btbg

Electric cars are also that old. They have been trying to develop them for 120 years and counting. And, why do we need to get there. The internal combustion engine works well and there is still lots of oil available if we continue to drill. I agree with becheary that hydrogen is the way to go.

btbg

You've got to be kidding. My Lexus RX400H has a lot more room than the Avalon. It's not even close.

btbg

So you don't believe there are things they are not telling us. Then please tell me why they are trying to force us into EVs by 2035? They are not giving a good reason for that. They currently have brownouts in California in the summer now and last summer the governor asked people to please not charge their EVS due to the electrical grid problems, yet they are moving ahead with trying to force the technology on us when it is clear that there will not be enough electricity to charge them by then. So, why the rush to switch? There's something there that is either totally incompetent, or that they aren't telling us.

btbg

If you look at the evidence you will see that going green merely gives China economic supremacy. They are adding two coal fired power plants on line each day. So, everything that we do in the name of helping the environment is being undone by China. Going to EVs only worsens that problem.

You are gambling with the future of humanity now. Just look up how much pollution China is causing and how much it is increasing each year. We produce energy far cleaner than China, thus manufacturing here would be better for the planet than manufacturing there. Driving gasoline powered cars here is better for the environment than the damage that China is doing to the planet producing Lithium.

Even assuming that you are totally correct about the threat to humanity from climate change the U.S. could go to zero CO2 production and it would have minimal impact on the "climate crisis" as China, Russia, Turkey, India and Iran are rapidly increasing their CO2 output at such a high rate that the sacrifice of our quality of life will not help the situation.

Just look at the Paris accords. All they do is have the U.S. pay the cost of other countries increasing their pollution.

btbg

Oil has made our standard of living what it is. Without it we would be screwed. Those who bash the oil industry fail to realize both how many products we use every day that need petroleum to produce and how much it would cost to transport goods without oil. Getting rid of oil will destroy our standard of living.

As to SUVs and pickups, I have both because they are pretty necessary where I live and work. I don't own either for car pooling. I own an SUV because it gets better fuel economy than my pickup, so I use it most of the time and only drive the pickup when I need four wheel drive rather than all wheel drive, or when I need high ground clearance, or when I need to haul something, etc... So, why do I need an SUV, well lets see there was a foot of snow on the mountain pass last week. Nearly half of the roads in the county I live in are unpaved. My SUV gets better fuel economy than any car that I have found that has enough head and leg room that I can drive it. I am 6-7. That does not do well in normal cars. There are plenty of reasons that people have SUVs. You are being presumptuous to assume that owning either an SUV or a pickup is a bad thing. As to carpooling, if our major cities weren't such a mess perhaps people would actually live in them instead of driving miles each day to go to work.

If you really want to help humanity there are two simple things that would dramatically help the environment and livability. One, make cities safe and clean so that people live near where they work. And, two plant more trees. Trees take CO2 out of the environment and make the world cooler, both at the same time. "Global warming" is primarily happening in the concrete and asphalt jungles that we call cities. If you record temperatures in rural areas you will get very different data. Just read Creighton's book State of Fear and look at all of the tables in the appendix.

btbg

Look at the data. That is not what is happening. We had one of the most mild hurricane seasons ever last year. There is no evidence that the intensity of storms is increasing. As to the intensity of fires, that is a biproduct of forest mismanagement, not of climate.

btbg

If the green revolution goes to it's logical extension then your last paragraph is going to no longer be true. The major changes we have seen in the last 100 years are largely because of petroleum. Our quality of life is going to be destroyed and it will do nothing to help the planet because of the actions of countries like China and Russia. We do not live in a bubble, and unilateral actions in the name of helping the planet are going to do nothing. Unless it is worldwide all we do is make winners and losers economically, while still polluting the planet. We would be far better served to use science to better people's lives than to try to force people into lifestyle changes that will have little or no impact on the world as a whole.

Do you really believe that it is good for the environment to have China mining lithium as rapidly as they can? Is it good for the environment that China is adding two coal fired power plants a day? Do you really believe that the U.S. importing oil from Venezuela is better for the environment than drilling for oil in Alaska?

btbg

Agree with most of what you say. As to major manufacturers moving to EV that is because government is forcing the issue, not because people want EVs. The middle class can not afford them. They do not work well in certain environments. 93 percent of new car sales last year were cars with internal combustion engines. Of course the sale of used cars was nearly 100 percent internal combustion engines last year. It is obvious that the consumer does not want EV, yet it is still being forced on us. Why? It sure as heck isn't to save the planet.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Did I miss something??? 🤣

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Why do we need to stop burning coal, methane, and liquid hydrocarbons? Because CO2 released by burning blankets the Earth, retaining heat, melting polar ice, raising sea levels, flooding coastal areas and whole islands, causing more severe weather than we would normally have, leading to drought, famine, floods, etc., and all of that will affect our children's and grandchildren's qualities of life after we're gone.

Sure, maybe those of us over 60 might not be affected by that, but unless we're cold enough and selfish enough to risk harming future generations, it's time to do something.

