@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

Because its marketing?
Like every ad ever?
Only say good things from a positive angle and if you have nothing to say, sing it?
If you want to be disgusted, you are invited, dear SJW!

We are supposed to be "disgusted" but instead I had to tank twice yesterday just because of work.

Not at Shell BTW because they are expensive. Maybe they are expensive because they are trying to look green, but my take is that its all just marketing. Marketing is there to be ignored or sneered at by the customer.

If we abruptly drop out of this vicious cycle of internet banking, meat eating and fossil fuel burning, will half of us not die for various reasons? Starting with me and my family, of hunger? Or more probably, just me, of blunt instrument to the head, held by wife?

And this video is also just marketing, for an ideology.

Car is freedom. Bus is a jail.

I think we are seeing things very differently.

How important do you think fossil fuels are to modern society right now and over the last hundred years? Do you believe that they have been net negative or net positive influence on humanity in that time?

I'm surprised that thing isn't just going airborne. Maybe it's the thing on the bow that is holding it down, fuel tank maybe?

That's why you and Trump are leveraging everything you own and buying up cheap coastal properties that will jump exponentially in value right after this fraud is exposed, or when the sea doesn't rise....no? Why not? If you believed what you spout, it's an absolute no brainer, the fact you (and others like you) don't act on it is proof that you don't believe your own position yourself.

Perhaps it's because the people who tell you there's a vast scientific conspiracy perpetrated for the sole purpose of milking that sweet sweet research money are paid by fossil fuel industries. Perhaps it's because the Pentagon agrees with the science and even Trump agrees when his money is on the line. Perhaps because of the hottest 18 years ever recorded, 17 occurred after 2000. Perhaps it's because these immigrants you are so afraid of are migrating in part due to climate change already. Perhaps it's because numerous Pacific islands are disappearing. No matter why, it's clear you really do believe in climate change, or you would own a huge chunk of Florida coast already.
Pathetic, Bob.


*nochannel
*politics
*nature
*science

I think poorly made cars that get horrible gas mileage and are not the right size is more than enough reasons why they don't buy American cars. Also Japanese cars ARE fuel efficient, the most reliable cars made, and the right size. I think pay back for American protectionism seems far fetched when all the above reasons are so overwhelming, but just my opinion of course

I just tried to find any source for this and failed, so take the following with a pinch of salt, but...

My understanding was that this is an example of American automotive industry protectionism coming home to roost.

There was a time where the Japanese cars were viewed as more reliable, cheaper and more fuel efficient (as mentioned in the video). American companies became increasingly worried about competition so settled on the plan of changing American consumer preferences for ever larger cars through aggressive advertising.

This gave American companies a price advantage over foreign producers, as larger cars cost much more to transport, and created an unofficial import tariff. Other companies also did not have designs for big cars, as they are domestically unpopular and fuel is usually prohibitively expensive in their regions.

Now the same industries are calling protectionism as their designs don't match the preferences and fuel efficiencies expected by non US consumers.

Like I say, not sure about this, but if anyone knows something about this either way, I'd be interested to hear.

Nuclear energy is the only way we can do it, we can run the planet forever and do things cleanly and more densely to leave more of our planet for wildlife.

The trouble is almost everything we hold as common wisdom about it is completely wrong, using breeder reactors have enough uranium to run the planet forever leaving almost no waste and removing the possibility of big accidents which actually aren't as harmful as commonly believed anyway.

We have thorium too, and many designs of each that can do the job. In fact we have a wealth of of options, but also a decades old and highly effective PR campaign from the fossil fuel industry to convince us otherwise.

Your video, Stop with the nightmare fuel, Australia!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, America's Dopamine-Fueled Shopping Addiction, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment on Plane Ran Out of Fuel at 41,000 Feet. Here's What Happened. has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

OK, hold the fucking phone here. This video is just a disaster. It is flippant and glossing over the facts of what actually happened. This story is a favorite of mine, so I have done a lot a reading on it.

This happened in 1983 (36 years ago).

>> Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge?

There is specifically a digital fuel gauge processor on that plane, and it was malfunctioning. There was an inductor coil that wasn't properly soldered onto the circuit board. At that time, planes were allowed to fly without a functioning digital fuel gauge as long as there was a manual check of the fuel in tanks and the computer was told the starting fuel.

The problem is that fuel trucks pump by volume and planes measure fuel by weight. The fueling truck converted the volume to kilograms and then converted to pounds. He should not have used both. In 1983 ground crews were used to converting volume to pounds. The 767 was the first plane in Air Canada's fleet to have metric fuel gauges.

The line in the video "the flight crew approved of the fuel without noticing the error" glosses over how it is actually done. The pilot was passed a form that contained the numbers and calculations from the ground crew that stated that 22,300 kg of fuel was loaded on the plane. The math was wrong, but unless the pilots re-did the numbers by hand, there wouldn't be anything to jump out at them. He accepted the form and punched those numbers in to the computer.

The 767 was one of the first planes to eliminate the Flight Engineer position and replace it with a computer. There was no clear owner as to who does the fuel calc in this situation. In this case, it fell to the ground crew.

>> I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

If there was a functional digital fuel gauge, it would have showed them missing half their fuel from the start, and the error would have been caught. Because there wasn't, the computer was calculating and displaying the amount of fuel based on an incorrect start value.

That is another problem with this video. It states that "they didn't even think about it until ... and an alarm went off signalling that their left engine had quit working."

Fuck you, narrator asshole.

In this case, low fuel pump pressure warnings were firing off before the engines shut down. They were investigating why they would be getting these low pressure warnings when their calculated fuel values (based on the original error) showed that they had enough fuel.

>> I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident.

The pilots did not cause it. They followed all the proper procedures applicable at that time, 1983. It was only due to their skill and quick thinking that the pilots landed the plane without any serious injuries to passengers.

They ran simulations in Vancouver of this exact fuel and flight situation and all the crews that ran this simulation crashed their planes.

"Bad math can kill you." Flippant, correct, but still not quite applicable to this situation. Air Canada did not provide any conversion training for dealing with kilograms and the 767. Not the ground crew, nor the pilots, were trained how to handle it. They were expected to "figure it out". That, and the elimination of the Flight Engineer position, set these situations up for disaster.

How were they even allowed to fly? I'm not familiar with aviation laws in Canada, but in the US, a working fuel gauge is required (14 CFR 23.1337b). I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident. It doesn't matter that the ground crew improperly fueled the plane, it is always the pilot's responsibility to verify that the plane is airworthy before takeoff.

According to the wikipedia article the fuel gauges weren't working, wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider