13 ms·

It's a strange shift in affairs that China appears to have the greatest incentives (urban pollution, petroleum imports) today to advance clean transportation an

by danans 9y ago

It's a strange shift in affairs that China appears to have the greatest incentives (urban pollution, petroleum imports) today to advance clean transportation and energy while the US has stalled or moved backward, at least the Federal level. Western European countries, for whom fossil fuels don't seem to be an identity politics issue like in the US, are also making more progress in electrifying their transportation and developing renewable generation - like those massive offshore turbines in the North Sea, or the more comprehensive EV charging networks. Again, they seem to have stronger incentives: high gas/petrol prices, higher population density, tense relations with Russia - their big petroleum and natural gas supplier, and the desire to gain an advantage in clean energy technology while the US is seemingly regressing. Perhaps states that have taken the problem seriously - wind in Texas, Iowa, EVs in CA, WA, NY, will carry the torch for the US without the Federal government's support.

bunfunton 9y ago
I believe the individual countries set their own gas prices (taxed highly). All countries buy their oil/gas on the market for roughly the same price
- danans 9y ago
  That doesn't change the incentives though - the taxes are there for a reason. EDIT: what I mean is that removing the petrol taxes won't solve the set of environmental and political problems they face, but rather would likely make them worse.
  - XorNot 9y ago
    Their shipping and distribution costs are quite different though. Petrol taxes also tend to be flat - advocates for removing them always crop up, but it's a suckers bet - you wipe out say, your road maintenance income, for (in Australia) a onetime 17c on the liter drop in price (while the price just keeps going up anyway).
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  True, but domestic production means the revenue comes back if you aren’t a net importer.
golemiprague 9y ago
Nothing to do with "identity", the US is a big producer of fossil fuels and therefore has more economic incentive to use it, European countries or China have to buy it from other countries.
abakker 9y ago
I don't know if it really proves anything and it might be OT from your point, but, the confounding variable is that in the US - especially outside of the major urban areas - everything is just very far away in terms of miles. Lacking a car, you can expect life to be very difficult. there are still plenty of places in the US where the range of a tesla might be a borderline problem week-to-week. (though probably not as often as people think and if you plan well) My casual observation is that smaller countries just have a lot more good options when it comes to transit because the total distances are much smaller.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  So national policy is essentially catering to the minority that live in rural areas? That seems backwards.
  - tonysdg 9y ago
    That minority controls a non-trivial portion of the nation's political power -- just look at the 2016 presidential election for evidence. I'm 100% for clean energy and reducing/eliminating fossil fuel use, but I also recognize the reality that electric vehicles just don't yet have the capability -- and more importantly, infrastructure -- to replace gas- and diesel-powered cars/buses/trucks. Telling rural Americans to piss off is just as bad as asking urban Americans to deal with the smog IMO.
    - adrianN 9y ago
      It would be a good start if we replaced ICEs wherever possible, i.e. in cities. The majority of the people lives in cities, almost all car trips are well below fifty miles. If EVs work 100% of the time for 20% of the population that would already be a huge win for the environment and their sales could fund the R&D necessary to make them viable for the rest.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    It's not about real rural areas, it's sprawl largely. It's been the dominant and TOP-DOWN planned development pattern for a whole generation, and it's totally tragic. Not only from energy perspective but nearly all other variables. There's almost nothing arguably redeemable about sprawl. https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/ is about the best org discussing these issues and isn't coming from a left- or right-wing perspective but a sane, critical-thinking, research-based perspective.
hartator 9y ago
And, still, bigger part of GDP in Europe and China is about burning oil.
profalseidol 9y ago
Perhaps the Oil companies control the US gov't. Or perhaps they're actually the same.
- nickserv 9y ago
  Interesting then to note that Norway, where the oil company is majority owned by the government, also has the largest per capita fleet of electric cars.
  - wereHamster 9y ago
    But the norwegian government is owned by people, unlike the US govt which is owned by corporations. And the people know that it's in their best interest to switch to EV. Also, the norwegian government will end their investments into oil & gas: https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8c6c https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8...
    - nickserv 9y ago
      In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Government officials may be corrupt and in the pockets of corporate interests, but clinging to power is an even bigger motivator. If enough voters demand something, they are usually forced into delivering it, at least partly. The major problem in my view is the systematic and continuous disinformation campaigns regarding climate change and environmental problems in general (financed of course by oil and chemical companies). By keeping voters misinformed and confused, corporate powers ensure they are able to continue their operations without public oversight.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Unfortunately that's not really encoded in how you guys and gals do elections. From gerrymandering, to the stale two-horse race for party-approved candidates, to the emphasis on a single person (the "President") with roman senate undertones as opposed to collaborating MPs (and where are the coalition governments?), to legal lobbying, to the undue role of appointed justices in legislation, to the BS with vote registration (and voting day not being an official holiday)... It's like everything has been done to distance the governance from the will of the people...
MichaelMoser123 9y ago
It helps that China is a major producer of "rare earth" metals - that's the stuff you need for the accumulators. So they don't have a problem to get the accumulators in massive quantities. https://www.statista.com/statistics/279953/rare-earth-production-in-china-and-outside/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/279953/rare-earth-produc...
- Tade0 9y ago
  Rare earths(lanthanum specifically) are only required for NiMH batteries. Li-ions are made up of common elements. Electric motors on the other hand work much better with added rare earths, although it's still not a strict requirement.
spodek 9y ago
> the US has stalled or moved backward, at least the Federal level. It has at the individual level too for most individuals. Try to get someone to consider flying less. Look at the size of vehicles on the road. How much meat we eat. Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the summer and heating to wearing shorts in the winter. All personal choices anyone can make, no legislation necessary. We can blame fossil fuel companies, and they are abusing their power, but we have a long way to go as individuals before legislators see that regulation will result in more votes, not less.
- friendzis 9y ago
  While these are personal choices, there must be some incentive. If increased electricity bill from abusing "Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the summer and heating to wearing shorts in the winter" compared to conservative temperatures boils down to single digit percentage values (as non-USian I don't know what those values are) of all annual home upkeep expenses, it is difficult to rationalize saving.
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    And somewhat useless. Changing the temperature from 72 to 75 in my well-insulated house does take off a few kWh. But it seems a bit meaningless when the shop down the road is trying to get more people to come in by setting their thermostat at a chilly 65 and leaving the door open all day. Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car, only to drive down the road alongside coal-rolling semis that believe DEF is a conspiracy.
    - codeulike 9y ago
      Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Incremental changes in the right direction help, whatever everyone else is doing.
    - hvidgaard 9y ago
      Just because others aren't doing anything, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Every bit helps, and unless there is a major shift in public opinion, or the government steps in, businesses will not change their behavior, i.e. doing what improves their bottom line.
rsynnott 9y ago
Climate change is a political and verging in religious question in the US; it's something that you believe or don't believe in. This isn't really the case elsewhere (there is SOME climate change denialism in Europe and elsewhere, but it's way more fringe, and in politics mostly confined to libertarians and other weirdos). The US's current political problem RE climate change could be regarded as temporary and will quite likely be resolved in 2020, but until the unique dynamic where half the country refuses to believe that climate change is a thing goes away, the US is always going to struggle on this stuff.
rb808 9y ago
The US is one of the world's biggest Oil producers. China has to import oil, but can mine its own coal and produce electricity from that. So China has an incentive to get off oil more than the US does.
tyu100 9y ago
What are you basing this on? Europe just signed up to complete the massive Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to keep on getting natural gas from the worst state actor in the entire world while cutting out any leverage their most vulnerable EU partner states had over Putin. In addition, Germany, in particular, repeatedly shielded and promoted disastrous diesel fuel to give their large automakers a boost in the market. Not only was diesel over electric a terrible idea for carbon emissions but a huge environmental disaster for micro-particulate emissions that cause so many health problems in large urban areas. Finally, we also have, once again, mostly Germany, phasing out carbon-free nuclear in favour of building new coal plants to give cheap energy to their heavy industries. Europe is great at promoting its green image to its credulous fans but the reality is a lot more mixed.

