The data I gave includes submarine basaltic volcanoes. A second research article on it is here: https://earthscience.rice.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Burton_RiMG075_Ch11.pdf
Confirmation bias is hard to overcome. I know people who will rail against 'big pharma', yet lap up everything from 'big oil'. They simply can't maintain consistency when their personal preferences are under assault.
Statement #1: There is no estimation of these sub-marine emissions...and they are most likely immense.
Statement #2: There is no estimate of how much renewables are better than nuclear, and they are most likely immense.
You were quite happy to deliver statement #1, yet you'd flatly reject #2, which obeys similar logic.
Granted, there's also overly idealistic commentary in these threads, so I have to accept any accusations of hypocrisy in not chasing after those as well.
I believe you complained in another post about the government subsidising renewable power.It could be argued that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized to the tune of $12 billion per year. Breakdown here: https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/ffs/tax-based-subsidies/#:~:text=National%20tax%2Dbased%20subsidies%20that,approximately%20%24461%20for%20each%20Australian.
That's more than they spend on renewables, yet devoting disproportionate capital to an emerging area in favour of a mature one is commonplace in the private sector, as I'm sure you're aware.
Some allege that renewables lead to 4.8 jobs per million $ spent, versus 1.7 in fossil fuels. I don't necessarily trust that source though.https://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/climate/renewables/renewable-export-covid-19-recovery-package/securing-australia-s-future-renewable-export-covid-19-recovery
If that's true, once again, it's just good business.
The economics of renewables versus nuclear has changed rapidly over the last 2 decades.
Any financial & strategic comparison you read in 2005 is now obsolete.
Any comparison from 2015 is now probably obsolete.
In 2015, people scoffed at the idea of China and India generating 20% of their collective power from renewables. That was achieved last year. And that's generated, which is different from capacity. I'm not suggesting renewables will ever be the sole solution, though.
The knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima was foolish, and Germany is realizing the full import of ceding energy sovereignty given the repugnant events happening in Europe right now. I'm in support of all current nuclear plants being utilized.However, constructing a nuclear plant takes 5 years alone, let alone all the other preparation.
The progress of renewables is nothing short of remarkable, and by 2025, expect the script to have been rewritten once again.
Of course these processes will never be as green as we think.
Anyway, it's clear I'll make no headway with regard to human induced global warming, so let's set that aside totally.
I'm sure you can agree that car exhaust fumes aren't beneficial for us, or the environment, irrespective of whether you think it's consequential or not. Faced with having fumes or not having them, I'm sure we'd both agree that the latter is preferable. And the figures indicate that simply redistributing those fumes from cities to wherever would bring about billions in economic benefits: https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/ambient-air-quality/topic/2016/health-impacts-air-pollution
So it also defies your (& others) previous claims that the advantages of EVs are purely relating to driving performance. Apologies if I've confused you with somebody else making that claim.
I see this as being no different from arguments about use of crop chemicals like roundup. If I'm in the privileged position of being able to afford organic food, or produce from regenerative ag, why wouldn't I encourage people to stop throwing chemicals around & do things more sustainably.
By the same token, why wouldn't I seek to reduce the expulsion of chemicals in the air for the benefit of human health, regardless of the argument on global warming.
Expand
(20min delay)