hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 71 of 101 FirstFirst ... 21616869707172737481 ... LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,420 of 2010

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #1401
    Movember 2012 I Legionnaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,912
    RIP Nebraska. It sounds like they got a ton of snowfall last week, which promptly melted once things heated up.


  2. #1402
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,953
    RIP? All I see is a lush land brimming with life after winter.

    Maybe if you live in lowlands you should have flood protection? But that would never fly in America, obviously.

    "Nothing we could have done" "It was part of God's plan" "We don't have the money" etc

  3. #1403
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Maybe if you live in lowlands you should have flood protection?
    What if you build air bases in lowlands?
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Home Of Strategic Command And Some Of The USAF's Most Prized Aircraft Is Flooding
    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...ft-is-flooding


  4. #1404

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,777
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I’m just going to point out that your point by point quoting style is impossible to respond to in a efficient way.i have no rebuttal that doesn't make me look like a complete moron, so lets change the topic.
    there m8, fixed your post.
    :slowclap:

    Well done. My city has more people in it than your country, but sure. Keep thinking every problem is a nail.
    And our country has more German-speaking people than your city ... which is just as related to the problem we're talking about than the point you made. What the hell has city-size with wind turbines and potential impact on migratory birds to do?
    Really?

    The number of homes you are trying to service has nothing to do with the size of the wind farm you need to service them?

    Think about your question for a second.
    Think about your answer for a second.

    It takes room to set up those energy providers (wind, solar, water, whatever). And your answer (population) is indeed part of the equation. But only a part. The question is, is there enough space to build the necessary capacity? And therefore the population density is a better number to look at. Incidentally, Wiki provides a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

    Now let's see where Denmark and the USA rank there:

    64. Denmark, 135 (pop/km²)
    [...]
    146. USA, 33 (pop/km²)

  5. #1405

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    7,228
    I am getting so fukin sick of all these doom reports in the media. Yes, we know we have a problem, no the world wont end, yes humans need to adjust. Fukin adjust allready. It might be because i am dutch and my country has been doing this for centuries but do what is needed.

    Stop blaming everything on climate change as if we cant do fuckall. The predictions of worst conditions are one of decades to even 300 years out.

    We can do much in a lot of places to at a minimum delay or stem the tide, again as in holland, start doing that. It takes money and political will. It wont work miracles and wont work in every place. Just go do it.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  6. #1406
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,432
    >Complaining about the media

    Looks like the situationists were right again!
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  7. #1407
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I’m just going to point out that your point by point quoting style is impossible to respond to in a efficient way.i have no rebuttal that doesn't make me look like a complete moron, so lets change the topic.
    there m8, fixed your post.
    :slowclap:

    Well done. My city has more people in it than your country, but sure. Keep thinking every problem is a nail.
    And our country has more German-speaking people than your city ... which is just as related to the problem we're talking about than the point you made. What the hell has city-size with wind turbines and potential impact on migratory birds to do?
    Really?

    The number of homes you are trying to service has nothing to do with the size of the wind farm you need to service them?

    Think about your question for a second.
    Think about your answer for a second.

    It takes room to set up those energy providers (wind, solar, water, whatever). And your answer (population) is indeed part of the equation. But only a part. The question is, is there enough space to build the necessary capacity? And therefore the population density is a better number to look at. Incidentally, Wiki provides a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

    Now let's see where Denmark and the USA rank there:

    64. Denmark, 135 (pop/km²)
    [...]
    146. USA, 33 (pop/km²)
    Fuck, you can't be this dense.

    California: 246 pop/km²

    Bay Area, California, which included the 9 county area the Altamont windfarm services: 425.7 pop/km²

    I mean, 33 people might be true in like, Shithole, North Dakota, but then no one lives there for a reason and putting a windfarm there would be fucking useless, because the people live 1000s of miles away.
    meh

  8. #1408

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,777
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I’m just going to point out that your point by point quoting style is impossible to respond to in a efficient way.i have no rebuttal that doesn't make me look like a complete moron, so lets change the topic.
    there m8, fixed your post.
    :slowclap:

    Well done. My city has more people in it than your country, but sure. Keep thinking every problem is a nail.
    And our country has more German-speaking people than your city ... which is just as related to the problem we're talking about than the point you made. What the hell has city-size with wind turbines and potential impact on migratory birds to do?
    Really?

    The number of homes you are trying to service has nothing to do with the size of the wind farm you need to service them?

    Think about your question for a second.
    Think about your answer for a second.

