Michael Mann, climatologist: our fragile moment

| March 13, 2024

Climate scientist Michael Mann delivered a tough speech at a recent UCSB Arts and Conferences event. He had just published his most recent book: “Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons from Earth’s Past Can Help Us Survive the Climate Crisis. “

This speech was a further wake-up call that we are running out of time to avoid a crisis of unprecedented proportions. At the same time, he warned against “pessimistic” messages. He said such messages are as harmful as the weather. Crisis denial messages. Either is a lazy excuse for when urgent action is needed.

Their strategy for positioning our current scenario in the context of all of Earth’s history. Here’s a convenient consultant he showed for the full history of the Earth he covered.

It started with the last 10,000 years. A time when the climate was stable. This is not a coincidence with the progress of human civilization.

But now we’re leaving that climate stability. This makes this era very fragile.

Then he went back to Earth’s 4. 5-billion-year history. “Earth has conducted many experiments” during this period. It began in the Archaic Eon (between 4 and 2. 5 billion years ago). During the Archaic era, the Earth’s crust cooled enough for rocks and continental plates to begin forming.

He explained how “accidents brought us here. ” This means that we humans wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for some very lucky accidents.

In particular, he spoke of the event that marked the end of the age of dinosaurs.

The Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction event, also known as the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) extinction event. The notorious and sudden mass extinction of three-quarters of the Earth’s plant and animal species some 66 million years ago. He noted that this is the end of “non-avian” dinosaurs (by some definitions, birds are surviving dinosaurs).

This mass extinction event was caused by the influence of an asteroid in what is now the Gulf of Mexico, near the Yucatan. It formed what is known as the Chicxulub crater. The asteroid is thought to have been about ten miles in diameter.

This followed the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. An increase of four to five degrees Celsius. This went on for thousands of years. What’s going down now is a hundred times faster. Yes, the speed of climate change is now a hundred times faster than the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Mann showed an artist’s design of a creature called Dryomomys. Our first primate ancestor lived about 55 million years ago. You may have compatibility in the palm of your hand.

After extinction, the surviving animals have become small. This is due to the excessive heat of this time of year. He told a joke about a physicist I learned when I was a freshman at MIT: “Imagine a round cow. “

The idea: if you assume that a living thing is more or less spherical, you can believe how much heat it can emit depending on its size. A living being generates heat according to its internal volume. But their ability to radiate heat depends on their surface domain (the amount of skin exposed to air). You can divide those two numbers and get the domain-to-volume ratio. For a sphere, this ratio is 3/r, where r is the radius. This means that the smaller the size, the higher this ratio will be. This means that if you need it in a warm place, it should be small. In biology, this is known as “Bergmann’s rule. “

These variety points take several generations to evolve. In today’s world, this means, he said, that tens of millions of people die due to emerging temperatures.

After this era came the Eocene. Continental plates boosted mountains, which absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere. It cools the planet down a bit. But there is still what we would call a greenhouse climate. What we would call rainforests covered the Earth.

Further cooling was needed in the Oligocene to discharge ice at the poles and forests. It was in the Pliocene that CO2 degrees last reached their current level. This was the time when primates first evolved tools. That’s when Lucy lived, about 3 million years ago. .

Then came the Pleistocene, which brought with it ice ages. Large temperature fluctuations. The Earth’s orbit adjusts over a 100,000-year era. The last ice age was 5°C colder than it is today.

This is the innermost and coldest ice age chosen for complex primates. Animals that can make equipment and cooperate. They’re human. They may simply hunt in combination as a team.

We now have another 8 billion people who have evolved for a disappearing climate.

Mann played a snippet of The Police’s “Walking In Your Footsteps” from their album “Synchronicity”:

It’s about the fact that dinosaurs had no agency. At the time, humans faced the risk of nuclear war. Humans are weak-willed.

Mann returned to the asteroid that hit Yucatan. We know it as an asteroid because of the layer of iridium that it deposited around the world. And a diligent search for fossils revealed a place where dinosaurs died in the dust at the time of impact. skin of a triceratops and a flying pterosaur egg. And a genuine fragment of the asteroid.

