Green truckin': US finalizes new heavy-vehicle pollution standards

Hmmm think things might have changed since then ( thinks Trump presidency when we All felt sidelined for communist regimes)

 

Be our guest.

 

Svante Arrhenius died in 1927.

 

We will, as will Europe and the UK, China and Asia and the rest of the world. Indonesia is about to start building thier own electric vehicles.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Au...petition-heats-up-with-VinFast-and-BYD-debuts

Jakarta is one of the most polluted cities in the world - they are welcoming the electric revolution

Meanwhile in America………

 

But science doesn’t change if the scientist does

 

Been there done that!

 

Really?
“Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

Just some pertinent information on “progress” and stumbling in wakes.





One would also have to define what a “greener” future is. That can mean different things. Is it actually more plant life “greenery” or something else?

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/ad5a7c1b046de23d2543985f87ae0bee

 

I guess we're just not that stupid to blindly follow the crowd.

 

Hmmm.

https://climateactiontracker.org/co...fleet of newly,which are not Paris compatible.

https://netzeroprofessional.com/worlds-worst-countries-driving-deforestation/

What exactly is your goal on the environment? More deforestation and more emissions?

 

And 0.04% (420PPM)n is IN ACCESS? particularly a substance that creates growth in plants, e.g. CO2?

 

Again ancient quotes and ONE persons opinion

Do you believe that women have no role in science? I mean it is on the table because you keep quoting from eras before women became a significant part of the scientific workforce, you are quoting from an era before there was social media, globalisation of scientific findings, acknowledgement and regular use of meta data heck! This even predates significant computerisation! Plank died in 1947! Back then there were a handful of Americans and Europeans working in fields such as his so confirmation was more probable than today where the scientific community is spread across multiple nations, where academia is has embedded rigor and ideas can and are exchanged across multiple institutions in multiple countries

 

Green apparently doesn’t mean green anymore. I remember back in the day environmentalists wanted a greener planet—for real. I’m not sure what the term “green” means anymore.

 

This seems to assume per capita GDP and CO2 have a mathematical relationship. I'm not sure that's valid.

 

Many assume they are directly correlated. They aren’t. Although fossil fuel usage can certainly increase GDP.

The main point is the US has decreased emissions far more than Australia while maintaining GDP growth. The other poster seems to believe Australia is “leading” the US when it’s quite the opposite—if reducing emissions is the goal.

 

If everything were a pollutant then none would be, of course. That is a linguistic basic, a facile truism. Who said everything is a pollutant?

 

You have a penchant for dismissing the views of Nobelists. Does that extend to Marie Curie (1903)?
Some wisdom is eternal. I still return to The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius regularly.

 

You, @Bowerbird, several people.

CO2 is a pollutant!

Water is a pollutant!

According to you the word "pollutant" has become meaningless.

 

California leads the way!
Why gas prices in California 'have gone ballistic'

 

No post of mine ever said everything is a pollutant. The manner in which CO2 can be, and is recognized to be, a pollutant has been clearly laid out. What is your interest is trying to expunge this molecule of any and all ill?

 

What is your interest in vilifying it?

 

It is the warmist/alarmists who push the insane idea that CO2 is a pollutant while the Plant and life on it strongly disagree as this NASA provided 8 years ago this month shows,


Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

LINK

 

Yep. Optimal atmospheric CO2 levels for plant growth are about 3 times greater than the atmospheric CO2 levels today. That’s not an accident or coincidence.

 

But it's not a pollutant. The EPA won't even call it a pollutant.

My interest in clarification is that regulating it as a pollutant is illogical, deceitful, and destructive to humanity. It's literally how elites plan on eliminating the inconvenient lesser populations of the world.

And you're endorsing that destruction.

 

Not at all.