GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

So, you reply PROVING my point?  Oh right, you think you actually made the opposite point as you REFUSE to do basic math

Bravo! 🤡i

Huh?  There are certainly coal deposits within Poland.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

11 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

So fresh!

 

Your answer is to increase Chinese pollution levels? You really need a mind refresher.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

4 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Really?

Hmmm I dont think so

Theres also this thing called importing! maybe you havent heard of it? China have!

You miss the point, Rob.

European EVs derive from coal based  production in China, you are merely trying mask your dependence on coal by disguising the heavy coal reliance to another jurisdiction.

That is just a silly shell game.

You know what a shell game is, Rob?

Here is the Oxford dictionary explanation, 

shell game

/ˈSHel ˌɡām/

noun

NORTH AMERICAN

"a game involving sleight of hand, in which three inverted cups or nutshells are moved about, and contestants must spot which is the one with a pea or other object underneath.

• a deceptive and evasive action or ploy, especially a political one.

  plural noun: shell games

  "officials played a shell game by loading prisoners onto buses during population counts at the jail"

Edited April 23 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 671]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your point has already been disproved a hundred times, air pollution is being rapidly reduced toward zero in spite of increased fossil fuel use...you need to find a better tag line.

You are senile.

"air pollution is being rapidly reduced toward zero"

You can't see the smog with your own eyes. 

You didn't answer the question.  How are emission regulations lowering your quality of life? Yours, personally.

Edited April 23 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 671]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your point has already been disproved a hundred times, air pollution is being rapidly reduced toward zero in spite of increased fossil fuel use...you need to find a better tag line.

So does this mean you will shut up about pollution from EV manufacturing? After all "air pollution is being rapidly reduced to zero."

Does China burning a lot of coal bother you?  If so why?  Also, remember on a per captia  basis their usage should be much larger.

[Ron Wagner + 702]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FfIfvcM7So From Joe Blogs:

China and India stop buying coal from Russia. 

Worldwide coal usage is now higher than ever before, if I heard this right. 

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

8 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You are senile.

"air pollution is being rapidly reduced toward zero"

You can't see the smog with your own eyes. 

You didn't answer the question.  How are emission regulations lowering your quality of life? Yours, personally.

You are wandering off topic. This is not about pollution measures, but about a forced transition to EVs and electric transport. 

That misguided policy will destroy the standard of living of the average American, and without any good reason or justification.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

8 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

So does this mean you will shut up about pollution from EV manufacturing? After all "air pollution is being rapidly reduced to zero."

Does China burning a lot of coal bother you?  If so why?  Also, remember on a per captia  basis their usage should be much larger.

What type of pollution do you mean? I do not view CO2 as a pollutant.

If you mean other toxic emissions, that problem is solvable in both America and China without destroying the average American's family transport.

Edited April 24 by Ecocharger

[Ron Wagner + 702]

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-consumption-2000-2025

Worldwide coal use by year graphed. 

 

[notsonice + 1,243]

45 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-consumption-2000-2025

Worldwide coal use by year graphed. 

 

your graph shows it peaked in 2013/14 and in 2022 it matched the peak, after 10 years of moving down and sideways and then it shows it is flat again today. So much for the Coal consumption is increasing babble that Ecochump keeps touting

..............Reality it reached a peak 10 years ago and it took 10 years to match the peak again... The expectation is China consumption peaked in 2023 and flattened out this year is now heading downhill in 2025........Reality Global Coal consumption is now set to have very minor declines in  2024 and 2025 and the declines are getting bigger every year after 2025

 

Thanks to the Green agenda it brings you 

Better Air quality...........reduction in carbon emissions

 

Carbon Brief

Analysis: Global CO2 emissions could peak as soon as 2023, IEA data reveals

Global carbon dioxide emissions from energy use and industry could peak as soon as this year, according to Carbon Brief analysis of figures...

.

Oct 26, 2023

China May Soon Hit Peak Coal

Foreign Policy

https://foreignpolicy.com › 2023/11/01 › china-coal-en...

 

 

 

 

Nov 1, 2023 — In a major turning point for the world, China's fossil fuel use is projected to decline starting in 2025.

Edited April 24 by notsonice

[TailingsPond + 671]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

 

If you mean other toxic emissions, that problem is solvable in both America and China without destroying the average American's family transport.

You did not answer the question.  How are emission reductions personally lowering your quality of life? Not an imaginary "average American family" - you.

