Some things to look at about Biden's green new deal.

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCd7HXD/

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCdtARq/

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCdpxXu/

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCdcv1X/

 

So far there is bigger issues with the green new deal. So let's look how politicians travel by air and nothing said about jet pollution.

 

Let's start with a look at the most famous of jets, the Boeing 747. The Boeing website states that this model, with a gas tank capacity of 63,500 gallons, may burn five gallons of jet fuel per mile of flight. A 4,000-mile flight, then, requires 20,000 gallons of fuel. Sep 26, 2016.

 

Let's consider that there is no enough power to deal with just the EVs in California and lake Mead is almost dry main supply of California's power. Even that California's power is being rationed.

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCR5LFQ/

 

Then just consider all the forest fires the USFS is lighting up calling them a prescribed burn, also allowing fires to get out of hand. Huge pollution of CO2 here in the northwest. Then consider all the EV fires.

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCRrpTM/

 

EVs are not going to solve any issues. Just consider the amount of fires EVs have had.

 

Just consider the Ford Lightning. How long would it take to tow 10k trailer 2,000 miles?

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCR5pms/

 

 

Ran across this today. 

1 hour ago, Threadzy said:

Ran across this today. 

Nothing but rightwing propaganda trying to destroy my illusion that driving an EV is stopping global warming and saving the planet. 

Maybe reconsider how many jet are in flight right now. This is look down around AZ.

 

 

 

Then over by Washington DC

 

so do you not believe what I posted in terms of how much jet-a is burnt yearly vs how much gas and diesel is burnt yearly?    I know 5 gallons a mile sounds like a lot, but when you compare actual fuel burnt and see that airline travel makes up only %7 vs gas and diesel on road use it is a little different story.   

 

 

If we convert the total number of gallons of diesel/gas consumed in the US last year to barrels of oil we get 4.32 billion. Each barrel contains 1,700kwh. The math on that comes to 7.344 trillion Kwh’s. The graph below shows the total kwh’s consumed last year in the US at 4.12 Trillion. Only 20% of that was renewable, so .824 Trillion kwh’s. If we convert 100% to EV’s that puts the total Kwh needed at 11.46 Trillion. Currently renewables could only meet 7% of the demand needed. 

If I adjust to assume EV’s are 3X more efficient per KWH then the math changes to a combined total of 6.54 trillion kwh’s needed. That puts renewables meeting 12.5%, but it also would eliminate 2.8 Billion barrels of oil from the overall demand. 
 

again these numbers don’t account for certain variables, and doesn’t paint the overall picture of CO2 emissions as we still have to calculate battery manufacturing, charging station infrastructure, grid infrastructure, ect…

 

So considering costs, CO2, function, national security, and economic security, is the juice worth the squeeze? 
 

Aside from those considerations, I personally want more conclusive evidence on human activities contribution to climate change. Some call that being a climate denier, I call it truth seeking. 

 

 

Interesting thread here...I think there's definitely something to a natural eb & flow of climate on our planet. We've only got a tiny amount of data to construct climate models on from how old the planet is. We're in a warming period right now and how much is that just part of a natural rhythm and how much is that man-made.  I do agree there's a use case for diesel, EVs etc. Just like everything technology has to advance but it has to be a measured approach.