You’re talking about trying to fix a multi-generational problem. In many places the things you’re asking to change have been in place for hundreds years. The politics and land ownership laws and implications are immense! That is NOT a fast problem to fix. If you’re taking EVs off the table, then that means you’re committing to 30-50 years of ICE vehicles pumping out CO2 all of that time.
How can you consider non-EVs a greener solution in your scenario?
(I take that back if the EVs we’re talking about here are e-bikes and micromobility devices.)
Its simply not possible to deliver 2000kg or 2000lbs of cargo to a business for last mile delivery in a timely fashion without a much larger vehicle than an e-bike. Why on Earth would you want a belching diesel vehicle doing that for decades on end when an EV could it with zero CO2 emissions?
It’s a multi-generational problem, so we should start fixing it now. Why is it going to be easier to solve 30-50 years from now? Why should we wait until we’ve transitioned to EVs to start the process? What is it about EVs is going to make that easier?
It’s a multi-generational problem, so we should start fixing it now.
First, sure we can try, but we don’t live in a monolithic place. We have to convince others and come up with plans on how to do it. That’s going to take time. We can start, but ending is a long long way from now.
What is it about EVs is going to make that easier?
I’ve already said it many times, EVs don’t put out CO2 while we’re working on transitioning.
Further, we still have no answer for last mile non-EV green delivery . I notice you ignored that last point.
EVs don’t put out tailpipe emissions while in operation, sure, but that’s an highly reductive view of the system. The latest numbers I’ve found show that an EV car has about 30% of the total lifecycle CO2 emissions as an ICE vehicle. That’s production, operation, maintenance, and disposal. A lot better, so if we drastically cut back on the number of vehicle miles traveled, that’d be a win. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the profusion of cheap EVs in China means that more people can afford them, there will be more vehicles on the road, we double down on automobile infrastructure and lifestyles, and the environment, human health, and long-term sustainability will take a hit. It’s the Jevons Paradox, which says that if we find a way to use a resource more efficiently, we use more of it.
What’s more, the transition to EVs won’t even stop the CO2 emissions. The emissions will just come from a new source. World-wide, we have a fully-functioning fossil fuel extraction industry. Petrochemicals are the energy and raw material input for so many industrial processes (including the production of EVs), it’s not going to shut down. If we stop using it for fuel in our vehicles, the law of supply and demand means it’ll get cheaper for other uses, which will ramp up. Indeed, our total global CO2 emissions keep rising.
What’s necessary is to re-design our societal systems to solve a bunch of problems, like the ecological catastrophe of habitat destruction and collapsing insect and bird populations, or the looming fresh water shortages, which don’t get much press because of the climate change issue. Drastically reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to 10% of the current level would have a much greater impact, even if all of those miles were all done in ICE vehicles, compared to maintaining the current VMT but doing them in EVs. That’s why I don’t agree that EVs are necessary to lower CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles. It would be really great if we drastically reduced VMT, and did those miles in EVs, but that’s not at all what’s happening.
(I’ve ignored the last-mile logistics issue because it’s small potatoes by comparison.)
You’re talking about trying to fix a multi-generational problem. In many places the things you’re asking to change have been in place for hundreds years. The politics and land ownership laws and implications are immense! That is NOT a fast problem to fix. If you’re taking EVs off the table, then that means you’re committing to 30-50 years of ICE vehicles pumping out CO2 all of that time.
How can you consider non-EVs a greener solution in your scenario?
Its simply not possible to deliver 2000kg or 2000lbs of cargo to a business for last mile delivery in a timely fashion without a much larger vehicle than an e-bike. Why on Earth would you want a belching diesel vehicle doing that for decades on end when an EV could it with zero CO2 emissions?
It’s a multi-generational problem, so we should start fixing it now. Why is it going to be easier to solve 30-50 years from now? Why should we wait until we’ve transitioned to EVs to start the process? What is it about EVs is going to make that easier?
First, sure we can try, but we don’t live in a monolithic place. We have to convince others and come up with plans on how to do it. That’s going to take time. We can start, but ending is a long long way from now.
I’ve already said it many times, EVs don’t put out CO2 while we’re working on transitioning.
Further, we still have no answer for last mile non-EV green delivery . I notice you ignored that last point.
EVs don’t put out tailpipe emissions while in operation, sure, but that’s an highly reductive view of the system. The latest numbers I’ve found show that an EV car has about 30% of the total lifecycle CO2 emissions as an ICE vehicle. That’s production, operation, maintenance, and disposal. A lot better, so if we drastically cut back on the number of vehicle miles traveled, that’d be a win. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the profusion of cheap EVs in China means that more people can afford them, there will be more vehicles on the road, we double down on automobile infrastructure and lifestyles, and the environment, human health, and long-term sustainability will take a hit. It’s the Jevons Paradox, which says that if we find a way to use a resource more efficiently, we use more of it.
What’s more, the transition to EVs won’t even stop the CO2 emissions. The emissions will just come from a new source. World-wide, we have a fully-functioning fossil fuel extraction industry. Petrochemicals are the energy and raw material input for so many industrial processes (including the production of EVs), it’s not going to shut down. If we stop using it for fuel in our vehicles, the law of supply and demand means it’ll get cheaper for other uses, which will ramp up. Indeed, our total global CO2 emissions keep rising.
What’s necessary is to re-design our societal systems to solve a bunch of problems, like the ecological catastrophe of habitat destruction and collapsing insect and bird populations, or the looming fresh water shortages, which don’t get much press because of the climate change issue. Drastically reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to 10% of the current level would have a much greater impact, even if all of those miles were all done in ICE vehicles, compared to maintaining the current VMT but doing them in EVs. That’s why I don’t agree that EVs are necessary to lower CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles. It would be really great if we drastically reduced VMT, and did those miles in EVs, but that’s not at all what’s happening.
(I’ve ignored the last-mile logistics issue because it’s small potatoes by comparison.)