80 Series carbon footprint - I lose (1 Viewer)

[gungriffin]

It's laughable that people believe they are helping the environment with their new eco high mpg cars they lease new every two or three years or buy. A lot of the cars made these days are basically throw aways after 5-6 years commuting. People get a new car and that used one isn't worth a damn to fix up. As mentioned prior, there is something to be said for "recycling" a good quality used vehicle.

I can think of very few simple cars that are truly disposable at present. There are so many Toyotas that will still do some serious mileage before any major issues take them off the road. The issue with so many luxury cars is all the crap they put on for amenities. Keeping electric cars on the road should be even easier once we reach a tipping point in battery life. We are pretty close right now. Many of the Tesla batteries are keeping over 80% capacity after over 300k miles. All the fancy screens they are putting in? Those don't hold up as well.

That said, so many people still buy a new car at the first opportunity. Why not have a car payment when you could have a car payment and a new car?

 

[nukegoat]

I own a Landcruiser and a Prius!

View attachment 2184141

Didn't that 16

It's laughable that people believe they are helping the environment with their new eco high mpg cars they lease new every two or three years or buy. A lot of the cars made these days are basically throw aways after 5-6 years commuting. People get a new car and that used one isn't worth a damn to fix up. As mentioned prior, there is something to be said for "recycling" a good quality used vehicle.

Cars are throwaway? What

 

[sogafarm]

Tell your eco maniac friend that I've got you covered on your carbon footprint. I have a tree farm that will offset your carbon output. Hell, I've got enough trees to offset everyone on MUD. So everyone just let the carbon nazi's know you are all covered.

Trees breath in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. The greenies that live in cities expell more carbon and produce no oxygen so they are the real problem.

 

[musthave]

As I sat in the parking lot today outside of the office building I estimated that there are probably 600 vehicles.

Sitting in a 1995 Land Cruiser I surmised that I probably had the oldest vehicle present.

Having almost 230,000 miles on the cruiser I also surmised that I probably had more miles on my vehicle than any other present.

I then said to myself, self, 10 years from now most of these vehicles will be permanently retired or recycled. Perhaps 50 of them will still be on the road. And as I sat with the windows down and AC running I thought about it for a minute and concluded that in 10 years it is likely that the Land Cruiser will still be on the road and running fine.

She’ll turn 35 in 2030. Easily surpassing others.

 

[Jgrauman]

As I sat in the parking lot today outside of the office building I estimated that there are probably 600 vehicles.

Sitting in a 1995 Land Cruiser I surmised that I probably had the oldest vehicle present.

Having almost 230,000 miles on the cruiser I also surmised that I probably had more miles on my vehicle than any other present.

I then said to myself, self, 10 years from now most of these vehicles will be permanently retired or recycled. Perhaps 50 of them will still be on the road. And as I sat with the windows down and AC running I thought about it for a minute and concluded that in 10 years it is likely that the Land Cruiser will still be on the road and running fine.

She’ll turn 35 in 2030. Easily surpassing others.

I agree. We have a fleet of 150 vehicles. Fords and dodges. They cannot be on our fleet for more than 8 years until we have to buy new ones. The 2018, 19 and 20 dodges we just bought (about 50) have so many issues we are worried they won't make it out of the warranty period let alone 8 years. Coming from the factory with CEL already on, door sensors not lined up, and tires that haven't made it 10k miles. Talked with a Ford rep 2 years ago about their "lifetime brakes" he said most of their customers don't keep the cars long enough to use it once. People now a days keep a car payment, keep a house payment, they just live with it like it's part of life. Supply will meet demand. Of everyone wants something new every three years then the quality will go down to maximize profits if people will still pay the premium price for new. Housing market is no different. The junk they are mass producing as "custom homes" is ridiculous, but hey, people pay for it so they can have granite counter tops and shiplap

 

[ZackR]

Send her this link, especially if she wears "fast fashion" clothing:

The fashion industry is responsible for 10 % of annual global carbon emissions, more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. At this pace, the fashion industry’s greenhouse gas emissions will surge more than 50 % by 2030.

Related - It's not easy to throw down $100 for a nice US made sweatshirt but its worth it. I've had mine for years and its truly something that will last. Once the cuffs start to wear out and it no longer looks new (~5+ years of heavy use) it transitions into a shop/garage/firewood sweatshirt that I don't mind getting dirty.

About Us

 

[LandCruisinMy93]

I wouldn't tell her anything ot try to quantify anything. No matter how good your data or how convincing your argument is, she is too brainwashed and unable to form her own opinion that it won't matter. She will nod her head but not listen to what you're saying. She sounds like the kind of person who only acknowledges you're talking while she is thinking of a rebuttle or what she'll say next.

However, if you choose to broach the subject. Tell her to consider how much steel and aluminum went into making both vehicles. Then consider that a certain percentage of both is recycled material. Land cruisers are primarily these 2 things. Then fuel and oil.

Then she needs to consider how much copper is mined to make a single electric motor for her car. Then how much coal is burned to provide massive strip mining shovel the electricity necessary to get enough ore to make that copper. Then how much fuel is used by the massive ore trucks transporting that ore. How much more coal powered electricity is used to smelt that ore and how much coal powered electricity is used to turn it into the wire and then all of the other manufacturing that goes into making the motor.

Then mention how much more plastic is in her eco-friendly car and how much oil and byproducts of oil were used to make that plastic. How much fuel was used by the oil platform and how much by the oil tanker to get it to land, loaded in trucks etc...yes land cruisers use that oil also. However, her car uses lithium batteries, ask her how much coal was burned by the strip mining shovel, and refinery to make that lithium useable, and how much fuel was burned by the ore trucks and material transport trucks to get it to the factories that make the batteries. Tack in fuel for the trucks taking batteries to the retailer and then to get the batteries to the plant assembling the car. All for for her 7 year battery.

Then tell her to look at the way the batteries are made and the irresponsible and irreversible environmental practices that accompany that batteries manufacture.

Hell, show her a picture of a lithium mine and a copper mine.

A land cruiser paid for its carbon footprint well over a decade ago...that's if it was a 97. Her turd of a car will never pay off its carbon footprint because 3+ years before it does it will require another battery if all other components are still operable. That will add another 7 or so years to the cars life and another several to its footprint. Not to mention how much coal powered electricity she is soaking up every time she plugs in.

I absolutely hate these uneducated group think leftist window lickers with their better than thow attitudes. Is it too much to ask for these idiots to do their own research and form their own opinions?

 

[mudgudgeon]

I wouldn't tell her anything ot try to quantify anything. No matter how good your data or how convincing your argument is, she is too brainwashed and unable to form her own opinion that it won't matter. She will nod her head but not listen to what you're saying. She sounds like the kind of person who only acknowledges you're talking while she is thinking of a rebuttle or what she'll say next.

However, if you choose to broach the subject. Tell her to consider how much steel and aluminum went into making both vehicles. Then consider that a certain percentage of both is recycled material. Land cruisers are primarily these 2 things. Then fuel and oil.

Then she needs to consider how much copper is mined to make a single electric motor for her car. Then how much coal is burned to provide massive strip mining shovel the electricity necessary to get enough ore to make that copper. Then how much fuel is used by the massive ore trucks transporting that ore. How much more coal powered electricity is used to smelt that ore and how much coal powered electricity is used to turn it into the wire and then all of the other manufacturing that goes into making the motor.

Then mention how much more plastic is in her eco-friendly car and how much oil and byproducts of oil were used to make that plastic. How much fuel was used by the oil platform and how much by the oil tanker to get it to land, loaded in trucks etc...yes land cruisers use that oil also. However, her car uses lithium batteries, ask her how much coal was burned by the strip mining shovel, and refinery to make that lithium useable, and how much fuel was burned by the ore trucks and material transport trucks to get it to the factories that make the batteries. Tack in fuel for the trucks taking batteries to the retailer and then to get the batteries to the plant assembling the car. All for for her 7 year battery.

Then tell her to look at the way the batteries are made and the irresponsible and irreversible environmental practices that accompany that batteries manufacture.

Hell, show her a picture of a lithium mine and a copper mine.

A land cruiser paid for its carbon footprint well over a decade ago...that's if it was a 97. Her turd of a car will never pay off its carbon footprint because 3+ years before it does it will require another battery if all other components are still operable. That will add another 7 or so years to the cars life and another several to its footprint. Not to mention how much coal powered electricity she is soaking up every time she plugs in.

I absolutely hate these uneducated group think leftist window lickers with their better than thow attitudes. Is it too much to ask for these idiots to do their own research and form their own opinions?

I think along exactly the same lines. So much of the green militant group are selective in what they choose to listen to and acknowledge.
People conveniently ignore the resources that go into sourcing and processing the raw materials.

Same is true with things like solar and wind powered between electricity generation.

Both my uncle and brother were involved with major electrical utility companies. My uncle as an engineer responsible for developing and managing maintenance program for wind turbine installations. My brother as a financial analyst assessing commercial financial viability of wind turbine installations.
Both had strong opinions that they weren't commercial viable without significant government subsidy, and that in terms of whole of life, green credentials were questionable too because of the energy required to manufacture and maintain them.

 

[chapel gate]

Manufacturing a car creates as much carbon as driving it

 

[Dork]

Let people drive their electric vehicles and don't get into arguments about it because arguing about climate change is worse than arguing about politics.

Yes, driving an old vehicle is better thanks to removing the production factor, but as was mentioned earlier, if you really cared you could be driving a 25 year old vw golf.

The people who are buying brand new electric vehicles are NOT the same people who are driving old cars anyway, they are the people who are choosing between a couple of different NEW cars. An electric vehicle built in 2020 will, over its expected average first owner life span, be better for the environment than an ice vehicle built in 2020. The more people that buy and drive electric vehicles, the cheaper the technology becomes, then more people can afford to use them, the better it will perform, and the better it all is for the environment. The more electric cars that are on the road will also lead to better recycling practices for batteries and such. Your local electric grid will also continue to get better (unless your people in charge are truly retarded). There is really no GOOD argument against electric vehicles.

As electrification of vehicles improves, so will swap in electric drive trains. By the time the motor in my land cruiser kicks the bucket, I'd like to think a swap with instant, always available maximum torque, infinitely and smoothly adjustable to whichever wheel I want it at, with much better range and improved charging infrastructure will be an affordable reality.

In the meantime, encourage others to do their part. Getting into pissing contests with people who are trying to do as good thing is pointless.

 

[SHREDwagon]

An electric vehicle built in 2020 will, over its expected average first owner life span, be better for the environment than an ice vehicle built in 2020.

What if only half of North Amercians went EVs because of the environmental marketing.....

POWER - not enough in the grid. Requiring more nuclear reactors, hydro projects and transmission infrastructure. Has this "footprint" been taken into account in the lifespan? (Site C is currently being built to supply smartphones and laptops!)

SOVEREIGNTY - China would become the new OPEC controlling 99% of the global rare earth minerals and building most of the Li batteries. Would this be wise?

WASTE - is mining minerals really that better for the environment than fossil fuels? What does China do with all the waste and emissions from factories? What to do with all the spent cells?

 

[Dork]

What if only half of North Amercians went EVs because of the environmental marketing.....

POWER - not enough in the grid. Requiring more nuclear reactors, hydro projects and transmission infrastructure. Has this "footprint" been taken into account in the lifespan? (Site C is currently being built to supply smartphones and laptops!)

SOVEREIGNTY - China would become the new OPEC controlling 99% of the global rare earth minerals and building most of the Li batteries. Would this be wise?

WASTE - is mining minerals really that better for the environment than fossil fuels? What does China do with all the waste and emissions from factories? What to do with all the spent cells?

Hey, thanks for not reading. Allow me to quote myself:

The more people that buy and drive electric vehicles, the cheaper the technology becomes, then more people can afford to use them, the better it will perform, and the better it all is for the environment. The more electric cars that are on the road will also lead to better recycling practices for batteries and such. Your local electric grid will also continue to get better (unless your people in charge are truly retarded). There is really no GOOD argument against electric vehicles.

Getting half of the hundreds of millions cars on the road in NA to become electric isn't something that will happen overnight. It's going to take years. The industries surrounding it will develop and mature as long as the profit is there to be had. Almost every argument against electric vehicles relies on the idea that this relatively new technology isn't going to improve or change in any way.

It took us 150 years of burning fossil fuels to get to this point, but since a better solution isn't perfect yet, it's all a waste of time and nobody should bother?

Regarding China, how come when American capitalists want to use china to build all the cheap disposable goods that it can in order to sell and convince western citizens they are happy, its a good thing. But decades later when the Chinese start using all that money and power you so willingly sent them, it's suddenly a bad thing? Reap what you sow.

 

[SHREDwagon]

Man, I thought we would be flying
Cars by 2020. If we have a 500 year reserve of LNG with infrastructure already in-place, are electric motors a "greener" technology to develop? Maybe a hybrid is.

 

[Dork]

Man, I thought we would be flying cars by 2020. Point being that there's alot of planning to be done and power generation infrastructure to be built before it's truly viable. And that this carbon footprint is not really accounted for in the utopia you described. True-cost economics includes resource extraction, and there's no environmental benefit at this level. I'm no expert, but you stated there was no downside to EV tech and there seems to be plenty.

So what's the alternative - Is there a better option than electric for those of us in Northern climates who cannot plaster are roofs with solar? If we have a 500 year reserve of LNG with infrastructure already in-place, are electric motors a "greener" technology to develop? Maybe a hybrid is.

Hey, if industries were looking into the future, instead of just doing what was easy and made lots of money, maybe I WOULD have had my jetpack by now?

 

[Rifleman]

China would become the new OPEC controlling 99% of the global rare earth minerals

I've read were that statement is not quite accurate. The USA has lots of rare earth minerals, and the USA had it's own mining, and processing operations too. The only thing that keeps the USA's mines from being operational now, along with being profitable, is all the environmental laws, and regulations that the USA's mines have to operate under, that China's don't. Reverse those regulations, and the USA's mines would be back in operation within 6 months to a year.

 

[mtrdud]

I don't ritely give a sh*t. I won't live that long.

 

[BILT4ME]

Why is this in tech?