Lest you thought that whole climate thing was solved already....

[Highbeam]

Im driving one too (pickup)(. The earth will not live or die on my choices alone. I see lots of dual wheel and and F250s 350s taking their kids to school. doing daily driving groceries ect. Probably only a realistic fuel prices will curb that kind of behavior. The earth wont die, but some of the people may. Fracking is what is stalling adoption to electric thru low gas prices.

Now to totally blow your mind, my F350 crew cab diesel 4x4 pickup gets better mileage than many (most) minivans! So taking the kids to school can actually be better in the big trucks. When towing or hauling, the mpg goes down a lot. When towing our RV trailer (400+ miles just this weekend) I get 12 mpg which is the same as the half ton guys get when towing.

If I didn't have an RV to tow I could get away with a smaller pickup but I would not gain much in mpg. If I lived where I didn't need a pickup then I could really get a gas or electric sipping car instead. Oh and I've done the math, buying a second vehicle for high mpg does not pay for itself given the need for insurance on the second vehicle. If fuel prices doubled or tripled, then maybe.

 

[bholler]

Pretty much. If you don't know any better, you think the ocean is small and that my bottle cap will make a big difference when it falls overboard.

no your bottle cap alone wont make a difference but everyone's bottle caps would. Especially if it came along with the bottle and the bag it was bought in. Yes the ocean is big but it is not limitless. Have you never walked on a beach after a storm? Have you never seen the pictures of the floating garbage areas?

 

[bholler]

Now to totally blow your mind, my F350 crew cab diesel 4x4 pickup gets better mileage than many (most) minivans! So taking the kids to school can actually be better in the big trucks.

Yes but emission standards on bigger trucks are less stringent than those on a passenger car so you may be using the same or less fuel but the emissions are more. That being said If you have a need for a big truck like you do I dont see an issue with it. But there are allot of people driving big trucks around every day that do not need them.

 

[begreen]

 

[woodgeek]

Pretty much. If you don't know any better, you think the ocean is small and that my bottle cap will make a big difference when it falls overboard.

I'm gonna agree with @Highbeam on this one.... Ocean > > Atmosphere.

IF we could mix it well, we could dump all that pesky CO2 in the ocean without ill effect. Indeed, in 1000 years, it will get there on its own. The major problem is the natural mixing time of the ocean is about 100,000 years.

 

[bholler]

IF we could mix it well, we could dump all that pesky CO2 in the ocean without ill effect.

what makes you think that increased c02 levels in the ocean would have no ill effect? That is just totally wrong as well

 

[Highbeam]

what makes you think that increased c02 levels in the ocean would have no ill effect? That is just totally wrong as well

Same reason that you can't smell my farts way over there in PA!

 

[bholler]

Same reason that you can't smell my farts way over there in PA!

But you dont get that if you dump enough stuff into the ocean it will effect things. and we are already seeing increased co2 levels with negative effects in the oceans. Now you guys think the solution is to dump more trash and co2 in there? Open your eyes and look at the evidence it is there already. The ocean and the atmosphere cannot just absorb everything we are putting into them. They just cant.

 

[begreen]

The oceans are really vast when you consider their depth as well as surface area. Problem is chit floats and the surface is getting clogged in some areas. Also, remember it is not just bottlecaps (which sink), but plastics, industrial waste, agricultural runoff, etc. that is also going into the oceans, here and especially abroad. And not just in a small way. Note how the deadzone where the Mississippi dumps into the Gulf has grown. With third world nations struggling to rapidly catch up the problem is much worse and often they have little or no environmental regulation.

And then there is acidfication which happens for a number of reasons that combine into a larger problem.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-ocean-acidification.php

 

[Highbeam]

But you dont get that if you dump enough stuff into the ocean it will effect things. and we are already seeing increased co2 levels with negative effects in the oceans. Now you guys think the solution is to dump more trash and co2 in there? Open your eyes and look at the evidence it is there already. The ocean and the atmosphere cannot just absorb everything we are putting into them. They just cant.

Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your opinion and conclusions on the matter.

 

[sportbikerider78]

I'm not going to crawl into a hole and stop living. We do the best to keep our footprint small. A pickup truck is a tool we use for gathering wood, moving compost, taking yard waste to the transfer station for composting, etc.. The amount of time it will be used for camping is about 20% of it's mileage. The truck will see few miles outside of needed usage. Our current truck is a 1994 with 61,000 miles on it. We use the Volt for all daily driving and that runs on the sun 6 months of the year. And we use public transit frequently.


That simply isn't so with modern 1/2T pickups. Friend's ecoboost Ford drops down to 12mpg, climbing up the grade to Steven's Pass at 4000 ft and quickly jumps up to 25+ heading down the other side, with camper. Minor inclines have little effect. A strong headwind or driving over 65mph has a greater effect.

I'm all for trucks and big gas hogs with big tires, made by big oil, that take big energy, and large oil changes, big transmissions filled with oil..and big energy to make that tubular steel frame, with big boats or big campers in tow. I could care less. But I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I also don't think it is damaging the planet.....but you do.

Got it loud and clear man. You do realize that 12mpg is just terrible, right? But not for a truck.

Exactly, who is supposed to cut back so they aren't damaging the environment?

 

[bholler]

Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your opinion and conclusions on the matter.

It is not an opinion there is clear evidence that it is fact.

(broken link removed to https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/)

 

[bholler]

Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your opinion and conclusions on the matter.

do you have any evidence that we can dump unlimited quantities of trash into the ocean with no ill effects?

How about co2 and evidence that increased co2 levels in the ocean have no ill effect?

 

[bholler]

Exactly, who is supposed to cut back so they aren't damaging the environment?

Every one when they can. There will always be a need for trucks but we can all cut back. I know I have more room to cut back and I am working on getting there. I also have several vehicles that are big gas hogs most for work but one 2 that are just for fun. But honestly I put very few miles on them so they dont contribute much. But I would never think of using a jacked up truck as a daily driver for many reasons including environmental ones.

 

[bholler]

Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your opinion and conclusions on the matter.

(broken link removed)

 

[vinny11950]

This thread is now exploring the boundaries of the universe.

 

[begreen]

Exactly, who is supposed to cut back so they aren't damaging the environment?

Nobody is talking about crawling into a hole. FWIW, we've cut our carbon footprint down by about 2/3ds since we moved into this house. If all did the same the net effect would be stunning. Conservation is the cheapest way toward CO2 reduction. But it will take larger moves on large scale systems too. Government fuel usage is a good place to start and over the past decade there has been good progress in part due to stricter Cafe laws. Transportation infrastructure is another place where notable savings can and are occurring. Power generation is another. And fwiw, gas mileage on some 1/2T trucks has doubled in the past 20 years.

 

[woodgeek]

what makes you think that increased c02 levels in the ocean would have no ill effect? That is just totally wrong as well

I should have been more clear @bholler. I meant that if it was mixed to the full depth of the ocean, it would be dilute enough to not cause a significant chemical change (e.g. acidification).

In general, most things can be diluted to the point of not being a problem...if the dilution is sufficient.

Of course, for human CO2 emissions, the atmosphere is NOT big enough for such dilution. The surface waters of the ocean (the top 50 m that mixes with the atmosphere relatively quickly) is ALSO not big enough (with resulting acidification). The ocean at depth IS big enough, but takes many millennia to mix itself, and thus the problem is not that the ocean is too small, but rather that it is too slow.

As for the millions of tons of microplastic particles in the ocean....their danger is still being debated.

 

[begreen]

More ways that one can change lifestyle to reduce CO2 impact
(broken link removed to http://grist.org/briefly/groundbreaking-study-outlines-what-you-can-do-about-climate-change/)

 

[bholler]

I should have been more clear @bholler. I meant that if it was mixed to the full depth of the ocean, it would be dilute enough to not cause a significant chemical change (e.g. acidification).

In general, most things can be diluted to the point of not being a problem...if the dilution is sufficient.

Of course, for human CO2 emissions, the atmosphere is NOT big enough for such dilution. The surface waters of the ocean (the top 50 m that mixes with the atmosphere relatively quickly) is ALSO not big enough (with resulting acidification). The ocean at depth IS big enough, but takes many millennia to mix itself, and thus the problem is not that the ocean is too small, but rather that it is too slow.

As for the millions of tons of microplastic particles in the ocean....their danger is still being debated.

But eventually even the full volume will not be enough to dilute it. And no we dont know the dangers of microplastic particles but can you honestly say that you beleive they will do no harm?

 

[woodgeek]

But eventually even the full volume will not be enough to dilute it. And no we dont know the dangers of microplastic particles but can you honestly say that you beleive they will do no harm?

The full volume of the ocean is sufficient to absorb any plausible release of CO2 by humans in the next 100 years, without sgnificant acidification, but there is no point in arguing an un-realizable hypothetical.

For microplastics....yep, I can honestly say that I think they will do no harm until I see the data that they will. It is not clear to me that having a few dozen cubic mm pieces of plastic floating per cubic meter of surface water (less than a part per million by weight, about the maximum density of the current so-called 'garbage patches') is sufficient to cause a large scale extinction of life in the seas, of the order being considered in this thread due to CO2 and HS. For one, if they turn out to be a major problem, then the sources can be cut off relatively easily and cheaply, unlike CO2. For another, it is quite possible that the material gets buried on a reasonable timescale (like decades) via natural processes.

It IS important to prioritize our goals using the best available science. I'm waiting to see some on the microplastic issue...so far all I see is a lot of hype.

 

[woodgeek]

More ways that one can change lifestyle to reduce CO2 impact
(broken link removed to http://grist.org/briefly/groundbreaking-study-outlines-what-you-can-do-about-climate-change/)

This one has been making the rounds lately.....but it leaves me cold. I am not at all sure that it will do any good. I think most people are aware that not having a car, getting on an airplane or having children will drastically reduce ones impact on the climate. But most people will choose to do those things anyway. By only presenting those options with big bars (with the exception of buying green energy), it discourages a large number of other choices that are compatible with most people's desired lifestyle.

I've dropped my family's CO2e/yr footprint by 25 tons at almost zero amortized cost through simple remodels of my house, buying a couple HPs, getting an EV and buying green power. This roughly cuts my family's overall footprint by half.

If we took a magnifying glass to our diet...being more flexitarian (than we already are), reducing dairy and food wastage and being careful about sourcing, we could probably get from 50% to 30% of our earlier emissions.

But most of those things don't fit in an 'infographic'.

 

[begreen]

Yes, our big dent was getting rid of fossil fuel heat, installing a HP, serious sealing and insulation in the house + new windows, an electric car. All appliances were upgraded to high energy star scorers. We did cut out long transocean flights. Haven't done that since 2009 and actually haven't flown much at all in the past 5 yrs.

 

[Highbeam]

I just visited eastern Washington over the weekend and met with a water rights attorney from the city of Wenatchee which is fairly large, modern, and on the Columbia River. Anyway, his electricity cost is 3 cents per kilowatt hour. Imagine that. Imagine how this contributes to his lack of conservation. His home is all electric as you can imagine.

 

[Ashful]

This thread is now exploring the boundaries of the universe.

I had to walk away about 25 posts ago, but couldn't resist poking my head back in, with predictable thread progression: Woodgeek never ceases to impress me with his breadth and depth of research and knowledge, on any subject he chooses to tackle. He might even make an environmentalist out of this conservative, someday.