    It takes room to set up those energy providers (wind, solar, water, whatever). And your answer (population) is indeed part of the equation. But only a part. The question is, is there enough space to build the necessary capacity? And therefore the population density is a better number to look at. Incidentally, Wiki provides a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

    Now let's see where Denmark and the USA rank there:

    64. Denmark, 135 (pop/km²)
    [...]
    146. USA, 33 (pop/km²)
    Fuck, you can't be this dense.

    California: 246 pop/km²

    Bay Area, California, which included the 9 county area the Altamont windfarm services: 425.7 pop/km²

    I mean, 33 people might be true in like, Shithole, North Dakota, but then no one lives there for a reason and putting a windfarm there would be fucking useless, because the people live 1000s of miles away.
    You always refer to quite local numbers. I thought by now it is established consent (and therefore known to you too), that climate change is a global problem and therefore also the solutions need to be looked at from a wider angle and at a larger scale. And just to remind you: this debate included the topic of energy distribution (from where its generated to where its consumed), which needs to be an integral part of the whole discussion. So yeah, there's densely populated regions all over the world, commonly referred to as "cities". But there's more uninhabited land on earth than inhabitated.

    I let the fellow reader decide as to who's dense here.

  9. #1409
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I’m just going to point out that your point by point quoting style is impossible to respond to in a efficient way.i have no rebuttal that doesn't make me look like a complete moron, so lets change the topic.
    there m8, fixed your post.
    :slowclap:

    Well done. My city has more people in it than your country, but sure. Keep thinking every problem is a nail.
    And our country has more German-speaking people than your city ... which is just as related to the problem we're talking about than the point you made. What the hell has city-size with wind turbines and potential impact on migratory birds to do?
    Really?

    The number of homes you are trying to service has nothing to do with the size of the wind farm you need to service them?

    Think about your question for a second.
    Think about your answer for a second.

    It takes room to set up those energy providers (wind, solar, water, whatever). And your answer (population) is indeed part of the equation. But only a part. The question is, is there enough space to build the necessary capacity? And therefore the population density is a better number to look at. Incidentally, Wiki provides a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

    Now let's see where Denmark and the USA rank there:

    64. Denmark, 135 (pop/km²)
    [...]
    146. USA, 33 (pop/km²)
    Fuck, you can't be this dense.

    California: 246 pop/km²

    Bay Area, California, which included the 9 county area the Altamont windfarm services: 425.7 pop/km²

    I mean, 33 people might be true in like, Shithole, North Dakota, but then no one lives there for a reason and putting a windfarm there would be fucking useless, because the people live 1000s of miles away.
    You always refer to quite local numbers. I thought by now it is established consent (and therefore known to you too), that climate change is a global problem and therefore also the solutions need to be looked at from a wider angle and at a larger scale. And just to remind you: this debate included the topic of energy distribution (from where its generated to where its consumed), which needs to be an integral part of the whole discussion. So yeah, there's densely populated regions all over the world, commonly referred to as "cities". But there's more uninhabited land on earth than inhabitated.

    I let the fellow reader decide as to who's dense here.
    OK, maybe we can discuss the magic high efficiency energy transmission technology solution that lets you put windfarms in the uninhabited american desert and ship the energy to where the cities are, or did you not comprehend that the biggest windfarm in the world is completely underutilized because the chinese put it 1000s of miles away from their major cities...
    meh

  10. #1410
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    I let the fellow reader decide as to who's dense here.
    You think it isn't, but it's you. Erich is actually right.

  11. #1411

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,777
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I’m just going to point out that your point by point quoting style is impossible to respond to in a efficient way.i have no rebuttal that doesn't make me look like a complete moron, so lets change the topic.
    there m8, fixed your post.
    :slowclap:

    Well done. My city has more people in it than your country, but sure. Keep thinking every problem is a nail.
    And our country has more German-speaking people than your city ... which is just as related to the problem we're talking about than the point you made. What the hell has city-size with wind turbines and potential impact on migratory birds to do?
    Really?

    The number of homes you are trying to service has nothing to do with the size of the wind farm you need to service them?

    Think about your question for a second.
    Think about your answer for a second.

    It takes room to set up those energy providers (wind, solar, water, whatever). And your answer (population) is indeed part of the equation. But only a part. The question is, is there enough space to build the necessary capacity? And therefore the population density is a better number to look at. Incidentally, Wiki provides a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

    Now let's see where Denmark and the USA rank there:

    64. Denmark, 135 (pop/km²)
    [...]
    146. USA, 33 (pop/km²)
    Fuck, you can't be this dense.

    California: 246 pop/km²

    Bay Area, California, which included the 9 county area the Altamont windfarm services: 425.7 pop/km²

    I mean, 33 people might be true in like, Shithole, North Dakota, but then no one lives there for a reason and putting a windfarm there would be fucking useless, because the people live 1000s of miles away.
    You always refer to quite local numbers. I thought by now it is established consent (and therefore known to you too), that climate change is a global problem and therefore also the solutions need to be looked at from a wider angle and at a larger scale. And just to remind you: this debate included the topic of energy distribution (from where its generated to where its consumed), which needs to be an integral part of the whole discussion. So yeah, there's densely populated regions all over the world, commonly referred to as "cities". But there's more uninhabited land on earth than inhabitated.

