3 ms·

Does any serious person expect that fossil fuel use would hit zero in two decades? I'd be ecstatic if we hit 50%

ninkendo 4y ago
I think this whole article is a huge strawman fallacy. Approximately zero people think we’ll be able to fully decarbonize in 20 years. Only slightly above that number of people think we’ll be able to fully decarbonize in 100 years. What serious people are saying is that we should make progress towards that goal regardless. (Hell, even the author says as much at the end of the article.) I don’t understand the author’s need to score rhetorical points against an imagined second party here, it’s completely unnecessary. > There are no EVs. They are battery vehicles reflecting the electricity’s origins. Why is it necessary to split hairs in definitions like this? Electricity is used to propel the car. Yes, that electricity often comes from carbon today. But EV’s take us from cars that must use fossil fuels, to cars that may use other sources of energy. Isn’t that a positive? Yes, carbon is used to make the materials out of which the car is built, but that’s true of all vehicles, and it’s possible in principle to decarbonize that process as well. We’re trying to tackle the problem from both ends at once here, and that’s the only way to make progress, because otherwise you have chicken-and-egg problems (“it’s not worth it to make EV’s if we don’t have clean energy” vs “it’s not worth it to have clean energy because cars still use oil”, etc.) “Rapid decarbonization is a fantasy”… yeah, if you define “rapid decarbonization” as being some impossible goal of zero carbon in 20 years, sure. No duh.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  It's important to make this point that they are "battery electric vehicles" because you're prematurely declaring victory. It's not "splitting hairs". Until society actually builds net-zero carbon electrical generation we haven't done much for carbon footprint.
  - ninkendo 4y ago
    Why is the phrase “battery electric vehicles” more accurate at conveying the mixed energy sources than “electric vehicles” exactly? How does adding the word “battery” change anything? EV’s run on electricity. The phrase “Electric Vehicle” has no implication one way or the other how you get said electricity. Adding the word “battery” changes exactly nothing, except maybe winning arbitrary strawman internet points. > Until society actually builds net-zero carbon electrical generation we haven't done much for carbon footprint. Ok so if my electricity is provided by a nuclear plant, I still can’t call my car an EV because there exists other sources of electricity out there? Please.

I think this whole article is a huge strawman fallacy. Approximately zero people think we’ll be able to fully decarbonize in 20 years. Only slightly above that number of people think we’ll be able to fully decarbonize in 100 years. What serious people are saying is that we should make progress towards that goal regardless. (Hell, even the author says as much at the end of the article.) I don’t understand the author’s need to score rhetorical points against an imagined second party here, it’s completely unnecessary. > There are no EVs. They are battery vehicles reflecting the electricity’s origins. Why is it necessary to split hairs in definitions like this? Electricity is used to propel the car. Yes, that electricity often comes from carbon today. But EV’s take us from cars that must use fossil fuels, to cars that may use other sources of energy. Isn’t that a positive? Yes, carbon is used to make the materials out of which the car is built, but that’s true of all vehicles, and it’s possible in principle to decarbonize that process as well. We’re trying to tackle the problem from both ends at once here, and that’s the only way to make progress, because otherwise you have chicken-and-egg problems (“it’s not worth it to make EV’s if we don’t have clean energy” vs “it’s not worth it to have clean energy because cars still use oil”, etc.) “Rapid decarbonization is a fantasy”… yeah, if you define “rapid decarbonization” as being some impossible goal of zero carbon in 20 years, sure. No duh.

sidewndr46 4y ago
It's important to make this point that they are "battery electric vehicles" because you're prematurely declaring victory. It's not "splitting hairs". Until society actually builds net-zero carbon electrical generation we haven't done much for carbon footprint.
- ninkendo 4y ago
  Why is the phrase “battery electric vehicles” more accurate at conveying the mixed energy sources than “electric vehicles” exactly? How does adding the word “battery” change anything? EV’s run on electricity. The phrase “Electric Vehicle” has no implication one way or the other how you get said electricity. Adding the word “battery” changes exactly nothing, except maybe winning arbitrary strawman internet points. > Until society actually builds net-zero carbon electrical generation we haven't done much for carbon footprint. Ok so if my electricity is provided by a nuclear plant, I still can’t call my car an EV because there exists other sources of electricity out there? Please.