4 ms·

> [EVs] played a significant role in keeping oil demand (in terms of energy content) from rising above pre-pandemic levels. Oil demand increased by 2.4% from 2

> [EVs] played a significant role in keeping oil demand (in terms of energy content) from rising above pre-pandemic levels. Oil demand increased by 2.4% from 2022 to 2023 according to the IEA's own report [1]. In what world is an annual increase considered "curbing demand"? This is twisting the meaning of words to an extreme degree. The time series analysis in question uses the unrelated pandemic dip to cherry-pick a time period that looks most favorable to EVs. The article makes no mention of the recent annual change (which is the only thing caused by new car sales), taking pains to avoid it. I'm rooting for the EV transition to work, I really am. But we need to be brutally honest in the assessment of our progress or we'll never get there. A little light greenwashing can be hugely detrimental to our cause; we have a moral obligation to do robust scientific inference. I have no way of knowing if the omission was intentional or an oversight, either way it undermines the validity of the message. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-2023 https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-2023

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Demand grows with population and GDP growth. Also, less developed countries become more developed and people demand more energy usage. So 2.4% could have been 5%, and that it was only 2.4% is how growth was curbed. This is probably mostly coming from Chinese, who have slowed the increases in their oil usage from an aggressive push into EVs.
- perrygeo 3y ago
  In 2022, the world bought 99.8 million barrels per day. In 2023, we bought 102.4. The IEA data says explicitly that demand is growing. There is no debate about that. But I get your point re: the word "curbed". The word is mathematically vague and means effectively "restrained". Which doesn't tell us if that's a reduction of the metric itself or a simply a reduction in the rate of increase (the second derivative of the metric). Or the relative rate of increase per capita. So depending on your interpretation, you may or may not believe emissions are 'curbed' My take is that the atmosphere doesn't give a shit about the rate, or which specific countries are curbing what. The only thing that matters from a climate perspective is the absolute global tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions. Unless we reduce that, we're losing the climate fight. I'm increasingly frustrated with our tendency to chase after irrelevant metrics and claim success. I'm not celebrating until we actually reduce emissions.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    There is a lot of confusion between position, velocity, and acceleration when discussing these things. Prices have decreased is different from price growth has decreased, and even the rate at which prices are growing has decreased. > My take is that the atmosphere doesn't give a shit about the rate, or which specific countries are curbing what. The atmosphere doesn't care period. In the long run, the Earth will recover from whatever we throw at it, humanity just might go extinct earlier than expected. But at the same time, you can't tell people in the developing world that their lifestyle isn't allowed to improve because we need to save the planet. Some fairness is needed. So emissions are going to get worse before they get better, and hopefully they start getting better soon enough.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > you can't tell people in the developing world that their lifestyle isn't allowed to improve because we need to save the planet. This is nonsense. It's easier for developing countries to adopt renewables because they don't have to compete against existing infrastructure. When the US has a coal-fired power plant that was built 30+ years ago, the capital expenditure is paid off and it's only paying for operations and fuel, and renewables are still out-competing them. It also makes it easier to build because of different expectations. In the US if you wanted to shut down existing natural gas peaker plants in favor of renewables you'd see objections or demands to back them up with something expensive for times of low generation. In a developing country, building enough in renewables to power 60% of the homes 80% of the time is a bigger win than spending the same money to build enough fossil fuels to power 40% of the homes 100% of the time, and then you can add the expensive reliability technology at the end as the country becomes more developed. When that's the case it makes no sense to be building new fossil fuel power plants in countries where they don't already exist. They have to pay construction costs, and can be expected to be even more out-competed in the future, implying that the construction cost will be a waste of that country's finite resources. The countries doing it are doing it for political reasons, e.g. they have a domestic fossil fuel industry to subsidize, which is not a sympathetic excuse.
      - 3y ago

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Demand grows with population and GDP growth. Also, less developed countries become more developed and people demand more energy usage. So 2.4% could have been 5%, and that it was only 2.4% is how growth was curbed. This is probably mostly coming from Chinese, who have slowed the increases in their oil usage from an aggressive push into EVs.

perrygeo 3y ago
In 2022, the world bought 99.8 million barrels per day. In 2023, we bought 102.4. The IEA data says explicitly that demand is growing. There is no debate about that. But I get your point re: the word "curbed". The word is mathematically vague and means effectively "restrained". Which doesn't tell us if that's a reduction of the metric itself or a simply a reduction in the rate of increase (the second derivative of the metric). Or the relative rate of increase per capita. So depending on your interpretation, you may or may not believe emissions are 'curbed' My take is that the atmosphere doesn't give a shit about the rate, or which specific countries are curbing what. The only thing that matters from a climate perspective is the absolute global tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions. Unless we reduce that, we're losing the climate fight. I'm increasingly frustrated with our tendency to chase after irrelevant metrics and claim success. I'm not celebrating until we actually reduce emissions.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  There is a lot of confusion between position, velocity, and acceleration when discussing these things. Prices have decreased is different from price growth has decreased, and even the rate at which prices are growing has decreased. > My take is that the atmosphere doesn't give a shit about the rate, or which specific countries are curbing what. The atmosphere doesn't care period. In the long run, the Earth will recover from whatever we throw at it, humanity just might go extinct earlier than expected. But at the same time, you can't tell people in the developing world that their lifestyle isn't allowed to improve because we need to save the planet. Some fairness is needed. So emissions are going to get worse before they get better, and hopefully they start getting better soon enough.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > you can't tell people in the developing world that their lifestyle isn't allowed to improve because we need to save the planet. This is nonsense. It's easier for developing countries to adopt renewables because they don't have to compete against existing infrastructure. When the US has a coal-fired power plant that was built 30+ years ago, the capital expenditure is paid off and it's only paying for operations and fuel, and renewables are still out-competing them. It also makes it easier to build because of different expectations. In the US if you wanted to shut down existing natural gas peaker plants in favor of renewables you'd see objections or demands to back them up with something expensive for times of low generation. In a developing country, building enough in renewables to power 60% of the homes 80% of the time is a bigger win than spending the same money to build enough fossil fuels to power 40% of the homes 100% of the time, and then you can add the expensive reliability technology at the end as the country becomes more developed. When that's the case it makes no sense to be building new fossil fuel power plants in countries where they don't already exist. They have to pay construction costs, and can be expected to be even more out-competed in the future, implying that the construction cost will be a waste of that country's finite resources. The countries doing it are doing it for political reasons, e.g. they have a domestic fossil fuel industry to subsidize, which is not a sympathetic excuse.
    - 3y ago