I don’t want to sound like I’m being another hater, you’ve copped a lot of unwarranted downvotes and vitriol. People not willing to discuss things is part of the problem- attacks and trying to silence people through downvotes does not contribute to discussion.
If you’re willing to keep presenting your viewpoint, I’d appreciate some clarity. I urge anyone replying to your comment to engage with thought and maturity. We all learn from opinions that aren’t aligned with ours.
My main question is around your claim that we would have to stop producing any new infrastructure that relies on oil, to prevent consumption going up. I’m not sure I agree- To use a simple example, if some industrial plant uses a diesel engine, and replaces it with a diesel engine that uses less diesel to achieve the same outcome, does that not reduce the overall consumption? Of course, this is a very simple example.
if some industrial plant uses a diesel engine, and replaces it with a diesel engine that uses less diesel to achieve the same outcome, does that not reduce the overall consumption?
strictly speaking, generally, yes it would. However for the sake of the argument, including this kind of detail is.
I think we’re at pretty marginal improvements for efficiency, and it’s overshadowed by the move to SUVs anway. I think it doesn’t amount to much for this 10,000 ft view kind of discussion.
Hybrids can do it, but I’m ‘ehhh’ on the whole concept.
Let’s say there are 250 million ice cars on the street. Ice sales stop. The next day how many ice cars are on the street? 250 million. Gas consumption is the same. You then have to wait (what everyone hates in our now now now world) for ice cars to wear out and inventory to turn over to see any decline in gas.
Good point, and well made. However, ICE cars are already wearing out. 250 million ICE cars on the road. ICE sales stop. The next day, some of those 250 million cars wear out. Gas consumption goes down.
Yeah but it’s the scale and timeframe. People talk like they expect gas consumption to go down now. It’s all over the place. They talk as if a few EVs will cause gas consumption to go down, and it’s so easy why aren’t we doing it already. The reality is it needs to be 100% EV sales for that to happen.
And it’s also policy. We’re not going to get 100% EV sales any time soon. So gas consumption will go up. Pretty much anything short of 100% ev sales means our gas consumption goes up. Combined with growing population, yeah more consumption.
Not when we go to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. This is not static like everyone talks about. To make any real dent you pretty much need 100% EV sales.
Again it’s the scale timeframe and policy. Scale: we’re talking the entire country, not singular cars. That means you have to account for what I listed above: movement to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. Timeframe: people demand decrease now. Not 20 years from now. That means you can’t wait out mixed EV and Ice sales for 20 years. Policy: People talk as if Biden failed because has consumption is up. Ok last explanation. He implements the impossible policy of 100% EV sales in 4 years. The result? Gas consumption is the same. See 250 million cars explanation. And people yell that he failed and it’s so easy. Reality is he succeeded and people don’t understand the metrics.
I don’t want to sound like I’m being another hater, you’ve copped a lot of unwarranted downvotes and vitriol. People not willing to discuss things is part of the problem- attacks and trying to silence people through downvotes does not contribute to discussion.
If you’re willing to keep presenting your viewpoint, I’d appreciate some clarity. I urge anyone replying to your comment to engage with thought and maturity. We all learn from opinions that aren’t aligned with ours.
My main question is around your claim that we would have to stop producing any new infrastructure that relies on oil, to prevent consumption going up. I’m not sure I agree- To use a simple example, if some industrial plant uses a diesel engine, and replaces it with a diesel engine that uses less diesel to achieve the same outcome, does that not reduce the overall consumption? Of course, this is a very simple example.
When the opening goes out of its way to divert the conversation into political blame slinging, the vitriol is very much warranted.
we’re blaming people for things now???
strictly speaking, generally, yes it would. However for the sake of the argument, including this kind of detail is.
Not important.
I think we’re at pretty marginal improvements for efficiency, and it’s overshadowed by the move to SUVs anway. I think it doesn’t amount to much for this 10,000 ft view kind of discussion.
Hybrids can do it, but I’m ‘ehhh’ on the whole concept.
I’m still trying to understand what you’re saying about needing to stop producing any ice cars if we are to reduce consumption.
Let’s say there are 250 million ice cars on the street. Ice sales stop. The next day how many ice cars are on the street? 250 million. Gas consumption is the same. You then have to wait (what everyone hates in our now now now world) for ice cars to wear out and inventory to turn over to see any decline in gas.
Good point, and well made. However, ICE cars are already wearing out. 250 million ICE cars on the road. ICE sales stop. The next day, some of those 250 million cars wear out. Gas consumption goes down.
Yeah but it’s the scale and timeframe. People talk like they expect gas consumption to go down now. It’s all over the place. They talk as if a few EVs will cause gas consumption to go down, and it’s so easy why aren’t we doing it already. The reality is it needs to be 100% EV sales for that to happen.
And it’s also policy. We’re not going to get 100% EV sales any time soon. So gas consumption will go up. Pretty much anything short of 100% ev sales means our gas consumption goes up. Combined with growing population, yeah more consumption.
It’s fairly straightforward- if a new car is an EV, consumption will be less than if that car was ICE.
Not when we go to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. This is not static like everyone talks about. To make any real dent you pretty much need 100% EV sales.
Again it’s the scale timeframe and policy. Scale: we’re talking the entire country, not singular cars. That means you have to account for what I listed above: movement to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. Timeframe: people demand decrease now. Not 20 years from now. That means you can’t wait out mixed EV and Ice sales for 20 years. Policy: People talk as if Biden failed because has consumption is up. Ok last explanation. He implements the impossible policy of 100% EV sales in 4 years. The result? Gas consumption is the same. See 250 million cars explanation. And people yell that he failed and it’s so easy. Reality is he succeeded and people don’t understand the metrics.
Ok, I can see you aren’t interested in debating this.