    I let the fellow reader decide as to who's dense here.
    OK, maybe we can discuss the magic high efficiency energy transmission technology solution that lets you put windfarms in the uninhabited american desert and ship the energy to where the cities are, or did you not comprehend that the biggest windfarm in the world is completely underutilized because the chinese put it 1000s of miles away from their major cities...
    You mean this magical thing like the European Energy Network we in Europe have?
    (Spoilered for large image)
      Spoiler:



  12. #1412
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    10,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I’m just going to point out that your point by point quoting style is impossible to respond to in a efficient way.i have no rebuttal that doesn't make me look like a complete moron, so lets change the topic.
    there m8, fixed your post.
    :slowclap:

    Well done. My city has more people in it than your country, but sure. Keep thinking every problem is a nail.
    And our country has more German-speaking people than your city ... which is just as related to the problem we're talking about than the point you made. What the hell has city-size with wind turbines and potential impact on migratory birds to do?
    Really?

    The number of homes you are trying to service has nothing to do with the size of the wind farm you need to service them?

    Think about your question for a second.
    Think about your answer for a second.

    It takes room to set up those energy providers (wind, solar, water, whatever). And your answer (population) is indeed part of the equation. But only a part. The question is, is there enough space to build the necessary capacity? And therefore the population density is a better number to look at. Incidentally, Wiki provides a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

    Now let's see where Denmark and the USA rank there:

    64. Denmark, 135 (pop/km²)
    [...]
    146. USA, 33 (pop/km²)
    Fuck, you can't be this dense.

    California: 246 pop/km²

    Bay Area, California, which included the 9 county area the Altamont windfarm services: 425.7 pop/km²

    I mean, 33 people might be true in like, Shithole, North Dakota, but then no one lives there for a reason and putting a windfarm there would be fucking useless, because the people live 1000s of miles away.
    You always refer to quite local numbers. I thought by now it is established consent (and therefore known to you too), that climate change is a global problem and therefore also the solutions need to be looked at from a wider angle and at a larger scale. And just to remind you: this debate included the topic of energy distribution (from where its generated to where its consumed), which needs to be an integral part of the whole discussion. So yeah, there's densely populated regions all over the world, commonly referred to as "cities". But there's more uninhabited land on earth than inhabitated.

    I let the fellow reader decide as to who's dense here.
    OK, maybe we can discuss the magic high efficiency energy transmission technology solution that lets you put windfarms in the uninhabited american desert and ship the energy to where the cities are, or did you not comprehend that the biggest windfarm in the world is completely underutilized because the chinese put it 1000s of miles away from their major cities...
    You mean this magical thing like the European Energy Network we in Europe have?
    (Spoilered for large image)
      Spoiler:


    European Energy Network (EnR) is a voluntary network of European energy agencies which aims at promoting sustainable energy good and best practice. EnR strengthens cooperation between members and key European actors on issues concerning sustainable energy.
    so um its a think tank and not an actual energy distribution network?

  13. #1413
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    8,953
    high efficiency energy transmission from tunisia to denmark!

  14. #1414
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    high efficiency energy transmission from tunisia to denmark!
    works in stellaris innit

  15. #1415

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I’m just going to point out that your point by point quoting style is impossible to respond to in a efficient way.i have no rebuttal that doesn't make me look like a complete moron, so lets change the topic.
    there m8, fixed your post.
    :slowclap:

    Well done. My city has more people in it than your country, but sure. Keep thinking every problem is a nail.
    And our country has more German-speaking people than your city ... which is just as related to the problem we're talking about than the point you made. What the hell has city-size with wind turbines and potential impact on migratory birds to do?
    Really?

    The number of homes you are trying to service has nothing to do with the size of the wind farm you need to service them?

    Think about your question for a second.
    Think about your answer for a second.

    It takes room to set up those energy providers (wind, solar, water, whatever). And your answer (population) is indeed part of the equation. But only a part. The question is, is there enough space to build the necessary capacity? And therefore the population density is a better number to look at. Incidentally, Wiki provides a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

    Now let's see where Denmark and the USA rank there:

    64. Denmark, 135 (pop/km²)
    [...]
    146. USA, 33 (pop/km²)
    Fuck, you can't be this dense.

    California: 246 pop/km²

    Bay Area, California, which included the 9 county area the Altamont windfarm services: 425.7 pop/km²

    I mean, 33 people might be true in like, Shithole, North Dakota, but then no one lives there for a reason and putting a windfarm there would be fucking useless, because the people live 1000s of miles away.
    You always refer to quite local numbers. I thought by now it is established consent (and therefore known to you too), that climate change is a global problem and therefore also the solutions need to be looked at from a wider angle and at a larger scale. And just to remind you: this debate included the topic of energy distribution (from where its generated to where its consumed), which needs to be an integral part of the whole discussion. So yeah, there's densely populated regions all over the world, commonly referred to as "cities". But there's more uninhabited land on earth than inhabitated.

