Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
abm0

@davidho Stop looking for ways to keep energy-luxury going as usual via "efficiency" measures. It will at best massively slow down the effects of all climate policy and at worst induce stagnation or continued growth of emissions via Jevons' Paradox. More "efficiency" is not the (main) solution that will get us to net-zero anywhere near as fast as is needed to save millions of lives from climate disaster and wars over resources and access to livable land. Reduction of energy consumption should be the priority, it's the fastest method to approach net-zero. We should be talking about how to NOT burn anymore energy, how to ration, which uses and devices to ban, not this red herring of "oh wouldn't this tiny improvement in efficiency be nice".

EVs only reduce lifetime emissions to about 40% vs. a fossil car, if more people that are coming out of poverty in the Global South will all start trying to live like the Americans they've been seeing on TV and getting 1-2 personal cars per family we will NOT get to net-zero before the climate turns into a horror show. Stop talking about those damn EVs as if they were the silver bullet that saves us from climate change.

8 comments
DELETED

@abm0 @davidho Nobody said EV's where "silver bullets", but they are the less bad alternative and charging infrastrukture is still a question for many.

Where are your numbers from? They are worst case at best (pun), and maybe taken from some propaganda site?

DELETED

@abm0 @davidho The US have an abysmal renewable energy production, compared to other developed nations. Still your number is wrong.

abm0

@SpaceJellyfish @davidho Asks for source for the number, gets one, keeps dismissing it without providing an alternate source. Great behavior there, I'm sure you will convince a lot of people with this strategy.

The US is doing OK for renewables, most countries in the world are doing worse just because of the lack of resources to invest. I wouldn't bet any other country is producing far more per capita from renewables except China and a couple of European ones, at best.

DELETED

@abm0 @davidho My car emits 0 grams GHG/km (Edit: apart from maintenance). And many others do so. The production was in a Chinese factory that runs on renewables.

"I wouldn't bet any other country is producing far more per capita from renewables except China and a couple of European ones, at best."

You'd loose. 125 countries do so.

Edit: Also, the EPA is a national organization that not that long ago was "aligned". Better go with peer reviewed papers one can find in the respective journals.

abm0

@SpaceJellyfish @davidho I could be mixing up aggregate vs. per-capita, but I have to repeat my symmetrical challenge for you to provide sources for your stated numbers like I did for mine.

Also, I'm pretty sure you skipped over where I said LIFETIME emissions. No car in existence on this planet has 0 grams CO2eq emissions, lifetime total, including production of all of its parts. None. Not a single one.

DELETED

@abm0 @davidho Generally it is not other people's duty to debunk a claim but the claimer's to prove theirs. That has not been done yet, the claim being:

"EVs only reduce lifetime emissions to about 40% vs. a fossil car,"

That depends on a lot of things and is only (if at all) correct for a country with supersized cars and a very bad renewable energy ratio.

Saying BEVs emit 0 grams GHG/km and are made in factories powered by renewable energies is just as correct.

abm0

@SpaceJellyfish @davidho Gonna stay wilfully ignorant of the big-picture analysis, gotcha.

Go Up