The rush to madness continues.

"Imagine it’s 2030 and Australia is a renewable energy superpower in Southeast Asia"

https://theconversation.com/imagine-its-2030-and-australia-is-a-renewable-energy...

""It's absolutely ironic, but to save the planet we are going to need more mines," says Allison Britt, director of mineral resources at government agency Geoscience Australia.

The need for one of the biggest increases in mining the world has ever seen is forcing some tough choices and redrawing old battlelines between environmentalists and miners.

In Tasmania, a mine that's been leaking contaminated water for the past five years wants permission to expand into a wilderness area because the lead, zinc and copper it produces are vital for solar panels, electric cars and wind turbines.

King Island, famed for its high-end produce and rugged beauty, will soon be home to one of the world's largest tungsten mines.

Outside Darwin, an open-cut mine that will produce lithium vital for electric car batteries looks to be already impacting local waterways."

"Everything is now an emergency," says entrepreneur and inventor Saul Griffith, whose advocacy organisation Re-wiring America has advised US politicians and businesses.

"We need to be making wind turbines 10 times as fast as we do. We need to be making solar cells 10 times as fast as we do. We need to be making batteries and electric vehicles 10 times as fast as we do today."

"An electric vehicle needs about 200kg of minerals like copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. That's six times more than a petrol-powered car.

A wind turbine needs four times more minerals than a coal-fired power station to generate the same amount of electricity.

These tough choices are increasingly becoming a trade-off between preserving local habitats and the global effort to avert the worst effects of climate change.

Kirsty Howey from the Northern Territory Environment Centre says it's "a confounding issue for the environmental movement".

"There's absolutely no doubt that we have to move to mining of critical minerals if we are going to address the climate crisis," she says."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-09/renewable-energy-may-require-australian-m...

Unless you want to pay homage to China - buckle up.

lee wrote on May 10^th, 2022 at 8:40pm:


Nah. the article is just obfuscation. More mines is not the problem, except for extreme greenies.

http://www.profstevekeen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/keen_for_senate-1.pdf

"Career politicians, who aren’t equipped to read
the academic literature, don’t know that
they’re being conned by economists.

At TNL, we know that the economists are
wrong. Unlike economists, climate scientists
are terrified by the prospect of a 2°C warmer
world. The crazy crises that Australia has
experienced since 2019—the fires, the
pandemic, the floods—are just a taste of what
will happen if we hit 2°C. And we’re already at
1.2°C."

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2022 at 12:04am:


The "problem'  is obfuscation. All mining CAN be made environmentally safe, the problem is money*** pinching by private mining companies...***you know, the stuff that can be created out of thin air by the public sector (ie, govt. with its own treasury and reserve bank), without borrowing from private financiers.   

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2022 at 5:40pm:


More water vapor in the air - from higher atmospheric  temps - IS climate.

 

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2022 at 5:34pm:


Dear me, we are talking increasing  average atmospheric temps related to increasing man-made CO2 concentrations, over the last century, which increases rate of evaporation of sea water.

The fact it rained today is irrelevent to the reality of increasingly erratic and extreme rainfall.

Quote:


Note the highlighted and underlined, above. I'm afraid you will have a difficult time convincing Queenslanders otherwise, just now.....

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2022 at 12:42pm:


Either way, increasingly catastrophic weather events, whether CO2 related or not, are going to have to be resourced: note I said RESOURCED (since money is created out of thin air, money is not a problem, see the MMT thread).

Oh, and at the same time, we might as well increasingly power the energy grid on free sunshine and wind,
- funded by the BIS (with its unlimited currency-issuing capacity) utilizing resources as appropriate ie NOT in the profit-seeking  free market  -  to end the energy poverty in the 3rd world.

 

lee wrote on May 15^th, 2022 at 1:08pm:


Er.....the last four years, globally,  speak for themselves.

Quote:


Why do you think 700 million Indians are still burning cow dung? 

Quote:


Get back to me when the world is running on the easily achieved c. 80% renewables, to see whether we need nuclear as base load in order to turn off fossils completely.

