How is the US doing on its CO2 emission reduction goals

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nova on PBS a couple of years ago had an episode called can we cool the planet. Good to watch. At one point it said we can solve climate change but we won’t do it because our behaviors won’t change if we solve it. Stupid not to solve it
 
The chart linked to the shows the emission per inhabitant, rather than by country. Both are viable representations of the data depending on the point you're trying to make. Using the per person data doesn't account for the flat population growth is many of the G20 countries in comparison to China and India which are increasing. It also doesn't address the CO2 emissions and overall emissions trends in China and India, where population growth and emissions per person are increasing, driven by industrialization.

The salient point of the video is that people in China and India are striving for a better quality of life and that will be energy intensive, causing CO2 emissions amongst other pollutants. Given that, developing less polluting energy sources would be a prudent path forward while the other members of the G20 flatten and reduce their emissions
Yes, exactly! We need to work on lowering our emissions while bringing other countries up to the same industrial levels with less harmful emissions. Not exactly sure that's what was being sold in the video though... Glad he spent half of it making emotional appeals and calling people woke, though. More culture war BS.
 
Yes, exactly! We need to work on lowering our emissions while bringing other countries up to the same industrial levels with less harmful emissions. Not exactly sure that's what was being sold in the video though... Glad he spent half of it making emotional appeals and calling people woke, though. More culture war BS.
I am not sure what he is thinking exactly, but I think he is arguing that cutting back emissions in Britain will not change the overall CO2 problem. What people in Britain *can do* that may actually save the planet, is to innovate for solutions that could cause global-wide change. I could be misinterpreting him, but I strongly feel innovation is our best hope. It is worth noting that many emissions can be reduced inexpensively with current technology and being conscientious. It is also worth noting that policies to reduce emissions can spur innovation which could have a much larger impact than the immediate goal of the policy.
 
Last edited:
I really want the Mustang Mach E or Ford Lightning but I need to a better assessment on my driving and make sure it will will cover the distances I drive. I live in a rural area and there are zero chargers. I am 30-45 minutes from the neatest commercial charger Like I said before. It could be an expensive paperweight if I cannot charge it.
I'd only get a 100% EV if I can install a home charger.

So, what do you have and how do you like it?
An older model year PHEV version of this, and it might be my favorite thing I own. Basically Hyundai's version of a Prius.

https://www.caranddriver.com/hyundai/ioniq
 
Last edited:
So, how long have you had it? How do you like it?
About 18 months. Got it from a Hyundai dealership with all the warranties I could get. For better or worse, the warranty did come in handy. But now I have new parts that will make the car last longer. EV mode on weekdays. Hybrid mode on weekends. Gas and charging costs are minimal. I drive much less aggressively than I used to, and relax instead. Instant, noiseless torque at low speed still feels like magic and is addictive.

The one thing we don't know is how long the battery will last. I was willing to take a chance that it will last long enough for total cost of ownership to be less than an equivalent Honda Civic. I'd like to see first hand what happens when the battery starts to retire. From what I read, it should last long enough, but if I'm unlucky, at least, I will have had a wonderful experience. Saving money on the side for the next car, which will likely be 100% EV.

I never had to install a home charger (240 VAC Level 2) because I don't drive more than 25 miles in a weekday. I can cover that in 3-4 hours with a standard 120 VAC (Level 1) outdoor outlet.
 
Last edited:
Every time this topic comes up you see the same arguments based on 3 ideas:
  1. If it doesn’t look like you will achieve a goal, then it’s not worth even trying, and you might as well give up on goals.
  2. If a measure doesn’t solve EVERYTHING, then it solves nothing, and it isn’t worth doing.
  3. If someone else won’t try to achieve a goal, then there’s no point in me trying.
How do these people get through life? Presumably, with that kind of approach, we have a lot of underachievers.

The way you get things done is to make goals, break complex problems down into manageable chunks, make plans to address each piece, even if it doesn’t solve the whole puzzle, keep working incrementally toward the goal, and don’t worry about what others are doing or not doing, just keep doing your part.

Solar panels alone won’t fix it, wind alone won’t fix it, electric cars alone won’t fix it. Not all nations will do their part, and not all individuals will either. But each of those technologies are probably part of the mix of measures that will eventually solve at least part of the problem, and maybe we as individuals and as a nation can do our part to work on the portion of the problem we are responsible for.
 
I love all the things I’ve done for energy efficiency and switching toward renewables in my own life. The things are not just better for the environment — they are just better in general.

