How to fight climate change... for reals.

[tlc1976]

I prefer to buy things in person. That way I know what I’m getting. I can pick among the better inventory, or better tell if something is quality or cheap junk. Unless it’s some unusual situation like medical related, or have to get a part to finish a repair job that has to be done now…. I always wait on trips and do many things in one trip. I don’t like spending time in stores or driving around town. I’ll often buy a month’s worth of food at once.

As far as getting things shipped, I usually just have them sent to my work, where there is already a truck there daily. Porch pirates aren’t much concern out in the sticks, but I’d rather not have a package wet or buried in snow or blown away by the wind. Also the USPS is a crapshoot, I get other peoples mail often so they probably get mine too. Had a couple packages delivered to someone else’s house, one person was honest and brought it over, the other not so much.

Torque, I like it. It’s been said that the 3.1 MPFI engine (which I have in 2 cars) from 0-30 is faster than a Cadillac 4.9 V8 of the same era. I can believe it. And I still get 30-35 mpg with my 89 Celebrity with 305k on it. That’s my local summer runner. 9 miles to work, 2 stop signs and no traffic lights. For winter and towing I have my 96 Cherokee 4.0 5 speed which has good torque too. I need that out here, just to get in and out of my driveway sometimes, and with my road being one of the last ones plowed.

I also did a bunch of insulating in my attics this spring. I’m seeing a big difference of heat travel over the summer, so hopefully the same reduction in heat travel will apply this winter.

Other things I do, I don’t have AC. Just use shades and fans and the layout of the property to my advantage. Don’t do anything to the lawn except mow around the house every 2 weeks and the big part out front once a month. Do only full loads of laundry. Save up recyclables in recyclable pellet bags and take them in when I get enough to fill the back of the Jeep. Food waste goes out to the woods for the critters. Don’t have much actual trash. I keep and use my old things as long as they work. Had my Celebrity for 19 years. Still use my Schwinn bike I got new in 1988. I not only like my vintage stuff, but getting things from people who are done with it keeps it out of the landfill too. All my clothes and many other things come from resales.

 

[Ashful]

I'm not sure what this thread is even about, anymore. Seems to me woodgeek has some pretty lofty ideas, and the rest of us are lost in the weeds of debating ICE's of various vintage and design. My hands aren't completely clean, either.

For what it's worth, call me a techno-optimist... and I'm not sure the collapsing population growth is a bad thing. Anyone familiar with the history of 1350's Europe might agree, at least on some points.

 

[woodgeek]

I'm not sure what this thread is even about, anymore. Seems to me woodgeek has some pretty lofty ideas, and the rest of us are lost in the weeds of debating ICE's of various vintage and design. My hands aren't completely clean, either.

For what it's worth, call me a techno-optimist... and I'm not sure the collapsing population growth is a bad thing. Anyone familiar with the history of 1350's Europe might agree, at least on some points.

Not a problem... we are on topic. My OP was just arguing that climate change will be solved by everyone doing their own thing, using the best tech that they can find, and trying to save money at the same time.

It all feeds the Big Green Vortex!

 

[SpaceBus]

I think in general, and from my research, that keeping a "legacy" vehicle on the road has a lesser carbon footprint than buying a new EV. This obviously doesn't count if your legacy ICE vehicle is on the way out anyway, or if you can't find an equivalent EV (trucks, vans, etc.). My Cummins has been consuming oil lately, so I'm thinking it will be due for a rebuild next winter. Even spending $10k + to rebuild the entire long block and keeping the truck on the road should still have less carbon emissions than buying a new truck since there isn't an EV that can do the same job. As much as I'd like an F150 Lightning, it would cost 4-5 times what I'll spend rebuilding my current truck and not do the job I need it to do. A new diesel would just be out of the question as well.

 

[EbS-P]

WRT GHG reduction:
Anyone have thoughts, or better yet, data, on whether it's better to shop locally or buy online and have stuff delivered? I wonder this every time I hear the UPS truck making its daily rounds through our area.
It seems obvious that buying locally produced things should result in less GHG production. I'm really thinking about those things that aren't produced locally. E.g., what we've bought lately, mower parts, kayaking accessories, kitchen gadgets, clothing, etc.
We typically run into town at least once a week from our somewhat rural location to shop and I keep thinking that we should buck up, have some discipline, plan ahead, and have stuff delivered.

I have not seen data. My guess is the fewer stops the delivery truck makes the less GHG emissions but is it going down your street every day. (It is for me) Soooo is one stop less better than you going out once a week? Probably.

All retailers are getting deliveries. Unless it’s made local I’m not sure there is much savings other than boxes and tape. Which would add up.

Getting all your orders delivered together would be a good thing.

And I guess it depends on what your vehicle is and how far it is.

I think in general, and from my research, that keeping a "legacy" vehicle on the road has a lesser carbon footprint than buying a new EV. This obviously doesn't count if your legacy ICE vehicle is on the way out anyway, or if you can't find an equivalent EV (trucks, vans, etc.). My Cummins has been consuming oil lately, so I'm thinking it will be due for a rebuild next winter. Even spending $10k + to rebuild the entire long block and keeping the truck on the road should still have less carbon emissions than buying a new truck since there isn't an EV that can do the same job. As much as I'd like an F150 Lightning, it would cost 4-5 times what I'll spend rebuilding my current truck and not do the job I need it to do. A new diesel would just be out of the question as well.

it’s all mileage dependent. Lower miles per year makes sense to keep the old ones running. Nothing lasts forever. 10k plus fuel and oil and filters for 10 more years adds up. Definitely not to a new truck.

 

[Ashful]

I'm not sure what this thread is even about, anymore. Seems to me woodgeek has some pretty lofty ideas, and the rest of us are lost in the weeds of debating ICE's of various vintage and design. My hands aren't completely clean, either.

For what it's worth, call me a techno-optimist... and I'm not sure the collapsing population growth is a bad thing. Anyone familiar with the history of 1350's Europe might agree, at least on some points.

Any particular reason that several of my recent posts have been edited? I didn't write this.

 

[begreen]

Any particular reason that several of my recent posts have been edited? I didn't write this.

Catching up on this thread. I have been away for a few days. I see no sign of edit history. Start a PM with webfish if there is tampering with your posting.

 

[begreen]

I think in general, and from my research, that keeping a "legacy" vehicle on the road has a lesser carbon footprint than buying a new EV. This obviously doesn't count if your legacy ICE vehicle is on the way out anyway, or if you can't find an equivalent EV (trucks, vans, etc.). My Cummins has been consuming oil lately, so I'm thinking it will be due for a rebuild next winter. Even spending $10k + to rebuild the entire long block and keeping the truck on the road should still have less carbon emissions than buying a new truck since there isn't an EV that can do the same job. As much as I'd like an F150 Lightning, it would cost 4-5 times what I'll spend rebuilding my current truck and not do the job I need it to do. A new diesel would just be out of the question as well.

This seems to assume that the legacy vehicle is heading to the junkyard. If is it sold and continues for another N miles then its carbon footprint (an oil industry coined phrase) remains the same, no?

 

[SpaceBus]

I have not seen data. My guess is the fewer stops the delivery truck makes the less GHG emissions but is it going down your street every day. (It is for me) Soooo is one stop less better than you going out once a week? Probably.

All retailers are getting deliveries. Unless it’s made local I’m not sure there is much savings other than boxes and tape. Which would add up.

Getting all your orders delivered together would be a good thing.

And I guess it depends on what your vehicle is and how far it is.

it’s all mileage dependent. Lower miles per year makes sense to keep the old ones running. Nothing lasts forever. 10k plus fuel and oil and filters for 10 more years adds up. Definitely not to a new truck.

I doubt I go more than 5,000 miles a year in my truck, probably the same or less for the car. As much as I just want an EV, it just doesn't make any sense for us in the near future.

 

[SpaceBus]

This seems to assume that the legacy vehicle is heading to the junkyard. If is it sold and continues for another N miles then its carbon footprint (an oil industry coined phrase) remains the same, no?

