4 ms·

Pay-walled, so only got the summary... but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation... do you include the electricity generation you get your power from? Wh

Pay-walled, so only got the summary... but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation... do you include the electricity generation you get your power from? What about emissions on what went into something you buy? The mining, processing, shipping, refining, manufacturing and distribution of the final product, and many component hierarchies in play? Depending on how you look at something, getting an electric car is a horrible thing to do. Even then, is that better or worse than charging it at night from a coal power plant? The problem is, there is not simple solution, as pollution in general is not a simple problem. Reducing direct emissions is part of it... but shifting from fossil fuels with a high energy, low energy cost, to then use batteries, with their own environmental impact on material construction, refinement and recycle/destruction... and then getting that power (charging at night) from electricity that comes from a coal power plant with worse energy cost than the original material you were burning anyway... is it really a net positive? That doesn't even count a corporation's indirect influence... are the bulk of the workers driving an hour each way each day? Where does the energy at play come from. I'm a strong proponent of nuclear power in the near term... and getting water distribution to combine multiple sources of electricity and natural resources for hydrogen as a primary fuel source for ground vehicles. I think a lot of the woke efforts in and of themselves are short sighted, and not very well thought out at all though.

FabHK 4y ago
Do car emissions get attributed to the car manufacturer, or the petrol stations?
- OJFord 4y ago
  Or the owner? (Which could be a company of course, in case you're thinking that's a cop-out.)
WalterBright 4y ago
> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation Yes, it is. Tax the fuel on its carbon content at the point of sale of the fuel from the refinery.
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  Many activities generate emissions that have nothing to do with the sale of fuel. Who gets to decide what counts as emissions?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    What percentage of it is is fuel based? 95%?
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    If that's big enough to worry about, then tax carbon at the point oil, gas, and coal, come out of the ground.
    - dghlsakjg 4y ago
      Does ethanol, wood and other non fossil carbon sources get a pass?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        If the goal is to reduce CO2, then the source of the fuel is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the carbon content, which gets turned into CO2 via combustion.
        logifail 4y ago
        Isn't the goal to reduce net CO2? Seems to be somewhat hardcore to reduce the entire debate down to (effectively) "any CO2 is bad CO2"
  - x-complexity 4y ago
    In the ideal sense, we go strictly chemical on this & track the chemical outputs from a given process. From there, the chemical/resource inputs are taken into account to get (supposed resulting emissions + inefficiency overhead + 5% padding). With those emission outputs in hand, a table of carbon prices is referred to before the final tally is made.
kitbrennan 4y ago
but event "emissions" isn't a simple calculation No one is claiming that it is, but there are standardised reporting practices to ensure proper coverage of emissions when published. These are the Scopes 1, 2, and 3 (which includes 12 sub-scopes), listed in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. They are the GAAP of the sustainability industry and is required by every major reporting mechanism (e.g. CDP, etc). All the items you listed are covered within the scopes, include power generation, fuel processing (typically called well-to-tank), transmission loss, emissions embodied in purchased assets (e.g. construction emissions of a vehicle), employee commuting, waste, etc. Depending on how you look at something, getting an electric car is a horrible thing to do. Even then, is that better or worse than charging it at night from a coal power plant? A common claim by climate-deniers that has been widely debunked for almost every power network in the rich world (where electric cars are most common). If I remember correctly, only two countries in all of Europe were found to have lower emissions with a petrol engine than plugging into a dirty grid. I think a lot of the woke efforts in and of themselves are short sighted, and not very well thought out at all though. Woke? Not thought through? You wrote a long comment about carbon reporting when you clearly don't know the first thing about how carbon is reported or calculated...
- logifail 4y ago
  > A common claim by climate-deniers that has been widely debunked Extending car lifetime and first-owner possession length can reduce overall emissions more than accelerating replacement according to new study[0] [0] https://www.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/researches/view/218 https://www.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/researches/view/218
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    That study doesn't say what you're trying to imply it does, and it's just not very good regardless: > In this case, by keeping more cars in the hands of their original owners longer, the number of used cars on the road decreases. Accordingly, emissions from the driving of new, relatively fuel-efficient cars increase while those of used, relatively fuel-inefficient cars decrease. That, makes no sense. They seem to believe that a years old car moving from one owner to another suddenly increases the emissions. It does not, the relative emmisions change with age, because new, more efficent cars are produced, like EVs. But yes, making cars last longer is good. You know the best way to do that? Make them EVs.
credit_guy 4y ago
> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation It actually can be. A molecule of oil does not burn twice. If you tax all the fossil fuels at the source (i.e. when they are extracted), then you tax all the emissions. The companies that extract the fossil fuels will pass some of the tax to those who buy from them, who will pass some of their purchasing costs to some who buy for them, etc. You can take that tax revenue and pay people who remove CO2 from the atmosphere. For example if you own forested land you should receive a tax rebate proportional to how much CO2 the forest absorbs. This way you incentivize people to buy land and plant forests. In the US we have 30 million acres of land cultivated with corn used for ethanol production. The idea is that corn-derived ethanol is not a fossil fuel, and legislating a 10% ethanol fraction in our gasoline is somewhat similar to a 10% reduction in fossil fuel use reduction. Of course, we use a lot of fossil fuels to produce that corn, but the bigger problem is that in the end all the CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere by the 30 million acres of corn is put right back in when it's burned in a vehicle. If you start giving people a tax rebate if they plant trees on their land, then the farmers will immediately stop the whole ethanol charade and plant trees.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Just accelerating the existing EV transition would help, here's someone who's done the numbers: https://www.carbonbrief.org/electric-cars-sales-in-the-us-could-prevent-one-tenth-of-global-cropland-expansion/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/electric-cars-sales-in-the-us-co... > A faster shift to electric vehicles (EVs) in the US would avoid around 10% of the global cropland expansion expected over the next 30 years, according to a new study. > Instead of growing maize (corn) to make biofuel for US cars, modelling in the Ecological Economics paper suggests large swathes of land could be left to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2). > This land sparing would bring “substantial” emissions savings, in addition to the direct benefits of electrifying US road transport, the researchers say.
- shawn-butler 4y ago
  more like 80 million acres, just to update your fact regurgitation
  - 4y ago

FabHK 4y ago

Do car emissions get attributed to the car manufacturer, or the petrol stations?

