Comments by "ootmaster1" (@ootmaster1) on "driving 4 answers" channel.

@Gnerko123 my original reply was deleted for some reason "I asked you about your overall pollution. You only mention production and recycling. This is why it looks like you’re ignoring tailpipe/marginal emissions. I’m not advocating looking at tailpipe emissions only, nor co2 only (tailpipes emit more than co2 alone)." You bring up nothing of overall pollution, i at least explained my points. How am i ignoring tailpipe emissions whatsoever??? "you drew a sweeping conclusion that keeping an old car running always creates less overall pollution than scrapping it and getting a new car, without data to support your claim. I then provided a framework to assess which is less bad regarding overall pollution. I do not claim that junking any old car and replacing it by any new car is a good idea. You subsequently get into all kinds of objections against my method, still without providing your own method. You have no basis for your sweeping conclusion." I provided a framework detailing my position, and gave examples while you have not really done the same. I provided my method. repeatedly over the course of several days. you ignored almost all of it. i being up recycling not being what you seem to think it is, and you quote from wiki is essentially what i just stated that you somehow disagree with. It saves mostly metals, and most of the non metal is sent to landfill.. I bring up ease of repair in endlessly complex systems, more components to fail, increasing costs of ownership and maintain, and ends up furthering the end result of the disposable consumer vehicle I bring up regulations being a driving factor to this issue, CAFE standards forcing cars to become larger and larger to meet obscene emissions regulatory guidelines. You yourself even admit to this point. that the gains from newer vehicles are mostly offset by size and weight You act like i havent explicitly explained everything you've asked over and over again, and you just refuse to even attempt to try to understand the concept... YOU have no basis for your conclusion ...
1
@Gnerko123 also 2000 was 23 years ago pal... Lol a 2000 is closer to 1992 than 2000 is to 2023...
1
@Gnerko123 Ignores everything i said to act like a sophist insufferable if you arent going to reply to what i write why reply at all? this is pointless
1
@Gnerko123 I did make a comparison. re read my previous comments
1
@Gnerko123 asked and answered. address what i said about the very thing you are asking me about, and get back to me. im done re explaining things you are refusing to comprehend.
1
@Gnerko123 *source!* I dont need a study or some authority to tell me gravity works... Read what i wrote. Understand the words i used and why. Im honestly sick and tired of replying to you when you have zero interest in understanding what im saying. You dont actually care
1
@Gnerko123 pollution is more than c02 Creating more waste adds to waste harder more expensive to repair things are less likely to be repaired Government regulations dictate how vehicles are made If you need a study to tell you these things are true you are a lost cause and this conversation has been fruitless
1
@Gnerko123 No not really. I dont. You do.
1
@Gnerko123 this is fking stupid at this point. Why are you replying at all if you dont address what say and demand sources for obvious observations? Why are you still here?
1
@Gnerko123 L
1
@Gnerko123 1. Neither do you, but making something that didnt exist that leads to waste when its "recycled" will inevitably create more waste. why you pretend this isnt an obvious fact of the physical world we live in is worrying 2. Neither do you, and again " the tailpipe emissions math checks out, but we still endlessly increase landfill waste, so its environmentally better" isnt really a good point to make 3. Yes. make more = more waste i cant imagine this being that hard to grasp 4. No not really. and any calculations you bring up convert pollution to tailpipe emissions to compare it, then tell me im focusing on tailpipe emissions... 5. Yes because logically 1 is greater than 0 I really am tired of you deliberately not understanding what im saying here.. I keep explaining this over and over again, and you dont understand what im saying... im just assuming you are doing it on purpose
1
@MaticTheProto well good thing i dont
1
@inquaanate2393 strip mining the earth for metal and battery materials and clear cutting forests for windmills and solar panels ain't it chief
1
@Gnoccy no and stfu
1
@JacobMueller sorry, but im not wrong, but thanks for the vid
1