Also answer this - what do you imagine when you think of an average American family?

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

16 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

So, you reply PROVING my point?  Oh right, you think you actually made the opposite point as you REFUSE to do basic math

Bravo! 🤡i

haha tunnels everywhere in your world and you talk of basic math! what a fool you are!

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your point has already been disproved a hundred times, air pollution is being rapidly reduced toward zero in spite of increased fossil fuel use...you need to find a better tag line.

Really???

Is that in the bubble you live in?

WHO data show that almost all of the global population (99%) breathe air that exceeds WHO guideline limits and contains high levels of pollutants, with low- and middle-income countries suffering from the highest exposures. Air quality is closely linked to the earth's climate and ecosystems globally.

Air pollution is one of the world's leading risk factors for death

Air Pollution - Our World in Data

This is an interactive live data map

World Live Air Quality Map | IQAir

Edited April 24 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You miss the point, Rob.

European EVs derive from coal based  production in China, you are merely trying mask your dependence on coal by disguising the heavy coal reliance to another jurisdiction.

That is just a silly shell game.

You know what a shell game is, Rob?

Here is the Oxford dictionary explanation, 

shell game

/ˈSHel ˌɡām/

 

noun

NORTH AMERICAN

"a game involving sleight of hand, in which three inverted cups or nutshells are moved about, and contestants must spot which is the one with a pea or other object underneath.

• a deceptive and evasive action or ploy, especially a political one.

  plural noun: shell games

  "officials played a shell game by loading prisoners onto buses during population counts at the jail"

Yes I do thanks I dont need a dictionary definition from you to explain it as you were the one who raised your silly point.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You are wandering off topic. This is not about pollution measures, but about a forced transition to EVs and electric transport. 

That misguided policy will destroy the standard of living of the average American, and without any good reason or justification.

No the topic was air pollution ONLY you have been prattling on about EV's using electricity generated by coal

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

European EVs derive from coal based  production in China, you are merely trying mask your dependence on coal by disguising the heavy coal reliance to another jurisdiction.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming: on any realistic like-for-like comparison a battery car will be cleaner than its petrol or diesel equivalent. Burning fossil fuels to make and drive electric cars will still cause emissions, but at a lower level than inefficient fossil fuel engines.

Do electric cars really produce fewer carbon emissions than petrol or diesel vehicles? | Business | The Guardian

I'd like to thank Footinmouth for confirming coal was the prevalent source of powergen in Poland. As the above graph shows its only Poland from a European perspective where the issue you claim Eco is actually a problem, but even then Polish EV's arent anywhere near as bad as FF.

Your point is BS unless you can show me concrete evidence to the contrary and not your opinion.

Fortunately Poland's renewables are growing fast as I posted a couple of days ago, so that situation will soon be rectified.

Also Poland's population is less than 5% of Europe so not a great deal to worry about there!

If you like people dying then keep advocating coal use.

Enjoy the transition and clean air, it will save millions of lives!!

Edited April 24 by Rob Plant

[notsonice + 1,243]

12 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The scientific consensus is overwhelming: on any realistic like-for-like comparison a battery car will be cleaner than its petrol or diesel equivalent. Burning fossil fuels to make and drive electric cars will still cause emissions, but at a lower level than inefficient fossil fuel engines.

Do electric cars really produce fewer carbon emissions than petrol or diesel vehicles? | Business | The Guardian

I'd like to thank Footinmouth for confirming coal was the prevalent source of powergen in Poland. As the above graph shows its only Poland from a European perspective where the issue you claim Eco is actually a problem, but even then Polish EV's arent anywhere near as bad as FF.

Your point is BS unless you can show me concrete evidence to the contrary and not your opinion.

Fortunately Poland's renewables are growing fast as I posted a couple of days ago, so that situation will soon be rectified.

Also Poland's population is less than 5% of Europe so not a great deal to worry about there!

If you like people dying then keep advocating coal use.

Enjoy the transition and clean air, it will save millions of lives!!

thanks for your graphics....

Ecochump, of course will ignore the facts and keep advocating for coal use as I believe he really could care less about clean air or the health of the planet and all life that exists on it. He is no different than one who smokes cigarettes and ignores the impacts

The environmental footprint of a smokerA total carbon footprint of 5.1t CO2 equivalent emissions, which to offset, would require 132 tree seedlings planted and grown for 10 years. A water footprint of 1,355 m3, which is equivalent to almost 62 years' water supply for any three people's basic needs.