It wasn’t physical devastation that killed the dinosaurs. The dust debris was thrown into the atmosphere. Carl Sagan introduced the concept of Nuclear Winter in an article in Parade magazine on October 30, 1983. It’s a similar phenomenon. Only the smallest animals and/or those capable of digging burrows can live in such a world.

Mann went back to the Permian-Triassic extinction, about 250 million years ago. 96% of Earth’s species are extinct. This is due to methane. The global temperature has risen between 8 and 11 degrees Celsius. The oceans have lost oxygen. He said it’s NOT like what’s happening today.

He warned against the “Doomers”. The Doomers claim that Siberia is melting and that it will produce so much methane that we will all be doomed. Mann said it wasn’t true and it wasn’t helpful.

Mann gave the example of Professor Guy R. McPherson, who claims that humans will become extinct in ten years. Based on this methane theory. Mann said we can identify the source of methane in the environment based on isotope analysis. It doesn’t come from Siberia. It comes from a careless extraction of herbal gas.

Mann showed a paper from 1982 that, as should be predicted, the human-caused warming we are witnessing lately. It was the result of Exxon’s own research!They then introduced a disinformation crusade to cover up the matter.

I note that the first time I became aware of the climate crisis was in 1981. And I don’t forget to hear an Exxon spokesperson being interviewed on the afternoon radio show on KGO in the Bay Area. This user was already lying about the problem, claiming that the “washing machines” would take care of it.

Mann said he wasn’t a very smart skier. Maybe he’s smart enough for the rabbit track. If we decarbonized our energy source as early as the year 2000, the curve we would want would look like a rabbit track. Quite manageable and affordable.

But replacement has been delayed for decades due to misinformation from the fossil fuel industry. Now we want a replacement curve that looks more like a double black diamond ski slope!A huge opportunity cost.

A few days earlier, the Santa Barbara airport was completely shut down due to flooding!Today there is 7% more humidity in the environment than in recent decades.

Here is the famous “hockey stick” chart showing the incredibly sudden replacement in the commercial age of the last 150 years or so.

We can now “detect and attribute” extreme weather events. We can say that those events that occur every 40,000 years are actually caused by the burning of fossil fuels by humans. I’m also sure that smoking causes lung cancer. With a crusade of lies led by some of the same people who led the tobacco companies’ disinformation crusade.

The last COP26 weather summit in Glasgow. Se have made promises to limit the rise in temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius. But 1. 5 degrees Celsius would already be devastating. And those are promises that have yet to be kept.

We can still prevent the worst effects. Barriers are not similar to technological barriers. The obstacles are purely political.

He presented some optimism. A photo of him as a student at Berkeley. At a demonstration calling on the University of California to disconnect from the apartheid regime in South Africa. After two years, the Regents relented. Divestments followed across the country. The apartheid regime collapsed.

In 2020, UC divested its fossil fuel investments under pressure.

He explained how 93% of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is suffering. He estimates that the biological capacity of the Earth is approximately one billion people. It currently houses $8 billion. That $8 billion is backed by a secure infrastructure that has evolved over thousands of years in a given climate. This climate is changing. If you tighten too much, that infrastructure will collapse.

That’s the end of his speech. Participants had to submit their questions days in advance. I sent this one:

“Isn’t any sustainability issue a matter of paying the real cost?By definition, wouldn’t the climate crisis be solved if we paid the real cost of our possible choices in transportation, energy, and food?Isn’t it a matter of paying the real cost?Is sustainability a matter of paying the real cost?By definition, wouldn’t the climate crisis be solved if we paid the real cost of our potential choices in transportation, energy, and food?

Unfortunately, the formula used for this convention was frustrating and infuriating. Ideally, the decided questions should have been read temporarily and Mann should have been given the opportunity to answer them temporarily. Instead, an “interviewer” pontificated, commented, and veered off topic. , so very few of the actual questions from participants were asked and answered.

But Mann was able to point out some more vital points. You are under pressure that the crisis is now due to the displacement RATE. Evolution works well on the scale of tens of millions of years. But we’re making dramatic adjustments on the decades-long scale. .

He asked to talk about a defamation lawsuit he won. In 2012, a libertarian institute compared him to a child molester. The good news is that he won the case. The bad news is that it took 12 years.

He was asked when we would reach the “point of no return. “He likened it to walking blindfolded near the edge of a cliff. Do we want to know exactly where the edge of the cliff is?Just avoid moving towards it!

Every fraction of a degree counts. Sustainability exists on many axes in a multidimensional space. We pollute the air and water and overfish the oceans. We are deforesting the land. We want to move away from fossil fuels. Extracting limited resources will succeed at its limits.

He returned to the message that Faire is bigger than Doom. He said he was getting optimism from other young people. The convention was held in the giant auditorium of Campbell Hall. I looked and didn’t see many other young people. It was usually other people my age or older. My wife said she saw other young people in the back.

About a week before the conference, I was having dinner in the dining hall at the University Center. Next to me, a young couple was talking in a strangely intellectual tone about the legal turmoil Trump is facing. It gave me hope that at least some academics are participating. on more important issues. I didn’t need to bother them.

But when I had finished eating, I presented my praise for the most important point of their conversation. I asked them what other issues they were involved in. The boy thought for a minute and proposed: Freedom of speech and immigration. The young woman agreed and added “bodily autonomy,” which I assume meant the right to abortion.

I asked them if they were involved in the climate crisis. They literally rolled their eyes in unison. No, not really. There are other, more pressing issues. Go.

Mann asked if we had ever crossed the 1. 5 degrees Celsius threshold with devastating effects. He said yes, some days. But that’s not what issues. What topics is the general trend line. Again, this is about avoiding unnecessary communications about Doom.

But now a radical upgrade is needed because of all the delays. The good news is that global carbon emissions have stagnated, but we want to reduce those levels. Down the middle. In less than 10 years.

He also warned against “techno-optimists” like Bill Gates. Injection of sulphides into the upper atmosphere. Mann said it wasn’t helpful. We massively implement renewable energy.

Most of the world is still developing. Mann said it’s our duty for them to grow through sustainable energy. For our own good.

I had this discussion with a friend while writing this article. He said it would make no difference if the U. S. reduced its carbon emissions to zero, as it is ultimately guilty of only a minority of global greenhouse fuel emissions. in the face of disaster.

The U. S. remains the world’s largest cumulative emitter in recent history. And by far the largest per capita emitter among major countries. But is this the main problem?

I compared it to living in a river from which you get all your water. Yes, if other people upstream are pooping in the river, it’s not enough for you to stop the poop in the river. But we have the resources to build latrines for other people upstream so they don’t have to poop in the river. We can do it. But we want to do it on this issue, which is the most urgent and vital of all.

In my opinion, many other people wonder if you’re using the right pronouns when the planet is on fire. Yes, take to the streets and protest. But protest to tax, spend and invest in sustainable energy. Around the world. We can do it. What we can’t is the devastation that will result from inaction.

Mann concluded by saying that the fate of planet Earth depends on the U. S. presidential election. Biden has gone to great lengths to fund sustainable energy and is willing to do more. Trump would undo the progress we’ve made and set us back. .

The fate of the global is in our hands. It’s too late, but we’re running out of time.

Here’s Michael Mann’s website: https://michaelmann. net/

Here’s the long-term event at UCSB Arts and Lectures: https://artsandlectures. ucsb. edu/

My favorite part of the article: “In my opinion, many other people wonder if you’re the right pronoun when the planet is on fire. “

So true. Our country will have to be a world leader in solving the climate crisis. Biden has done a lot, but there’s still a lot to be done on renewable energy and smart public transportation.

My favorite part of the article: “In my opinion, many other people wonder if you’re the right pronoun when the planet is on fire. “

So true. Our country will have to be a world leader in solving the climate crisis. Biden has done a lot, but there’s still a lot to be done on renewable energy and smart public transportation.

The challenge is that one aspect has politicized renewable energy and all things “green,” to the point that it has been tribalized into a “left versus right” debate. Added to this is fierce opposition based on misinformation, lies, and scare tactics such as “wind turbines cause cancer,” etc.

Our environment and the health and defense of our planet are a priority for ALL living beings, not just liberals. There is no benefit in continuing to hinder progress on grid-wide renewable energy and other climate policy measures. This is natural selfishness and greed on the part of fossil fuel CEOs and their puppets in government, who then spread misinformation, or even erroneous statistics, and outright lies to voters.

