Good thing I waited to respond. Looks like you added a lot to your original post (the one I saw in my email a while ago, and am able to respond only now).
1) What you claim is a 'political' declaration was made by the US Supreme Court, during the Bush era, with a majority conservative make-up. Are they 'political' or ruling on a matter of law? I've noticed people fling this accusation all the time, especially about decisions with which they disagree. It's just possible that, say, the SCOTUS does law, scientists do science, Apple is just being Apple, and the only ones interpreting such things as being 'political' or 'insane' are folks like you. (I realize you didn't bring up scientists and Apple, but I am making a generalized statement about a lot of the vapid posts I see here in the same vein).
Ah, the separation between law and politics. Never mind that, that's really laughable.
To put my argument in another way: no declaration, whatever its origins, can change nature and the meaning of words for that matter.
So, calling C02 a pollutant is very similar in calling water a pollutant; yes you can die from it, no, it isn't a pollutant in any way.
2) Do I think 'water is a pollutant'? I don't understand the question. Did you mean 'water vapor'?
See above.
3) You may not like the Prius (I don't either), but to make a blanket statement like "wrong choice of car" is outright silly. And opaque, to boot.
It isn't, I explained why that is the case: "adding complexity is never the answer".
I can add that even for a Hybrid it's the worst choice you can make, a Volt, for example, would be much better (but the complexity argument still holds).
Why that's the case? Maybe you should find that out for yourself.
4) I know what "efficient" means. All the many variations of it. I just have no clue what you mean by it. Indeed, it appears you are not able to explain it, judging by your response. So my question in moot.
My explanation is more than sufficient, you lack the willingness to understand, so it seems.
5) What "local pollution"? You never used those words in your original post (you said, and I quote, "added benefit is that it doesn't pollute all over the place and centralized pollution can be captured far more efficiently"), so don't make up new ones now. In any event what is "local (captured) pollution". If it is 'captured', it is meaningless from the standpoint of an "emissions" measurement anyway so I have no clue what you're saying there. You sound confused. You do know that the electricity generation industry is a massive source of GHG emissions, toxic chemical and radiative emissions, soot and many crazy forms of particulates, and so on, right? Some may be captured, but a great deal of it escapes and causes massive externalities. See, for example, this GAO study: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-545R. Not exactly the cleanest source of energy for a vehicle.
Semantics. Ask yourself what's the opposite of "centralized"?
6) I agree with you that soot from cooking and wood/dung burning is a huge problem.
Do you have a breakdown of those 50%? Is it 48% nuclear and 2% renewable? Relative to nuclear I posted above. And also renewable per SE does not equal environmentally friendly.
PV solar is a very environmentally friendly solution, second only to wind given a few caveats for location, and it is still on a decreasing cost curve. There are a few solar concentrator sites that have had problems with bird kills, as have wind sites. The world will probably be at 400 GW of capacity in four years, and the rate of growth is still logarithmic. If you want to have a clean energy source for EV's, this is the top candidate.
One of the advantages of PV solar, is that it is very scalable as a manufacturing process, and with the growth in PV installations, R & D can continue to focus on higher efficiency, green materials, and cost reduction. One of the asides, is that Solar EV has been a good jobs creator.
Apple has a unique opportunity with EV's to provide both the solar PV power source, and the EV and I suspect that Apple could have a lease plan with energy packages included at a low fixed price; Tesla might do the same, but already provides consumer solutions. Each would become brokers/providers of green energy to offset the use in the vehicles that they sell.
Nuclear power still has promise as a base power source, but it scales poorly with today's technology, and it will be very difficult to achieve the growth rates in added GW that Solar PV can achieve. Never understood why the Nuclear industry doesn't throw coal under the bus; probably the same investor set I suppose.
Whatever the energy source, the U.S. needs to make a concerted and expensive update the the grid such that energy is more efficiently transported from the source to the demand. No reason that solar PV power generated in the West/Southwest couldn't be a low cost national source.
Ah, the separation between law and politics. Never mind that, that's really laughable.
To put my argument in another way: no declaration, whatever its origins, can change nature and the meaning of words for that matter.
So, calling C02 a pollutant is very similar in calling water a pollutant; yes you can die from it, no, it isn't a pollutant in any way.
See above.
It isn't, I explained why that is the case: "adding complexity is never the answer".
I can add that even for a Hybrid it's the worst choice you can make, a Volt, for example, would be much better (but the complexity argument still holds).
Why that's the case? Maybe you should find that out for yourself.
My explanation is more than sufficient, you lack the willingness to understand, so it seems.
Semantics. Ask yourself what's the opposite of "centralized"?
So, we can agree on something, that's a start.
What a laughably self-referential set of responses. Answers include questions in response to a question ("ask yourself...."), bland assertions in place of argumentation ("adding complexity is never the answer"), restatement of previously argued points ("my explanation is more than sufficient"), and silly grandiosity for good measure ("...no declaration, whatever its origins, can change nature and the meaning of words for that matter.")
The real fun starts when you look at where that innocent radioactive waste is going. Let's say in 10.000 years or so.
So move to thorium reactors and the problem is solved.
I agree. But before that can be done, a couple of tens of billions of dollars need to be spent to create demonstration projects around the globe. (The last one -- abandoned midway -- was over fifty years ago by Oak Ridge National Labs).
Fortunately, Norway, India, and China are starting on a couple of major demonstration efforts, the earliest of which is expected to come to fruition in 2017 or so.
The other very viable technology is to reprocess the spent nuclear rods (which still retain >99% of the energy when thrown away as nuclear waste), i.e., 4th gen nuclear (see, e.g., www.terrapower.com). Might as well put them back into use since tons of them are just sitting around the world anyway.
The classification (or not) of CO2 as a pollutant isn't worth arguing over. It was done because of its role in atmospheric thermodynamics, and because increasing atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as harmful in terms of climate influence. "Harmful" is one of the defining criteria for the term "pollutant". Water vapor, on the other hand, already exists in the environment at far higher levels that we can influence, and so even if that gas has similar properties in the atmosphere, there is no point in regarding it as a pollutant.
Do you have a breakdown of those 50%? Is it 48% nuclear and 2% renewable? Relative to nuclear I posted above. And also renewable per SE does not equal environmentally friendly.
The classification (or not) of CO2 as a pollutant isn't worth arguing over. It was done because of its role in atmospheric thermodynamics, and because increasing atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as harmful in terms of climate influence. "Harmful" is one of the defining criteria for the term "pollutant". Water vapor, on the other hand, already exists in the environment at far higher levels that we can influence, and so even if that gas has similar properties in the atmosphere, there is no point in regarding it as a pollutant.
So, you state CO2 is harmful by definition. That's indeed difficult to argue about.
But your assertion that it is considered harmful applies to almost everyting, for example drinking too much water is widely regarded as harmful and so, should be considered a pollutant by your definition.
A pollutant should be poisonous or carcinogenic etc. it's definition in plain English is this:
: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use : something that causes pollution
So again, redefining the meaning of a word because of political (or otherwise) views is unacceptable, and plain wrong.
(And of course I know why they try to do this.)
What a laughably self-referential set of responses. Answers include questions in response to a question ("ask yourself...."), bland assertions in place of argumentation ("adding complexity is never the answer"), restatement of previously argued points ("my explanation is more than sufficient"), and silly grandiosity for good measure ("...no declaration, whatever its origins, can change nature and the meaning of words for that matter.")
Way to go!
I am glad you take me seriously.
But on topic: calling CO2 a pollutant is a trick to make people afraid of it so they are more inclined to take action, or let some institution take action, sadly because of the wrong reason.
I guess I'm right again when I say that you wouldn't understand that.
The classification (or not) of CO2 as a pollutant isn't worth arguing over.
It’s sort of the fundamental argument...
...increasing atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as harmful in terms of climate influence.
Regard is meaningless, particularly in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Much of South Korea believes you will die if you sleep in a closed room with a fan running. Does this make it true?
Water vapor, on the other hand, already exists in the environment at far higher levels that we can influence, and so even if that gas has similar properties in the atmosphere, there is no point in regarding it as a pollutant.
Wait, did you really just claim “we can’t do anything about it (maybe, sort of, because I say so), therefore we shouldn’t even bother speaking about it correctly”?
But on topic: calling CO2 a pollutant is a trick to make people afraid of it so they are more inclined to take action, or let some institution take action, sadly because of the wrong reason.
I guess I'm right again when I say that you wouldn't understand that.
Sadly, you sound quite uninformed, just parroting some typical talking points one often hears from the political right on this issue. Hard to take that seriously. Especially when they've lost the argument scientifically and legally.
Here's something from the WSJ that explains how and why, and specific context in which CO2 is classified as a 'pollutant.' You can choose to inform yourself, or you can't. That's up to you. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975
The classification (or not) of CO2 as a pollutant isn't worth arguing over.
It’s sort of the fundamental argument...
...increasing atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as harmful in terms of climate influence.
Regard is meaningless, particularly in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Much of South Korea believes you will die if you sleep in a closed room with a fan running. Does this make it true?
I thought that might happen. My point was not to comment on whether CO2 is harmful, in climate terms, but to point out that it was deemed harmful in that context, and thus classified as a pollutant.
As to whether it should be regarded as harmful, the bulk of the scientific evidence suggests that it is, and I've seen little or no scientific evidence to the contrary. You have read some of the papers, and I know that we come to different conclusions on that question. The consensus among climate scientists does not make that particular example of South Korean folklore true, and that the folklore is not true does not, conversely, mean that the scientists are not correct, since those are logically independent and unrelated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
Water vapor, on the other hand, already exists in the environment at far higher levels that we can influence, and so even if that gas has similar properties in the atmosphere, there is no point in regarding it as a pollutant.
Wait, did you really just claim “we can’t do anything about it (maybe, sort of, because I say so), therefore we shouldn’t even bother speaking about it correctly”?
The classification (or not) of CO2 as a pollutant isn't worth arguing over. It was done because of its role in atmospheric thermodynamics, and because increasing atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as harmful in terms of climate influence. "Harmful" is one of the defining criteria for the term "pollutant". Water vapor, on the other hand, already exists in the environment at far higher levels that we can influence, and so even if that gas has similar properties in the atmosphere, there is no point in regarding it as a pollutant.
So, you state CO2 is harmful by definition. That's indeed difficult to argue about.
But your assertion that it is considered harmful applies to almost everyting, for example drinking too much water is widely regarded as harmful and so, should be considered a pollutant by your definition.
A pollutant should be poisonous or carcinogenic etc. it's definition in plain English is this:
Quote:
: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use : something that causes pollution
So again, redefining the meaning of a word because of political (or otherwise) views is unacceptable, and plain wrong.
(And of course I know why they try to do this.)
Not sure where you pulled that definition from, but it's a bit narrow according to the dictionaries and references that I looked at. Where did you find the restriction that it should be poisonous, carcinogenic etc.?
Either way, this is not a useful argument - it was deemed harmful to increase its level in the atmosphere, and thus treated as, and named as, a pollutant. Are you actually objecting to the use of the word, or to the the initiatives to reduce emissions?
Actually most of the top California auto design studios are in southern California near LA. Many car companies from around the world use SoCal auto designers. Also motorcycles.
If this were Apple which I doubt, I'd bet it would be closer to San Fransisco.
it was deemed harmful in that context, and thus classified as a pollutant.
Fair enough, but deeming it harmful and it being harmful aren’t mutually inclusive.
As to whether it should be regarded as harmful, the bulk of the scientific evidence suggests that it is, and I've seen little or no scientific evidence to the contrary.
If you like, list some of the reasons you believe it is harmful and I can run through the harm (or “harm”) as need be. Something required to maintain plant life doesn’t seem all that harmful.
The consensus among climate scientists does not make...
And consensus (real or imagined) does not truth make.
Got to say Detroit doesn't exactly spring to mind when I hear the word 'design' cars and manufacturing but design infers so
1) I know Detroit as "Motor City" but it's been made clear in this thread, the design shops for those American automakers was not in Michigan.
2) Could Apple rejigger those production factories in Detroit for making aluminium cars? Would that even be feasible? I'm not seeng any bauxite mines in the US so anything being transported to the US would need to come by ship, mostly from the Southern Hemisphere. Does Detroit work at all?
it was deemed harmful in that context, and thus classified as a pollutant.
Fair enough, but deeming it harmful and it being harmful aren’t mutually inclusive.
Completely agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If you like, list some of the reasons you believe it is harmful and I can run through the harm (or “harm”) as need be. Something required to maintain plant life doesn’t seem all that harmful.
I have no beliefs on this question. I have seen (as have you) physical arguments, data, and modeling results that indicate that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increases radiative forcing which, in turn, increases global average temperatures, leading to the widely accepted (but as yet unconfirmed) hypothesis of AGW. Whether such an increase in temperature would be bad may be open to debate but has been argued to have adverse climate outcomes such as increased drought in some regions, increased severe weather, and rising sea levels. Separately, the associated drop in ocean pH is certainly damaging some ecosystems, such as coral reefs - may or may not count as harmful depending on your point of view.
1) I know Detroit as "Motor City" but it's been made clear in this thread, the design shops for those American automakers was not in Michigan.
2) Could Apple rejigger those production factories in Detroit for making aluminium cars? Would that even be feasible? I'm not seeng any bauxite mines in the US so anything being transported to the US would need to come by ship, mostly from the Southern Hemisphere. Does Detroit work at all?
That was a partial, accidental inclusion in the post, it was from way up the thread. No idea how that crept in. I was only responding to Mstone's post I thought.
Comments
Ah, the separation between law and politics. Never mind that, that's really laughable.
To put my argument in another way: no declaration, whatever its origins, can change nature and the meaning of words for that matter.
So, calling C02 a pollutant is very similar in calling water a pollutant; yes you can die from it, no, it isn't a pollutant in any way.
See above.
It isn't, I explained why that is the case: "adding complexity is never the answer".
I can add that even for a Hybrid it's the worst choice you can make, a Volt, for example, would be much better (but the complexity argument still holds).
Why that's the case? Maybe you should find that out for yourself.
My explanation is more than sufficient, you lack the willingness to understand, so it seems.
Semantics. Ask yourself what's the opposite of "centralized"?
So, we can agree on something, that's a start.
Do you have a breakdown of those 50%? Is it 48% nuclear and 2% renewable? Relative to nuclear I posted above. And also renewable per SE does not equal environmentally friendly.
PV solar is a very environmentally friendly solution, second only to wind given a few caveats for location, and it is still on a decreasing cost curve. There are a few solar concentrator sites that have had problems with bird kills, as have wind sites. The world will probably be at 400 GW of capacity in four years, and the rate of growth is still logarithmic. If you want to have a clean energy source for EV's, this is the top candidate.
One of the advantages of PV solar, is that it is very scalable as a manufacturing process, and with the growth in PV installations, R & D can continue to focus on higher efficiency, green materials, and cost reduction. One of the asides, is that Solar EV has been a good jobs creator.
Apple has a unique opportunity with EV's to provide both the solar PV power source, and the EV and I suspect that Apple could have a lease plan with energy packages included at a low fixed price; Tesla might do the same, but already provides consumer solutions. Each would become brokers/providers of green energy to offset the use in the vehicles that they sell.
Nuclear power still has promise as a base power source, but it scales poorly with today's technology, and it will be very difficult to achieve the growth rates in added GW that Solar PV can achieve. Never understood why the Nuclear industry doesn't throw coal under the bus; probably the same investor set I suppose.
Whatever the energy source, the U.S. needs to make a concerted and expensive update the the grid such that energy is more efficiently transported from the source to the demand. No reason that solar PV power generated in the West/Southwest couldn't be a low cost national source.
So move to thorium reactors and the problem is solved.
What a laughably self-referential set of responses. Answers include questions in response to a question ("ask yourself...."), bland assertions in place of argumentation ("adding complexity is never the answer"), restatement of previously argued points ("my explanation is more than sufficient"), and silly grandiosity for good measure ("...no declaration, whatever its origins, can change nature and the meaning of words for that matter.")
Way to go!
I agree. But before that can be done, a couple of tens of billions of dollars need to be spent to create demonstration projects around the globe. (The last one -- abandoned midway -- was over fifty years ago by Oak Ridge National Labs).
Fortunately, Norway, India, and China are starting on a couple of major demonstration efforts, the earliest of which is expected to come to fruition in 2017 or so.
The other very viable technology is to reprocess the spent nuclear rods (which still retain >99% of the energy when thrown away as nuclear waste), i.e., 4th gen nuclear (see, e.g., www.terrapower.com). Might as well put them back into use since tons of them are just sitting around the world anyway.
(Fixed typos)
The classification (or not) of CO2 as a pollutant isn't worth arguing over. It was done because of its role in atmospheric thermodynamics, and because increasing atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as harmful in terms of climate influence. "Harmful" is one of the defining criteria for the term "pollutant". Water vapor, on the other hand, already exists in the environment at far higher levels that we can influence, and so even if that gas has similar properties in the atmosphere, there is no point in regarding it as a pollutant.
So, you state CO2 is harmful by definition. That's indeed difficult to argue about.
But your assertion that it is considered harmful applies to almost everyting, for example drinking too much water is widely regarded as harmful and so, should be considered a pollutant by your definition.
A pollutant should be poisonous or carcinogenic etc. it's definition in plain English is this:
So again, redefining the meaning of a word because of political (or otherwise) views is unacceptable, and plain wrong.
(And of course I know why they try to do this.)
I am glad you take me seriously.