Quote:


That's because the world is still controlled by private financiers seeking profits in free markets (the mob responsible for Sri Lanka's overseas debt).  They need to be put out to pasture by a reformed international public financing system.   

thegreatdivide wrote on May 15^th, 2022 at 11:09pm:



Oh only four years. I thought it was about climate.

But which events have not happened before or were worse than before?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 15^th, 2022 at 11:09pm:


Because they don't have the infrastructure. And they won't have the infrastructure building renewables.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 15^th, 2022 at 11:09pm:



Another SWAG. That's the only thing you are good at.

.thegreatdivide wrote on May 15^th, 2022 at 11:09pm:



Even though China and India have their own large fossil fuel reserves it is the evil internationals who are causing it all.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 7:27pm:



And yet you haven't cited any "increasing occurrence of climate /weather catastrophes"

thegreatdivide wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 7:27pm:

.

Current heatwave in India? More frequent than when?

Recurrent flooding in Queensland? Similar to the 1890's flooding. Climate changes you have to show it is CO2 induced and not natural variation.

http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 9:08pm:


..er..labour is cheap in the 3rd world, yet governments cannot afford vital infrastructure; and private companies - if they see an opportunity -  only extract profits for themselves, not the nation.


Quote:


By definition, "empirical evidence" is gained by doing, not by theory.

Quote:


Solely? The limit will be discovered empirically. eg how much of the world's hot-desert solar power/off-shore wind can be stored, in sufficient quantity, for a 100% renewable energy economy.

Quote:


Apparently there isn't enough coal in India.

Quote:


Wrong.

1. Chinese economists haven't liberated themselves from neoliberal market economy dogma, hence their  misplaced concerns over debt.  China, like everyone else, could be transitioning to green much faster than is possible in the private sector market economy, by building the large scale storage needed - paid for the the PBofC, not by privately financed debt.

Hence China is still building coal plants because they are "cheaper" to achieve secure back-up, cf. eg, large scale, pumped-hydro storage.

2. But China is seeking pollution-free energy sources, ie free from CO2 (since China accepts climate science), and fossil-generated, health-damaging filth, to achieve clean air in the cities;  so the drive to renewables will continue.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2022 at 3:07pm:


Of course -  with at least 80% (or higher) security with present technology; get on with it, and deal with the last 20% when we come to it.

Btw, climate 'hysteria' on the media is  driving the Oz election, just in case you didn't know.

And even if this very real 'hysteria' is wrongly based - ie,  it's actually a  symptom of the failure of current dysfunctional global capitalist markets to serve the real needs of  people,  action for positive change will still be demanded by the people.

Hence you lose, regardless of the veracity of climate change theory; the fact is the global economy is imploding all around us.

https://scheerpost.com/2022/05/04/ellen-brown-a-monetary-reset-where-the-rich-do...

Ellen Brown: A Monetary Reset Where the Rich Don’t Own Everything

May 4, 2022

"We have a serious debt problem, but solutions such as the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” are not the future we want. It’s time to think outside the box for some new solutions".

Quote:


It's being done, despite of the resistance from fossil interests. Of course it can be sped up remarkably....

Quote:


No, I want the World Bank/IMF/BIS to pay for it in the developing world.

Quote:


India has the equal largest population in the world (with China); their supplies aren't sufficient which is why Adani wants Oz coal, to increase his own profits from extracting filthy fossils. 

Quote:


With large scale storage,  yes.  That's where the BIS is needed.

Quote:


Eliminating filthy fossil pollution in India's and China's populous  cities isn't a SWAG, it's a matter of life and death. 

Quote:


A 74 year-old  Indian yesterday saying "he has never experienced a heat wave like this'.

Hysteria? But anyway, your privately-financed, global market economy is responsible for nations' economies  failing everywhere.

Time's up, as noted by Ellen Brown, above. 

lee wrote on May 18^th, 2022 at 3:36pm:


From the latest IPCC report, 2022:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/resources/spm-headline-statements


D2. Climate resilient development is enabled when governments, civil society and the private sector make inclusive development choices that prioritise risk reduction, equity and justice, and when decision-making processes, finance and actions are integrated across governance levels, sectors and timeframes (very high confidence). Climate resilient development is facilitated by international cooperation and by governments at all levels working with communities, civil society, educational bodies, scientific and other institutions, media, investors and businesses; and by developing partnerships with traditionally marginalised groups, including women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and ethnic minorities (high confidence). These partnerships are most effective when supported by enabling political leadership, institutions, resources, including finance, as well as climate services, information and decision support tools (high confidence).

Like I said, the  days of private, market-based energy production  are over.

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2022 at 11:58am:


Are you claiming the IPCC is divided in its findings?

Meanwhile:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hottest-years-record-climate-change-copernicus/

"The past seven years have been the hottest ever recorded globally "by a clear margin," according to findings released Monday by scientists with the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service. Though 2021 was not quite as warm as other recent years, scientists warned that global greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise".
Carbon dioxide and methane concentrations are continuing to increase year on year and without signs of slowing down," Vincent-Henri Peuch, director of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, said in the release. "Only with determined efforts backed up by observational evidence can we make a real difference in our fight against the climate catastrophe."

The heat was especially repressive in Europe last summer. The continent experienced its warmest summer on record, and Sicily broke the European record for hottest recorded temperature when it reached 119.8 degrees Fahrenheit (though the findings have not yet been confirmed by the World Meteorological Organization).

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2022 at 2:06pm:


So you better tell the IPCC they have rats in their ranks. Good luck.

Quote:


"The continent experienced its warmest summer on record..."......you of course can dispute that too?

Quote:


The hottest summer on record IS climate.

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2022 at 4:48pm:


Yes.

Quote:


An ever-warming planet
The latest numbers follow the planet's long-term warming trend. The average temperature in 2020 tied with that from 2016 to be the hottest year on record, according to NASA.

"Despite last year's average not being quite as high as the previous year and the European and American agencies differing slightly on where it falls in the larger trend, whether one year is hotter than the other does not really matter. What does is the long-term trend, and this is unambiguously rising at a concerning rate".

Quote:


Addressed above.

lee wrote on May 21^st, 2022 at 1:12pm:


Er ..."reading the letter to the law?"; conservatives do that. (There will actually be a road bridge to Italy one day...)

Quote:


Judging by tonight's election, especially climate independents and increase in greens vote, climate scientists seem to have convinced a strong majority the Oz public; as for me, I want to see the end of the filthy, profit-gouging fossil industry.

Quote:


"The latest numbers follow the planet's long-term warming trend. The average temperature in 2020 tied with that from 2016 to be the hottest year on record, according to NASA".

Quote:


Apparently the trend line, which includes the La Nina lows, is rising over the long term (more than several  Ninos and  Ninas).

lee wrote on May 22^nd, 2022 at 12:09pm:


Discovering planetary motion is child's play cf understanding global  climate. Science is describing the possible effects of man-made CO2 emissions, you are the denier.   

Quote:


Your IQ deficit? Global average includes areas of local cooling.

Quote:


...oh, your continuing problem understanding rising averages...

Quote:



You can only say the science is disputed by some, accepted by others (unlike the science of planetary motion).

So some scientists accept the hypothesis or theory - if that's what you want to call it; you cannot claim there is no proof of  AGW CO2, only that YOU disagree with the evidence and related theory.   

Unfortunately for you, Oz has recently been  pretty ugly for a large proportion of its horrified victims of various climate related catastrophes - of which some scientists warned us - since the last election.

Hence all those climate independents elected last night...ouch.

Meanwhile the filthy fossil industry is ravaging the health of Indians;  the ash left after burning coal in power plants is turning the countryside into a poisoned desert, so that companies can avoid paying the clean up costs.....  all to produce 'cheap' electricity. 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:27am:



What have I denied? I have said quite clearly that theoretically CO2 will cause warming. That the earth is NOT a greenhouse.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:27am:


Ah yes averaging. Put one leg in a bucket of boiling water and the other in a bucket of ice. On average you are comfortable.  No one lives in an average temperature.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:27am:



No dear. It is you who doesn't understand. IF CO2 is the control knob, as hypothesised, then temperature should also rise during Los Ninas.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:27am:



Exactly. It is disputed by a lot but accepted by a lot. And that is not a recipe doing any thing. The earth is not going to have runaway warming.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:27am:


Show us the PROOF that it is due to CO2. There isn't any. Climate models are not proof of anything.

