Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

And that's the most frustrating part of it all. What a lot of people don't realize for whatever reason is how much economic benefit there is in making these investments, long-term in particular, but short-term, too (wind turbine and solar panel installers and maintenance workers are two of the fastest growing jobs in the country and probably the world, and it's not even close: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/fastest-growing.htm). Energy efficiency (energy auditors and the like) has already matured and has more jobs than the rest of the energy sector, combined, with 2.25 million (https://www.greenmatters.com/news/2018/09/19/ml9Mz/energy-efficiency-jobs-report)

I got into this whole space not because I was an environmentalist, but because I saw how it was growing due to economic reasons and would continue to. The fact that it's interesting work and makes a real difference is a bonus.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox for now and hope for the best....

I have looked without success for any outline of a basic plan even in the US to make a real substantive impact in our CO2 emissions.

Maybe there is one somewhere, I haven't found it.  

Such a plan should at least project:

How fast emissions can be reduced.
How that would impact CC.
How much it would cost.
How coal and NG and petroleum would be replaced viably over time to reduce emissions.

I think the reason there isn't one is that when people look at the numbers, they give up.  Hand waving doesn't do it.

No doubt we can make some progress over time, but it simply won't be enough.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau

The last graph in that link is especially eye opening I think.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-co2-emissions-rise-after-paris-climate-agreement-signed/

Washington voters in Tuesday returns rejected I-1631, the proposed carbon fee initiative, which would have raised more than $1 billion annually by 2023, with spending decisions to be made by a governor-appointed board as well as the state's utilities.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8.epdf?referrer_access_token=5QK7FGfdZNJBnww3rg3gadRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PPM6F5Tw--xUcDaVyo5KYP7_G9gTDd9jkXQCGLmYVcdiHz9wkwN0E6N2nDZlq4WDQgItGi5ylVScf0yzGnaEVfvjiMb4AD29fhh3xQR3z_DrC_cMrTVL7ZhdR6IhWWEdbaBw61pmJWfJX3nlJ6qnYm0eEGF290YDw0L29Qu1D0Zo3ti9EtUV0eTqh8Y9w5-oUx2QwN2d9ZfvrbV8VI76Jac_wGy8vU0HDJC8kZsxCODUxL-v0-LWQnBluUpq-qsDW9f53WLudiW6kwvNEkO4I0rLhw__H9ttuxs_edKYdWRZpKObHZFDXb4rWIN4ejpIkHGo-pg6Ic2wrQdCdp4Hi007oNSse22rlNllcb1bsahg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Basically, things may be worse than thought in terms of oceanic heat changes.

Seems like a very indirect way of measuring ocean heat uptake.  And gas measurements are always tricky.  Wouldn't it be better to measure global ocean surface temperature by satellite and temperature at depth directly?

Even the Tesla supercharging stations take 30 minutes or more. What happens when you're on a road trip, get to a charging station (that's full), wait 20 minutes to even start your car, and then have 35 more minutes to get back on the road? Not ideal.

My understanding is that you'd have two options. Either:

• Plan your road trip day to include a lunch break during your recharge**, OR
• Aim for one of their robotic stations which can remove your fuel cell and give you a new one (fully charged) in a couple minutes at a ... probably steep fee.

**(A nice benefit is that these standard recharges are so far 100% free of cost. And Musk has multiply promised to never change that. So, if you go on one of these road trips now, or wait until years from now and believe him, you can travel from NYC to Los Angeles without paying for gas. That's mighty nice.)

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/earthtemperature.html

This is just one written in simpler terms, which is good.  The other one I couldn't find questioned what "average" means with such a concept. Do you just take say 600 readings at noon and midnight and average them?  The satellite readings are considered to be most reliable but they date back to 1979 I think it is.

Washington's carbon tax rejection isn't as big of a deal as it may seem. Most of their electricity generation is already from hydro, they are one of the biggest EV markets, and already have some of the lowest emissions of all states. The fact that there was 20x as much money spent opposing it as supporting it is rather telling.... Carbon taxes are being implemented elsewhere, including Canada, so it's only a matter of time before it happens in the US, though it already has in a few places locally (including Montgomery County MD just outside of DC).

The bigger disappointment is that Arizona rejected a 50% renewable portfolio standard, though it may be irrelevant since they're already developing so many solar projects.

As for EV charging, I think battery switching will become a more viable option as EVs become more common, but there is a lot of R&D being done to improve the energy density of batteries.