Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the a-Republican-speaking-sense-to-other-Republicans-and-others dept.

The Center for American Progress reports:

Arnold Schwarzenegger posted a note on Facebook on [December 7] that made a very good point about climate change and renewable energy: It really doesn't matter what you believe.

The former California governor addressed people who think climate change is a conspiracy or a hoax, and asked them whether the deaths from pollution are acceptable, whether fossil fuels will last forever, and--to paraphrase greatly--what kind of world they want to live in. This excerpt pretty much sums up his argument to climate deniers.

There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.

I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.

I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice--who would ever want to breathe those fumes?

It's a strong point, but even more importantly, it's a bipartisan point. We are in an era where addressing climate change is largely split down party lines, especially in Congress. Moderate Republicans like Schwarzenegger, who believe a healthy environment and climate are public goods, haven't yet been able to sway people who think that clean energy is going to kill the economy.

But Schwarzenegger should know that a green economy can work. As governor of California, he worked with the Democratic-led legislature to enact the nation's first comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reduction law and the nation's first low-carbon fuel standard. Now California is the nation's leader in both solar installations and solar jobs.

2 nitpicks: If it's electric, it's called a motor, not an engine. "Power plant" would have been more apt.
The electric car would need a way to allow the wheels to turn without the car going anywhere.
...and if the gasoline car's engine is "running full blast", you'll need a load (dynamometer).
Otherwise: Brilliant.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by iWantToKeepAnon on Sunday December 13 2015, @08:15PM

    by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Sunday December 13 2015, @08:15PM (#275840) Homepage Journal

    Also Behind Door Number Two ...

    ... is a coal burning power plant.

    ... is a nuclear reactor

    ... is a wind turbine ... well not so much because there'd be no wind in the room.

    By putting the power generator out of the room doesn't mean it comes free. Yes I know there are "green energies" but until it becomes the majority of energy people put in their electric cars, it just a shell(tm) game. Those "electric engines" aren't running on altruism.

    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Troll=1, Insightful=5, Overrated=1, Total=7
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @08:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @08:28PM (#275841)

    Not really since the stats show a greater and greater use of renewable energy sources which will mean less pollution. If we keep gas powered cars then renewable energy can only go so far to clean things up. All modern technology results in pollution, but oil is far and away one of the biggest polluters.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 15 2015, @12:10AM

      by Freeman (732) on Tuesday December 15 2015, @12:10AM (#276420) Journal

      When you say greater and greater. You mean 1 - 2 % more market share this year, right? As opposed to a more significant change, which you are implying, but isn't actually happening. Don't get me wrong, I love the thought of harnessing that nuclear reactor in the sky, but it's not economically viable yet. There's also a huge uphill battle against the entrenched power industry. Shouting at the top of your lungs that the USA is horrible in regards to pollution doesn't make it so. Especially when you compare our worst polluting cities against the worst polluting cities of the world. We are actually doing a pretty decent job. http://waqi.info/ [waqi.info] According to the World Air Quality Information site we are doing a Very Good job compared to Europe and China.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @08:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @08:46PM (#275843)
    Sometimes you need stupid simple strawman arguments for stupid people? Yes it is a strawman argument but it could work for many stupid people.

    Quite often I write what I think is a well written argument, with clear logic, reasoning, citations and links, but nobody reads em, they don't even seem to read my first paragraph. I might even get called names along the way...

    Maybe by the time you fit half the paragraph in their head the first words are overflowing out from various orifices.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Monday December 14 2015, @12:35AM

      by Hyperturtle (2824) on Monday December 14 2015, @12:35AM (#275921)

      Yes --

      Remember, this message was not sent to us because we are high IQ people that are being personally contacted to both critique and implement his vision.

      It was written for the commoner.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @11:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @11:19AM (#276059)

      Your brilliant shit fails to convince so of course it's the readers' fault.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:01PM

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:01PM (#275846) Journal

    The nuke can be just fine if well managed. So can the wind turbine. Even the coal plant can be less problem since it's easier to clean the emissions of a stationary power source and they run at a much higher efficiency (though that gets lost in transmission so it's more of a wash).

