4 ms·

I don't understand how these numbers work. When we commit to cutting emissions by 50%, what is the base of that number? Our total emissions today? If a signi

I don't understand how these numbers work. When we commit to cutting emissions by 50%, what is the base of that number? Our total emissions today? If a significant part of this involves electric vehicles, that means at least 25% of all vehicles on the road probably need to be electric, including semis (currently it's 1%). All of this just seems unrealistic right now with 7 years to go. Without a way to limit consumption through carbon tax, I don't see how the status quo really changes. All of this seems ripe for playing number games. These things remind me of someone commiting to lose weight for their new years resolution.

jcranmer 3y ago
Drilling into the linked sources a little bit, the baseline is 2005 emissions, which is roughly the peak of US CO₂-equivalent emissions. Right now, we're ~15% below 2005 emissions.
- mgkimsal 3y ago
  Drill baby drill! /s But... are we actually 15% below in total, or just per capita? I've heard/read both from various places (all of which escape me now). We might still be emitting more in total, but because of population increase, we're considered 'down' from 2005. I hope it's 15% down overall.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    Those are total numbers, not per capita. (And shale gas is one of the reasons for the drop... gas power does better for CO₂ emissions than coal is, and the fracking boom basically killed a lot of the coal industry.) Per capita, the US is down ~25% from 2005 levels (from ~20t to ~15t).
    - DragonStrength 3y ago
      It's not the point of this article, but the top line graph captures the incredible shift from coal to gas in such a short time: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/clean-energy-electricity-sources/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interacti...
    - chimeracoder 3y ago
      > (And shale gas is one of the reasons for the drop... gas power does better for CO₂ emissions than coal is, and the fracking boom basically killed a lot of the coal industry.) Natural gas is better in isolation at point-of-use, but that assumes that none of it escapes into the atmosphere at any point along the (literal) pipeline - which, as it turns out, is not a safe assumption, due to shoddy pipelines. As a greenhouse gas, natural gas is actually a few orders of magnitude worse than carbon dioxide[0], so if even a very small amount leaks out it not only wipes out any gains you get from using natural gas instead of coal, but quickly becomes a solution that's worse than the problem. We probably haven't seen the worst of it yet: in practice, companies have very little long-term liability for the environmental impact of the mining infrastructure as it ages and after it is abandoned, at which point it becomes an effective pump of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. With nobody else responsible for the expensive task, it will probably be up to the government to clean it all up. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gas-climatebox-explainer/explainer-cleaner-but-not-clean-why-scientists-say-natural-gas-wont-avert-climate-disaster-idUSKCN25E1DR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gas-climatebox-explai...
      - avmich 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane Methane is a strong GHG with a global warming potential 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame. Methane is not as persistent a gas and tails off to about 28 times greater than CO2 for a 100-year time frame. So, methane is shorter-lived in the atmosphere than CO2. We need good numbers, of course, to have a good decision.
        chimeracoder 3y ago
        > Methane is a strong GHG with a global warming potential 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame. Methane is not as persistent a gas and tails off to about 28 times greater than CO2 for a 100-year time frame. That was already discussed in the article I linked. A 100-year timeframe is not relevant for either the 2005-present timeframe or the 2050 goal, which are the benchmarks being discussed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ChatGTP 3y ago
I quite alcohol for a year. 10 months in. It is possible, new years resolutions can happen.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jes5199 3y ago
EVs are getting so much cheaper so fast that they'll overtake ICE and hybrid sales soon... but vehicle stock in the US turns over slowly I've seen predictions that at some point it'll be cheaper to get a new EV than to even keep gasoline in an old ICE car, and once we hit that point it'll flip quickly. 7 years feels tight for that, but not impossible
- nradov 3y ago
  There is zero chance of mainstream manufacturers being able to reach 50% EVs in 7 years. The supply chain capacity for batteries and other components simply can't ramp up that quickly regardless of customer demand.
  - WorldMaker 3y ago
    The mainstream manufacturers have invested a lot very quickly into the supply chain for batteries. It is ramping up extremely fast. Many of the current supply issues seem to be that it is ramping up too fast and there is a bit of a "hysteresis effect" as new plants come online with early plant quality issues that just need time to smooth out. Several of the mainstream manufacturers have 100% EV goals in 7 years or less. (All of the German manufacturers do, and GM is said to internally have a similar goal despite the kid gloves they treat their shareholders with because US shareholders have too much love for ICE and would tank GM's stock if GM actually said that out loud.)
    - nradov 3y ago
      I simply don't believe your claim that GM is misleading their shareholders about EV plans. The Board isn't stupid enough to commit that type of securities fraud. Citation needed.
      - WorldMaker 3y ago
        Sorry, I don't think they are "lying" about anything to their shareholders and "kid gloves" was an attempt to describe what I think they are doing. I think they are playing a PR game trying to A/B test PR messages depending on the shareholders in question. Some PR messages are about GM is on a very fast track to electrification. Some PR messages are about GM still believes in ICE. Investors that were leaving in droves for Tesla or Rivian stock want to hear the first message. The big investors that are also dealers want to hear the second message for the time being (until they feel more comfortable selling EVs, and/or find ways to better monetize EV-related "services" in the ways they make most of their money selling ICE, and/or GM finally buys those dealers out in one way or the other). In neither side of the A/B test do they make too many "definite" statements of what their timelines are for full electrification or for selling their last ICE. Reading between the lines of the EV statements (as the type of investor that believes EVs are the present), their electrification speed has been mostly remarkable and leaves the impression that the GM board isn't as stupid as previous decades' boards have been and knows what the German timescales are (and has some idea of the existential threat of the Chinese car manufacturers that are 100% EV already today) and is trying to stay relevant/competitive in modern timescales. That's admittedly a very personal gut reaction of "hearsay" to intentionally wishy washy PR statements.
gustavus 3y ago
> All of this seems ripe for playing number games. Now you're getting it. It step 1 of the con. In a con the first thing you do is shut down the mark's reasoning by overwhelming it with an appeal to strong emotion, usually greed or fear. i.e. "We've been trying to reach you about your cars extended warranty, if you don't call now you're car will no longer be covered." Next you offer a solution to the problem, if you do a good job with the first part the mark will be more focused on either 1) Getting a big payout or 2) Avoiding bad consequences, next you offer them a solution to the problem. If you are really good you'll hint at it and then pull back "Listen I've got this deal, actually never mind I don't think you'd be a good fit." this is the setting the hook. Finally you ask for the payment, with their logic shortcircuted the mark will then give you whatever you ask because they want relief bad. What does this have to do with the parent comment? He points out how easy it is to play number games with the things being defined here. This is because the groundwork is being laid for step 2, where the solution of "carbon capture credits" will be introduced. And before everyone starts angrily downvoting, I'll point out that I'm not saying climate change isn't a problem or that we need to do something about it. I'm saying that the same people in congress who are flying around in private jets and authorizing massive pork payments may not be solely motivated by a selfless desire to save the world and may be a little bit more interested in enriching themselves. But of course we all know politicians are flawless paragons of virute, except for those evil {conservatives|liberals|republicans|democrats|MAGAs|wokies|etc...} Before you downvote me, I'm going to ask you to take just a minute though and think, isn't a carbon tax a much more effective solution then setting some arbitrary goals, wouldn't it change actual behavior and provide better funding for further action? Stop and think did you reach to downvote me because you felt a strong emotional reaction when you thought I might be anti-climate change? Do you feel if we don't take immediate action right now we'll be doomed? Just saying cons are all about overwhelming the mark with fear and greed.... P.S Start to look for the pattern in the rest of life, it makes things interesting...

