First, there are no new additions into the economy of drivers and vehicles.
Second, that we can convert all production to electric vehicles overnight.
If you believe that we are all going to die in 12 years ( as folks like AOC and John Kerry keep telling us ), we are eight years too late in converting to all electric vehicles even if the underlying assumptions were possible.
This simple math problem shows that the people that are screaming the loudest do not have a serious solution to the existential problem of "man-made climate change." The automobile situation in the U.S. alone cannot be resolved in twenty years, let alone in ten years.
The simple math problem is, how many years will it take to replace all the cars in the U.S. with electric vehicles (total in the U.S. rounded up / average production volume per year)?
It is 300M / 15M/year = 20 years.
= = =
Assumes EV production level stays constant; probably will increase.
Assumes each EV buyer keeps his EV 20 years. (maybe he will sell it and it stays on the road.)
Assumed that each EV will keep running for 20 years.
But it is a decent starting point for discussion.
Democrats vote based on how they feel. Not math.
I once served on a public board and a Democrat colleague admitted to me privately that she knew a budget amendment she just voted for was uneconomic but she felt it was the “right thing to do” and “hoped it all worked out”. I thanked her for her honesty and said that she confirmed what I thought.
Electric vehicle batteries store energy, but do not really make any.
Electric vehicles are powered by whatever powers our electric grid. Nuclear, coal, gas, etc...
They also are messy to dispose of and the rare earths require huge open pit mining.
That is an even bigger pipe dream than getting everyone into EVs.
To all the stupid leftists....well, no more driving or flying for you ....no more vacations starting NOW...we have a climate emergency so turn off your AC and help save the planet. See, I don’t care about climate change so I’ll keep on driving/flying/ using AC etc. But not you.
The globalists plan on far fewer people, mostly crowded into regional cities, with only the privileged having cars.
So this arithmetic exercise doesn’t mean much.
They do not know the answer to either of those questions.
Trying to use logic to counter the Left’s argument does nothing. Counter the argument instead based on what the political use of Climate Change is intended for: Central command and control of the economy and enforced limits on the people’s mobility and thus liberty. Our argument against Climate Change thus needs to be focused on the Tyranny inherent within it, not almost entirely focused on the absurdity of the rhetoric used by its proponents.
Oh they’ll try to force it. They’ll start raising gas taxes. And then pass laws that no more gas stations can be built (some localities in California are already doing it). They’ll make fueling and driving an ICE vehicle as painful as possible.
The 12 year thing, weren’t they saying that about 4 years ago?
We only have about 8 years left (according to AOC and others)
What about other nations (think India, China, 3d world)? What will be used to recharge those EV's?
And finally, what would be the effect to "climate change" if this occurred (taking into consideration that man-made GW is insignificant to other sources)?
The only thing I can think of is that Al Gore will be richer...
Btt
There was a Ted Talk about the carbon footprint of EV’s. When bought brand new an EV has several times the carbon footprint than a traditional vehicle. You need to do about 80,000 miles before it becomes “green”.
So if we’ve only 8.5 years left, forcing EV’s on everyone NOW would just be exacerbating the problem and put that last nail in our coffin.
OR this is all nonsense.
The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely no way that they know what the temperature of the earth should be at any place, at any point in time. And any graph they create of the gases in the atmosphere is conjecture.
Carbon still needs to be burned to make electricity and component parts.
Entire thing is ludicrous.
Electric Vehicles May Present Major Problem During Natural Disaster Evacuations: Experts (8.11.22)
Insights welcome.
How about the rest of the story and when and how do we replace all the buses, trucks and school buses that use way more fuel than todays car fleet.
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10308
Never going to go all electric.
Somehow lost in the push for EVs is how will agriculture transition to battery power. Currently US agricultural production runs on diesel fuel. There are not even working prototypes of electric tractors, combines or heavy haul trucks to take the harvest to market. Even if some battery powered tractor or combine might be quickly developed how does one go about charging the batteries in the middle of a field? I suppose portable diesel powered generators would be an option but it kind of defeats the purpose. The Green New Deal could end mechanized farming and with the bans on fertilizer mass famine could be the result.
The truth is the “climate side” people have only ever counted what they claim is (a) (1) needed CO2 reductions by (2) x date.
Before going back to (a) 2, the date, asking how needed that date is, we can first address the biggest questions which are all about (a) (1), the supposed needed CO2 reductions.
In that regard the alarmists have no calculations, in terms of engineering studies, feasability studies, supple side studies or economic impact studies. In other words they have demands with no reasonable thought out plans of how to get there without doing worse economic damage than any supposed climate damage.
There have been engineering studies and feasibility studies done by others outside of the climate alarmists, and all of them say that do to engineering issues, energy production issues and supply side issues, attempting to achieve the immediate demands with immediate mandates will make the possible so called “solutions” more expensive year by year, leaving them wholly unachievable or barelt achievable with hefty increasing government subsidies and even deeper mandates outside of transportation to try to make up for what cannot be achieved in transportation.
The green aganda is some combination of a fools errand carried out in ignorance by leaders, whith the political leaders being conned into an attmept at total socialist centrally planned global economy - with CO2 as merely the wedge with which to do it.
None of it is necessary, even if there are any merits to containing the growth of man-made CO2 that is released to the atmosphere.
Why?
That takes us back to the date needed for the claimed levels of CO2 reductions.
At the highest stated CO2 reduction demands being made now, the rise in the accumulated atmospheric CO2 will continue, far at least 100 to possily 200 years before annual increases slow enough to stop the overall increase.
That means the economy will keep getting pooer and poorer - more expensive - chasing CO2 today, while even by the end of the first 100 years the “average global temperature” (according to the alarmists own science) will bave reached climate harmful conditions.
And by then where will all the needed measures to mitigate and adjust to that change be? They will not have happened because the needed monie was thrown into chasing CO2 INSTEAD of the changes needed to adapt to and mitigate the affects of all the differen climate changes.
The green agenda is a Pol Pot style agenda against the world. Destroy it to recreate it, in someone’s evil maniacal global utopian agenda.