Good point, but many legacy vehicles do go to the junkyard or auctioned at wholesale. If everyone could keep a vehicle for 20+ years that would definitely bring down the carbon footprint for everyone. Of course many people don't do that and just trade their vehicles in once they are paid off. I didn't know the oil industry coined the term "carbon footprint", but I did know they have been pushing "climate change" vs "global warming", despite both things basically meaning the same thing.

 

[EbS-P]

I think in general, and from my research, that keeping a "legacy" vehicle on the road has a lesser carbon footprint than buying a new EV. This obviously doesn't count if your legacy ICE vehicle is on the way out anyway, or if you can't find an equivalent EV (trucks, vans, etc.). My Cummins has been consuming oil lately, so I'm thinking it will be due for a rebuild next winter. Even spending $10k + to rebuild the entire long block and keeping the truck on the road should still have less carbon emissions than buying a new truck since there isn't an EV that can do the same job. As much as I'd like an F150 Lightning, it would cost 4-5 times what I'll spend rebuilding my current truck and not do the job I need it to do. A new diesel would just be out of the question as well.

Here is good video doing the math. One might think that everything would scale to tucks as well.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ABMax24]

Good point, but many legacy vehicles do go to the junkyard or auctioned at wholesale. If everyone could keep a vehicle for 20+ years that would definitely bring down the carbon footprint for everyone. Of course many people don't do that and just trade their vehicles in once they are paid off.

I know it's becoming a lot more common to keep old vehicles. It's been 15 years since particulate filters were introduced on diesel pickups, and there is still a huge demand for '07 and earlier models due to the simplicity and much lower cost of repairs. I know I'm in this boat too, this year I've spent less in parts on an 8 year old truck than a single payment would be on a new one. So for now my money will go to RockAuto and Fedex instead of a payment.

Which I think brings up an interesting point, there is going to be a group of people that are going to deliberately continue driving ICE vehicles as long as possible instead of switching to EV. In Canada that is being addressed through a carbon tax with a yearly increase that makes ICE vehicle prohibitively expensive to drive, but so far I haven't seen anything similar in the US.

 

[EbS-P]

I know it's becoming a lot more common to keep old vehicles. It's been 15 years since particulate filters were introduced on diesel pickups, and there is still a huge demand for '07 and earlier models due to the simplicity and much lower cost of repairs. I know I'm in this boat too, this year I've spent less in parts on an 8 year old truck than a single payment would be on a new one. So for now my money will go to RockAuto and Fedex instead of a payment.

Which I think brings up an interesting point, there is going to be a group of people that are going to deliberately continue driving ICE vehicles as long as possible instead of switching to EV. In Canada that is being addressed through a carbon tax with a yearly increase that makes ICE vehicle prohibitively expensive to drive, but so far I haven't seen anything similar in the US.

No chance of carbon tax here in the US. Best we could do is maybe up the fed and state gas tax but I don’t see that ever happening.

We really need a some consumption tax at some level. The new climate bill has taken steps to incentivize greener tech at many levels but….. there is no stick. We will let the free market do the beating and with the current projections for natural gas prices this coming winter I bet we will get some bruises.

 

[ABMax24]

No chance of carbon tax here in the US. Best we could do is maybe up the fed and state gas tax but I don’t see that ever happening.

I think at some point other western nations are going to force that hand, there's only so long that citizens of other nations are going to continue to take cuts to their energy use without directing anger at the US for not also following suit.

We will let the free market do the beating and with the current projections for natural gas prices this coming winter I bet we will get some bruises.

I've got the opposite problem, gas here right now is $2/MMbtu, US benchmark this morning is $9.10/MMbtu. Our gas is landlocked by pipelines that are already at capacity.

 

[Ashful]

Catching up on this thread. I have been away for a few days. I see no sign of edit history. Start a PM with webfish if there is tampering with your posting.

Well, both my post and my subsequent quote of it, were switched back to the original text this morning. Same with another post in another thread, which I had called out last night, which I suppose could have been taken as more offensive than the above. Just one of the mod's having fun?

Welcome back, anyway!

 

[sneefy]

No chance of carbon tax here in the US.

How much would you like to bet on that?

 

[EbS-P]

How much would you like to bet on that?

