4 ms·

In every single one of these discussions people always fail to look at reality in the proper context. Baselines are important if the objective is to evaluate t

In every single one of these discussions people always fail to look at reality in the proper context. Baselines are important if the objective is to evaluate the merit of any proposed solutions. There are many reality-check baselines one can refer to in the case of the planetary-scale problem we are discussing. Here's one: https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png A very simple chart that speaks loudly. Among other things, it says that electric cars do not matter. At all. What? OK. In case it isn't obvious, I'll walk you through it. The argument presented is that a full conversion of the US into electric-powered ground transportation is crucial in the fight against climate change. Some say this can actually start to roll back atmospheric CO2 concentration levels. This, of course, is preposterous. Let's take it a million times further than just converting the US to electric power: Let's completely erase the US from this planet. We go from 300 million people to zero. All buildings, factories, vehicles, power plants, trains, planes, etc. evaporate overnight. Gone. Beamed into space by Captain Kirk. What effect would that have on global atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate change? Well, the simple answer (refer to the chart) is the planet would see a reduction in annual contributions of 14%. This is NOT a reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is a reduction in annual inputs, that's all. Instead of 32 giga-tons of CO2 per year contributed by humanity we would contribute 28 GT. Which, in turn, means nothing whatsoever would change. Atmospheric CO2 would continue to accumulate and increase at about the same rate. Therefore, electric cars do not matter at all. Their potential impact is dwarfed by comparison to the absolute elimination of an entire nation from the planet. It is, at best, a rounding error. I know people won't like this. Well, rather than being offended, how about explaining how electric cars would do any better than eliminating the entire US from this planet? Here, I'll help with a fill in the blank exercise (using current White House estimate on impact of full ground transport electrification to be 1 GT per year): Ten years from now if we change nothing: 32 GT * 10 = 320 GT more than we have today If the US didn't exist at all: 28 GT * 10 = 280 GT more than we have today Best case if we convert all cars in the US to electric power: 31 GT * 10 = 310 GT more than we have today So...310 GT instead of 320 GT added to the atmosphere in ten years if we go full electric. That's assuming the 1 GT savings per year is real. Given the massive required increase in energy generation this remains to be seen. BTW, this also assumes all other nations will remain at their current emissions levels. That is unlikely. China and India are likely going up before they come down, if ever. Comparing our ideas to reasonable baselines is of crucial importance. In this case we learn a very harsh reality. Electric cars are great, yes. However, we really need to stop painting them as a "save the planet" technology. That's nothing less than laughable given the data. Again, refute the data before being angered by an argument you do not like. After all, reality does not care about your emotions. Are you actually arguing that full-electrics will have a greater impact than erasing the US from the planet? If you can't do that, you really need to re-evaluate how you see this problem.

Tagbert 4y ago
Yes, climate change is happening. The point is to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the amount of change and to reduce the curve. EVs, across the globe, are one mechanism to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the rate of change. If you don’t think there is value in reducing CO2 in this are as well as other areas, then do you have any suggestions for reducing the impact of climate change, or should we all just have a big party and burn as much oil as we can?
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Yes, climate change is happening. It is. Nobody is proposing it is not. Having the hubris to think we can actually control a planetary scale issue of this magnitude is the problem. We are wasting time, money and resources on nonsense. > The point is to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the amount of change and to reduce the curve. You cannot. This is wishful thinking. Even if we convert ALL energy generation on the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy, not only will we not reverse atmospheric CO2 accumulation, it will continue to increase. Among other things, keep in mind that we are going to add at least three billion people to this planet by the end of the century. That's the equivalent of two countries the size of China, ten equivalents of the US or about four clones of all of Europe. This idea of reducing CO2 input at a global scale is a fantasy. The fact that we don't like this does not magically negate the raw math of matter. Referring to the graph I posted in my prior comment: https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png Adding the equivalent of ten times the population of the US or twice that of China means adding the equivalent in terms of annual atmospheric CO2 contributions. If we go by US living standards, this would mean this additional population would contribute 47 giga-tons of CO2 per year. If, instead, we take China's emissions, the added population would contribute about 20 giga-tons per year. How are over three billion people going to live so that they contribute nothing whatsoever to the atmosphere? The answer is: They can't, that idea is a fantasy. Three billions additional people will have a significant and non-trivial impact on atmospheric CO2 contributions, no matter where and how they might live. All of these discussions wave a magic wand to conclude a miracle occurs, we violate the laws of physics and everyone gets pink unicorns. As great as that might feel, it isn't reality. All of these so-called solutions ignore reality in a egregious way. They assume we turn on a magical vacuum cleaner (or some kind of a perpetual motion machine), no other variable changes and magic happens. Great. Yet, that's not how reality works. > If you don’t think there is value in reducing CO2 I have never said that. Reducing CO2 emissions has value. We simply need to understand we cannot take it as far as reversing climate change or reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration. That last part is one of the most important concepts to grasp. We know that, if humanity left the planet, a 100 ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 requires about 100K years. Any solution short of us not existing on this planet is going to take longer or, more than likely, never result in a reduction at all. > do you have any suggestions for reducing the impact of climate change, or should we all just have a big party and burn as much oil as we can? There are no solutions. Thinking we can reverse climate change is as silly as thinking we can slow down the planet's rotation so we can have 48 hour days. The scale is massive beyond comprehension. And then there's the question of impact. And it is a question. I don't have the answers any more than anyone else might. This is a very complex multivariate problem. Here's one hypothetical. What if we have to, slowly, over a few centuries, move towards the poles? Why would that be a problem? Is it a silly question? I don't know. Every time someone voices concern about CO2 concentration I suggest they go and buy a CO2 meter and measure concentration around where they live and work. It is eye opening. For example, here's a table in the office: https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png Here it is on the grass, outside: https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png In the car I got measurements in the 1100 to 1300 range. If you do this, one of the revelations should be: We have been living in very high CO2 ppm environments for centuries and none of use have turned into blobs of meat-like jelly on the ground. Why are we being told we are going to cease to exist if we gain another 100 or 200 ppm? Is this fear-mongering or true scientifically supported facts? How do they explain people driving on the highway many hours per day, every day, in a 1100 to 1400 ppm environment and not dropping dead by the millions every day? Etc. There are a lot of questions, the most fundamental of which being just how much of what we are being told is fantasy used for financial and political gain? I don't have the answers. All I can do is point out a lack of alignment between the message and reality.

Tagbert 4y ago

Yes, climate change is happening. The point is to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the amount of change and to reduce the curve. EVs, across the globe, are one mechanism to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the rate of change. If you don’t think there is value in reducing CO2 in this are as well as other areas, then do you have any suggestions for reducing the impact of climate change, or should we all just have a big party and burn as much oil as we can?

robomartin 4y ago
> Yes, climate change is happening. It is. Nobody is proposing it is not. Having the hubris to think we can actually control a planetary scale issue of this magnitude is the problem. We are wasting time, money and resources on nonsense. > The point is to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the amount of change and to reduce the curve. You cannot. This is wishful thinking. Even if we convert ALL energy generation on the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy, not only will we not reverse atmospheric CO2 accumulation, it will continue to increase. Among other things, keep in mind that we are going to add at least three billion people to this planet by the end of the century. That's the equivalent of two countries the size of China, ten equivalents of the US or about four clones of all of Europe. This idea of reducing CO2 input at a global scale is a fantasy. The fact that we don't like this does not magically negate the raw math of matter. Referring to the graph I posted in my prior comment: https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png Adding the equivalent of ten times the population of the US or twice that of China means adding the equivalent in terms of annual atmospheric CO2 contributions. If we go by US living standards, this would mean this additional population would contribute 47 giga-tons of CO2 per year. If, instead, we take China's emissions, the added population would contribute about 20 giga-tons per year. How are over three billion people going to live so that they contribute nothing whatsoever to the atmosphere? The answer is: They can't, that idea is a fantasy. Three billions additional people will have a significant and non-trivial impact on atmospheric CO2 contributions, no matter where and how they might live. All of these discussions wave a magic wand to conclude a miracle occurs, we violate the laws of physics and everyone gets pink unicorns. As great as that might feel, it isn't reality. All of these so-called solutions ignore reality in a egregious way. They assume we turn on a magical vacuum cleaner (or some kind of a perpetual motion machine), no other variable changes and magic happens. Great. Yet, that's not how reality works. > If you don’t think there is value in reducing CO2 I have never said that. Reducing CO2 emissions has value. We simply need to understand we cannot take it as far as reversing climate change or reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration. That last part is one of the most important concepts to grasp. We know that, if humanity left the planet, a 100 ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 requires about 100K years. Any solution short of us not existing on this planet is going to take longer or, more than likely, never result in a reduction at all. > do you have any suggestions for reducing the impact of climate change, or should we all just have a big party and burn as much oil as we can? There are no solutions. Thinking we can reverse climate change is as silly as thinking we can slow down the planet's rotation so we can have 48 hour days. The scale is massive beyond comprehension. And then there's the question of impact. And it is a question. I don't have the answers any more than anyone else might. This is a very complex multivariate problem. Here's one hypothetical. What if we have to, slowly, over a few centuries, move towards the poles? Why would that be a problem? Is it a silly question? I don't know. Every time someone voices concern about CO2 concentration I suggest they go and buy a CO2 meter and measure concentration around where they live and work. It is eye opening. For example, here's a table in the office: https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png Here it is on the grass, outside: https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png In the car I got measurements in the 1100 to 1300 range. If you do this, one of the revelations should be: We have been living in very high CO2 ppm environments for centuries and none of use have turned into blobs of meat-like jelly on the ground. Why are we being told we are going to cease to exist if we gain another 100 or 200 ppm? Is this fear-mongering or true scientifically supported facts? How do they explain people driving on the highway many hours per day, every day, in a 1100 to 1400 ppm environment and not dropping dead by the millions every day? Etc. There are a lot of questions, the most fundamental of which being just how much of what we are being told is fantasy used for financial and political gain? I don't have the answers. All I can do is point out a lack of alignment between the message and reality.