human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 63 of 111
Quote:UAW wants more money but also wants to curtail EVs because that means fewer jobs for UAW union members. (There is a claim on the picket line that EV assembly workers will not be UAW members. Instead, they will be Non-Union. The guys on the picket line are confused. The fact is that EV assembly requires fewer assembly workers, but they would be UAW members at the Big 3. There are companies, but not the Big 3, making EVs where nobody is a member of the UAW. Maybe that is where the picket line confusion is coming from. )
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, I DO read past first sentences, SECOND. JUST NOT YOURS.
So, let me get this straight:
You SUPPORT the strikers because auto workers aren't sharing in the profits.
And...
You DON'T support the workers bc they want you keep making the same-old-same-old, like "Trumptards" everywhere.
*****
You DON'T support the strikers bc they're not keeping up with "what the customers want"
And...
Customers don't really WANT EVs, they have to be mandated by government 'for our own good'.
*****
There's no point reading ANY of your posts bc, as usual, you just splatter the crap that's swirling around in your head onto the board, with no rhyme or reason.
When you've figured out WHAT you really think... if you ever do... then you might be worth reading.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
How about a compromise? UAW workers get more money but they also do NOT get to decide how many EVs the Big 3 build.
Business Insider says that companies like VW predict that EVs will require 30 percent fewer workers than traditional ICE vehicles. “The industry is going through a transition unlike anything we’ve ever seen. There’s a pretty strong chance that there will be fewer people building these cars, fewer people building the parts to these cars, and that will create challenges in some automotive communities” said Brett Smith, director of technology at the Center for Automotive Research.
Any way you look at it, the more EV sales rise, the more jobs are lost. A study done in the fall of 2021 by the Economic Policy Institute shows that if EV sales are 50 percent of all domestic vehicle sales by 2030, 75,000 auto jobs will be gone.
https://jalopnik.com/evs-are-going-to-cost-jobs-across-the-auto-indust
ry-1849413566
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Union workers won't have to worry about that because there's zero chance that 50% of vehicles sold will be EVs in 2030.
There's nearly zero charging infrastructure built, and the contracts out there are going to be nearly 1.5 Million charging stations short of the bare minimum needed for 50% of vehicles needing them. People don't like waiting in line to buy gas now. Nothing is going to make people instantly regret their expensive new toy purchase more than the first time they're waiting 3 hours at a charging station.
Plus, most homes aren't equipped with the 240 volt power you're going to need to have in your garage to charge your vehicle quick enough to do anything with it on a daily basis. Converting this is not a DIY job for most people and it will be prohibitively expensive for most people to do, requiring union electricians on the job and pretty significant collateral damage to the structure to upgrade the power to the garage. That being said, there will be a lot of people who watch a few videos on the University of YouTube and do it themselves anyway.
If the house is detached from the garage, it becomes a lot safer than an attached garage, but it will likely be a lot more work/money to convert to 240, and depending on how far away the garage is you have to now consider the problem of Voltage Drop, which can end up damaging the batteries, and take steps to prevent it. In time, Voltage Drop can kill your power tools which aren't comprised of sensitive electronics that can fail more more easily.
I wonder how many stories we're going to be reading in the future about people losing everything they owned and/or being burned alive in their houses because the botched electrical job to their attached garage or a bad battery ended up burning their house down while they were sleeping. It will be more than one for sure.
https://www.kcra.com/article/lithium-ion-battery-fires-how-to-prevent-
them/43266541
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=9393
The strain on the power grids hasn't even begun. It will end up costing people 10 times the current rate for kWh to power their homes once millions of people start adopting these coal-burning vehicles. And once people start dying from the heat during the summer because of blackouts caused by the insane load on the grid they cause, there will be outrage.
Democrats are trying to force a technology that isn't yet viable for anybody other than a niche group of hobbyists and people who like to smell their own farts.
What we've got is good enough for a couple of million of them on the road, but we do not currently have anything close to what would be needed to supply the entire driving country with the power they'd need safely, conveniently and at an affordable price if these things were ever adopted en masse.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You aren't good with probabilities.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Union workers won't have to worry about that because there's zero chance that 50% of vehicles sold will be EVs in 2030.
Would you live in a building, cross a bridge, or trust a dam wall if there were a 10 percent chance of it collapsing? Or five percent? Or one percent? Of course not! In civil engineering, acceptable probabilities of failure generally range from one-in-10,000 to one-in-10-million.
So why, when it comes to climate action, are policies like carbon budgets accepted when they have success rates of just 50 to 66 percent? That’s hardly better than a coin toss.
Policy-relevant scientific publications, such as those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focus on the probabilities—the most likely outcomes. But, according to atmospheric physicist and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, “calculating probabilities makes little sense in the most critical instances” because “when the issue is the survival of civilization is at stake, conventional means of analysis may become useless.”
More at https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/betting-against-worst-case-climate-sce
narios-is-risky-business/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:Quote:You aren't good with probabilities.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Union workers won't have to worry about that because there's zero chance that 50% of vehicles sold will be EVs in 2030.
Yes. I am.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Union workers won't have to worry about that because there's zero chance that 50% of vehicles sold will be EVs in 2030.
SECOND: You aren't good with probabilities.
Would you live in a building, cross a bridge, or trust a dam wall if there were a 10 percent chance of it collapsing? Or five percent? Or one percent? Of course not! In civil engineering, acceptable probabilities of failure generally range from one-in-10,000 to one-in-10-million.
So why, when it comes to climate action, are policies like carbon budgets accepted when they have success rates of just 50 to 66 percent? That’s hardly better than a coin toss.
Policy-relevant scientific publications, such as those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focus on the probabilities—the most likely outcomes. But, according to atmospheric physicist and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, “calculating probabilities makes little sense in the most critical instances” because “when the issue is the survival of civilization is at stake, conventional means of analysis may become useless.”
He means.... "IF the survival of civilization is at stake"
You know what events would cause a major hiccup in civilization, as we know it?
Full-on nuclear war. Years-long nuclear winter around the globe and deadly radioactive ash straddling the northern hemisphere. Slow painful extinction from radiation poisoning.
The eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. A 50 mile diameter chunk of crust and mantle, all blowing skyward. It would destroy North America with ashfall within days, and block the sun for years. Another years-long "winter" scenario that would be an extinction-level event.
A 6-9 mile wide asteroid hitting the earth. Another "winter" scenario. In addition, the last time it happened it seems to have set off a long-lasting volcanic flow in the Siberian 'steppes'. And since the magma emerged thru thick coal beds, it released a fuck-ton of carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides. It wiped out the dinosaurs and most other life on earth.
Of all of those, NUCLEAR WAR is the only one we have a prayer of doing anything about.
So why aren't you agitating about THAT?. Is it worth the risk, if we "get Russia"?
That's pretty irrational (i.e you can't seem to ratio "which is bigger/worse?" and keep that in mind when assessing relative risk.)
We are in an extinction event RIGHT NOW. SOME is directly related to global warming but most is from HABITAT LOSS and POLLUTION.
Salmon fishing ban as stocks collapse. Salmon populations have been declining for decades, thanks to logging near streams and rivers which stir up silt and choke spawning salmon. Dams across major rivers also prevent salmon from spawning. Pollution and overfishing contribute. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/why-are-there-so-few-salmon-left
Toxic red tides, which kill fish en masse, sea birds and seals, sea lions and other marine mammals. Red tides are made worse by phosphate pollution from farming, which happens extensively off USA's southern Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
https://www.sailorsforthesea.org/programs/ocean-watch/nutrients-feed-r
ed-tide
Along with that, we can look at the "dead zone" that occurs in the Gulf of Mexico every years, thanks to fertilizer and chemical runoff from the Mississippi, and algae blooms in the Great Lakes caused by nitrogen fertilizer runoff from corn (for fuel ethanol) farming.
Plastics and microplastics in the ocean, literally choking sea life to death.
We've used the ocean as our ultimate resource and dumping ground, but it seems we've exceeded even IT'S limits. Some of the solutions to, or mitigations of, global warming overlap with solving or mitigating these other problems:
Better forest management. Hand-thininng and hand-cutting instead of clear-cutting.
Cover-cropping to retain moisture, soil, fertilizer.
Re-est
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ChatGPT's Environmental Impact Ignored By Climate Warriors
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/chatgpts-environmental-impact-ign
ored-climate-warriors
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The solution is high prices for fossil fuels. How high? High enough to pay for removing the CO2 from the atmosphere once the fuel is burnt. Things like electric cars, heat pumps, or solar power are just tricks to avoid paying high prices for fossil fuels. Obviously, most people will be enraged that they have to pay higher prices for gasoline and install heat pumps. Such people will instantly see an Anti-Solution. Such people will teil their politicians: "Why do I have to pay insanely high prices I don't wanna pay when the people in China are the REAL producers of CO2? Make them pay instead of me! Threaten them with war if the Chinese don't pay." Instantaneous Anti-Solutions will be everywhere in politics!
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
We've used the ocean as our ultimate resource and dumping ground, but it seems we've exceeded even IT'S limits. Some of the solutions to, or mitigations of, global warming overlap with solving or mitigating these other problems:
Better forest management. Hand-thininng and hand-cutting instead of clear-cutting.
Cover-cropping to retain moisture, soil, fertilizer.
Re-establishment of estuaries and wetlands as 'cleanup' zones before discharge into the ocean.
As you know, SECOND, I do think that climate shift is happening. But there are better sollutions out there beyond a mass knee-jerk imposition of a technology that may (or might not) in the end improve our situation.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Son, if one bad forest fire year undoes 18 years of CA decarbonization, maybe we should ... yanno... ADDRESS THE STUFF THAT HAS THE HIGHEST IMPACT?
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Cut down the forest before it burns will fix the problem. Or cut fire lanes in the forest and hire a huge forest fire department. Or burn the underbrush often enough to prevent forest fires. Or etc. Whatever way suits you. Or do nothing and let the forests burn.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Son, if one bad forest fire year undoes 18 years of CA decarbonization, maybe we should ... yanno... ADDRESS THE STUFF THAT HAS THE HIGHEST IMPACT?
Imagine a world where there were no sewage treatment plants. What a messy and disgusting world that would be. Now imagine a world, the one we live in, where CO2 floods the environment like an overflowing toilet. It is everywhere and it is ruining everything it touches.
Until CO2 is treated as a waste product like sewage there will be CO2 spreading everywhere and making a giant mess. In Baytown, there is a sewage charge of $2.81 for every 1,000 gallons of water your house uses until the use is 2,000 gallons then the price for sewage disposal increases to $6.36 per thousand gallons. There needs to be a disposal charge for how much CO2 you produce and the way to calculate that charge is by how much fossil fuel you burn. The details of how you reduce your fossil fuel burning are up to you. Keep using fossil fuel like you always have will cost you to clean up the mess. Or do something useful to reduce your CO2 disposal cost such as switching to other means and techniques.
https://baytown.org/481/Billing-Info-Due-Dates
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There goes all that carbon dioxide removal!
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Son, if one bad forest fire year undoes 18 years of CA decarbonization, maybe we should ... yanno... ADDRESS THE STUFF THAT HAS THE HIGHEST IMPACT?
SECOND: Cut down the forest before it burns
Quote:Better, but...
Or cut fire lanes in the forest and hire a huge forest fire department.
Quote:Not ideal...
Or burn the underbrush often enough to prevent forest fires.
Quote:Yeah, THAT'S a good idea! Let's do nothing about CO2 at all!
Or do nothing and let the forests burn.
Quote:It's called India
SECOND::Imagine a world where there were no sewage treatment plants.
Quote:You DO know how sewage treatment plants work, don't you?
SECOND: What a messy and disgusting world that would be. Now imagine a world, the one we live in, where CO2 floods the environment like an overflowing toilet. It is everywhere and it is ruining everything it touches.
Until CO2 is treated as a waste product like sewage
They work by speeding up natural processes. Same with CO2 removal.
YOUR idea of decarbonizing the world is the equivalent of telling the world "HEY, STOP SHITTING!" to solve the sewage problem. Well, unlike shitting, we can actually reduce our carbon emissions. But we can't stop them entirely.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME