“But tires”
Ban all vehicles over 5000lbs to start without a specialized license and extremely heavy fees to have them. EVs are dropping in weight daily, ICE vehicles have been increasing in weight to dodge policies. One is a means to an end, the other is a means to profit.
Profit for few vs humanity’s existance… which should we choose?
im gonna hazard a really basic proposition.
The volume of the earths atmosphere is perhaps, just a little bit bigger than the volume of approximately 1 billion garages.
If you’re going to shitpost about science, at least be accurate about it. Nobody thinks they “aren’t bad” that’s literally a fallacious argument to even propose. Sure, toxic chemicals are bad for you, but there are FDA defined limits for how much of them is considered to be safe on an annual basis.
also, “banning” larger heavier vehicles is based.
So how much carbon monoxide turning into CO2 and building up in the atmosphere and causing the earths temperature to slowly rise and threaten the ecosystems of the majority of earth does the FDA define as okay?
Cars don’t typically produce carbon monoxide. It’s special circumstances caused by the garage that caused the carbon monoxide
this is definitely a good point.
restricted or incomplete combustion has really negative side effects. Notably, more pollution.
Isn’t the main purpose of the catalytic converter to minimize the CO (and other chemicals) being exhausted? Those illegal to take off vehicles things on every car…
It is supposed to be CO2 and water though that comes out of it… but it doesn’t work out so clean as the air going in isn’t just oxygen
That is what they’re supposed to do.
But you’re talking about an operating environment way outside of what they were designed for.ICE cars suck.
But cars aren’t driving around the road and spewing out CO in such concentration that’d they’d give someone CO poisoning.Pick a different example about why ICE cars clearly suck.
The CO becomes CO2 in the atmosphere as well eventually. I understand what you mean, which is why I was going to originally delete the post, but some people said leave it, so I did. Really it is just saying if exhaust is so obviously known to be bad in one situation, why is it so hard to understand that it can be bad in other ways. (Trapping in heat really)
I kinda get what you mean, in that sense. “It’s bad here so why can’t you believe it’s bad there?”
But the dangers they pose are so different in nature that it’s inviting criticism; lots of things are dangerous in specific circumstances but fine normally.
Anyways, you’re taking the criticism better than I’m able to lol
It was a drunken post on New Year’s Eve… If I know anything in life it’s that alcohol does not make sound choices lol. I suppose I’m just glad I didn’t text an ex. Motivation not to drink as much haha
im gonna hazard a little guess, and say they don’t define this, because this would be like the FDA having recommended estimates for how many hurricanes you can consume within approximately a year, as that would be a rather silly statistic. They probably don’t do that one.
Little known fun fact, the FDA is actually short hand for “food and drug administration” if you’re concerned about like, global warming you should ask someone else like NASA. Which handles things related to the atmosphere. There would also be NOAA, which more directly handles the atmosphere, that’s kind of it’s job, you should probably ask them.
The FDA requires me to eat 4 hurricanes a year, with a side of has browns, haha
(I think it’s the CDC that does regulations on carbon monoxide though)
im guessing OSHA probably has a few also. Most definitely some health agency, though i wouldn’t be surprised if the FDA did have something pertaining to carbon monoxide, more generically. They have a lot of weird ones.
EPA I assume as well. Lots of letter factories out there
A very, very rough estimate is that the atmosphere is 6,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than a typical garage (or over 6 orders of magnitude more than OP’s claim), based on a typical one-car garage being 100 cubic meters and The atmosphere being 6e9 cubic kilometers.
This is a bad argument. Your conclusion happens to be factual, but it doesn’t follow from the premises.
Being in an enclosed space with an internal combustion engine will kill you because of the CO buildup, and no, that doesn’t happen in the open air. CO does oxidise to CO2 eventually, so it doesn’t just keep building up in the atmosphere.
The main harm caused by burning fossil fuels is the CO2, which is wreaking havoc on the climate and will kill billions - but not by poisoning them.
Why would it not be considered poisoning? It is a substance that is effectively killing people.
Yeah the enclosed space thing is about carbon monoxide though. Just find it to be easier for people to understand when people believe the earth is thriving because “there are more people now than ever.” Not caring that everything is dying around us.
No, that’s not poisoning.
If you get killed by a tsunami, that’s not water poisoning for fuck’s sake.
Fits the definition of poisoning.
Medical dictionary: Definition Poisoning occurs when any substance interferes with normal body functions after it is swallowed, inhaled, injected, or absorbed.
So if you drown, it would be, if you get crushed, I would say it doesn’t fall into poison
Good to know we’re not operating in reality. Don’t feed the trolls, people.
You’re living in a false reality apparently my friend. That’s just the definition of a word. Maybe find a different term.
Jesus Christ, the mental gymnastics and goal post moving.
Drowning is not water poisoning, and if you can’t figure out why, that’s no one’s problem but your own.
Diogenes and his
chickenman take great offense at your definition of “poison”.Yeah, most here would hate that Dickens used the term to mean distrub a function as well. To poisons ones sleep didn’t mean to kill him, just to do something that interferes with an ongoing task. It’s just a word. I didn’t define it 🤷
The dictionary doesn’t define words. Words are defined by authors and audiences. Your audience has rejected this particular definition of the word. Continue to use it at your peril.
So you’re saying it has been poisoned… Sorry, I had to. Hope your having a good day.
To directly answer the question you asked in the title:
ICE vehicles and animals consume oxygen and produce CO2. Plants produce oxygen and consume CO2. Your car’s exhaust is poisonous to the animals in your garage, not to the plants. The plants love your car.
The problems with atmospheric CO2 have nothing to do with biological effects. The problem with atmospheric CO2 is its effect on solar insolation.
I wouldn’t use this analogy in an argument with someone who does not understand anthropogenic climate change.
Also worth noting another key issue with car exhaust in a confined space is carbon monoxide, you’ll feel the CO2 build up and make it difficult to breath in your environment before it does any damage, the CO on the other hand will kill you quietly. CO breaks down relatively quickly in the environment by reacting with other substances in the air, so it’s not really a long term pollutant concern.
There’s also other chemicals and particulates, but they’re mostly going to be at lower concentrations that aren’t going to kill you in a hurry, but may contribute to longer term cancer risks and such, but that’s a little harder for people to wrap their heads around. You won’t immediately die of cancer in your garage from breathing exhaust but it might give you cancer years or decades down the line.
So your saying there’s enough plants to offest cars in the world? Or is that no longer relevant?I
up voting by the by for encouraging conversations as I feel up items should be
I am saying that the logic of your question does not accurately describe the actual problems with CO2, which are their effect on solar heating.
So your saying there’s enough plants to offest cars in the world?
An anti-environmentalist would say that the number of plants on the planet is not fixed, and that a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere would increase global plant mass. They would say “Higher CO2 levels make the planet greener”, and point to 4th grade biology to support their point.
I say, again, that the problems with CO2 are not the biological effects. The problems with CO2 are the effects on solar insolation. If CO2 did not affect solar insolation, we would be looking to increase CO2 levels, to benefit vegetation.
Makes sense, but they do affect the insolation, and thus kill life on earth.
We can’t live without it, but we can’t live with to much of it. So if we are pushing the upwards bounds… which way should we go? Only one logical choice if you want our current life forms to exist.
I never said we can’t live without fossil-fuel powered vehicles. We certainly can go full electric, and we can broadly adopt solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy sources. We can use the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants from biomass and leaking methane deposits instead of crude oil or coal. (Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2; we currently try to “flare” methane sources to produce CO2 rather than allow them to vent naturally. It makes far more sense to use these sources productively than to simply burn them off.)
So what your saying is we need cars powered by cow flatulence. /s
Look, I hate ICE cars too.
But this is whack. Putting a running car into a garage is dangerous because the free oxygen becomes depleted and it starts producing carbon monoxide as a result. This isn’t a problem when you’re driving around outdoors.
The reason the a running ICE car in a garage is dangerous is completely different than why ICE cars are bad for the environment.
Like, shit on ICE cars all you want, I’ll support it. But this is embarrassingly bad science. This is the kind of shit I’d have made up in grade 7 trying to an edgy eco-aware statement.
There’s this thing called “Alert Distance”, it’s the distance at which animals perceive and begin to react to a threat.
I’ll use it as an analogue for humans’ perceptions of threat.
Say a squirrel knows a cat is a threat, and may react to it when the cat is 15 feet away, whether that reaction is turning to face the threat, making a warning call, or running away.
Now put 50 cats hiding in the bushes and surrounding area around the squirrel. Can’t see ‘em, so it isn’t a problem, even though the squirrel knows cats are a bad thing. The alert distance hasn’t been triggered. The squirrels in the surrounding neighborhood are disappearing, eaten by cats, but our squirrel isn’t thinking too hard about this. More acorns for me!
Put a car in the garage and you can smell the exhaust. Your eyes probably water from the fumes. You know this is potentially lethal, so you do something about it. Shut off the car, leave the garage, open the garage door, whatever. Your alert distance has been triggered. The threat is right in front of you.
Now, as you say, drive that car outside with millions of other vehicles and systems consuming fossil fuels. No real smell or issues for most of us. The alert is only being triggered by what we read (if we bother to read anything that accurately portrays the threat) and maybe a rare bad storm or cluster of hot days that won’t negatively affect the vast majority of people. Negatively = inconvenience.
I don’t know if squirrels lie to themselves about how close a cat threat might be, but humans excel at lying to each other and to themselves for a crapload of reasons. So the fact is that the threat is invisible to many, ignored by most, and actively and willfully obfuscated by a shitload more. So the figurative alert distance doesn’t even exist at all for the vast majority of humans. It’s not going to kill you now, next week, or even next year.
Even when the world has crumbled, plenty will still lie about what’s to blame.
Because if the earth doesn’t want it, it has ways of shutting down that kind of thing.
30 people die a day just in Australia from traffic pollution.
I think it’s safe to say people literally don’t give a fcuk.
It’s very simple, really. Have you ever witnessed someone drop dead on the street from traffic pollution? No? Well then nobody cares because it’s not immediately visible.
Because most people are completely scientifically illiterate and do not understand the analogy you’re making because they don’t know what “atmosphere” is.
Reminds me of those threads “do you think you’re smarter than most people” of course anyone who responds either calls themselves a dumbass or agrees. But it’s always a biased question, because if you are sentient enough to understand the question you ARE smarter than most people.
It is also common knowledge that taking a bath with a running lamp will kill you, why do you think that has absolutely no impact in people’s buying lamps?
A car running in a small enclosed space is very different from a car running in the open in the same way that a lamp running underwater is very different from a lamp running in air.
That being said I do believe we should strive to have personal vehicles and public transportation be converted to EVs as soon as possible, because the issues with running ICEs vehicles in the open (which are different from running them indoors)
deleted by creator
People struggle to think on a global scale and if you don’t understand how the atmosphere insulates, “that’s inside and this is outside” is a convincing enough argument for a lot of folk. Throw on the fact that some of the most powerful institutions in the world have very strong interests in keeping ICEs going and it’s pretty easy to see why so many people still believe those myths
Surely we won’t wind up with another oil tycoon leading the environmental protection agencies… Oh wait, they hired someone who denied climate change who accepted more than 300 million dollars in donations from the oil companies to get his positions. Surely trustworthy when it comes to his stance on oil.
Edit: wait that was last time… So this time it is someone who defended him during his impeachment when he tried to blackmail Ukriane when Russia was lining up to invade them…
Sheesh… good people we are lining up, good people
To add onto this. I did a rough estimate (hopefully I did it correctly) and assuming one billion ice vehicles as OP stated, if you scattered them evenly across the surface of the earth there would be about 25 miles separating each car. While I believe ice cars are quite damaging, it’s not hard to think it would be okay with that in mind.
If it is common knowledge that shutting a garage door with a running ICE vehicle inside will kill you, why do you think so many people think 1 billion ICE vehicles aren’t bad in the atmosphere?
The problem with having a running ICE vehicle in an enclosed space is that you reduce the oxygen levels in that space and your vehicle then starts rapidly dumping carbon monoxide out the tailpipe, which is dangerous to humans at much lower levels than carbon dioxide exposure.
This isn’t related to the issue we have with carbon dioxide emissions producing global warming.
We aren’t going to reduce global oxygen levels far enough that vehicles dumping carbon monoxide out their tailpipes and asphyxiating people becomes an issue.
Yes, the carbon monoxide sits in the atmosphere… Then becomes carbon dioxide after a few months, which is racking up and killing the majority of life on earth.
The garage is just step 1 of the process, yes.
When you’re outside all the gases coming out of your car’s tailpipe go up into the sky where they turn into stars.
Duh.
Edit: was looking at the serious answers. I apologize for my sarcasm.
That doesn’t sound right, but I don’t know enough about stars to dispute it.
Plus you get a nice smokey smell.
You’re being sarcastic but for the average person it’s simply: “Garage small, atmosphere big”.
They look down their street and can see a dozen cars in their field of view and then they see the all-encompassing sky with an endless amount of fresh air available. Conclusion: not a problem.
I have represented consumers in cases related to lung cancers, and in defending those claims, the insurance carriers always ask my clients in detail about how much time they’ve spent around cars.
They get really interested if you were a gas station attendant, or a valet, or especially worked at an auto garage, in which case they want to know about the size of the doors, if they were kept open or closed during work, if the garage had any kind of ventilation system, whether cieling fans or the pipes that go over an exhaust pipe.
Almost like they know something about hydrocarbon fumes that the rest of us don’t…
Insurance people are just trying to deny the claim that’s the only reason they have more interest in focusing on the job specifics. They can then use big scary words in court should it come to that.
I had a friend who went down the right wing rabbit hole and he said that the earth is so big we can’t affect the environment that way.
Blew my mind. Trump supporter now as well.
There’s actually a lot of people for whom this type of thinking is ingrained.
I live a somewhat isolated region in Australia and the sea food here is plentiful. We also rigidly apply very strict laws about the type, size, and number of fish you can kill.
I’ve seen first hand the impact over-fishing can have, with some areas now completely devoid of varieties which were prevalent a few decades ago.
It just doesn’t compute to people who are not from this area. They see the laws as a draconian revenue raising measure. There’s no concept that just a few people can decimate a population.
That’s the paradox… When shit works well, ignorant people think we don’t need the shit that makes everything work well anymore.
Usually people like this start with the conclusion, and then search only for things that reinforce that (and ignore anything that conflicts). So, chances are, he wanted to believe that for whatever reason, so he sought reinforcement for that stupid idea. And found it.
The sky is fucking gigantic and the thought that we could ever have a big enough impact, even collectively, to make the slightest shift in something so massive feels dead wrong, even when you know it’s right.