I hate to communicate that I want to put an end to our attitude against them and then say this, but there is only one aspect that is slowing down and, in some cases, seeks to absolutely impede climate-safe, energy security and other forms of life. Savings Actions.

The challenge is that one aspect has politicized renewable energy and all things “green,” to the point that it has become tribalized into a “left versus right” debate. Added to this is fierce opposition based on misinformation, lies and scare tactics such as “wind turbines cause cancer”, etc.

Voting for the orange would put everyone at risk, and only for his insane ramblings on the climate (he has no politics).

Please don’t assume I’m voting for either of the two useless geriatrics. But I expect a bigger call to action than the tired old “Democratic vote. “

Please don’t assume I’m voting for either useless nursing home. But I hope for a greater call to action than the tired old “Democratic vote. “

No one assumed anything about you. And since we’re in California, it doesn’t matter if you don’t publicly perceive how electoral politics work in the United States. . . either Biden will win or Trump will win, whether you like it or not. And it is not only así. no their personal qualities, but also their policies and the party to which they belong, that in large part will decide which law they will sign and veto.

And you have absolutely misunderstood what Mann said: “the fate of the Earth depends **in the immediate future** on the U. S. presidential election. “This is not a call to action against global warming, but it is what what the United States does about global warming depends largely on which party wins the World Assembly. All it takes is a modicum of intelligence and intellectual honesty to perceive this.

No one assumed anything about you. And since this is California, it doesn’t matter if you don’t publicly perceive how electoral politics works in the United States. . . either Biden will win or Trump will win, whether you like it or not. And it is not only their personal qualities, but also their policies and the party to which they belong, that largely determines the law they will sign and veto.

Hurling personal insults makes your point of view even more believable. ? Continue the wonderful work of deterring others from climate change.

What “turns other people off about climate change” isn’t insults in a comment thread, but misinformation, anti-“green” propaganda, and outright lies from conservative politicians sucking on Big Oil’s peacemaker.

It’s about cash and swift opposition to what seems liberal, which has polluted the minds of a part of our population and is exploited by greedy billionaires masquerading as politicians.

What “discourages other people about climate change” is not the insults in a comment thread, but the misinformation, anti-“green” propaganda, and blatant lies of conservative politicians sucking the peacemaker out of Big Oil.

It’s about money and swift opposition to what seems liberal, which has polluted the minds of a part of our population and is exploited by greedy billionaires masquerading as politicians.

As a geography graduate from UCSB, I have a hard time taking into account all the various clinical opinions. When it comes to climate change, could all other scientists focus on Michael Mann?I don’t think so. It mixes known facts with misleading data. He’s done more than any other wearer in all of modern times to give science a black eye. Even in the promotional video for that conference, he said that the recent fire in Lahaina was due to climate change. The media loves it.

As a geography graduate from UCSB, I struggle to cater to all the diverse clinical opinions. When it comes to climate change, could all other scientists focus on Michael Mann?I don’t think so. It mixes known facts with misleading data. He’s done more than any other wearer in all of modern times to give science a black eye. Even in the promotional video for that conference, he said that the recent fire in Lahaina was due to climate change. The media loves it.

As a geography graduate, he seems to have no idea how science is progressing. If your speculation turns out to be through the data, you want a new speculation.

His “all other scientists” is made up of no more than a dozen known eccentrics.

As a geography graduate, he seems to have no idea how science is progressing. If your speculation turns out to be through the data, you want a new speculation.

His “all other scientists” is made up of no more than a dozen known eccentrics.

“As for climate change, could all the other scientists focus on Michael Mann?

No, they agree with him.

“When it comes to climate change, maybe all the other scientists are focusing on Michael Mann?

No, they agree with him.

“He did more to give science a black eye than in the fashionable times. “

As a geography student wondering how to deal with all the supposedly varied clinical “opinions,” you are an expert on the entire history of modern science.

Why does the right have to intervene in all this cowardly cover-up?Why can’t they just anticipate and acknowledge that they oppose meteorological science because that’s what their orders tell them to do as smart little right-wing people?? As a right-winger, you are committed to doing things the right-wing way, i. e. , claiming that clinical controversies exist and bringing up right-wing resources like the NAS, completely ignoring any genuine science.