 

Tobacco and the Environment - ASH

Action on Smoking and Health - ASH

https://ash.org.uk › Resources › All Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About featured snippets•

 

Feedback

 

 

WHO raises alarm on tobacco industry environmental impact

World Health Organization (WHO)

https://www.who.int › News › item

 

 

 

 

May 31, 2022 — The WHO report “Tobacco: Poisoning our planet” highlights that the industry's carbon footprint from production, processing and transporting ...

 

 

Edited April 24 by notsonice

[TailingsPond + 671]

Cigarettes are fine, they put those little filters on them. Reduces tar to "essentially nothing."

EcoLogic

Edited April 24 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 671]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

 

If you mean other toxic emissions, that problem is solvable in both America and China without destroying the average American's family transport.

How so?   A little filter?

Edited April 24 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

14 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You did not answer the question.  How are emission reductions personally lowering your quality of life? Not an imaginary "average American family" - you.

Also answer this - what do you imagine when you think of an average American family?

You did not answer the question, which emissions are you referring to?

If you mean CO2, taking the insane route of eliminating fossil fuel vehicles in favor of EVs will eliminate the personal transport capabilities of every American. That is true of anyone who drives fossil fuel vehicles such as myself.

Reducing fossil fuel transport will impact the standard of living of every citizen, as every industry relies on fossil fuel transport.

Sure, you can grow oranges in Alaska, but it costs a lot more than doing it the right way. Choosing suboptimal patterns of production hurts everyone.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Really???

Is that in the bubble you live in?

WHO data show that almost all of the global population (99%) breathe air that exceeds WHO guideline limits and contains high levels of pollutants, with low- and middle-income countries suffering from the highest exposures. Air quality is closely linked to the earth's climate and ecosystems globally.

Air pollution is one of the world's leading risk factors for death

Air Pollution - Our World in Data

This is an interactive live data map

World Live Air Quality Map | IQAir

Your point has already been disproved, Rob.

Despite record high levels of fossil fuel usage in North America, toxic emissions have drastically declined in recent decades. I posted that information earlier for you, I guess you forgot your reading glasses.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The scientific consensus is overwhelming: on any realistic like-for-like comparison a battery car will be cleaner than its petrol or diesel equivalent. Burning fossil fuels to make and drive electric cars will still cause emissions, but at a lower level than inefficient fossil fuel engines.

Do electric cars really produce fewer carbon emissions than petrol or diesel vehicles? | Business | The Guardian

I'd like to thank Footinmouth for confirming coal was the prevalent source of powergen in Poland. As the above graph shows its only Poland from a European perspective where the issue you claim Eco is actually a problem, but even then Polish EV's arent anywhere near as bad as FF.

Your point is BS unless you can show me concrete evidence to the contrary and not your opinion.

Fortunately Poland's renewables are growing fast as I posted a couple of days ago, so that situation will soon be rectified.

Also Poland's population is less than 5% of Europe so not a great deal to worry about there!

If you like people dying then keep advocating coal use.

Enjoy the transition and clean air, it will save millions of lives!!

Rob, you are a comedian. Your material is already hopelessly out of date and confused.

People do not die of CO2 emissions, get real. Toxic emissions have been drastically reduced in recent decades.

Here is your source, and it is already more than four years old when published, based on older data.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth1

Here is more up-to-date estimates.

https://manhattan.institute/article/electric-vehicles-for-everyone-the-impossible-dream?utm_source=wsj&utm_medium=feature

"The trends that are knowable for the near future show upstream emissions rising for EVs, even if we don’t know exactly how much they will increase. Gaining clarity will be a challenge not least because, as IEA has noted, only a tiny share of players in that industry are cooperating with “emission pledges” made for the Responsible Mining Index."

Here are new approaches to assessing emissions data.

 

"EV manufacturing is incredibly energy-intensive,  mainly to build the battery. In Norway’s case, none of this additional energy is reflected in their domestic demand figures. China manufactures most lithium-ion batteries and 80% of all EVs. Coal accounts for 60% of their total energy supply.

We estimate an average EV consumes 60 MWh to manufacture, of which the battery represents half. Therefore, manufacturing Norway’s 579,000 EVs (all the EVs on the road today in Norway) requires 35 twh, equivalent to 25% of the total annual Norwegian electricity demand. Given that China emits 600 grams of CO2 per kwh (China is where almost all of Noway’s EV batteries are manufactured), we calculate Norway’s EV fleet would emit 21 mm tonnes of CO2. Norway’s gasoline and diesel consumption fell by a meager 3,200 barrels per day or 50 mm gallons per year. Assuming 9 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline or diesel, Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway's EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically. 

Incredibly, this is true despite Norway having the lowest carbon hydroelectricity in the world. Even if China were to reach its overly ambitious targets for wind, solar, and nuclear power by 2035, we calculate that the carbon “payback” would still exceed twenty years. Realistically, the only way for EVs to reduce lifecycle carbon emissions would be with a widespread move to carbon-free energy in EV manufacturing. "

https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-norwegian-illusion

Edited April 24 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,243]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Rob, you are a comedian. Your material is already hopelessly out of date and confused.

People do not die of CO2 emissions, get real. Toxic emissions have been drastically reduced in recent decades.

Here is your source, and it is already more than four years old when published, based on older data.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth1

Here is more up-to-date estimates.

https://manhattan.institute/article/electric-vehicles-for-everyone-the-impossible-dream?utm_source=wsj&utm_medium=feature

"The trends that are knowable for the near future show upstream emissions rising for EVs, even if we don’t know exactly how much they will increase. Gaining clarity will be a challenge not least because, as IEA has noted, only a tiny share of players in that industry are cooperating with “emission pledges” made for the Responsible Mining Index."

Here are new approaches to assessing emissions data.

 

"EV manufacturing is incredibly energy-intensive,  mainly to build the battery. In Norway’s case, none of this additional energy is reflected in their domestic demand figures. China manufactures most lithium-ion batteries and 80% of all EVs. Coal accounts for 60% of their total energy supply.

We estimate an average EV consumes 60 MWh to manufacture, of which the battery represents half. Therefore, manufacturing Norway’s 579,000 EVs (all the EVs on the road today in Norway) requires 35 twh, equivalent to 25% of the total annual Norwegian electricity demand. Given that China emits 600 grams of CO2 per kwh (China is where almost all of Noway’s EV batteries are manufactured), we calculate Norway’s EV fleet would emit 21 mm tonnes of CO2. Norway’s gasoline and diesel consumption fell by a meager 3,200 barrels per day or 50 mm gallons per year. Assuming 9 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline or diesel, Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway's EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically. 

Incredibly, this is true despite Norway having the lowest carbon hydroelectricity in the world. Even if China were to reach its overly ambitious targets for wind, solar, and nuclear power by 2035, we calculate that the carbon “payback” would still exceed twenty years. Realistically, the only way for EVs to reduce lifecycle carbon emissions would be with a widespread move to carbon-free energy in EV manufacturing. "

https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-norwegian-illusion

Bozo, you posted your garbage before and it was debunked.....

 

[TailingsPond + 671]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You did not answer the question, which emissions are you referring to?

If you mean CO2, taking the insane route of eliminating fossil fuel vehicles in favor of EVs will eliminate the personal transport capabilities of every American. That is true of anyone who drives fossil fuel vehicles such as myself.

Reducing fossil fuel transport will impact the standard of living of every citizen, as every industry relies on fossil fuel transport.

Sure, you can grow oranges in Alaska, but it costs a lot more than doing it the right way. Choosing suboptimal patterns of production hurts everyone.

All emissions but as always I prioritize toxic emissions over greenhouse emissions.

There will be no elimination of personal; transport abilities.  Personal EVs are able to transport stuff - that you cannot deny.

If you electrify a train you can move LOTS of stuff.

Yes EVs and green energy might be more expensive than the fossil alternatives, you call this sub-optimal.  However, local clean air helps everyone - dirty air hurts everyone.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

13 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your point has already been disproved, Rob.

Despite record high levels of fossil fuel usage in North America, toxic emissions have drastically declined in recent decades. I posted that information earlier for you, I guess you forgot your reading glasses.

Is N. America the world?

My point stands! you have disproven nothing as those are the facts from the WHO.

In N.America since the clean air act yes things have improved as they had to otherwise you would have tens of thousands die each year from pollution related illnesses. Catalytic converters have improved vehicle emissions and improved powergen sources have further improved the situation, however that does NOT mean they arent pollutive and I dont mean Co2!!!