We have moved to:
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
"The obvious answer to this is that it needs to be balanced better. Not frightening people away with nerdy concerns over climate change matters, but taking that to the extreme and not injecting any urgency into going electric at all is a mistake. The customer-facing side of this will have to differ from the business side."
.. being scared that life on earth can be fucked up forever and lead to human extinction is a nerdy concern? We don't want to be a normie in that case..
I get that switching to an EV is better than a fossil fueled powered car, but shouldn't we be focusing more on public transportation, and generally not needing a car?
I agree however it will take some time to shift from car infrastructure to multimodal design, as there is a balance that’s needs to be met for North America.
Public transit, Active transport and 3-4 storey apartments should be prioritized over electric cars.
Yes, literally the ONLY solution that will impact climate change. But people prefer paying for indulgences so they can continue to sin.
That's literally not the ONLY solution that will impact climate change, because electric cars are already measurably reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
As for "indulgences" and "sin": Yikes. Now is not the time for medieval thinking. In 2024, nobody is paying for indulgences. Because the people who buy EVs don't think driving is a sin, and the people who think driving is a sin don't buy EVs.
Ah, I see you think we can buy our way out of the oncoming disaster. Good luck with that.
FYI, I'm an EV driver, you don't need to tell me anything about ev drivers.
No, I think we can mitigate the effects of climate change with effective regulation. And part of that includes replacing ICE vehicles with EVs.
BEVs do not reduce emissions enough. That is the point. Not even close to enough. And that's putting aside all of the physical space requirements, lack of water absorbtion, pollution, and personal injury caused by vehicles.
It's not an overnight fix, but the fact remains that people have magical thinking and believe EVs are fixing or addressing climate change. They ARE NOT, they continue to exacerbated the issue. Being marginally better isn't fixing or fighting anything, it just lets you feel better.
Nothing, by itself, "reduces emissions enough".
Climate change is a multifactorial problem and it will require multipronged solutions. This includes transition to EVs, transition to solar/renewable electricity production, higher efficiency homes, higher efficiency industry/agriculture, and more.
It includes a transition away from individual transportation.
Light duty vehicles account for 57% of transportation emissions. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
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.
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).
there's nothing we can do about it. That's scientific consensus.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I tried an electric car for the environment, but I bought it for the acceleration. Best driving car I ever tried. Feels great all the time.
This, I feel like even if you don't care about the environment, they're still way more fun to drive. (And "fuel" is a lot cheaper when driving sporty).
I used to spend 20 a week on gas, now I spend 4 a week on electricity and it's just so much more fun, and like you say, sporty.
This is the kind of take I would expect from corporations trying to maximize sales of both electric and gas vehicles. Zero interest in actually addressing climate change, just bare minimum posturing.