I think it’s a very safe bet that no action will be taken in the next 2 years. I don’t see any substantial changes coming in the senate that would make it likely in the next 4. EPA powers have been reduced and I don’t see the US caving to any foreign influence soon.

200$ on no carbon tax in the US in 2 years and 100$ in 4. 50$ on no tax on the next decade. (I almost said my next raise but it’s cap at 7.5% annually and I just paid $3.20 for a dozen eggs so I will probably need all of it for my grocery bill).

States may very well lead the way here.

We will have to replace lost gas tax revenue. Registration fees on EVs seem like the current solution but in NC that equals 7000 miles driven at 20 mpg.

 

[woodgeek]

Which I think brings up an interesting point, there is going to be a group of people that are going to deliberately continue driving ICE vehicles as long as possible instead of switching to EV. In Canada that is being addressed through a carbon tax with a yearly increase that makes ICE vehicle prohibitively expensive to drive, but so far I haven't seen anything similar in the US.

When bought my house in '05, it still had a slammer coal stove insert that was installed around 1980. Totally legal. I could have (and still could) drive a ways west in a pickup, and buy a load of nut coal, and heat my house with that all winter. Totally legal. There are plenty of folks in my area (and on this board) who would do just that.

Not a problem, bc the numbers aren't there. Same for collectible cars.

For folks clinging to older model ICE cars past 2040... they will be taken care of by two things... (1) RUST and (2) The scorn of their children and neighbors. Neither one ever sleeps.

And the point of this thread is that Total Cost of Ownership will eventually tilt in favor of EVs, across vehicle categories.

The stragglers after all that goes down... will not be a problem.

 

[stoveliker]

In some countries in Europe they will implement a "mile tax" rather than a gas tax. Using the yearly inspection (I presume) to look at mileage. This is with the recognition that gas tax will go down but road use will not, when ICE -> EV is happening.

 

[sneefy]

200$ on no carbon tax in the US in 2 years and 100$ in 4. 50$ on no tax on the next decade.

'No chance' has an expiration, I see, lol.

No bet on 2 or 4 years. Next decade, I'll take that bet with low confidence.

 

[woodgeek]

How much would you like to bet on that?

I'll take that bet. Who is proposing any such thing? Maybe you didn't read the OP post by (conservative) economist blogger Noah Smith, where he reported that the most progressive elements of the Climate Action team is ROUTED and scattering due to their complete failure as a political movement. Poor Greta, she seemed like a nice kid. And that post (and this thread) is about how they are irrelevant anyway, bc we are going to solve climate change with cheap abundant renewable energy and cheap green tech.

The last serious player I heard touting the merits of a Carbon Tax in the US was Exxon-Mobil doing that 10 years ago! They had clearly concluded that so long as the US focussed on carbon taxes, then climate action would remain fringey and unpopular, and they could certainly get their paid pols to then keep the price per ton CO2 low enough to keep Exxon in business forever.

Have to say, back then a lot of progressive people on the Left, when they saw who they were sharing the 'Carbon Tax' bed with... they shut up real quick.

That is not to say that there aren't a ton of folks crowing about Carbon Taxes... on the Right. Trying to scare folks with hypothetical future energy bills with hefty surcharges set by none other than Bernie Sanders and AOC! Who will laugh at you while you are shivering in the dark.

Want a different bet? Let's go count how many times AOC and Bernie are mentioned on the Fox News website in a week, versus on the 'liberal' NYTimes website. Which do you think will be higher? Why?

 

[EbS-P]

I'll take that bet. Who is proposing any such thing? Maybe you didn't read the OP post by (conservative) economist blogger Noah Smith, where he reported that the most progressive elements of the Climate Action team is ROUTED and scattering due to their complete failure as a political movement. Poor Greta, she seemed like a nice kid. And that post (and this thread) is about how they are irrelevant anyway, bc we are going to solve climate change with cheap abundant renewable energy and cheap green tech.

The last serious player I heard touting the merits of a Carbon Tax in the US was Exxon-Mobil doing that 10 years ago! They had clearly concluded that so long as the US focussed on carbon taxes, then climate action would remain fringey and unpopular, and they could certainly get their paid pols to then keep the price per ton CO2 low enough to keep Exxon in business forever.

Have to say, back then a lot of progressive people on the Left, when they saw who they were sharing the 'Carbon Tax' bed with... they shut up real quick.

That is not to say that there aren't a ton of folks crowing about Carbon Taxes... on the Right. Trying to scare folks with hypothetical future energy bills with hefty surcharges set by none other than Bernie Sanders and AOC! Who will laugh at you while you are shivering in the dark.

Want a different bet? Let's go count how many times AOC and Bernie are mentioned on the Fox News website in a week, versus on the 'liberal' NYTimes website. Which do you think will be higher? Why?

It’s much easier to be against something than come up with a plan to advocate for.

What I think has a better chance of passing is required all budgeting to include costs of climate change. For a given period. FEMA can’t be the finical backstop forever.

 

[ABMax24]

When bought my house in '05, it still had a slammer coal stove insert that was installed around 1980. Totally legal. I could have (and still could) drive a ways west in a pickup, and buy a load of nut coal, and heat my house with that all winter. Totally legal. There are plenty of folks in my area (and on this board) who would do just that.

Not a problem, bc the numbers aren't there. Same for collectible cars.

For folks clinging to older model ICE cars past 2040... they will be taken care of by two things... (1) RUST and (2) The scorn of their children and neighbors. Neither one ever sleeps.

And the point of this thread is that Total Cost of Ownership will eventually tilt in favor of EVs, across vehicle categories.

The stragglers after all that goes down... will not be a problem.

2040 is 18 years away, there will still be a sizable number of ICE vehicles built today on the road then. As EV's become more popular it is likely that ICE vehicles loose value in comparison, which will lead lower income persons to purchase them and keep the on the road.

Point #2 really needs to stop. I am so tired of the public and private shaming that has become the norm in society, I'm sure everyone has seen examples of this with Covid, and has left many families divided. People don't change attitudes when they are repeatedly scorn for "bad behaviour" many times they simply quit talking to those people. If you can't talk to someone as an equal, with intellectual conversation then scorn isn't going to work either.

 

[sneefy]

I'll take that bet. Who is proposing any such thing? Maybe you didn't read the OP post by (conservative) economist blogger Noah Smith, where he reported that the most progressive elements of the Climate Action team is ROUTED and scattering due to their complete failure as a political movement. Poor Greta, she seemed like a nice kid. And that post (and this thread) is about how they are irrelevant anyway, bc we are going to solve climate change with cheap abundant renewable energy and cheap green tech.

The last serious player I heard touting the merits of a Carbon Tax in the US was Exxon-Mobil doing that 10 years ago! They had clearly concluded that so long as the US focussed on carbon taxes, then climate action would remain fringey and unpopular, and they could certainly get their paid pols to then keep the price per ton CO2 low enough to keep Exxon in business forever.

Have to say, back then a lot of progressive people on the Left, when they saw who they were sharing the 'Carbon Tax' bed with... they shut up real quick.

That is not to say that there aren't a ton of folks crowing about Carbon Taxes... on the Right. Trying to scare folks with hypothetical future energy bills with hefty surcharges set by none other than Bernie Sanders and AOC! Who will laugh at you while you are shivering in the dark.

Want a different bet? Let's go count how many times AOC and Bernie are mentioned on the Fox News website in a week, versus on the 'liberal' NYTimes website. Which do you think will be higher? Why?

Cool the vitriol, there, sport. You seem to like to point fingers. You also seem to be assuming where I fall on the political spectrum, yes? Is this just because I badmouthed your Bolt? 🙄

This is why I don't discuss politics with zealots.

Who's proposing it? Really? That's either an unserious or intellectually dishonest question.

(broken link removed)

 

[sneefy]

Point #2 really needs to stop. I am so tired of the public and private shaming that has become the norm in society, I'm sure everyone has seen examples of this with Covid, and has left many families divided. People don't change attitudes when they are repeatedly scorn for "bad behaviour" many times they simply quit talking to those people. If you can't talk to someone as an equal, with intellectual conversation then scorn isn't going to work either.

This. Nothing divides people more than forcing their opinions and beliefs on the other person. It only serves to push the ends of the spectrum of belief further apart.