journal and I'm not going to spend money to be proven right when the headline says it all: Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions.
Why do you think that division exists? Because scientists can be bought out by industry interests. One side understands the problem and the other side is saying whatever's needed to get a paycheck.
We're past honey or vinegar. The only honey in this situation is to ignore the problems and keep living our normal comfortable lives until everything irrecoverably falls apart around us.
I don't think you could, we are currently around 1° C in increase since the pre-industrial period. Unless you mean that were already on an almost unavoidable path to 1.5c, which could be true.
A significant portion of this year was spent above the 1.5 degree mark. Any argument that we are not already there hinges on one of a couple of ideas:
This year was an anomaly and next year will be cooler
In order for it to count we need to see a sustained global temperature for something like 3-5 years
It may be that the first point is true but it's looking more and more unlikely. The second point is useful as far as building a scientific consensus goes, but does not reflect the reality. Put another way, when looking backwards you wouldn't say that the era of 1.5 degree warming began at the end of that 3-5 years, you would say it began at the beginning.
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
Newest