by danans 9y ago

bunfunton 9y ago

I believe the individual countries set their own gas prices (taxed highly). All countries buy their oil/gas on the market for roughly the same price

danans 9y ago
That doesn't change the incentives though - the taxes are there for a reason. EDIT: what I mean is that removing the petrol taxes won't solve the set of environmental and political problems they face, but rather would likely make them worse.
- XorNot 9y ago
  Their shipping and distribution costs are quite different though. Petrol taxes also tend to be flat - advocates for removing them always crop up, but it's a suckers bet - you wipe out say, your road maintenance income, for (in Australia) a onetime 17c on the liter drop in price (while the price just keeps going up anyway).
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
True, but domestic production means the revenue comes back if you aren’t a net importer.

golemiprague 9y ago

Nothing to do with "identity", the US is a big producer of fossil fuels and therefore has more economic incentive to use it, European countries or China have to buy it from other countries.

abakker 9y ago

I don't know if it really proves anything and it might be OT from your point, but, the confounding variable is that in the US - especially outside of the major urban areas - everything is just very far away in terms of miles. Lacking a car, you can expect life to be very difficult. there are still plenty of places in the US where the range of a tesla might be a borderline problem week-to-week. (though probably not as often as people think and if you plan well) My casual observation is that smaller countries just have a lot more good options when it comes to transit because the total distances are much smaller.

craftyguy 9y ago
So national policy is essentially catering to the minority that live in rural areas? That seems backwards.
- tonysdg 9y ago
  That minority controls a non-trivial portion of the nation's political power -- just look at the 2016 presidential election for evidence. I'm 100% for clean energy and reducing/eliminating fossil fuel use, but I also recognize the reality that electric vehicles just don't yet have the capability -- and more importantly, infrastructure -- to replace gas- and diesel-powered cars/buses/trucks. Telling rural Americans to piss off is just as bad as asking urban Americans to deal with the smog IMO.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    It would be a good start if we replaced ICEs wherever possible, i.e. in cities. The majority of the people lives in cities, almost all car trips are well below fifty miles. If EVs work 100% of the time for 20% of the population that would already be a huge win for the environment and their sales could fund the R&D necessary to make them viable for the rest.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  It's not about real rural areas, it's sprawl largely. It's been the dominant and TOP-DOWN planned development pattern for a whole generation, and it's totally tragic. Not only from energy perspective but nearly all other variables. There's almost nothing arguably redeemable about sprawl. https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/ is about the best org discussing these issues and isn't coming from a left- or right-wing perspective but a sane, critical-thinking, research-based perspective.

hartator 9y ago

And, still, bigger part of GDP in Europe and China is about burning oil.

profalseidol 9y ago

Perhaps the Oil companies control the US gov't. Or perhaps they're actually the same.

nickserv 9y ago
Interesting then to note that Norway, where the oil company is majority owned by the government, also has the largest per capita fleet of electric cars.
- wereHamster 9y ago
  But the norwegian government is owned by people, unlike the US govt which is owned by corporations. And the people know that it's in their best interest to switch to EV. Also, the norwegian government will end their investments into oil & gas: https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8c6c https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8...
  - nickserv 9y ago
    In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Government officials may be corrupt and in the pockets of corporate interests, but clinging to power is an even bigger motivator. If enough voters demand something, they are usually forced into delivering it, at least partly. The major problem in my view is the systematic and continuous disinformation campaigns regarding climate change and environmental problems in general (financed of course by oil and chemical companies). By keeping voters misinformed and confused, corporate powers ensure they are able to continue their operations without public oversight.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Unfortunately that's not really encoded in how you guys and gals do elections. From gerrymandering, to the stale two-horse race for party-approved candidates, to the emphasis on a single person (the "President") with roman senate undertones as opposed to collaborating MPs (and where are the coalition governments?), to legal lobbying, to the undue role of appointed justices in legislation, to the BS with vote registration (and voting day not being an official holiday)... It's like everything has been done to distance the governance from the will of the people...

MichaelMoser123 9y ago

It helps that China is a major producer of "rare earth" metals - that's the stuff you need for the accumulators. So they don't have a problem to get the accumulators in massive quantities. https://www.statista.com/statistics/279953/rare-earth-production-in-china-and-outside/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/279953/rare-earth-produc...

Tade0 9y ago
Rare earths(lanthanum specifically) are only required for NiMH batteries. Li-ions are made up of common elements. Electric motors on the other hand work much better with added rare earths, although it's still not a strict requirement.

spodek 9y ago

> the US has stalled or moved backward, at least the Federal level. It has at the individual level too for most individuals. Try to get someone to consider flying less. Look at the size of vehicles on the road. How much meat we eat. Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the summer and heating to wearing shorts in the winter. All personal choices anyone can make, no legislation necessary. We can blame fossil fuel companies, and they are abusing their power, but we have a long way to go as individuals before legislators see that regulation will result in more votes, not less.

friendzis 9y ago
While these are personal choices, there must be some incentive. If increased electricity bill from abusing "Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the summer and heating to wearing shorts in the winter" compared to conservative temperatures boils down to single digit percentage values (as non-USian I don't know what those values are) of all annual home upkeep expenses, it is difficult to rationalize saving.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  And somewhat useless. Changing the temperature from 72 to 75 in my well-insulated house does take off a few kWh. But it seems a bit meaningless when the shop down the road is trying to get more people to come in by setting their thermostat at a chilly 65 and leaving the door open all day. Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car, only to drive down the road alongside coal-rolling semis that believe DEF is a conspiracy.
  - codeulike 9y ago
    Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Incremental changes in the right direction help, whatever everyone else is doing.
  - hvidgaard 9y ago
    Just because others aren't doing anything, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Every bit helps, and unless there is a major shift in public opinion, or the government steps in, businesses will not change their behavior, i.e. doing what improves their bottom line.

rsynnott 9y ago

Climate change is a political and verging in religious question in the US; it's something that you believe or don't believe in. This isn't really the case elsewhere (there is SOME climate change denialism in Europe and elsewhere, but it's way more fringe, and in politics mostly confined to libertarians and other weirdos). The US's current political problem RE climate change could be regarded as temporary and will quite likely be resolved in 2020, but until the unique dynamic where half the country refuses to believe that climate change is a thing goes away, the US is always going to struggle on this stuff.

rb808 9y ago

The US is one of the world's biggest Oil producers. China has to import oil, but can mine its own coal and produce electricity from that. So China has an incentive to get off oil more than the US does.

tyu100 9y ago

What are you basing this on? Europe just signed up to complete the massive Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to keep on getting natural gas from the worst state actor in the entire world while cutting out any leverage their most vulnerable EU partner states had over Putin. In addition, Germany, in particular, repeatedly shielded and promoted disastrous diesel fuel to give their large automakers a boost in the market. Not only was diesel over electric a terrible idea for carbon emissions but a huge environmental disaster for micro-particulate emissions that cause so many health problems in large urban areas. Finally, we also have, once again, mostly Germany, phasing out carbon-free nuclear in favour of building new coal plants to give cheap energy to their heavy industries. Europe is great at promoting its green image to its credulous fans but the reality is a lot more mixed.