6 ms·

This is stupid and will never actually happen. More generally, I'm growing tired of how signaling is usurping rational behavior. People are so focused on "being

This is stupid and will never actually happen. More generally, I'm growing tired of how signaling is usurping rational behavior. People are so focused on "being bold" and generating a headline instead of "being smart" and managing things rationally.

kingbirdy 5y ago
Could you provide some substantive backing you your claims? Why won't this ever happen? Why do you think this is about "being bold" rather than "managing things rationally"? What's irrational about electric vehicles?
- twofornone 5y ago
  They are not yet feasible in rural areas. I feel like most of these policies are made and passed by people who are completely out of touch with rural living. And that's a problem because about half the country lives in rural areas with minimal infrastructure. Moreover, people like gas powered vehicles. There is a certain romantic appeal to a fire breathing engine. There are other ways of dealing with climate change and all of the doomsday predictions are rather unlikely worst case scenarios. And in the grand scheme automobile emissions are a small fraction of total anthropogenic carbon output. Really if we want to make a dent in emissions globally we need to get container ships to stop burning bunker fuel.
- quantumsolace 5y ago
  Some thoughts. Do with them what you will. 0. The original sin of the car is the car itself, not the ICE. The car has externalities other than the ICE, battery cars don't address than and encourage forgetfulness. Arguably the car should be gradually killed off (I say this as a massive car guy) [1] 1. The problem with ICE cars is global warming, which is necessarily a global problem, not a local one (i.e. CO2 emissions barely effect the people who emit them more than those who do not). Therefore to address the CO2 emissions it has to be a global solution. 2. It's not obvious that battery technology can, globally, supply several orders of magnitude more batteries than currently. 3. Electrification of transport has immense promise, if done correctly. Assuming limited battery supplies, it is much more beneficial to use them to electrify big heavy vehicles by employing hybrid drivetrains. I was very skeptical of the Toyota Prius 20 years ago, and I was wrong. It is a brilliant car that has done more good for the environment than any other car. My only criticism today of the Prius is that the Prius should have been a pickup truck, not a subcompact. However, I understand the marketing wisdom behind that decision 20 years ago. 4. With a hybrid drive trains ICE can achieve thermal efficiencies rivaling a thermal power plant (the vast majority of our energy in the US) -> See Mercedes F1 ICE. 5. With a hybrid drivetrain the stop-go energy loss of heavy delivery trucks is significantly reduced. 6. Nor is there any reason why heavy delivery trucks should run on gasoline or diesel and not CH4 like our powerplants. It's an infrastructure problem just like the one faced by electric cars. So given the points above, if I were advising legislators, I would - put massive incentives for blue collar joe to buy a hybrid F-150, or a Ford maverick as his next work vehicle (necessary condition for the incentive, it's used for work). - put incentives to divert batteries to heavy road vehicles (although not necessarily big rigs. They have a more constant load). That said, it's not obvious to me that: 1. NY's goal can be accomplished by 2035. 2. vehicle manufacturers wont just divert electric vehicles to CA, NY and Norway and only sell ICE everywhere else 3. It's economically possible within the time frame [1]I don't zero-index. I use it here in the sense of the zeroth-law of thermo; as a prelude that to some is obvious, but turns out to be quite subtle.
- hermitdev 5y ago
  > What's irrational about electric vehicles? Only considering the upside, instead of the downsides. True, an EV itself has no emissions but, how is that electricity generated, distributed? How are the materials for the batteries sourced (I hope you like strip mining and being beholden to China)? How are end-of-lifed batteries disposed? I think EVs are the future, but we shouldn't put the cart before the horse on our way to get there. EVs are also already quite a bit more expensive a similar ICE vehicle. They'll only get more expensive if there's a government induced shortage of materials & parts due to a mandate.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
This is signal to automakers that they must transition to EVs as they will no longer have a market for combustion vehicles to sell into. The more jurisdictions that enact these regulations, the greater the signal. Once automakers have retooled supply chains, the capital costs would be too great for them to switch back to fossil fuel vehicle manufacturing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles#Places_with_planned_fossil-fuel_vehicle_bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic... (Places with planned fossil-fuel vehicle bans)
- sk2020 5y ago
  I think this is the real reason Toyota cut production targets 40%. Their insiders probably know that the politburo intends to make personal vehicles illegal for kulaks like me.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
afavour 5y ago
> More generally, I'm growing tired of how signaling is usurping rational behavior. In what way is retiring gas-powered vehicles by 2035 not "rational behavior"? Climate change is very real and the deadline is 14 years from now. If anything you could argue that this law isn't rational enough because it doesn't take quick enough action.
- paulgb 5y ago
  It's not just climate change, ICE vehicle emissions have health effects: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/10/air-pollution-lung-cancer-heart-failure https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/10/air-pollutio...
- twofornone 5y ago
  The deadline has been 15 years from now for about 30+ years. Nothing about the climate hysteria is rational. Laymen are choosing the loudest and scariest voices to drive policy, but the truth is that we are just beginning to understand a complex, chaotic, metastable system, which oscillates with periods spanning days, years, centuries, millennia, and eons. The likely worst case is a gradual migration (on the order of 100 years) away from coastal areas and places where the weather becomes less suitable for farming. There are other regions which will become more temperate and ideal for living. In a sense this is likely a positive development as it will become a steady source of economic activity, jobs for millions of people. Runaway climate change, calthrate guns, and a venuslike earth are all low probability outcomes and even if they do happen they will take at least a century (probably longer) with ample time for developing a technological solution if necessary. There is no way currently to prove that we are not simply at the peak of an oscillation, anthropogenic or otherwise. The vast majority of climate models have consistently overpredicted temperatures (which says a lot about the bias in the research community) and one of the major predictors, increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, has not yet materialized. Things are most likely not as bad as most laymen have been lead to believe.
philipov 5y ago
Please don't use "rational" to mean "agrees with the axioms I've chosen to be important." These people are acting rationally, but reason doesn't govern what you value in your starting assumptions, only the conclusions you draw from those assumptions. Signalling is the rational outcome of the core values encouraged in our politicians.
- shreyshnaccount 5y ago
  feel like more people need to understand this. being rational looks different for different people in different circumstances and with different motivations.
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  > These people are acting rationally There is lots of uncertainty and perspectives around that. What if someone in the next 14 years comes up with a way to make gasoline from clean, low-carbon energy? These kind of technology specific laws really bug me. What they should rationally legislate is lifecycle emissions. If the vehicle system (or energy system) makes more than x gCO₂-eq/mile then it's banned. How you get there shouldn't be specified 15 years in advance.
  - philipov 5y ago
    Rational behavior from a politician means doing whatever it takes to get yourself reelected. First, foremost, full stop. People who don't do this don't get elected and are removed from the system. Whether their legislation is effective or not matters only as far as it will affect their chances of reelection.
    - acidburnNSA 5y ago
      Ah sure so you're commenting on the concept of elected leaders in general as a means of government as opposed to the higher-level actions people as a whole take to solve problems. Ok fair enough.
      - 5y ago
stephen_g 5y ago
Why won’t this happen? Remember the state of electric cars are at the worst point now than they ever will be again, and they only fall short of ICE cars on a few factors and are already better on many. Every year they improve at a strong pace, whereas ICE technology is close to as developed as it will ever be. There’s no reason to believe that EV cars will be worse than ICEs in any way in 10-15 years.

kingbirdy 5y ago

Could you provide some substantive backing you your claims? Why won't this ever happen? Why do you think this is about "being bold" rather than "managing things rationally"? What's irrational about electric vehicles?

twofornone 5y ago
They are not yet feasible in rural areas. I feel like most of these policies are made and passed by people who are completely out of touch with rural living. And that's a problem because about half the country lives in rural areas with minimal infrastructure. Moreover, people like gas powered vehicles. There is a certain romantic appeal to a fire breathing engine. There are other ways of dealing with climate change and all of the doomsday predictions are rather unlikely worst case scenarios. And in the grand scheme automobile emissions are a small fraction of total anthropogenic carbon output. Really if we want to make a dent in emissions globally we need to get container ships to stop burning bunker fuel.
quantumsolace 5y ago
Some thoughts. Do with them what you will. 0. The original sin of the car is the car itself, not the ICE. The car has externalities other than the ICE, battery cars don't address than and encourage forgetfulness. Arguably the car should be gradually killed off (I say this as a massive car guy) [1] 1. The problem with ICE cars is global warming, which is necessarily a global problem, not a local one (i.e. CO2 emissions barely effect the people who emit them more than those who do not). Therefore to address the CO2 emissions it has to be a global solution. 2. It's not obvious that battery technology can, globally, supply several orders of magnitude more batteries than currently. 3. Electrification of transport has immense promise, if done correctly. Assuming limited battery supplies, it is much more beneficial to use them to electrify big heavy vehicles by employing hybrid drivetrains. I was very skeptical of the Toyota Prius 20 years ago, and I was wrong. It is a brilliant car that has done more good for the environment than any other car. My only criticism today of the Prius is that the Prius should have been a pickup truck, not a subcompact. However, I understand the marketing wisdom behind that decision 20 years ago. 4. With a hybrid drive trains ICE can achieve thermal efficiencies rivaling a thermal power plant (the vast majority of our energy in the US) -> See Mercedes F1 ICE. 5. With a hybrid drivetrain the stop-go energy loss of heavy delivery trucks is significantly reduced. 6. Nor is there any reason why heavy delivery trucks should run on gasoline or diesel and not CH4 like our powerplants. It's an infrastructure problem just like the one faced by electric cars. So given the points above, if I were advising legislators, I would - put massive incentives for blue collar joe to buy a hybrid F-150, or a Ford maverick as his next work vehicle (necessary condition for the incentive, it's used for work). - put incentives to divert batteries to heavy road vehicles (although not necessarily big rigs. They have a more constant load). That said, it's not obvious to me that: 1. NY's goal can be accomplished by 2035. 2. vehicle manufacturers wont just divert electric vehicles to CA, NY and Norway and only sell ICE everywhere else 3. It's economically possible within the time frame [1]I don't zero-index. I use it here in the sense of the zeroth-law of thermo; as a prelude that to some is obvious, but turns out to be quite subtle.
hermitdev 5y ago
> What's irrational about electric vehicles? Only considering the upside, instead of the downsides. True, an EV itself has no emissions but, how is that electricity generated, distributed? How are the materials for the batteries sourced (I hope you like strip mining and being beholden to China)? How are end-of-lifed batteries disposed? I think EVs are the future, but we shouldn't put the cart before the horse on our way to get there. EVs are also already quite a bit more expensive a similar ICE vehicle. They'll only get more expensive if there's a government induced shortage of materials & parts due to a mandate.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

This is signal to automakers that they must transition to EVs as they will no longer have a market for combustion vehicles to sell into. The more jurisdictions that enact these regulations, the greater the signal. Once automakers have retooled supply chains, the capital costs would be too great for them to switch back to fossil fuel vehicle manufacturing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles#Places_with_planned_fossil-fuel_vehicle_bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic... (Places with planned fossil-fuel vehicle bans)

sk2020 5y ago
I think this is the real reason Toyota cut production targets 40%. Their insiders probably know that the politburo intends to make personal vehicles illegal for kulaks like me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

afavour 5y ago

> More generally, I'm growing tired of how signaling is usurping rational behavior. In what way is retiring gas-powered vehicles by 2035 not "rational behavior"? Climate change is very real and the deadline is 14 years from now. If anything you could argue that this law isn't rational enough because it doesn't take quick enough action.

paulgb 5y ago
It's not just climate change, ICE vehicle emissions have health effects: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/10/air-pollution-lung-cancer-heart-failure https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/10/air-pollutio...
twofornone 5y ago
The deadline has been 15 years from now for about 30+ years. Nothing about the climate hysteria is rational. Laymen are choosing the loudest and scariest voices to drive policy, but the truth is that we are just beginning to understand a complex, chaotic, metastable system, which oscillates with periods spanning days, years, centuries, millennia, and eons. The likely worst case is a gradual migration (on the order of 100 years) away from coastal areas and places where the weather becomes less suitable for farming. There are other regions which will become more temperate and ideal for living. In a sense this is likely a positive development as it will become a steady source of economic activity, jobs for millions of people. Runaway climate change, calthrate guns, and a venuslike earth are all low probability outcomes and even if they do happen they will take at least a century (probably longer) with ample time for developing a technological solution if necessary. There is no way currently to prove that we are not simply at the peak of an oscillation, anthropogenic or otherwise. The vast majority of climate models have consistently overpredicted temperatures (which says a lot about the bias in the research community) and one of the major predictors, increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, has not yet materialized. Things are most likely not as bad as most laymen have been lead to believe.

philipov 5y ago

Please don't use "rational" to mean "agrees with the axioms I've chosen to be important." These people are acting rationally, but reason doesn't govern what you value in your starting assumptions, only the conclusions you draw from those assumptions. Signalling is the rational outcome of the core values encouraged in our politicians.

shreyshnaccount 5y ago
feel like more people need to understand this. being rational looks different for different people in different circumstances and with different motivations.
acidburnNSA 5y ago
> These people are acting rationally There is lots of uncertainty and perspectives around that. What if someone in the next 14 years comes up with a way to make gasoline from clean, low-carbon energy? These kind of technology specific laws really bug me. What they should rationally legislate is lifecycle emissions. If the vehicle system (or energy system) makes more than x gCO₂-eq/mile then it's banned. How you get there shouldn't be specified 15 years in advance.
- philipov 5y ago
  Rational behavior from a politician means doing whatever it takes to get yourself reelected. First, foremost, full stop. People who don't do this don't get elected and are removed from the system. Whether their legislation is effective or not matters only as far as it will affect their chances of reelection.
  - acidburnNSA 5y ago
    Ah sure so you're commenting on the concept of elected leaders in general as a means of government as opposed to the higher-level actions people as a whole take to solve problems. Ok fair enough.
    - 5y ago

stephen_g 5y ago

Why won’t this happen? Remember the state of electric cars are at the worst point now than they ever will be again, and they only fall short of ICE cars on a few factors and are already better on many. Every year they improve at a strong pace, whereas ICE technology is close to as developed as it will ever be. There’s no reason to believe that EV cars will be worse than ICEs in any way in 10-15 years.