    But a big advantage is that as we upgrade our mas power production, electric vehicles share the upgrade for free.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:41PM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:41PM (#275859) Journal

      But a big advantage is that as we upgrade our mas power production, electric vehicles share the upgrade for free.

      Well said.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by r1348 on Sunday December 13 2015, @11:30PM

    by r1348 (5988) on Sunday December 13 2015, @11:30PM (#275897)

    You did not get the point, or at least, you didn't scale up to it. The sealed room represents a closed system like our planet, the car engines are the way we use energy.

    • (Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Monday December 14 2015, @04:50PM

      by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Monday December 14 2015, @04:50PM (#276177) Homepage Journal

      You did not get the point, or at least, you didn't scale up to it. The sealed room represents a closed system like our planet, the car engines are the way we use energy.

      I got the point exactly which is why the missing power source for room #2 is so conspicuous! That's why this IS a strawman argument, he set up the Environment Hating Gas Burners and ran a bayonet through them while holding up the peace loving Environment Loving EC drivers.

      Don't misunderstand my comment tho, I live close to work and drive far less than my peers and I drive a very efficient car. I'd love to have a Tesla; once they get into my price range. But I don't think tricking people into caring is the right way. Once people find out they've been tricked, there could be a backlash worse than taking the time to convince them in the first place.

      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday December 14 2015, @06:50PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday December 14 2015, @06:50PM (#276248) Journal

        You still miss the point. It's not about cars, it's about the entire system. The cars are just an analogy. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's not "Everyone go buy electric cars! No pollution!" -- it's "Hey, maybe we should switch to technology that pollutes less, because we're trapped in here with whatever pollution we produce."

        And if you want to get really technical, you can't say the power source is missing because *he didn't specify which model of cars*. You can find electric cars with solar panels at least. Sure, the ones fully powered by the solar panels aren't ones you'd be driving around town on a daily basis...but they're still electric cars. So at worst, it's rather vague. Which is generally what you'd expect for a metaphor...

        • (Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Tuesday December 15 2015, @09:27PM

          by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Tuesday December 15 2015, @09:27PM (#276815) Homepage Journal
          Ahh, YOU still think I miss the point. "because *he didn't specify which model of cars*"; but he did. In implying the gas car is functional he also implies the electric car is the same. Anything different and the argument is more fubar that it already is.
          --
          "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:34PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:34PM (#277182) Journal

            And I gave an example of a functional electric car. I don't see your point...

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VanessaE on Monday December 14 2015, @04:49AM

    by VanessaE (3396) <vanessa.e.dannenberg@gmail.com> on Monday December 14 2015, @04:49AM (#275982) Journal

    Ok let's take this to its logical conclusion:

    Assume you've pushed a brand spankin' new, fully-built, fully-equipped, ready-to-operate car into each room, with all of the accessories each would ordinarily come supplied with on the retail market (e.g. the electric comes with its charge cable, the ICE comes with a set of jumper cables, etc). There is one caveat: both cars are empty -- the ICE has zero fuel and the electric has a totally flat battery. Further assume the two rooms have dynos so that the cars can both be run at maximum (safe) load., and that both have lots of windows and skylights (and low-power electric service for nighttime lighting).

    Now, you have to put everything into those rooms that is necessary to get those cars running and keep them going until they break down, someone dies, or the test is otherwise declared "finished".

    Both cars of course need tires, battery electrolyte, and perhaps brake fluid, but we can safely assume both cars use these at the same rates (if at all). The electric car presumably needs a fluid-based battery cooling system, but those are sealed and hence non-consumable.

    Since none of the machinery is turned on and no fuel or electric is allowed to be produced until the rooms have been sealed, you aren't allowed to vent any waste gasses out of the room.

    Your ICE will need fuel, so lets go as green as possible: let's put in one of those bio-diesel production devices (the ones the size of a conventional "gas pump"), a supply of cooking oil and chemicals to process it, and storage areas for the byproducts and waste from that production process. Like the electric car, we're allowed to take as long as we want to produce the fuel, and one of those standalone generators surely doesn't use much power, so let's use solar concentrators at the windows, Stirling engines, and conventional generators to run it. You'll probably need some engine oil eventually, but it can be made from vegetable oil also, so let's do a little hand-waving and say that the bio-diesel device makes it as a side effect of its fuel-production process.

    The electric car doesn't consume any of the above petroleum products. What it still needs, however, is in-the-room power facilities, as with the ICE room. We're not allowed to draw from the room's electric service, but since we're allowed to take as long as we want to get the car running, we can also go with the same solar/Stirling/generator set-up as the ICE room has.

    Now start/initiate both cars and stomp on the accelerator.

    The electric is just...running. About all it's producing as "waste" is heat.

    The ICE, meanwhile, is producing carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, low levels nitrogen oxides, a tiny amount of soot, and a lot of heat.

    No matter how far down the production chain you go, the electric is still cleaner.

  • (Score: 2) by skater on Monday December 14 2015, @01:04PM

    by skater (4342) on Monday December 14 2015, @01:04PM (#276088) Journal

    Read the comments. There's a guy claiming pollution is fine "as long as the room is large enough". And, "We need fusion power." No word on how fusion power is going to be useful in a car. I assume it's either using electric cars, which he seemed to be against, or a fusion nuclear reactor in each car.

    Better yet, don't read the comments. Little good comes from reading comments on Facebook and the like.

  • (Score: 2) by Aichon on Monday December 14 2015, @06:23PM

    by Aichon (5059) on Monday December 14 2015, @06:23PM (#276231)

    Yeah. My first thought was similar, but in the other direction, since behind Door Number One would also be the entire carbon dioxide cycle (e.g. trees). And once you take that into consideration, you're pretty much back to square one, since we're back in partisan territory of whether or not we're producing more CO2 than the world can process.

    Not exactly a convincing argument. It's the sort of poor oversimplification that I'd call out, regardless of my agreement or disagreement with it.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday December 14 2015, @06:59PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Monday December 14 2015, @06:59PM (#276252) Journal

      once you take that into consideration, you're pretty much back to square one, since we're back in partisan territory of whether or not we're producing more CO2 than the world can process.

      I think you're missing the point of the argument.

      Maybe the trees will clean it up. Maybe not. But you know what you don't often find in the middle of a city? Massive forests. You know what you do find? Lots of people, and lots of pollution. So sure, maybe that pollution gets cleaned up eventually. But probably only after being filtered through many human lungs.

      The reason it says this argument "Republican-Proof" is because global warming doesn't matter. Whether or not the trees will clean it up doesn't matter. You're still breathing all that crap. Although this is hardly a new argument -- I think this was pretty much the original ecological argument. "Don't spoil the view" environmentalism.

      • (Score: 2) by Aichon on Monday December 14 2015, @07:23PM

        by Aichon (5059) on Monday December 14 2015, @07:23PM (#276265)

        Maybe I am missing the point, but if so, I'd suggest it's a point not worth making, since I'd argue that whether or not we breathe it is irrelevant to anyone who understands even elementary-level science (which, admittedly, may be more than we can ask of the people at whom he's targeting his remarks). The simple truth is that we've always breathed it, we're currently breathing it, and we'll always breathe it. CO2 is a necessary part of the ecosystem that keeps the things alive that keep us alive. The only question is how much the amount of it will change over time, and for that, you need to consider the entire ecosystem, which gets into partisan territory, as I said.

        Arguments along the lines of "you wouldn't want to be locked in a room with a massive overdose of $RANDOM_SUBSTANCE, so why would you allow yourself to be exposed to it at all?" are roughly on par with Buzzfeed-esque "did you know that $FAVORITE_FOOD contains a chemical that's also used in [cosmetics|fertilizers|plastics]?" when it comes to how highly I esteem their scientific rigor.

        In the end, his analogy is a simplistic argument aimed at simple-minded people. For them, it may work, but what we need are simple arguments, not simplistic arguments.