I love our new Camry hybrid. It can get as much as 50 mpg on road trips. That is twice the mileage of our previous car, so that’s good for the environment. But the new car is also more comfortable, bigger, has a ton more nice features, and the hybrid drivetrain has a lot more torque than our old car. It’s a nice car.

I like all the LED bulbs I’ve installed in the house. They use a fraction of the electricity of the old incandescents. But they also just last a lot longer. I’ve never had to replace one yet. I don’t miss changing bulbs. They also come in a much larger array of lumens and color temperatures than the old bulbs. I remember when they first came out they were pretty expensive, so I just replaced a few here and there. But now almost every bulb in the house is LED, and it’s all just better.

I really like the rooftop solar panels. It was a decent chunk of money upfront, but it saves us a lot of money every month now. It’s going to break even in another year or two, and then it’s just free electricity after that. That’s nice to have.

One of the next projects I’d like to do is insulation and sealing. That will save energy, but I also think it will make a big improvement in the comfort in the house.
 
What about the global cooling scare in the 60's and 70,s? We were all going to die from freezing to death. What happened?
It wasn't scary enough or believable enough, so they could pick your pocket. Because that is what it's always about. Follow the money.
 
What about the global cooling scare in the 60's and 70,s? We were all going to die from freezing to death. What happened?
There were a few press reports, but it was not supported by scientific literature.
Most scientific studies at the time pointed to global warming, not cooling.
As expected, science proved correct over tabloid journalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
 
I could care less about CO2 emissions and so called climate change.
Most of us will be long dead before it really gets bad anyway so why worry about it?
It may affect Gen Z but that couldn't happen to a better generation.

Humans will adapt. As will Technology, our modern GOD.

Besides when the singularity happens and AI becomes conscious it will tell us how to fix it.

If not and every living thing dies, in about 2 billion years from now the Earth will heal itself and new creatures will come forth from the muck and primordial ooze.and we will start the cycle of life and death again.

On the other hand Earth could become either Mars or Venus.

YMMV
 
How much Co2 is too much? No one seems to be able to answer that question.

It depends on how many consequences you are willing to tolerate.

I’d say it’s already too much. The weather has already changed noticeably in my lifetime, which is really too fast for weather to be changing. I don’t like the number of 100, 105, 110 degree days we get now. Only 25 years ago, these kinds of temperatures were extremely rare, but now we see this extreme heat nearly every year around here. I’m not a fan of the droughts and mandatory water rationing. And the fires! My state has always had wildfires, but not like the ones we have almost every year now. So for me, between the extreme heat, drought, water shortages, and fires that directly impact my own life, I wish it weren’t like this, and I don’t want it to get worse, and I think we have enough CO2.
 
There were a few press reports, but it was not supported by scientific literature.
Most scientific studies at the time pointed to global warming, not cooling.
As expected, science proved correct over tabloid journalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
It's what we were taught in school as a fact. Just like global warming is now.. i mean climate change. So, it was not just in a few press reports, it was in our textbooks, on the news every night, talked about on PBS, all the talk in the environmental movement, etc...
And contrary to your assertions, most scientific studies at the time promoted the notion of global cooling, not global warming. I saw the change when i worked for The Wilderness Society and Norbert Reedy. It's all about control of the people. Your one of the cult believers and not even facts will persuade cultists. The truth is there for all to see, but most won't even look because their afraid they will be wrong...again.
Just as an aside, wiki cannot be used by my daughters schooling as a reference.
We will be hit by another asteroid or comet and all this will be moot...
 
It depends on how many consequences you are willing to tolerate.

I’d say it’s already too much. The weather has already changed noticeably in my lifetime, which is really too fast for weather to be changing. I don’t like the number of 100, 105, 110 degree days we get now. Only 25 years ago, these kinds of temperatures were extremely rare, but now we see this extreme heat nearly every year around here. I’m not a fan of the droughts and mandatory water rationing. And the fires! My state has always had wildfires, but not like the ones we have almost every year now. So for me, between the extreme heat, drought, water shortages, and fires that directly impact my own life, I wish it weren’t like this, and I don’t want it to get worse, and I think we have enough CO2.
So, how much is too much? No one seems to be able to put a number up. Maybe because the fact is that the scientists truly don't know?
 
It's what we were taught in school as a fact. Just like global warming is now.. i mean climate change. So, it was not just in a few press reports, it was in our textbooks, on the news every night, talked about on PBS, all the talk in the environmental movement, etc...
And contrary to your assertions, most scientific studies at the time promoted the notion of global cooling, not global warming. I saw the change when i worked for The Wilderness Society and Norbert Reedy. It's all about control of the people. Your one of the cult believers and not even facts will persuade cultists. The truth is there for all to see, but most won't even look because their afraid they will be wrong...again.
Just as an aside, wiki cannot be used by my daughters schooling as a reference.
We will be hit by another asteroid or comet and all this will be moot...
Hmm...

I'll take 'things that never happened' for $400.
 
I'm sorry - You want me to prove a negative?

Just in case there was confusion on whether you understood how these discussions worked...

Also, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' and all that.
 
How much Co2 is too much? No one seems to be able to answer that question.
Short summary:

CO2 absorbs heat sort of like black paint absorbs heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer it gets.

The rate of CO2 increase is presently faster than what human civilization has ever lived in (the last 10,000 years), and so is the rate of warming. A warmer atmosphere means more energy in the system, which causes more extreme weather events. You imply a threshold, but it's more about not adding more CO2 than necessary. The less CO2 we add, the cheaper and easier it will be to live in the coming decades (and centuries, so it's largely for the kids).

This graph here, it's rising too fast for comfort.

ClimateDashboard-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-graph-20211004-1400px.jpg

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
 
It's what we were taught in school as a fact. Just like global warming is now.. i mean climate change. So, it was not just in a few press reports, it was in our textbooks, on the news every night, talked about on PBS, all the talk in the environmental movement, etc...
And contrary to your assertions, most scientific studies at the time promoted the notion of global cooling, not global warming. I saw the change when i worked for The Wilderness Society and Norbert Reedy. It's all about control of the people. Your one of the cult believers and not even facts will persuade cultists. The truth is there for all to see, but most won't even look because their afraid they will be wrong...again.
Just as an aside, wiki cannot be used by my daughters schooling as a reference.
We will be hit by another asteroid or comet and all this will be moot...
There were 7 peer reviewed scientific papers predicting global cooling in the 1970's.
And 42 predicting global warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43I can't speak to what you were taught in the classroom by your teacher.
 
Just as an aside, wiki cannot be used by my daughters schooling as a reference.
We will be hit by another asteroid or comet and all this will be moot...
Wikipedia as a source of useful information is laughable. It’s just a version of “I saw it on the internet”. My nephew is a freshman in college and was telling me just the other day how they are specifically told that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference source because it is both open sourced and full of bias.
 
It's what we were taught in school as a fact.

Great, instead of critical thinking, you were crammed full of assertions from authority, called it immutable "fact", when it was never anything of the sort.

Pluto is still.a planet, though. And according to my 1963 World Book Encyclopedia, Jupiter still has 13 moons. Now there's some facts. Not.
 
Just as an aside, wiki cannot be used by my daughters schooling as a reference.
Wikipedia as a source of useful information is laughable. It’s just a version of “I saw it on the internet”. My nephew is a freshman in college and was telling me just the other day how they are specifically told that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference source because it is both open sourced and full of bias.
Absolutely.
So you should always look at the citations behind the statements.
If peer reviewed scientific papers validate those conclusions then I would tend to agree.
Wouldn't you?
 
Wikipedia as a source of useful information is laughable. It’s just a version of “I saw it on the internet”. My nephew is a freshman in college and was telling me just the other day how they are specifically told that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference source because it is both open sourced and full of bias.
Not for work, but it's often a good enough starting point for a place like this, as Wikipedia authors list many sources at the end of an article. And since anyone is free to udate the text, it tends to converge to something that gets less biased with each update.
 
I'm sorry - You want me to prove a negative?

Just in case there was confusion on whether you understood how these discussions worked...

Also, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' and all that.
No "extrodinary" Claim was made, only my experiences and the truth. You can try to hurt my feelings, but can't. If the truth hurts your feelings, i can't help that.
 
Short summary:

CO2 absorbs heat sort of like black paint absorbs heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer it gets.

The rate of CO2 increase is presently faster than what human civilization has ever lived in (the last 10,000 years), and so is the rate of warming. A warmer atmosphere means more energy in the system, which causes more extreme weather events. You imply a threshold, but it's more about not adding more CO2 than necessary. The less CO2 we add, the cheaper and easier it will be to live in the coming decades (and centuries, so it's largely for the kids).

This graph here, it's rising too fast for comfort.

View attachment 557643

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
So, how much is too much? Should be simple enough, but it appears that no one really knows.
 
Back
Top