[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Fak_Ork

No, I'm fine with it and the LAST thing I would consider is voting for people who would destroy the progress made for ideological reasons.

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Interesting, though, how the elephant in the room is ignored whenever the question of ideology comes up. Every article I read projects this trend to continue at least until 2030 when their CO2 emissions will peak, then (hopefully) plateau and start declining, so some do seem to be more equal than others and get a free pass for 10 more years.

With a population 4.5x that of the US and near exponential growth for those next 10 years, it will certainly bode well for the planet. How come this is okay if we are already on the brink of collapse?

In contrast, the US has been continuously reducing its emissions in absolute terms since 2010, so that ideology based "destruction of progress" is not real.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Interesting, though, how the elephant in the room is ignored whenever the question of ideology comes up. Every article I read projects this trend to continue at least until 2030 when their CO2 emissions will peak, then (hopefully) plateau and start declining, so some do seem to be more equal than others and get a free pass for 10 more years.

With a population 4.5x that of the US and near exponential growth for those next 10 years, it will certainly bode well for the planet. How come this is okay if we are already on the brink of collapse?

In contrast, the US has been continuously reducing its emissions in absolute terms since 2010, so that ideology based "destruction of progress" is not real.

It's not just about the science, though. Politics and economy plays a huge part as well.

Basically, developed countries emitted a ton in much earlier periods where no one cared about emissions. Every country has to do that to grow, no way around it. But now, richer countries are trying to cap emissions on developing countries. To the latter, this basically translates to "yeah f you, we don't want you to grow." No, no one will just say, "Cool, we will stop economic growth and let our opponent overtake us because it's good for the Earth."

IMO this is a pretty good video to watch. Basically, there is no answer to this problem, really, without some pretty extreme and impractical solutions. Even the "solution" proposed by the makers of the video can be questionable and impractical when you consider certain factors.

https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc

[JerseySS1le]

Originally Posted by Fak_Ork

This. Jamming electrons at the highest possible speed down a standard charging interface is wildly easier. High energy electrical connections are no joke, repeated connections/decouplings are the stuff of wear, high-resistance connections, intense heat and fires. Chargers have issues with this also and need to be well maintained but it's a MUCH simpler system to maintain and troubleshoot. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the frame of the cars are evolving to BE the battery. We're not going to be seeing widespread use of battery swapping stations- that ship has sailed into the harbor and capsized

Tesla's proprietary charging model, however IS very interesting! If the whole freakin industry is really doing this, and they are, and even if 50 percent BEV penetration becomes a reality, then EVERYONE will be able to use the standard charging interface EVERYWHERE, except Teslas with their proprietary chargers at grocery store and motel parking lots. The Gas station model works well, Americans like it. Will station operators be willing to maintain gasoline, the electric standard AND Tesla chargers? I assume that Tesla will try to move into this space but their proprietary system will become an impediment to their own growth and acceptance over time from what I can see.

And don't forget theat Tesla only uses their proprietary charger in the US. In Europe, Tesla uses the same plug as everyone else. It is surprising the the US hasn't mandated a single plug. It is like GM vehicles requiring square gas pumps and requiring you to go to GM gas stations. That would never be allowed, but Tesla continues to skate by with their nonsense.

[Fak_Ork]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Interesting, though, how the elephant in the room is ignored whenever the question of ideology comes up. Every article I read projects this trend to continue at least until 2030 when their CO2 emissions will peak, then (hopefully) plateau and start declining, so some do seem to be more equal than others and get a free pass for 10 more years.

With a population 4.5x that of the US and near exponential growth for those next 10 years, it will certainly bode well for the planet. How come this is okay if we are already on the brink of collapse?

In contrast, the US has been continuously reducing its emissions in absolute terms since 2010, so that ideology based "destruction of progress" is not real.

Some strange conclusions there. The US is making great progress as your charts show. Slashing renewables, electrification and other initiatives would reverse it- obviously.

As far as other countries go, it's a major issue. China and India are certainly amongst the largest polluters in the world, along with the U.S. but all three countries are currently participating in the Paris Climate Accord which is equally binding- if lacking enforcement teeth. For its part, China is actively sabotaging areas of it's economy as we speak by imposing energy quotas on businesses to limit emissions and is already the largest producer of Windpower and looks to become the largest producer of nuclear power by the end of the first half of the century.

The work is being done.

