7 ms·

>But they aren't going away Why? And if not, why can't we apply your argument to other things, eg, coal power plants? >Even if you could get rid of most cars,

>But they aren't going away Why? And if not, why can't we apply your argument to other things, eg, coal power plants? >Even if you could get rid of most cars, that wouldn't be enough, and it wouldn't be able to happen quickly enough to avoid electrification. Estimates for the lifetime CO2 savings of EVs vary from 40% to 70%. Assuming the be best case (70%), the CO2 impact would only be the same as "getting rid of most cars", which you say isn't enough.

aussieshibe 4y ago
> Why? Comfort, convenience, speed, separation from other people, etc, etc. Changing the balance there requires significant investment in alternatives which doesn't seem to be forthcoming (at least in my country). We can't apply the same arguments to power plants because we don't have to go to / see / interact with the power plant in order to use electricity. It just appears at the wall socket like magic. Where it comes from is functionally irrelevant to the consumer.
- 543g43g43 4y ago
  >Comfort, convenience, speed, Didn't realise these were valid arguments in the face of the Climate Catastrophe! >It just appears at the wall socket like magic. It's by far the most convenient and quickest to burn coal.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    How does the Climate Catastrophe justify getting rid of electric cars?
    - 543g43g43 4y ago
      Do you know how much CO2 an electric car produces over its lifetime?? We'll never hit our -80% reduction that we need!
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        An electric car produces no CO2 over its lifetime. It uses electricity, not a fossil fuel. If you are observing that electricity is currently being produced with some fossil fuels, I will respond that we should get rid of fossil generating capacity. This does not require getting rid of electric cars. In the ultimate zero fossil fuel economy, we can still build and operate electric cars. This will not involve any release of CO2 whatsoever; do you imagine this would create carbon atoms out of nothing?
        543g43g43 4y ago
        >An electric car produces no CO2 over its lifetime. It just appears, fully-made and with no CO2 spent on its manufacture?
        pfdietz 4y ago
        There are two things involved: CO2 emission inherent in operation and construction, and CO2 emission that just happens to be occurring today because of how the materials and electricity are presently generated. The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter. There is no inherent CO2 emission required in construction and operation of an electric car. This is unlike gasoline powered cars, where petroleum has to be involved in their fueling. From a policy point of view, an EV that replaces a gasoline car is a good thing, even if there is at the moment some CO2 emission in the construction and operation of the EV. It reduces CO2 emission in the near term, while also pushing EVs down their experience curves to enable total replacement (and abolition of CO2 emission) in the far term.
        543g43g43 4y ago
        Ignoring the fact that there are no renewable energy-powered EV factories, there are also plenty of industrial processes that inherently emit CO2. Steel manufacture first comes to mind. By your same argument, I could say that there's no inherent CO2 emission required to manufacture petrol (as in, there theoretically is a way to do it). >The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter. I'm not confused about the distinction between the two. The pro-EV crowd seem happy to ignore the former, as long as it's far away, or could be solved by some as yet unimplemented technology.
  - aussieshibe 4y ago
    > Didn't realise these were valid arguments in the face of the Climate Catastrophe! They're not even arguments. I'm not saying that people should keep driving. I'm answering the question "why aren't cars going away". Unless you think that people just aren't aware that public transport / riding / walking is more environmentally friendly than driving, the only conclusion I can come up with is that people care more about the factors I mentioned than environmental impact (or at least, that time-discounting of delayed negative externalities is significant). > It's by far the most convenient and quickest to burn coal. For who? I'm talking about the factors that influence consumer choice, not producers.
- ericmay 4y ago
  This isn't a good comparison. A more appropriate one would be to compare the environmental damage, cost, and deaths due to cars to the "wall socket like magic" versus seeing a physical car on the road. You don't have to go to the hospital to see people who were maimed, and you don't really see the strip mining taking place to create cars, for example.
  - aussieshibe 4y ago
    What? I'm not making any comparison I think? The person I replied to said (paraphrasing) "Why aren't cars going away? If they aren't, why can't you make the same arguments about coal power plants". I'm saying: - Cars aren't going away because they are much better than any available alternative for a large number of people from a short term perspective - The same can't be said of coal power because electricity is electricity is electricity, there is no immediate difference, so the longer term differences have a greater impact on decision making
    - ericmay 4y ago
      > We can't apply the same arguments to power plants because we don't have to go to / see / interact with the power plant in order to use electricity My reading was that you were comparing physical presence of cars + coal plants and also the negative externalities of coal plants but not accounting for the negative externalities of cars. But I may have misread and I apologize if I did :)
wilg 4y ago
They're not going away because nobody is seriously talking about getting rid of cars because it makes no sense. Figure out how to convince people to do it worldwide, figure out how to replace all auto transport with other modes, then build those alternate modes. I'll bet that will take longer and result in more CO2 emissions than electrifying cars. We don't solve global warming by fantasizing about deleting cars, we solve it with good engineering and passable policy.
- 543g43g43 4y ago
  The Climate Catastrophe doesn't care about what certain groups of people find "sensible".

aussieshibe 4y ago

> Why? Comfort, convenience, speed, separation from other people, etc, etc. Changing the balance there requires significant investment in alternatives which doesn't seem to be forthcoming (at least in my country). We can't apply the same arguments to power plants because we don't have to go to / see / interact with the power plant in order to use electricity. It just appears at the wall socket like magic. Where it comes from is functionally irrelevant to the consumer.