Scientists have sounded the alarm on this for decades, including some who were working for oil and gas companies in the 1960s. There is plenty of data to back this up, from sources all over the world. The planet is warming and that's producing effects not seen for tens of thousands of years.

There are botnets all over the Internet that are feeding energy industry propaganda to right wing echo chambers. It only takes a few billionaires to own a politician or a news network and turn it into a scare machine. "They're going to take away your gas stove! They're going to make you drive an EV that explodes on impact! They're going to put Lithium waste in baby formula! They're going to turn off your heat! They're commie reds! They're anti-'murrican, bah gahd!"

No one wants to ruin your quality of life. The scientists just want us to move toward safer energy sources, on all fronts. It will take a long time to replace all our existing fossil fuel consumption with solar, wind, geothermal, Small Modular (nuclear) Reactors (SMRs), and a long list of other solutions, many of which haven't been invented yet.

The petrochemical industry will still play roles in medicine, plastics, paving materials, etc. It will be a long time before we have electric airliners and ships. Small amounts of coal will be mined for uses other than burning it to generate electricity or heat homes.

The concern is that the longer it takes to bring carbon-free energy sources online, the warmer the planet gets, and the less likely it is that we can retain a decent quality of life.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The equivalent Lexus to the Avalon Hybrid is the ES-300h my son drives. The ES-300h uses most of the same platform as the Avalon Hybrid, including the power train.

The Avalon series is discontinued after the 2022 model year, replaced with the 2023 Crown.

The RX400h is MUCH bigger and costlier than was the Avalon Hybrid.

btbg

First of all, I have no problem with taking coal plants off line. That is probably a good thing. But, you are missing the most important point that was being made. We are taking relatively clean coal burning plants off line while China is adding approximately two non clean burning coal fired plants a day.

You seem to think that if the U.S. makes the changes that you are suggesting it will save the planet. That is simply not true. The U.S. acting unilaterally will do nothing. We were already releasing less CO2 into the atmosphere than. Without China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and India also making changes all that happens if the U.S. makes the changes you want is that we tank our economy while helping theirs. Is that really what you want?

Part of what you say in your first paragraph is true. The part about more severe storms is not. Storms are having larger impacts because of the size of population in the areas not because the storms are bigger.

As to moving to cleaner energy sources I have no problem with that. My problem is forcing the issue too rapidly. It takes years to get new power sources on line. The idiots in charge in California are trying to make massive changes by 2035, but that is simply not possible. What do you think is going to happen when they are required to purchase only EVs but there is inadequate power to charge them?

The current administration has managed to force the cost of gasoline on the west coast to over $4 dollars a gallon now and they are still trying to force it higher. I can't afford the cost of an EV, and even if I could there is only one charging station in town other than maybe a couple that people have in their garages. So, no, you are wrong. Regardless of their "intent" they are damaging my standard of living. And, that is only going to get worse. What happens when the cost of gasoline gets to $8 a gallon, something that Obama said that it must do? What happens when we are forced to buy EVs, but the cost is still prohibitive? Of course it is going to impact our standard of living.

I am fully in support of protecting the environment and protecting the planet. The problem is that is not what is happening. China is already producing far more CO2 than anyone else on the planet and they are increasing their output daily. What those of you that are so gung ho to protect the environment are not getting is our energy is already far cleaner than China's. Switching to EVs may make you feel better about we are doing something to help, but the actual result is that China is increasing their pollution by using more power to run their strip mines and by the environmental damage those mines are doing. That damage is going to be far worse than any damage that is currently being done by internal combustion engines in the U.S.

You have to look at the entire picture and not isolate decisions to only what is happening here. When Biden killed the Keystone pipeline and stopped new drilling in Alaska, while instead allowing oil imports from Venezuela and Russia, does that help or hurt the environment? The answer is simple. U.S. and Canadian oil production are the cleanest on the planet, while neither Russia nor Venezuela has any concern for the environment. So, by taking those actions we may feel good about helping the environment, but instead of a net gain for the world, it is actually a net loss. We surrender relatively clean energy production for energy production that does far more environmental damage.

No one may want to harm my standard of living, but the policies that you appear to be supporting will not only harm my standard of living, but will and already is harming the standard of living of everyone in the U.S.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The standard of living doesn't matter much if you're not healthy. Air, water, and soil are polluted, and humans suffer because of that. The only thing that would be hurt by moving toward a clean environment is company profit. That's what it's all about: profit. Exxon knew in the 1970s that burning fossil fuels was having a negative effect on climate. They buried that study.

"Air pollution can affect lung development and is implicated in the development of emphysema, asthma, and other respiratory diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Increases in asthma prevalence and severity are linked to urbanization and outdoor air pollution."

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/air-pollution/index.cfm#:~:text=Air%20pollution%20can%20affect%20lung,urbanization%20and%20outdoor%20air%20pollution.

https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+study+on+climate+change&oq=exxon+study+on+climate&aqs=edge.0.0i512j69i57j0i390i650l5.5311j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

This false it getting up to 400

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Use peppermint for all of those problerms