OJFord 4y ago
Or the owner? (Which could be a company of course, in case you're thinking that's a cop-out.)

WalterBright 4y ago

> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation Yes, it is. Tax the fuel on its carbon content at the point of sale of the fuel from the refinery.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago
Many activities generate emissions that have nothing to do with the sale of fuel. Who gets to decide what counts as emissions?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  What percentage of it is is fuel based? 95%?
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  If that's big enough to worry about, then tax carbon at the point oil, gas, and coal, come out of the ground.
  - dghlsakjg 4y ago
    Does ethanol, wood and other non fossil carbon sources get a pass?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      If the goal is to reduce CO2, then the source of the fuel is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the carbon content, which gets turned into CO2 via combustion.
      - logifail 4y ago
        Isn't the goal to reduce net CO2? Seems to be somewhat hardcore to reduce the entire debate down to (effectively) "any CO2 is bad CO2"
- x-complexity 4y ago
  In the ideal sense, we go strictly chemical on this & track the chemical outputs from a given process. From there, the chemical/resource inputs are taken into account to get (supposed resulting emissions + inefficiency overhead + 5% padding). With those emission outputs in hand, a table of carbon prices is referred to before the final tally is made.

kitbrennan 4y ago

but event "emissions" isn't a simple calculation No one is claiming that it is, but there are standardised reporting practices to ensure proper coverage of emissions when published. These are the Scopes 1, 2, and 3 (which includes 12 sub-scopes), listed in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. They are the GAAP of the sustainability industry and is required by every major reporting mechanism (e.g. CDP, etc). All the items you listed are covered within the scopes, include power generation, fuel processing (typically called well-to-tank), transmission loss, emissions embodied in purchased assets (e.g. construction emissions of a vehicle), employee commuting, waste, etc. Depending on how you look at something, getting an electric car is a horrible thing to do. Even then, is that better or worse than charging it at night from a coal power plant? A common claim by climate-deniers that has been widely debunked for almost every power network in the rich world (where electric cars are most common). If I remember correctly, only two countries in all of Europe were found to have lower emissions with a petrol engine than plugging into a dirty grid. I think a lot of the woke efforts in and of themselves are short sighted, and not very well thought out at all though. Woke? Not thought through? You wrote a long comment about carbon reporting when you clearly don't know the first thing about how carbon is reported or calculated...

logifail 4y ago
> A common claim by climate-deniers that has been widely debunked Extending car lifetime and first-owner possession length can reduce overall emissions more than accelerating replacement according to new study[0] [0] https://www.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/researches/view/218 https://www.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/researches/view/218
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  That study doesn't say what you're trying to imply it does, and it's just not very good regardless: > In this case, by keeping more cars in the hands of their original owners longer, the number of used cars on the road decreases. Accordingly, emissions from the driving of new, relatively fuel-efficient cars increase while those of used, relatively fuel-inefficient cars decrease. That, makes no sense. They seem to believe that a years old car moving from one owner to another suddenly increases the emissions. It does not, the relative emmisions change with age, because new, more efficent cars are produced, like EVs. But yes, making cars last longer is good. You know the best way to do that? Make them EVs.

credit_guy 4y ago

> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation It actually can be. A molecule of oil does not burn twice. If you tax all the fossil fuels at the source (i.e. when they are extracted), then you tax all the emissions. The companies that extract the fossil fuels will pass some of the tax to those who buy from them, who will pass some of their purchasing costs to some who buy for them, etc. You can take that tax revenue and pay people who remove CO2 from the atmosphere. For example if you own forested land you should receive a tax rebate proportional to how much CO2 the forest absorbs. This way you incentivize people to buy land and plant forests. In the US we have 30 million acres of land cultivated with corn used for ethanol production. The idea is that corn-derived ethanol is not a fossil fuel, and legislating a 10% ethanol fraction in our gasoline is somewhat similar to a 10% reduction in fossil fuel use reduction. Of course, we use a lot of fossil fuels to produce that corn, but the bigger problem is that in the end all the CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere by the 30 million acres of corn is put right back in when it's burned in a vehicle. If you start giving people a tax rebate if they plant trees on their land, then the farmers will immediately stop the whole ethanol charade and plant trees.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Just accelerating the existing EV transition would help, here's someone who's done the numbers: https://www.carbonbrief.org/electric-cars-sales-in-the-us-could-prevent-one-tenth-of-global-cropland-expansion/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/electric-cars-sales-in-the-us-co... > A faster shift to electric vehicles (EVs) in the US would avoid around 10% of the global cropland expansion expected over the next 30 years, according to a new study. > Instead of growing maize (corn) to make biofuel for US cars, modelling in the Ecological Economics paper suggests large swathes of land could be left to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2). > This land sparing would bring “substantial” emissions savings, in addition to the direct benefits of electrifying US road transport, the researchers say.
shawn-butler 4y ago
more like 80 million acres, just to update your fact regurgitation
- 4y ago