543g43g43 4y ago
>Comfort, convenience, speed, Didn't realise these were valid arguments in the face of the Climate Catastrophe! >It just appears at the wall socket like magic. It's by far the most convenient and quickest to burn coal.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  How does the Climate Catastrophe justify getting rid of electric cars?
  - 543g43g43 4y ago
    Do you know how much CO2 an electric car produces over its lifetime?? We'll never hit our -80% reduction that we need!
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      An electric car produces no CO2 over its lifetime. It uses electricity, not a fossil fuel. If you are observing that electricity is currently being produced with some fossil fuels, I will respond that we should get rid of fossil generating capacity. This does not require getting rid of electric cars. In the ultimate zero fossil fuel economy, we can still build and operate electric cars. This will not involve any release of CO2 whatsoever; do you imagine this would create carbon atoms out of nothing?
      - 543g43g43 4y ago
        >An electric car produces no CO2 over its lifetime. It just appears, fully-made and with no CO2 spent on its manufacture?
        pfdietz 4y ago
        There are two things involved: CO2 emission inherent in operation and construction, and CO2 emission that just happens to be occurring today because of how the materials and electricity are presently generated. The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter. There is no inherent CO2 emission required in construction and operation of an electric car. This is unlike gasoline powered cars, where petroleum has to be involved in their fueling. From a policy point of view, an EV that replaces a gasoline car is a good thing, even if there is at the moment some CO2 emission in the construction and operation of the EV. It reduces CO2 emission in the near term, while also pushing EVs down their experience curves to enable total replacement (and abolition of CO2 emission) in the far term.
        543g43g43 4y ago
        Ignoring the fact that there are no renewable energy-powered EV factories, there are also plenty of industrial processes that inherently emit CO2. Steel manufacture first comes to mind. By your same argument, I could say that there's no inherent CO2 emission required to manufacture petrol (as in, there theoretically is a way to do it). >The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter. I'm not confused about the distinction between the two. The pro-EV crowd seem happy to ignore the former, as long as it's far away, or could be solved by some as yet unimplemented technology.
- aussieshibe 4y ago
  > Didn't realise these were valid arguments in the face of the Climate Catastrophe! They're not even arguments. I'm not saying that people should keep driving. I'm answering the question "why aren't cars going away". Unless you think that people just aren't aware that public transport / riding / walking is more environmentally friendly than driving, the only conclusion I can come up with is that people care more about the factors I mentioned than environmental impact (or at least, that time-discounting of delayed negative externalities is significant). > It's by far the most convenient and quickest to burn coal. For who? I'm talking about the factors that influence consumer choice, not producers.
ericmay 4y ago
This isn't a good comparison. A more appropriate one would be to compare the environmental damage, cost, and deaths due to cars to the "wall socket like magic" versus seeing a physical car on the road. You don't have to go to the hospital to see people who were maimed, and you don't really see the strip mining taking place to create cars, for example.
- aussieshibe 4y ago
  What? I'm not making any comparison I think? The person I replied to said (paraphrasing) "Why aren't cars going away? If they aren't, why can't you make the same arguments about coal power plants". I'm saying: - Cars aren't going away because they are much better than any available alternative for a large number of people from a short term perspective - The same can't be said of coal power because electricity is electricity is electricity, there is no immediate difference, so the longer term differences have a greater impact on decision making
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > We can't apply the same arguments to power plants because we don't have to go to / see / interact with the power plant in order to use electricity My reading was that you were comparing physical presence of cars + coal plants and also the negative externalities of coal plants but not accounting for the negative externalities of cars. But I may have misread and I apologize if I did :)

wilg 4y ago

They're not going away because nobody is seriously talking about getting rid of cars because it makes no sense. Figure out how to convince people to do it worldwide, figure out how to replace all auto transport with other modes, then build those alternate modes. I'll bet that will take longer and result in more CO2 emissions than electrifying cars. We don't solve global warming by fantasizing about deleting cars, we solve it with good engineering and passable policy.

543g43g43 4y ago
The Climate Catastrophe doesn't care about what certain groups of people find "sensible".