this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
188 points (98.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5393 readers
305 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
188
European auto giants launch a flurry of cheaper electric vehicles — taking the fight to China (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 2 months ago by kalkulat to c/[email protected]
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

" ... as soon as vehicles come in the right price range next year … people will flock to buy them.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Europe wouldn't. The US would. I'm one of those US-centric users everyone gripes about, it would seem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't think the US would either. Their justification for tariffs on Chinese cars was that they were uncompetitively cheap due to subsidies. Doubt EU is gonna subsidize cars, at least as heavily as China.

[–] Ensign_Crab 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Their justification for tariffs on Chinese cars was that they were uncompetitively cheap due to subsidies.

That was the justification, yes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Whether you agree or not with their justification (or think that it's not the real reason), they clearly have no justifications (or reasons) to impose tariffs on unsubsidized (or at least not as heavily subsidized) EU cars.

[–] Ensign_Crab 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Except for the oil lobby.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The oil lobby wouldn't be specifically against cars from another region, they are against electric vehicles in general, whether they are produced domestically or otherwise. The primary benefactors from the tariffs are the US electric car manufacturers, who would lose profit over not being able to compete with subsidized cars. They are probably the ones who lobbied for them.

[–] Ensign_Crab 2 points 2 months ago

The oil lobby wouldn’t be specifically against cars from another region, they are against electric vehicles in general, whether they are produced domestically or otherwise.

They're against inexpensive electric vehicles.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Their justification for tariffs on Chinese cars was that they were uncompetitively cheap due to subsidies.

This is mostly a lie. EU placed smaller/fairer tariffs based on those subsidy allegations, but in US, all politicians are devoted to oil oligarchy profits. 100% EV tariffs and 50% solar tariffs, 25% battery and ebike tariffs are all about protecting oil, instead of small domestic solar industry. Global warming is a lower priority than war, or making sure existing and new oligarchs have plenty of profits to fund politicians with.