[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3201 readers

2 users here now

We have moved to:

[email protected]

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No self-promotion.
No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
No trolling.
Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Ceres

Focusing On Climate Change Too Much Might Slow EV Adoption (cleantechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/evs

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FlowVoid 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] drdabbles 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Let me reiterate, I own an EV. You can feel morally judged all you want, that's on you.

[–] FlowVoid 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] drdabbles 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

preordained apocalypse.

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).

[–] FlowVoid 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

there's nothing we can do about it. That's scientific consensus.

LOL, no.

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

[–] drdabbles 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Paris Agreement

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.

[–] FlowVoid 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] drdabbles 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No climate scientist claims to know what absolutely WILL happen.

... this is easily the most foolish thing I've seen someone say online. What the fuck do you think climate science is?

Anyway, bye. Enjoy that sand you're huffing.

[–] FlowVoid 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Climate science can, and has, predicted various scenarios that are based on different possible things that people could do in the future, including those that may limit warming to 1.5 C or less.

But since climate scientists can't predict with absolute certainty what people will actually do, they can't predict with absolute certainty what will happen to our climate.