But on topic: calling CO2 a pollutant is a trick to make people afraid of it so they are more inclined to take action, or let some institution take action, sadly because of the wrong reason.
I guess I'm right again when I say that you wouldn't understand that.
It’s sort of the fundamental argument...
Regard is meaningless, particularly in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Much of South Korea believes you will die if you sleep in a closed room with a fan running. Does this make it true?
Wait, did you really just claim “we can’t do anything about it (maybe, sort of, because I say so), therefore we shouldn’t even bother speaking about it correctly”?
Sadly, you sound quite uninformed, just parroting some typical talking points one often hears from the political right on this issue. Hard to take that seriously. Especially when they've lost the argument scientifically and legally.
Here's something from the WSJ that explains how and why, and specific context in which CO2 is classified as a 'pollutant.' You can choose to inform yourself, or you can't. That's up to you. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975
It’s sort of the fundamental argument...
Regard is meaningless, particularly in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Much of South Korea believes you will die if you sleep in a closed room with a fan running. Does this make it true?
I thought that might happen. My point was not to comment on whether CO2 is harmful, in climate terms, but to point out that it was deemed harmful in that context, and thus classified as a pollutant.
As to whether it should be regarded as harmful, the bulk of the scientific evidence suggests that it is, and I've seen little or no scientific evidence to the contrary. You have read some of the papers, and I know that we come to different conclusions on that question. The consensus among climate scientists does not make that particular example of South Korean folklore true, and that the folklore is not true does not, conversely, mean that the scientists are not correct, since those are logically independent and unrelated.
Wait, did you really just claim “we can’t do anything about it (maybe, sort of, because I say so), therefore we shouldn’t even bother speaking about it correctly”?
No, I didn't.
The classification (or not) of CO2 as a pollutant isn't worth arguing over. It was done because of its role in atmospheric thermodynamics, and because increasing atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as harmful in terms of climate influence. "Harmful" is one of the defining criteria for the term "pollutant". Water vapor, on the other hand, already exists in the environment at far higher levels that we can influence, and so even if that gas has similar properties in the atmosphere, there is no point in regarding it as a pollutant.
So, you state CO2 is harmful by definition. That's indeed difficult to argue about.
But your assertion that it is considered harmful applies to almost everyting, for example drinking too much water is widely regarded as harmful and so, should be considered a pollutant by your definition.
A pollutant should be poisonous or carcinogenic etc. it's definition in plain English is this:
So again, redefining the meaning of a word because of political (or otherwise) views is unacceptable, and plain wrong.
(And of course I know why they try to do this.)
Not sure where you pulled that definition from, but it's a bit narrow according to the dictionaries and references that I looked at. Where did you find the restriction that it should be poisonous, carcinogenic etc.?
Either way, this is not a useful argument - it was deemed harmful to increase its level in the atmosphere, and thus treated as, and named as, a pollutant. Are you actually objecting to the use of the word, or to the the initiatives to reduce emissions?
Got to say Detroit doesn't exactly spring to mind when I hear the word 'design'
If this were Apple which I doubt, I'd bet it would be closer to San Fransisco.
Fair enough, but deeming it harmful and it being harmful aren’t mutually inclusive.
If you like, list some of the reasons you believe it is harmful and I can run through the harm (or “harm”) as need be. Something required to maintain plant life doesn’t seem all that harmful.
And consensus (real or imagined) does not truth make.
No, I didn't.
Fair enough, then.
1) I know Detroit as "Motor City" but it's been made clear in this thread, the design shops for those American automakers was not in Michigan.
2) Could Apple rejigger those production factories in Detroit for making aluminium cars? Would that even be feasible? I'm not seeng any bauxite mines in the US so anything being transported to the US would need to come by ship, mostly from the Southern Hemisphere. Does Detroit work at all?
No.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Fair enough, but deeming it harmful and it being harmful aren’t mutually inclusive.
Completely agree.
I have no beliefs on this question. I have seen (as have you) physical arguments, data, and modeling results that indicate that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increases radiative forcing which, in turn, increases global average temperatures, leading to the widely accepted (but as yet unconfirmed) hypothesis of AGW. Whether such an increase in temperature would be bad may be open to debate but has been argued to have adverse climate outcomes such as increased drought in some regions, increased severe weather, and rising sea levels. Separately, the associated drop in ocean pH is certainly damaging some ecosystems, such as coral reefs - may or may not count as harmful depending on your point of view.
That was a partial, accidental inclusion in the post, it was from way up the thread. No idea how that crept in. I was only responding to Mstone's post I thought.