Even Zeke Hausfather is coming to that conclusion. The IPCC insists on an ensemble of climate models. Only one model can be correct.

"One study suggests Arctic rainfall will become dominant in the 2060s, decades earlier than expected. Another claims air pollution from forest fires in the western United States could triple by 2100. A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.

All three studies, published in the past year, rely on projections of the future produced by some of the world’s next-generation climate models. But even the modelmakers acknowledge that many of these models have a glaring problem: predicting a future that gets too hot too fast. Although modelmakers are adapting to this reality, researchers who use the model projections to gauge the impacts of climate change have yet to follow suit. That has resulted in a parade of “faster than expected” results that threatens to undermine the credibility of climate science, some researchers fear.

Scientists need to get much choosier in how they use model results, a group of climate scientists argues in a commentary published today in Nature. Researchers should no longer simply use the average of all the climate model projections, which can result in global temperatures by 2100 up to 0.7°C warmer than an estimate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “We need to use a slightly different approach,” says Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at payment services company Stripe and lead author of the commentary. “We must move away from the naïve idea of model democracy.” Instead, he and his colleagues call for a model meritocracy, prioritizing, at times, results from models known to have more realistic warming rates."

The closest model is the Russian on (INM-CM5) which shows about 1.8C per doubling of CO2.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:27am:



Which climate related ones? Flooding - weather. Bushfire- mostly human caused , whether accidental or arson. Heatwaves another weather related event.

According to the WMO climate is an average of 30 years not 4.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:27am:



Now we wait to see what they try to or do accomplish. Being elected is a small step.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:27am:



Wow. A poisoned desert. That must mean the government is lying.

"Production of horticulture crops in India reached a record 331.05 million metric tonnes (MMT) in 2020–21 (as per 3rd advance estimate), an increase of 10.5 million metric tonnes over FY20"

https://www.ibef.org/industry/agriculture-india

So many untruths in so small a space.

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 1:49pm:



It seems it could help you. I can see your lack of STEM subjects from what you wrote.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 2:43pm:



Nope. They are not mutually exclusive. One does not exclude the other.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 2:43pm:



Nope. I don't know. That is allowed. Currently. thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 2:43pm:



Nope. Approximately 2/3 is water. Some of the land is sand, some rock, some vegetated, some not. They all have differing temperature profiles.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 2:43pm:


So CO2 is not the control knob. And yet you deny any natural variation since the industrial revolution.

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 4:07pm:


Darwin's 'evolution' and Einstein's 'relativity' are widely accepted by scientists (though evolution is disputed by OT religious fundamentalists) 

Quote:


Plenty of scientists say AGW CO2 is correct, though the rate of change in the phenomena  is disputed.


Quote:


Addressed above. Consensus is reached on the disputed rate of change caused by an accepted AGW-CO2 effect.


Quote:
Yes horrifying, all the way from Victoria to the Queensland rainforests , burning at the same time, in the GDR. 

Quote:


Show us another time when the entire GDR from Vic. highlands to Qld rain forests was burning at the same time.


Quote:


The variations you are talking about - including pre history - are irrelevant to the trend line since the industrial revolution. 

Quote:


There has been no cooling - decrease in the upward trend line - since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Quote:


1. Nationalize the criminal fossil polluters.

2. Cover Oz deserts with solar, surround the coast with wind farms, build another couple of Snowy 2's, and interconnect all this with maximum house-top solar.  Get off your ass and start now.

Hint; the Fed Govt. can spend the necessary funds into existence, if the greedy, conflicted private sector won't invest their own funds,  because all the resources (plus teaching trades as required) are available for the government to purchase.

But of course there are some private investors ready to join in, if the government sets out the rules for the transition. Labor might just be able to do this.

Quote:


Correct, except the Indian coal-ash problem is a much bigger problem. Any mining operation can be cleaned up with the necessary expenditure (huge in the case of Indian coal ash) - which the private sector tends to run away from... 

Quote:


Not mine; I loathe energy poverty and destruction of health caused by the greedy, price gouging  fossil industry. But from others: here is a tweet today from an insider:

BREAKING:
@Shell safety consultant Caroline Dennett has resigned over Shell's disregard for climate change risks. 🔥🔥🔥

"We must end all new extraction projects immediately and rapidly transition away from fossil fuels, and towards clean renewable energy sources." #StopJackdaw

Quote:
 

Exported limited by the drought, that's right.   The globe needs to start investing in drought mitigation (one way or another)  - or starve.

Quote:


By that - and war, yes.

Quote:


I can and will confront  your ideological blindness at every turn.

Quote:


The drought after the 2011 Brisbane flood disaster, repeated recently. 

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 12:57pm:


Jesus Christ you are dense. AGW is proven scientific fact and has been for all of this century

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:04pm:


Only one? HAHAHAAA!!!

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

It's not a paper, but it's obvious that if NASA is defending it, they are confident it's true

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:27pm:


The issue is that right wing scum are sheep.  You are parroting lines you learned and didn't understand because you understand your side hates science

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:32pm:



You finally got there. 

From NASA - Reference

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I guess you didn't read or didn't understand that paper. I will quote for you.

"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus."

Now for the hard part -
Part 1 - 4014/11944 = 33.6% not 97%. This is what supported some warming not thermageddon.

Part2 - 2412/11944 = 20.1% not 97%

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:00pm:



Because I read it. Now we know you really didn't do any STEM subjects. They say what their results were. The only way to get to the 97% was to exlcude most of the papers.

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 12:57pm:


As widely accepted scientific theory.

Quote:


But a reasonable theory to proceed with, to explain the world by observation.   


Quote:


Nevertheless the AGW -CO2 theory remains intact,

BREAKING: In a landmark case, the high court of Massachusetts just ruled 7-0 that Exxon must face trial for deceiving the public over climate change. What happens when judges act with integrity.

Huge step toward justice. Great precedent for the planet.👊
https://reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-must-face-massachusetts-climate-change
-lawsuit-court-rules-2022-05-24/


Quote:


That was usually dry areas all around Oz  burning,  not the entire GDR burning, including the usually wet tropical rain-forest at the  same time.

Quote:


From 1850 to now, the trend is there.

Quote:


Not from 1850 to now.

Quote:


Enable planned exit from the fossil industry ASAP beginning NOW, rather than waiting for the private polluters to work out how to maximize their profits while pretending to transition.

Quote:


Er...energy production IS an engineering problem.

Quote:


because we are a market economy, and the private sector is conflicted... A Shell spokesman came up with this double-speak recently:  "We have to keep exploiting fossils, to make the profits to enable funding of the transition to green".

Quote:


Buffett is invested in fossils. But yes, without  nationalization, the conflicted self-interested fossil industry will argue against subsidies which would allow renewables to compete.  Renewables are more expensive only until the transmission and storage infrastructure is built. 

Quote:


The link was provided, coal ash rectification  is a major problem in poor India. 


Quote:


No. That's why Caroline Dennet resigned.

Quote:


And ACW-CO2 theory says it is and will continue  getting worse.

Quote:


A minute part of the problem. The floods in Oz and ten year droughts will need expensive mitigating policies, going forward. 

Quote:


No kidding, and getting worse, according the AGW-CO2 theory.   

Quote:


Acceptance of AGW - CO2 theory is not blindness, it is taking account of the work of scientists. 

Acceptance of your self-interested  "invisible hand" market economy as an adequate ideology in an environmentally constrained global economy IS blindness.

Quote:


What. didn't the BOM see Rudd digging mud from houses in Brisbane in the 2011 disaster?


Quote:


Presumably your link mentions the 'Millennium Drought also (2001-9)

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:21pm:


This literally says they worked out who believes AGW is real by only reading papers that took a position at all.

Tax you say?

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:25pm:


I'll ask again.  Why do you believe NASA is lying about math, or can't do math?

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 3:41pm:


It's like you're an idiot.  You are claiming that NASA is deliberately lying.  What's their motivation?

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 4:34pm:


OK, so you can't back this up at all? interesting.

What I saw was that they only counted relevant studies, ones that took a position on AGW.  What's your suggested methodology?

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:21pm:


Read the extract again.

1. "2/3rds expressed no position on AGW".

OK.  So presumably that group did not address the AGW-CO2 emissions  theory at all. 

2. "1/3 endorsed AGW", ie about 4000 of the papers examined did accept AGW-CO2 emissions as a cause of global warming. 

3. The last sentence seems to be a restatement ("97%") of the second point. 

As far as "science not working that way", the complexity of climate  renders 100% truth impossible to achieve.

So close the filthy, price-gouging, health-destroying fossil  industry, ASAP.

Resource mobilization, not finance,  is...oh never mind. 

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 6:52pm:


I'm reading from your linked article which said 1/3rd of c.12,000 articles on global warming accepted AGW-CO2 emissions. 

Quote:


"Skeptical science"? ....er....

Quote:


"....most of the warming...."...so a matter of degree, as I said yesterday.

Meantime there is no skepticism about the egregious negative effects of the  filthy, pricing-gouging, fossil pirates.

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 9:39pm:


I'm alarmed at the filthy health-hazardous, price-gouging fossil industry. (fun and games if diesel hits $2.50 a liter soon).

Quote:


Why do you think car manufacturers installed anti-pollution gear? Hint: not just CO2 concerns.

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 10:01pm:



Congested EU capitals restricted diesels several years ago...not only because of AGW. 

Quote:


That's right; statistics showing  a correlation between consumption and death.

lee wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 11:48am:

hazardous pollution-level  monitors in congested urban areas prove it.

Quote:


I'm focused on it because health-damaging filthy tobacco and filthy fossil have been exposed as dangerous to health for decades. Note: poor health doesn't necessarily kill, but it does wreck the quality of one's life.

lee wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 1:05pm:


what...you happy to ruin your health, so long as you don't die?

Quote:


The authorities know fossils  do cause poor health. That's why they de-leaded fuel and demanded anti pollution gear on car engines.

Quote:
 

More skeptical science? Why did refiners agree to the expense of  de-leading  petrol, and why did car makers agree to add expensive, performance-destroying anti-pollution gear to their IC engines?

 

lee wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 2:44pm:


Chinese - after rapid gains in the last 3 decades -  have about same life expectancy as US citizens, who are five times as wealthy...

Quote:


List of the world's most polluted cities:

https://www.iqair.com/au/world-most-polluted-cities

Shanghai doesn't register on the first page showing 50 cities, most in India, only 3 in China.

And if Shanghai citizens  stop smoking and change to EVs as they are now doing, China's life expentancy will soar past the US. 


Quote:


"But as of July 2021, the world has officially eradicated leaded fuel according to the UN, meaning it's no longer sold for cars and lorries anywhere in the world.3 Sept 2021".   

Quote:


No. Tobacco and fossils are filthy health-hazard  industries on the way out.

Quote:


Addressed above: "Leaded petrol is gone – but lead pollution may linger for a very long time".

https://theconversation.com/leaded-petrol-is-gone-but-lead-pollution-may-linger-...

Quote:


Then I think I will sue VW for the unnecessary, expensive, performance-reducing anti-pollution gear in my car....oh hang on, VW is already being sued for lying about the performance of the anti-pollution gear....

lee wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 3:48pm:


False conclusion.

Quote:


Fossil poisons come in a myriad of varieties.

Quote:


Ok I should have said it cost to ADD it, (to avoid engine pinging iirc) . But then it turned  out lead itself is a pollutant: "Leaded petrol is gone – but lead pollution may linger for a very long time".

You know, the stuff that reduces the IQ of kids in Port Pirie.  (quick google):

"Indeed, according to a 2019 Macquarie University study, some 13 IQ points are lost with every 10μg/dL of lead in the blood. There were nine children in Port Pirie who recorded a blood lead level equal to or exceeding 20μg/dL in the first half of 2021, which was higher than the same period last year.30 Aug 2021"

Quote:


Gosh... that "2.5" again, , one of a myriad of poisonous fossil-combustion compounds. 

Quote:


addressed above.

Quote:


That's right, by the relevant environmental protection agencies.

Quote:


That's the job of the EPA authorities.

Quote:


Not proven, but probable?

Quote:


Yes well, just shows - after all that endless research by thousands of scientists -  how impossibly complicated AGW climate science is.

Verdict: not proven, but probable.

Your choice.

Meanwhile I offer a new global economy powered by free sunshine and wind, backed by nuclear as required.