Long story short: We've made great progress. The LAST thing we want to do is vote in people that will make changes based on ideology that would impact this progress- particularly if those changes invite businesses to move backwards in the key areas of Carbon emissions, air pollution limits and controls.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...es/4276557001/

[Fak_Ork]

Originally Posted by Devstrike

An apartment dweller should not have to make it work. The engineers should make it so it works with the apartment dweller not the other way around. I rather not spend more than 10 min at a gas station. I fill up then go. It's my money and EVs are not the right incentive for my situation. Hybrids are another discussion since you don't need to plug those in. Also outside of roadtrips I drive only 7k combined with my wife in our daily driver per year and the camaro only has 2700 miles on it since I bought it in February 2020. Where I live the taxes and reg fees are much more expensive as well as insurance for most EVs so in turn that makes a 50/50 in terms of cost of ownership when comparing to maintenance for the first 7-8 years which yes we calculated.

Will there always be ICE cars on the road and gas stations to serve them due to the considerations you mention? Hard to say. In the meantime, I agree that you are one of the drivers best served by sticking to Hybrid/ICE given your concerns about range and fueling time.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Fak_Ork

The work is being done.

Long story short: We've made great progress. The LAST thing we want to do is vote in people that will make changes based on ideology that would impact this progress- particularly if those changes invite businesses to move backwards in the key areas of Carbon emissions, air pollution limits and controls.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...es/4276557001/

I don't think my conclusions were strange, obviously I'm a non-expert and this is a forum, not a PhD thesis.

Your linked article exonerates China on the basis of some promised progress that will still result in significant absolute growth until 2030 even by their own pledge, plus it makes a dubious allowance by crediting them with how their per capita emissions are lower than that of the US, which is very weak---if a family of 5 pollutes x per capita and I pollute, say x*1.25, am I the bigger problem for the planet or are they? And if I cut mine by a massive 50%, but they continue to increase it for another decade, what exactly have we achieved from the planet's perspective again?

I didn't even include the population growth chart that (no surprise) indicate near exponential increases for China and India since the 1950s, while the US exhibited moderate growth over the same period. If continued, this trend alone renders US and EU efforts almost completely irrelevant. Definitely not an easy problem to tackle, but appears to be completely ignored.

Here's a different fact check that puts the emphasis elsewhere, by the way: https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/C...mate_Agreement.

On your "LAST thing" ideology comment, my point is I don't see a massive decline in improvements the US achieved between 2016 and 2020.

[Fak_Ork]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I don't think my conclusions were strange, obviously I'm a non-expert and this is a forum, not a PhD thesis.

Your linked article exonerates China on the basis of some promised progress that will still result in significant absolute growth until 2030 even by their own pledge, plus it makes a dubious allowance by crediting them with how their per capita emissions are lower than that of the US, which is very weak---if a family of 5 pollutes x per capita and I pollute, say x*1.25, am I the bigger problem for the planet or are they? And if I cut mine by a massive 50%, but they continue to increase it for another decade, what exactly have we achieved from the planet's perspective again?

I didn't even include the population growth chart that (no surprise) indicate near exponential increases for China and India since the 1950s, while the US exhibited moderate growth over the same period. If continued, this trend alone renders US and EU efforts almost completely irrelevant. Definitely not an easy problem to tackle, but appears to be completely ignored.

Here's a different fact check that puts the emphasis elsewhere, by the way: https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/C...mate_Agreement.

On your "LAST thing" ideology comment, my point is I don't see a massive decline in improvements the US achieved between 2016 and 2020.

I'm not sure we disagree much You were originally reacting to my comment regarding someone else who stated that we can vote our way backwards if we don't like what's going on. That would be a terrible move and the Paris accord is necessary for the planet. Additionally, renewable energy, grid modernization, the energy storage and reduced overall costs that BEV's represent are all good- even great- things for our environment and economy.

We agree that China and India are thorny problems but a framework has been worked out that requires huge efforts by China- which appear to be underway. Something about smog shrouded death cities seems to have awakened their national conscience to the severity of the issue. China should be down to 56 percent of its power from Coal this year. I'm less certain that India has the technical prowess to implement the needed changes and appreciate that they will need assistance to do so.

To answer your main question where you wonder why we should have to make any sacrifices when they get a different deal. It was a framework designed to hopefully keep the planet from going beyond certain thresholds, tries to spread disruptions fairly to an economy grappling with wild growth and demand vs a more mature industry where coal is already waning. Not doing anything- or reversing our own progress- because they have more people seems like a terrible choice.