jcranmer 3y ago

Drilling into the linked sources a little bit, the baseline is 2005 emissions, which is roughly the peak of US CO₂-equivalent emissions. Right now, we're ~15% below 2005 emissions.

mgkimsal 3y ago
Drill baby drill! /s But... are we actually 15% below in total, or just per capita? I've heard/read both from various places (all of which escape me now). We might still be emitting more in total, but because of population increase, we're considered 'down' from 2005. I hope it's 15% down overall.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  Those are total numbers, not per capita. (And shale gas is one of the reasons for the drop... gas power does better for CO₂ emissions than coal is, and the fracking boom basically killed a lot of the coal industry.) Per capita, the US is down ~25% from 2005 levels (from ~20t to ~15t).
  - DragonStrength 3y ago
    It's not the point of this article, but the top line graph captures the incredible shift from coal to gas in such a short time: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/clean-energy-electricity-sources/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interacti...
  - chimeracoder 3y ago
    > (And shale gas is one of the reasons for the drop... gas power does better for CO₂ emissions than coal is, and the fracking boom basically killed a lot of the coal industry.) Natural gas is better in isolation at point-of-use, but that assumes that none of it escapes into the atmosphere at any point along the (literal) pipeline - which, as it turns out, is not a safe assumption, due to shoddy pipelines. As a greenhouse gas, natural gas is actually a few orders of magnitude worse than carbon dioxide[0], so if even a very small amount leaks out it not only wipes out any gains you get from using natural gas instead of coal, but quickly becomes a solution that's worse than the problem. We probably haven't seen the worst of it yet: in practice, companies have very little long-term liability for the environmental impact of the mining infrastructure as it ages and after it is abandoned, at which point it becomes an effective pump of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. With nobody else responsible for the expensive task, it will probably be up to the government to clean it all up. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gas-climatebox-explainer/explainer-cleaner-but-not-clean-why-scientists-say-natural-gas-wont-avert-climate-disaster-idUSKCN25E1DR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gas-climatebox-explai...
    - avmich 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane Methane is a strong GHG with a global warming potential 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame. Methane is not as persistent a gas and tails off to about 28 times greater than CO2 for a 100-year time frame. So, methane is shorter-lived in the atmosphere than CO2. We need good numbers, of course, to have a good decision.
      - chimeracoder 3y ago
        > Methane is a strong GHG with a global warming potential 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame. Methane is not as persistent a gas and tails off to about 28 times greater than CO2 for a 100-year time frame. That was already discussed in the article I linked. A 100-year timeframe is not relevant for either the 2005-present timeframe or the 2050 goal, which are the benchmarks being discussed.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ChatGTP 3y ago

I quite alcohol for a year. 10 months in. It is possible, new years resolutions can happen.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jes5199 3y ago

EVs are getting so much cheaper so fast that they'll overtake ICE and hybrid sales soon... but vehicle stock in the US turns over slowly I've seen predictions that at some point it'll be cheaper to get a new EV than to even keep gasoline in an old ICE car, and once we hit that point it'll flip quickly. 7 years feels tight for that, but not impossible

nradov 3y ago
There is zero chance of mainstream manufacturers being able to reach 50% EVs in 7 years. The supply chain capacity for batteries and other components simply can't ramp up that quickly regardless of customer demand.
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  The mainstream manufacturers have invested a lot very quickly into the supply chain for batteries. It is ramping up extremely fast. Many of the current supply issues seem to be that it is ramping up too fast and there is a bit of a "hysteresis effect" as new plants come online with early plant quality issues that just need time to smooth out. Several of the mainstream manufacturers have 100% EV goals in 7 years or less. (All of the German manufacturers do, and GM is said to internally have a similar goal despite the kid gloves they treat their shareholders with because US shareholders have too much love for ICE and would tank GM's stock if GM actually said that out loud.)
  - nradov 3y ago
    I simply don't believe your claim that GM is misleading their shareholders about EV plans. The Board isn't stupid enough to commit that type of securities fraud. Citation needed.
    - WorldMaker 3y ago
      Sorry, I don't think they are "lying" about anything to their shareholders and "kid gloves" was an attempt to describe what I think they are doing. I think they are playing a PR game trying to A/B test PR messages depending on the shareholders in question. Some PR messages are about GM is on a very fast track to electrification. Some PR messages are about GM still believes in ICE. Investors that were leaving in droves for Tesla or Rivian stock want to hear the first message. The big investors that are also dealers want to hear the second message for the time being (until they feel more comfortable selling EVs, and/or find ways to better monetize EV-related "services" in the ways they make most of their money selling ICE, and/or GM finally buys those dealers out in one way or the other). In neither side of the A/B test do they make too many "definite" statements of what their timelines are for full electrification or for selling their last ICE. Reading between the lines of the EV statements (as the type of investor that believes EVs are the present), their electrification speed has been mostly remarkable and leaves the impression that the GM board isn't as stupid as previous decades' boards have been and knows what the German timescales are (and has some idea of the existential threat of the Chinese car manufacturers that are 100% EV already today) and is trying to stay relevant/competitive in modern timescales. That's admittedly a very personal gut reaction of "hearsay" to intentionally wishy washy PR statements.

gustavus 3y ago

> All of this seems ripe for playing number games. Now you're getting it. It step 1 of the con. In a con the first thing you do is shut down the mark's reasoning by overwhelming it with an appeal to strong emotion, usually greed or fear. i.e. "We've been trying to reach you about your cars extended warranty, if you don't call now you're car will no longer be covered." Next you offer a solution to the problem, if you do a good job with the first part the mark will be more focused on either 1) Getting a big payout or 2) Avoiding bad consequences, next you offer them a solution to the problem. If you are really good you'll hint at it and then pull back "Listen I've got this deal, actually never mind I don't think you'd be a good fit." this is the setting the hook. Finally you ask for the payment, with their logic shortcircuted the mark will then give you whatever you ask because they want relief bad. What does this have to do with the parent comment? He points out how easy it is to play number games with the things being defined here. This is because the groundwork is being laid for step 2, where the solution of "carbon capture credits" will be introduced. And before everyone starts angrily downvoting, I'll point out that I'm not saying climate change isn't a problem or that we need to do something about it. I'm saying that the same people in congress who are flying around in private jets and authorizing massive pork payments may not be solely motivated by a selfless desire to save the world and may be a little bit more interested in enriching themselves. But of course we all know politicians are flawless paragons of virute, except for those evil {conservatives|liberals|republicans|democrats|MAGAs|wokies|etc...} Before you downvote me, I'm going to ask you to take just a minute though and think, isn't a carbon tax a much more effective solution then setting some arbitrary goals, wouldn't it change actual behavior and provide better funding for further action? Stop and think did you reach to downvote me because you felt a strong emotional reaction when you thought I might be anti-climate change? Do you feel if we don't take immediate action right now we'll be doomed? Just saying cons are all about overwhelming the mark with fear and greed.... P.S Start to look for the pattern in the rest of life, it makes things interesting...