    I let the fellow reader decide as to who's dense here.
    OK, maybe we can discuss the magic high efficiency energy transmission technology solution that lets you put windfarms in the uninhabited american desert and ship the energy to where the cities are, or did you not comprehend that the biggest windfarm in the world is completely underutilized because the chinese put it 1000s of miles away from their major cities...
    You mean this magical thing like the European Energy Network we in Europe have?
    (Spoilered for large image)
      Spoiler:


    European Energy Network (EnR) is a voluntary network of European energy agencies which aims at promoting sustainable energy good and best practice. EnR strengthens cooperation between members and key European actors on issues concerning sustainable energy.
    so um its a think tank and not an actual energy distribution network?
    No it isn't. Blame that to my incompetence to google the right English equivalent for Europäisches Verbundsystem (from which the image is taken).

    Das europäische Verbundsystem (EV) ist ein europaweites engmaschiges Stromnetz aus Hoch- und Höchstspannungs-Leitungen zur Verteilung von elektrischer Energie. Es existieren zwar in Europa aufgrund der räumlichen Aufteilung mehrere voneinander getrennte Verbundsysteme, im Allgemeinen wird unter dem europäischen Verbundsystem das zentraleuropäische Verbundnetz jener Länder verstanden, welche die ehemalige Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) umfassen („UCTE-Verbundnetz“).

    Das europäische Verbundsystem wird mit Dreiphasenwechselstrom in Form der Drehstrom-Hochspannungs-Übertragung betrieben, der Austausch von elektrischer Energie erfolgt auf Transportnetzebene mit Hochspannung von 220 kV und 400 kV zwischen den verschiedenen Netzbetreibern. Der Vorteil eines solchen Netzes ist, dass Schwankungen im Verbrauch und in der Erzeugung erheblich besser ausgeglichen werden können, als wenn jedes Land oder Region ein alleinstehendes Stromversorgungsnetz hätte.

    (Google Translate)

    The European interconnection system (EV) is a pan-European network of high-voltage and extra-high voltage cables for the distribution of electrical energy. Although there are several separate interconnected systems in Europe due to the spatial distribution, the European interconnected system generally refers to the Central European interconnected network of those countries which comprise the former Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) ").

    The European interconnection system is operated with three-phase alternating current in the form of three-phase high-voltage transmission, the exchange of electrical energy takes place at transport network level with high voltage of 220 kV and 400 kV between the different network operators. The advantage of such a network is that fluctuations in consumption and production can be compensated much better than if each country or region had a stand alone power supply network.

  16. #1416
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    so um its a think tank and not an actual energy distribution network?
    it's quite a lot more than just a think tank, it's a joint organisation that consists of the hodge-podge of energy networks that make up Europe.

    interesting side note, Denmark is unique here, in that it's connected to both the scandinavian and central european grids with the DC interconnect below Storebælt, and boy does that create some interesting problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    high efficiency energy transmission from tunisia to denmark!
    there's a reason we've got windmills scattered all over the place y'kno.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  17. #1417
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,432
    What's the average fuel consumption per mile for consumer vehicles in America?

    What would a market™ solution to these consumer choices be Erich?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  18. #1418
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    What's the average fuel consumption per mile for consumer vehicles in America?

    What would a market™ solution to these consumer choices be Erich?
    A market solution to what? Asking for a scientific description and getting back a loose collection of agencies?
    meh

  19. #1419
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    10,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    What's the average fuel consumption per mile for consumer vehicles in America?

    What would a market™ solution to these consumer choices be Erich?
    I don't think an "average" number would be helpful, given the wide variety of vehicles and driving distances. My Benz gets about 20 miles per gallon, almost all city driving. MPG ratings of new cars (not trucks) are anywhere from 24 to 53 or higher.

    Trucks still don't get 20 mpg, because customers want MORE POWER. As a result, trucks like a 2019 Toyota Tundra get 15/19 mpg.
    Last edited by Nordstern; March 20 2019 at 03:06:32 PM.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  20. #1420
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,816
    I’m sure the EPA has (or had) data on the actual average per-mile carbon emissions for the US vehicle fleet, probably with lots of subcategories.

    Of course if we really wanted to make a dent in transport-related pollution we’d electrify our shipping...

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •