Stav, Climate Change...

VisKop,

The point is, you have no idea how far away we are from being able to make the transition. 

A shift equivalentl to the industrial revolution doesn't cover it. From manufacturing to agriculture and construction, everything will need to be overhauled virtually from the ground up. 

EG The up-front CO2 cost of manufacturing a rechargeable battery is exorbitant. Meaning solar power is, at most scales, unviable.  

Between now and meaningfully reducing CO2, there's a world of political fuckery that awaits. 

US politics being just one current example.

I guess I didn't make that obvious enough for you. 

Like Moz says, if they were serious, investment in and implementation of nuclear would be squarely in the spotlight. 

But it's not about that.

It's about political leverage and taxation. 

As everything always is.

The most ardent supporters will want a timeline that is not reasonable. (e.g. the Green party). 

However, someone running a country has a GDP responsibility, and will not compromise that.
If the economy is in decline, they will probably not get re-elected. 

Biden is going for 2050, not 2030. More realistic. 

https://www.investopedia.com/the-green-new-deal-explained-4588463

Biden's Clean Energy Revolution

Although Joe Biden has refused to fully endorse the Green New Deal, his running mate, Kamala Harris was an original sponsor. Harris, however, says she fully supports the Biden climate plan. Called "A Clean Energy Revolution," the plan has many of the same goals as the Green New Deal but on a le ss ambitious time frame and at a lower cost.

For example, the Green New Deal aspires to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% clean, renewable energy sources by 2030.
Biden's plan achieves that goal by 2050.

The Green New Deal is estimated to cost about $93 trillion to implement.
The proposed Biden plan would involve a Federal government investment of $1.7 trillion and private sector, state, and local buy-in of about $5 trillion.

"The evidence is thin...  temps increased in almost exactly the same way 1905 to 1940 when carbon increase was 5% of what it is today.

There is no global thermometer, is this too hard for you.... a multiplicity of ever changing thermometers is not a global thermometer."

LOL nice contradiction. You cite temp increases between 1905-1940 but then in the very next paragraph you say "there is no global thermometer", if there was is global thermometer in the modern era are you saying there was one in 1905-1940?

Also the premise that temperature increased in almost exactly the same way to the current warming period is simply wrong.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm

"The Carbon footprint is 100% up front, if the energy to charge the battery and build the car come from non carbon sources.....you don’t even know your own side’s arguments."

How can there be a carbon footprint if both the energy to charge the battery and build the car are coming from non carbon sources?

"As for your claim up front costs are the same petrol/electric.The initial up front  carbon costs of the car itself are about the same ....but the battery makes for up to  twice the initial carbon footprint for an electric car. Educate yourself before you debate."

The upfront carbon cost on a electric car including battery depends on what kind of energy grid is powering the manufacturer processing, so it can vary from country to country.

No early twentieth century  warming is not wrong ...it was the ’hockey stick’ long before CO2 increased significantly.

The energy to charge the battery during use....the energy to build the battery is a net carbon addition, if that energy comes from a non carbon source it’s not a factor. But for the moment most energy will be coming from a carbon source

Right now big battery plants are planned  in the China, US, Germany and  the UK.....where renewables account for 26.7%, 17%, 34% and 35% respectively.

VisKop,

I'm think your knowledge on this is only as deep as the political spin on the subject is. 

In other words, you really have no idea what reasonable expectations as regards CO2 emissions are. From both a technological and geopolitical perspe ctive, you're probably pretty clueless. 

You'll be happy to know that room temperature superconductors are now proven. I'll leave it to you figure out why that's good news. 

Still it's all for 0 if a 3km diameter asteroid strikes us tomorrow. And until then we should probably just hope no super volcano erupts either. 

Stop global warming at ALL costs, right?

LOL

VisKop,

Go and work out what 90 trillion divided by the U.S. population is.

"No early twentieth century  warming is not wrong ...it was the ’hockey stick’ long before CO2 increased significantly."

Early twentieth century warming did occur, but it occurred because of primarily natural causes in addition to smaller man made causes. However the warming was not as large or as rapid as the current warming.

It doesn't matter how many time you repeat the claim, its simply not true.

You have also yet to explain why you believe early 20th century temperature readings are more accurate than current temperature readings.

"The energy to charge the battery during use....the energy to build the battery is a net carbon addition, if that energy comes from a non carbon source it’s not a factor. But for the moment most energy will be coming from a carbon source"

The energy to charge the battery during use is not an upfront cost. The energy to build the battery is an upfront cost, but how much of an upfront cost depends on the energy source used build the entire car and battery. There also can be difference between the energy source used to build the car and energy sources used to power the car (a car could be exported after manufacturer) so the upfront cost can vary greatly. A electric car built in China and used in China will not have anything close to a 100% upfront emission cost as both its manufacture and charging will likely be primarily driven by a coal powered electricity grid, meaning emissions from charging the car will be much greater than the upfront cost . If that car was exported to somewhere where the electric grid comes from greener energy sources, then yes the upfront cost will rise and perhaps have the majority of emissions but still not close to 100%.

"Right now big battery plants are planned  in the China, US, Germany and  the UK.....where renewables account for 26.7%, 17%, 34% and 35% respectively."

Yes but there is substantial difference between China's and America's energy grids. China's is powered to a much greater degree by coal which produces considerably more CO2 than America's electric grid which is power slightly more by natural gas than coal. There is also the fact that all these countries are moving to more greener energy sources and those percentages are only going to increase. There is also ongoing research and development into making the manufacturer of electric car battery's less energy intensive. So the upfront and total emission cost from electric cars is only going to go down as time progresses.

The temperature went up 0.4 degrees for natural reasons between 1905 and 1945.....so the 1.2 degree temp increase since the Industrial Revolution has  At Most  a 0.8 degree man made component.

But if temps were going up naturally in the first half of the 20th century the phenomenon likely never disappeared promptly in  1945.

So maybe man made warming is 0.5 of a degree.....not the calamity the weathermen claim.

You seem very confused about electric cars. It’s quite simple both electric and conventional cars have an upfront carbon cost. How much depends on the energy sources.

In addition the Electric car also has an upfront energy cost, about as big, to build the battery. So when a new electric car goes into use it has that additional upfront carbon cost.....paid for in carbon by lower carbon in use.

But if the electric car replaces a functioning petrol car....it’s carbon cost for the car and the battery are new charges to the system. Thus a concerted effort to retire petrol cars precipitates a large upfront carbon cost which will take years to pay.

I also wonder how these battery  vs petrol Tests are run.....what size battery and how is it used. The intellectual dishonesty that has characterized this debate suggests everything will be slanted in favour of batteries.

There now you know a little more.