Regarding your 125 percent of X comment, I'd say that it's both important for you to limit or decrease your pollution while that family minimizes it's increase in output as China works to stabilize and then begin to reduce it's aggregate output. Coal isn't the only issue but our own percentage is dropping quickly and we're probably 10 years ahead of them in the time consuming transition away from coal. If you don't think the Paris Accords were a square deal, then that could be argued endlessly although the U.S. being a higher per capita polluter- while only representing 10 percent of the population of the U.S., India and China combined- is a big deal. People are people everywhere and I think the bargain reasonably respects that standards of living must increase across the board.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Fak_Ork

I'm not sure we disagree much You were originally reacting to my comment regarding someone else who stated that we can vote our way backwards if we don't like what's going on. That would be a terrible move and the Paris accord is necessary for the planet. Additionally, renewable energy, grid modernization, the energy storage and reduced overall costs that BEV's represent are all good- even great- things for our environment and economy.

We agree that China and India are thorny problems but a framework has been worked out that requires huge efforts by China- which appear to be underway. Something about smog shrouded death cities seems to have awakened their national conscience to the severity of the issue. China should be down to 56 percent of its power from Coal this year. I'm less certain that India has the technical prowess to implement the needed changes and appreciate that they will need assistance to do so.

To answer your main question where you wonder why we should have to make any sacrifices when they get a different deal. It was a framework designed to hopefully keep the planet from going beyond certain thresholds, tries to spread disruptions fairly to an economy grappling with wild growth and demand vs a more mature industry where coal is already waning. Not doing anything- or reversing our own progress- because they have more people seems like a terrible choice.

Regarding your 125 percent of X comment, I'd say that it's both important for you to limit or decrease your pollution while that family minimizes it's increase in output as China works to stabilize and then begin to reduce it's aggregate output. Coal isn't the only issue but our own percentage is dropping quickly and we're probably 10 years ahead of them in the time consuming transition away from coal. If you don't think the Paris Accords were a square deal, then that could be argued endlessly although the U.S. being a higher per capita polluter is a big deal. Our century long run with no constraints is something that other countries have agreed to forgo, for their benefit and ours. People are people everywhere and I think the bargain reasonably respects that standards of living must increase across the board.

This was a very thought-provoking comment, thanks for the time you invested and the spirit of open dialog it represents. I see your points and do not fully agree, but I'm definitely not anti-progress, I just happen to believe both in consensus (this is a global affair after all) and the importance of freedom & patriotism, they aren't mutually exclusive.

However, at this point I'd need to expand on these further, and we are clearly in violation of forum rules even though the discussion is civilized. It would be nice to have a subforum where this is actually allowed. We are adults here, and a bit of potential rough talk shouldn't be a reason for outlawing political discourse IMHO.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

It's not just about the science, though. Politics and economy plays a huge part as well.

Basically, developed countries emitted a ton in much earlier periods where no one cared about emissions. Every country has to do that to grow, no way around it. But now, richer countries are trying to cap emissions on developing countries. To the latter, this basically translates to "yeah f you, we don't want you to grow." No, no one will just say, "Cool, we will stop economic growth and let our opponent overtake us because it's good for the Earth."

IMO this is a pretty good video to watch. Basically, there is no answer to this problem, really, without some pretty extreme and impractical solutions. Even the "solution" proposed by the makers of the video can be questionable and impractical when you consider certain factors.

https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc

I saw that video a few weeks back and it was the first thing that came to mind when they started talking about Co2 emissions. I'm all for a greener planet but I am very disgusted about how politics and media is pining this on taxpayers and their cars and ignoring MUCH larger contenders to Co2 as if we're the only part of the problem. They're using science, sure.. ..but they're not telling us ALL of the science, just the parts they want us to hear. I personally do not feel they are doing this to save the planet. I feel someone found a way to get rich off of this skit and is pinning it on us to save the planet while in truth, even if every vehicle ever made today were magically to become an EV, it would do very little to almost nothing to stop Climate Change. Irritates me to no end.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I saw that video a few weeks back and it was the first thing that came to mind when they started talking about Co2 emissions. I'm all for a greener planet but I am very disgusted about how politics and media is pining this on taxpayers and their cars and ignoring MUCH larger contenders to Co2 as if we're the only part of the problem. They're using science, sure.. ..but they're not telling us ALL of the science, just the parts they want us to hear. I personally do not feel they are doing this to save the planet. I feel someone found a way to get rich off of this skit and is pinning it on us to save the planet while in truth, even if every vehicle ever made today were magically to become an EV, it would do very little to almost nothing to stop Climate Change. Irritates me to no end.

Bolded for truth. Huge problem here. Part of the issue with climate change is that everyone wants someone else to do the heavy-lifting per se. In this case, big city folks and those that dont care about cars want car owners to "eat it". The mega rich want to have their 4-5 mansions, 8 jets, 4 yachts, fleet of Lambos but want us to live in stacked housing & take the subway to work. Crap like that.

No wonder why the average Joe is tired of hearing about what "hes gotta do" to save us all from certain destruction. Or, so we've been told is going to happen for like what.....50-60 years now?

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Bolded for truth. Huge problem here. Part of the issue with climate change is that everyone wants someone else to do the heavy-lifting per se. In this case, big city folks and those that dont care about cars want car owners to "eat it". The mega rich want to have their 4-5 mansions, 8 jets, 4 yachts, fleet of Lambos but want us to live in stacked housing & take the subway to work. Crap like that.

No wonder why the average Joe is tired of hearing about what "hes gotta do" to save us all from certain destruction. Or, so we've been told is going to happen for like what.....50-60 years now?

All you gotta do is get megarich then.

[Number 3]

Looking at some rough data on the internet, natural source of CO2 are the highest.

However, of the man made CO2, the bulk of it is fossil fuel combustion.

Of the fossil fuel combustion, 22% of the CO2 generation is from transportation but almost double that, 42%, is electricity and heat generation.

The issue is that what the government does best is try to hide the cost from you and I. So instead of mandating by law (if we are all going to be dead in 10 years we probably should) that you and I double insulate our homes, replace our windows and get high efficiency heaters and air conditioners, they simply say auto companies can't sell cars that aren't EVs as California has done. Easy peasy, other than on automotive enthusiast web sites. Just make GM, Ford and Toyota take care of it then they can all pat themselves on the back for making a slight dent in 22% of the problem without costing you or I a dime. Oversimplification I know.

If this is the right thing to do, and my opinion is it is, then instead of giving $12,500 to everyone buying a union made EV, just jack up the gas tax. People would use less fuel, EVs would make more sense and it would also put a dent in 22% of the problem. But that solution costs us money, although arguably the $12,500 also costs us money, but the government doesn't see it that way for some reason.

[Mike7409]

So I have worked with lithium battery’s for a long time. I wonder if anyone has thought of the 5-7 year life expectancy on the batterys along with the very high cost to replace them (13k Tesla)
If the lithium battery is exposed to air they flame out and release toxins into the air.
The chemical plant I worked in had to make them in a nitrogen purged room.

In my head I don’t see how lithium disposal and the fact that you will be replacing a car 3 times more often than a gas car is better for the environment.

I have also looked at how complicated these EVs are with all the cooling systems for the motors and batterys.

I understand gas is flammable, but a open cell will burst into flames instantly.
I think we are pushing into EVs too soon, not to mention many of the power plants to charge these vehicles run on fossil fuels. They cant handle the growing electricity demands as it is.
Just my opinion.

https://www.thecompliancecenter.com/...-catches-fire/

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Mike7409

So I have worked with lithium battery’s for a long time. I wonder if anyone has thought of the 5-7 year life expectancy on the batterys along with the very high cost to replace them (13k Tesla)
If the lithium battery is exposed to air they flame out and release toxins into the air.
The chemical plant I worked in had to make them in a nitrogen purged room.

In my head I don’t see how lithium disposal and the fact that you will be replacing a car 3 times more often than a gas car is better for the environment.

I have also looked at how complicated these EVs are with all the cooling systems for the motors and batterys.

I understand gas is flammable, but a open cell will burst into flames instantly.
I think we are pushing into EVs too soon, not to mention many of the power plants to charge these vehicles run on fossil fuels. They cant handle the growing electricity demands as it is.
Just my opinion.

https://www.thecompliancecenter.com/...-catches-fire/

This is the same crap that people were spewing when the Prius came out. Yes, well before the Tesla, we had the Prius. We heard all the same whatabouts. It'll never work, it has a battery, it'll be too expensive to repair/replace, it'll conk out after 10,000 miles, it won't work when it's cold/hot, whatabout mining, whatabout her emails, etc...

EVs are more efficient for the electrical grid, since they charge during the low-demand times, overnight. This is a better use of the system as it currently stands. Grids are being updated as well, it's a continual process, demand slowly increases, grids get more infrastructure to support.