“It’s done more to give science a black eye than anything else in fashionable times. “

As a geography student wondering how to deal with all the supposedly varied clinical “opinions,” you are an expert on the entire history of modern science.

You science deniers teach yourselves about the climate before you make a fool of yourself with such ignorant comments.

Here are some presentations:

https://www. bbc. com/news/science-environment-24021772

https://climate. nasa. gov/evidence/

The lies promoted by climate science deniers are refuted here by climate scientists:

https://skepticalscience. com/argument. php

Sea Level Rise with Climate Change:

https://factcheck. afp. com/doc. afp. com. 33D789N

Human CO2 emissions:

https://www. livescience. com/planet-earth/climate-change/watch-the-world-choke-on-co2-in-eerie-nasa-videos-of-manmade-emissions

You science deniers teach yourselves about the climate before you make a fool of yourself with such ignorant comments.

Here are some presentations:

https://www. bbc. com/news/science-environment-24021772

https://climate. nasa. gov/evidence/

The lies promoted by meteorological science deniers are refuted here by meteorological scientists:

https://skepticalscience. com/argument. php

Sea Level Rise with Climate Change:

https://factcheck. afp. com/doc. afp. com. 33D789N

Human CO2 emissions:

https://www. livescience. com/planet-earth/climate-change/watch-the-world-choke-on-co2-in-eerie-nasa-videos-of-manmade-emissions

https://www. nas. org/academic-questions/29/1/review_scientists_speak_a_disgrace_to_the_profession

You’d think you’d have enough critical thinking skills for a more authoritative clinical data source than the National Association of Scholars, a politically conservative U. S. education advocacy organization. U. S. He advocates opposition to multiculturalism, diversity policies, and race and gender differences. focused courses. In other words, a group of fanatics and deniers.

Who cares what the NAS says?They are right-wing ideologues, scientists.

https://www. desmog. com/national-association-scholars/

Who cares what the NAS says?They are right-wing ideologues, scientists.

https://www. desmog. com/national-association-scholars/

What “climate science” are we talking about? The politically dogmatic narrative carried out through meetings of royalty and Uberrich? Or the truth that humans of all grades face day in and day out? – which, basically thanks to capitalism, have given us the generosity with which we live and the opportunity to academically debate these issues. “Climate science” is a truth and experts recognize that guilty governments, academics, marketers and companies have been operating incrementally for more than a century. Yes, there are extremes on both sides and in some cases it’s ridiculous, but that’s part of the chaos of reruns. Other parts are idiotic and I maintain that where a qualifying dogma that interferes with the lives of the handicapped begins is where the exercise begins to derail. Mandates for electric cars are a smart example. Without public transportation infrastructure, other people rely on cars. This is most likely to be repositioned in California or much of the United States because it is the most effective way. Currently, gasoline cars are much cheaper, more regulated, more powerful and more reliable than electric cars, and better for the environment than commercially available electric cars. And the position in the market is beginning to speak. Hertz and consumers are turning their backs on him. In just a few years, there will be many junked Teslas in California that no one will be able to repair or drive effectively. If subsidies are wanted to make the market position work, I would say that is a mistake. These artificially imposed incentives and consequence exercises place a burden on the poor and may be economically unsustainable if the economy is not as strong. It is complex because it partly encourages invention, but in reality it will be implemented anyway and the replenishment will be led by inventors, marketers, companies and capital, but not by governments. When science meets the market position, then we will truly have the next paradigm. Probably closer to 2050, but not 2030. It is attractive to observe the extent to which global economic and energy policy emerges from meetings limited to private planes and resulting in popular dogmas, tax systems and capital flows that remain the most deficient for those who live in poverty. But that’s how global has evolved over millennia.

What “climate science” are we talking about? The politically dogmatic narrative carried out through meetings of royalty and Uberrich? Or the truth that humans of all grades face day in and day out? – which, basically thanks to capitalism, have given us the generosity with which we live and the opportunity to academically debate these issues. “Climate science” is a truth and experts recognize that guilty governments, academics, marketers and companies have been operating incrementally for more than a century. Yes, there are extremes on both sides and in some cases it’s ridiculous, but that’s part of the chaos of reruns. Other parts are idiotic and I maintain that where a qualifying dogma that interferes with the lives of the handicapped begins is where the exercise begins to derail. Mandates for electric cars are a smart example. Without public transportation infrastructure, other people rely on cars. This is most likely to be repositioned in California or much of the United States because it is the most effective way. Currently, gasoline cars are much cheaper, more regulated, more powerful and more reliable than electric cars, and better for the environment than commercially available electric cars. And the position in the market is beginning to speak. Hertz and consumers are turning their backs on him. In just a few years, there will be many junk Teslas in California that no one will be able to repair or drive effectively. If subsidies are wanted to make the market position work, I would say that is a mistake. These artificially imposed incentives and consequence exercises place a burden on the poor and may prove economically unsustainable if the economy is not as strong. It is complex because it partly encourages invention, but in reality it will be implemented anyway and the replenishment will be led by inventors, marketers, companies and capital, but not by governments. When science meets the market position, then we will truly have the next paradigm. Probably closer to 2050, but not 2030. It is attractive to observe the extent to which global economic and energy policy emerges from meetings limited to private planes and resulting in popular dogmas, tax systems and capital flows that remain the most deficient for those who live in poverty. But that’s how global has evolved over millennia.

LONGTIMESB1 Their pompous rhetoric ignores the fact that governments have selected the winners and subsidized them. That’s how we got into the existing mess with fossil fuels and are forced to drive instead of having smart public transportation.

The facts are pretty unforgiving. You’ll find out if you continue to deny the fact-based weather science and advertise what social media denies to you.

Thank you, and just for the record, you absolutely agree with my wife and children who tell me that my pomposity, my ramblings, and a host of other “habits” know no bounds. By the way, they call them “bad habits,” but I say the jury is out on that. Threats of credit review were absolutely useless in converting his feelings. I do not believe that this scenario is as summary as some have described it, that is to say that everything is screwed and “they” did it to us, and those who do not adhere to what is dogmatic and absolutist. ” “Science ” of today (which will most likely be repositioned tomorrow) is therefore not qualified to have an opinion and deserves to be shouted in the crudest possible terms. This contrasts with the mutual respect, consensus building and moderate interaction that lately are taking a position among many stakeholders and that in fact will constitute the definitive paradigm because, ultimately, sustainability will triumph, as it does. has done for the last century. with the oil economy that has given us so much and from which we continue taking advantage even today.

Thank you, and just for the record, you absolutely agree with my wife and children who tell me that my pomposity, my ramblings, and a host of other “habits” know no bounds. By the way, they call them “bad habits,” but I say the jury is out on that. Threats of credit review were absolutely useless in converting his feelings. I do not believe that this scenario is as summary as some have described it, that is to say that everything is screwed and “they” did it to us, and those who do not adhere to what is dogmatic and absolutist. ” “Science ” today (which will most likely be repositioned tomorrow) is therefore not qualified to have an opinion and deserves to be shouted in the crudest possible terms. This contrasts with the mutual respect, consensus building and moderate interaction that lately are taking a position among many interested parties and that in fact will constitute the definitive paradigm because, ultimately, sustainability will triumph, as it does. has done for the last century. with the oil economy that has given us so much and from which we continue taking advantage even today.

The generosity of all the damage done and the subsidies paid to the carbon giants?This is what you conveniently ignore, based on what your masters of ideas tell you.

Show me. . . From there, we were given maximum corporate and generation complexity in hitale and they are genuine gains much more than subsidies. Profits that have been reinvested to make something bigger, cleaner, and more efficient. Of course, there are clever examples of Bad Things that can continue to be whipped until a maximum of 25 years old is afraid to try to have sex because of the threat of bringing a child into “that” world that might cease to exist on 1/1/2031. because of “their” (our) collective ecological misdeeds. Truth be told, we’re here today because of what happened before, for better or worse, and it’s a story set in stone, one that never changes.

“From there, we were given the most complex society and generation in history,” until renewable energy generation came along and made us even more complex. . .

Yes, this is a work in progress and will move society forward. I 100% agree. Soon, generation and the economy will satisfy the desires of the market. At the same time, prematurely abandoning the existing oil-based paradigm and replacing it with a subsidy-hungry option risks deterring and halting the advance of larger, more efficient electric cars, forcing consumers to opt in the short or long term for cars of inferior quality and much more expensive than those available today. So how are the handicapped going to get to work?By then, the feeling would possibly be that those who can’t afford a Tesla deserve not to think about racing in California. Just like those who can’t pay rent; Many seem to think they deserve to just leave.

Well, it’s a smart thing to do. Tesla is rarely the only option, but I’m sure you know that. You can get a gently used Nissan Leaf for less than $20,000, usually even less. Yes, those who keep saying that those who can’t pay rent here “should leave” are the same ones who sometimes oppose renewables. Well tried anyway!

I love it when other people “care” about the poor or the environment when it comes to MDR renewables!

Thanks for proving my point! Like the sergeant. The Hulk said, “Relax, Francis. “

Oh, I see. . . . You don’t realize what your point was.

That the generation and the market that are yet to arrive are not yet in a position to reach prime time. It’s true that you can get a used Nissan Leaf for $20,000 and if 150 mile range and charging time suits you, it’s a decent vehicle. Of course, you know that Nissan will discontinue the Leaf this spring to update it with its new low-end electric vehicle, the Areva, which will start at $43,000, almost 50% more than the low-end Leaf and 2Array5 times the value. of a new Toyota Yaris at $17,000. Therefore, it is realistic that there is still a small gap to fill, especially when it comes to the lower end of the market. Of course, as you say, as a “criminal” I don’t care. I just need my gardener, my cook, my housekeeper, my nanny and, above all, my wife’s hairdresser and shoe shiner (whatever they call them, expensive but they value it) to be able to arrive on time. Hummer Omega 150,000 external adding 12,000 Gavin triyet, 325 mile range and 60 minute speed time at 80%. So yeah, there’s also a 560 and a Gwagon in the garage. Didn’t Michael Mann do the music for Miami Vice? I enjoyed this show. Getting to the heart of the matter, there isn’t much to say about what this Mann says. US entry is not genuine: influence over foreign deployment of sustainable technologies is imperative and you are probably right that Biden would do less damage than Trump in terms of political influence in this area. for successful entrepreneurs in the physically powerful literary landscape of The Day After Tomorrow, where the anecdotal scaremongering of underlings subsidized through compelling observations is an effective formula for promoting books and seats. It’s a version of freedom and capitalism and I love it all.

Well, you’re just wrong. But you’re used to it and you don’t care.

https://www. bbc. com/news/science-environment-62892013

Well, you’re just wrong. But you’re used to it and you don’t care.

https://www. bbc. com/news/science-environment-62892013

Not exactly. Their example also reinforces my point of view. “By 2050” is 26 years away and the maximum still needs to be validated and built. This will eventually happen, just as the power of electric cars will and eventually they will also figure out how to make sure that slaves and young people are not in the chain of origin. It’s not that it can simply be transferred to sustainable alternative energies. This requires investment and infrastructure. In the meantime, we all need to live in the truth. I wholeheartedly appreciate those who live off the grid and also admit that it’s not for me. And I know what it’s like to be wrong, because I’m at home all the time. the moment – even when I’m right.

Not exactly. Their example also reinforces my point of view. “By 2050” is 26 years away and the maximum still needs to be validated and built. This will eventually happen, as will the power of electric cars and eventually they will also figure out how to make sure that slaves and young people are not in the chain of origin. It’s not that it can simply be transferred to sustainable alternative energies. This requires investment and infrastructure. In the meantime, we all need to live in the truth. I wholeheartedly appreciate those who live off the grid and also admit that it’s not for me. And I know what it’s like to be wrong, because I’m at home all the time. the moment – even when I’m right.

And yet, you must delay the transition. Is there a lot of cognitive dissonance?

I don’t know where all this comes from, but everyone is free to express their own opinion. Let’s hope it’s not too big of a burden. ?

Everyone has the right to have their own opinion, but not to a subset of facts carefully selected for their opinion.

That’s why you fall for your nonsense:

https://www. theguardian. com/environment/2024/mar/08/oil-industry-has-sought-to-block-state-backing-for-green-tech-since-1960s

That’s why you fall for your nonsense:

https://www. theguardian. com/environment/2024/mar/08/oil-industry-has-sought-to-block-state-backing-for-green-tech-since-1960s

You’re right and it’s true, and there are other examples going back where corporations etc. are pushing to oppose things that couldn’t possibly be in their best interest. This is how it works in a democracy and in the global energy market: other components have other motivations and agfinishas. The truth of why we are here is that cash talks and nonsense walks and when what gets in the way is more of the communist narrative of us tribals instead of them that everything is fucked up and it’s a conspiracy and they’re just out to kill. us. In a “better” world, maybe “they” or “the government” would simply choose the right thing from the beginning and everything would be better from the beginning and forever. But the truth is that the global is chaotic and the economy of power is, in fact, an amalgamation of sources, processes, technologies and rights of passage. I don’t care about subsidies, but I respect that Congress and governments have done it, for better or worse, in many ways. In general, I think that if the generation and/or source is viable, the investment will be maintained and regular quite quickly. Why are classic electric corporations among the largest investors and innovators in white and green generation? They lobbied against wasting taxpayer money on uncompetitive technologies, but were willing to invest their own money in what they thought would work. I think it was wise of the government to inspire development, but not bankrupt us through inadequate generation for 30 years and let validation of capital investment control the landscape. Much more effective than doing stupid things with public money that end up costing too much and cannot be effective. It is vital to recognize that opportunities are just beginning to become viable and make a truly extensive contribution to the network. It will happen, but we have to give it time and in the meantime we are switching to consuming fossil fuels whether we like it or not, so why not be wise and respect wishes and not do stupid things that hurt other people in the meantime? Array Keeping energy costs low is an incredibly vital component of the American economy.

Obviously, you can’t tell the difference, or you don’t care about relative merit, money, and stupidity.

Well, I respect the fact that one person’s is another person’s steak and that my truth is different than anyone else’s. Personally, I tend to put my money where my mouth is. My portfolio comprises a combination of power-like problems. and legacy and future technologies, among others. It’s working incredibly well and has been working for years. This reflects my knowledge of a market I’ve been reading for decades. Off-market investments have also been a concern for a number of startups, specifically in technologies similar to electric vehicles, for more than 30 years.

Your truth is the truth. But his rationalizing talents for dealing with cognitive dissonance are up there.

Thank you to everyone who stuck to the facts and stuck to the facts. The fact is, we’ve known we needed to invest in sustainable energy since the 1950s, when we saw the end of fossil fuels on the horizon. We have been aware of man. Global warming has been caused by greenhouse gases since the late 19th century.

The profitability and viability of sustainable energy have changed a lot in the last 60 years. Photovoltaic (solar) cells were developed in the 1950s for space missions. Wind energy has been around for centuries.

It was just a matter of governments subsidizing and incentivizing fossil fuels and discouraging sustainable energy. The United States has failed miserably as a global leader. China and Germany have global leaders in solar and battery technology. We get the most out of your investments. Today, we (yes, our government) want a lot of spending to put those technologies in place as temporarily as possible.

Far less costly than the catastrophic effects of the climate crisis on the loss of habitable land, crop loss, water loss, and direct heat death. All of this leads to mass displacement and national security crises.

It’s foolish to point the finger at failing corporations. Any investor knows that a lot is invested and that some succeed and some fail. That’s why we want a lot of investment in a wide diversity of sustainable shipping and energy.

Ideally, we should invest in high-speed rail and smart high-speed urban shipping, not simply sell them in the endless black void of forced or subsidized dependence on the automobile.

Thank you again to those who contributed with thoughtful comments.

The profitability and viability of sustainable energy have changed a lot in the last 60 years. Photovoltaic (solar) cells were developed in the 1950s for space missions. Wind power has been around for centuries.

Ideally, we should invest in high-speed rail and smart high-speed urban shipping, not simply sell them in the endless black void of forced or subsidized dependence on the automobile.

Thank you again to those who contributed with thoughtful comments.

Voted Santa Barbara’s most productive for 10 consecutive years, edhat is the local news in its community.

“my”

In order to use social login, you will need to agree to the storage and processing of your data via this website.

Here you’ll find all the collections you’ve created before.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply