Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! A recent article at Forbes explains that environmentalism might not be the best thing to focus on when selling EVs. While this may seem like a “duh” kind of thing, it affects more than ... [continued]
There will always be individual transportation, and climate scientists account for that when setting climate goals.
Light duty EVs will contribute little to CO2 emissions once the electrical grid moves away from fossil fuels. In some states, there is already enough wind/solar electricity that EVs decrease CO2 emissions by 94%.
The idea that EVs will contribute little to global CO2 emissions is complete fantasy, and it demonstrates exactly what I was saying in my first comment. Nobody is willing to make the sacrifices necessary, so we all buy our indulgences and continue driving straight at the cliff we can clearly see. It’s already too late to stop a climate disaster, we’re simply determining how bad it’s going to be. And from where I stand, it’s going to be much worse than you’re pretending.
In the meantime, we keep on buying vehicles and dumping GHG into the air and pollution into our water.
I don’t care if you own an EV. You still look at EVs in terms of “sin” and “indulgences”, as a priest would. You even share their belief in an preordained apocalypse.
I look at EVs as a scientist would: they are an effective way to reduce CO2. I don’t care about your moral judgment at all, for the same reason I don’t care what priests say: your various pronouncements are not based on science.
Are you under the delusion that climate catastrophe isn’t coming? Because it absolutely is, and there’s nothing we can do about it. That’s scientific consensus.
I look at EVs as a scientist would:
No you don’t, because climate scientists realize that they’re a half measure and do more damage than we can afford. Again, a stop gap (at best).
The UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement are supporting rising levels of national ambition. The Paris Agreement, adopted under the UNFCCC, with near universal participation, has led to policy development and target-setting at national and sub-national levels, in particular in relation to mitigation, as well as enhanced transparency of climate action and support (medium confidence). Many regulatory and economic instruments have already been deployed successfully (high confidence). In many countries, policies have enhanced energy efficiency, reduced rates of deforestation and accelerated technology deployment, leading to avoided and in some cases reduced or removed emissions (high confidence). Multiple lines of evidence suggest that mitigation policies have led to several24
Gt CO2-eq yr-1 of avoided
global emissions (medium confidence). At least 18 countries have sustained absolute production-based GHG and consumption-based CO2
reductions25 for longer than 10 years.
And more specifically:
Electric vehicles powered by low-GHG emissions electricity have large potential to reduce land-based transport GHG emissions, on a life cycle basis
Your best attempt is a non-binding accord among nations, none of which are going to reach their Paris Agreement aspirational goals. I mean, I know lots of people have their head in the sand and believe in magical climate fixes, but this is an especially bad take.
Also, we absolutely ARE going to reach and exceed global temperature changes of 2 ºC. That’s the disaster tipping point.
You’re also using avoided emssions and pretending this is preventing disaster. It’s not. It’s avoided emissions, but we are already at the tipping point. You should try knowing something about this topic before posting quotes, because you very obviously don’t understand what you’ve read here.
Your best attempt is a non-binding accord among nations
No, that entire quote comes from the IPCC. Which is a scientific consensus, the thing that you’re clearly not familiar with.
You stopped reading after eight words, but if you had bothered to follow the link you would have found that the scientific consensus covers more than just Paris. There are a lot of mitigation strategies, aka “things we can do”.
Also, we absolutely ARE going to reach
And the best you can do is more prophecy.
No climate scientist claims to know what absolutely WILL happen.
There will always be individual transportation, and climate scientists account for that when setting climate goals.
Light duty EVs will contribute little to CO2 emissions once the electrical grid moves away from fossil fuels. In some states, there is already enough wind/solar electricity that EVs decrease CO2 emissions by 94%.
The idea that EVs will contribute little to global CO2 emissions is complete fantasy, and it demonstrates exactly what I was saying in my first comment. Nobody is willing to make the sacrifices necessary, so we all buy our indulgences and continue driving straight at the cliff we can clearly see. It’s already too late to stop a climate disaster, we’re simply determining how bad it’s going to be. And from where I stand, it’s going to be much worse than you’re pretending.
In the meantime, we keep on buying vehicles and dumping GHG into the air and pollution into our water.
The idea that EV adoption can significantly reduce global CO2 emissions is supported by science.
But you seem more interested in moral judgment than science.
Let me reiterate, I own an EV. You can feel morally judged all you want, that’s on you.
I don’t care if you own an EV. You still look at EVs in terms of “sin” and “indulgences”, as a priest would. You even share their belief in an preordained apocalypse.
I look at EVs as a scientist would: they are an effective way to reduce CO2. I don’t care about your moral judgment at all, for the same reason I don’t care what priests say: your various pronouncements are not based on science.
Are you under the delusion that climate catastrophe isn’t coming? Because it absolutely is, and there’s nothing we can do about it. That’s scientific consensus.
No you don’t, because climate scientists realize that they’re a half measure and do more damage than we can afford. Again, a stop gap (at best).
LOL, no.
And more specifically:
Your best attempt is a non-binding accord among nations, none of which are going to reach their Paris Agreement aspirational goals. I mean, I know lots of people have their head in the sand and believe in magical climate fixes, but this is an especially bad take.
Also, we absolutely ARE going to reach and exceed global temperature changes of 2 ºC. That’s the disaster tipping point.
You’re also using avoided emssions and pretending this is preventing disaster. It’s not. It’s avoided emissions, but we are already at the tipping point. You should try knowing something about this topic before posting quotes, because you very obviously don’t understand what you’ve read here.
No, that entire quote comes from the IPCC. Which is a scientific consensus, the thing that you’re clearly not familiar with.
You stopped reading after eight words, but if you had bothered to follow the link you would have found that the scientific consensus covers more than just Paris. There are a lot of mitigation strategies, aka “things we can do”.
And the best you can do is more prophecy.
No climate scientist claims to know what absolutely WILL happen.