Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

Yes, I read all about the bike lanes. We have them here too and they're a great addition to an urban environment but the trick, at least it is around here, is to get people actually using them. Sure there was lots of demand that they be built and by now, this place should look like Amsterdam given the amount of people who said they would switch to cycling if there was a proper infrastructure. Still waiting on that European cycling culture to make an appearance.

These feeble little steps are not enough though, that's why Andrew Weaver said the quiet part out loud. 1.5 C is a done deal, full stop. There's now way "we" are going to bike lane or ban private planes out of it that's all just smoke, mirrors and wishful thinking.

The pandemic lockdown of 2020. Now there's something that was foisted on us by the government that actually reduced emissions and put us on track to averting 1.5C. Mmmmm imagine if that lockdown was not only permanent but escalated every year.

So....how to bring the emissions of the average European in line with those of the average Angolan? They still need their emissions lowered, at least according to Biden. Oh, and speaking of Biden, the guy with his finger on the nuclear button, I hope he hasn't gotten any ideas form watching The 100.

Where exactly is "here"? And what exactly has been done? There are many ways of pretending to do something, and as a monument for 'See?! We did it, and it didn't work!', it can be very useful as an argument.
All I can do is describe what I have seen done here, Copenhagen, Denmark, and how it works.
And it does work - albeit still not enough:
Climate Change Performance Index (Scroll down to list of countries. I only just stumbled on this and I don't know how reliable it is. For instance, I don't see how China and the USA can be so close. But I like that they have left #1, 2 & 3 open because not one single country lives up to what needs to be done.)

It is obvious to everybody (or it ought to be) that "feeble little steps are not enough" and that you can't "bike lane or ban private planes out of it." It's a little like the cheese model of COVID-19 prevention: Nothing works on its own, but many (effective!) things in combination do! So bike lanes + banning private jets + first and foremost shifting from fossil fuels to wind and solar + X + Y + Z. It's all necessary.

The lockdown lowered emissions somewhat, but not enough, obviously. Some things could be learned from it, for instance WFH, which probably had the biggest impact and didn't affect people's lives negatively in most respects. Some people would even like to continue doing it but aren't allowed to do so. I assume that reduced travelling, i.e. emissions from jets, also contributed.

So limiting plane trips to what could be powered by E-fuel or solar and wind-generated hydrogen would probably make the travel industry want to do their utmost to find a way live up to that kind of restrictions. I assume that it would still take a number of years before the jets got back up in the air again, which wouldn't seriously hurt anybody.

However, I think that airlines (along with the fossil-fuel industry) would probably consider it a better investment to rile up people used to traveling by jet against any politician who proposed such at thing.
Industrialists are the ones who primarily benefit from CO₂ emissions, and they are the ones who decide what people and politicians think. And they usually get what they pay for.

I think I stopped watching The 100 after the first two seasons, and I don't remember much, so I don't get your reference.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, I read all about the bike lanes. We have them here too and they're a great addition to an urban environment but the trick, at least it is around here, is to get people actually using them. Sure there was lots of demand that they be built and by now, this place should look like Amsterdam given the amount of people who said they would switch to cycling if there was a proper infrastructure. Still waiting on that European cycling culture to make an appearance.

These feeble little steps are not enough though, that's why Andrew Weaver said the quiet part out loud. 1.5 C is a done deal, full stop. There's now way "we" are going to bike lane or ban private planes out of it that's all just smoke, mirrors and wishful thinking.

The pandemic lockdown of 2020. Now there's something that was foisted on us by the government that actually reduced emissions and put us on track to averting 1.5C. Mmmmm imagine if that lockdown was not only permanent but escalated every year.

So....how to bring the emissions of the average European in line with those of the average Angolan? They still need their emissions lowered, at least according to Biden. Oh, and speaking of Biden, the guy with his finger on the nuclear button, I hope he hasn't gotten any ideas form watching The 100.

The problem is that halfway solutions don't always get you halfway results.

Cheap and fast bike infrastructure is generally worthless. Painting a line down the shoulder of a road and calling it a bike lane isn't a real solution. Putting up flexible posts isn't a solution. Bicyclists fully understand that paint and/or flex posts aren't a magic barrier that will prevent a negligent or malicious driver from killing them in their bike lane. If the bike lane isn't physically separated from car traffic, it's practically useless except to the bravest and/or stupidest cyclists.

 

[dann]

My second most visited place, the grocery store, is not within reasonable walking distance, though, and carrying groceries home would be problematic both walking and on a bike.

If you're keen, panniers work really well on a bike.

May I recommend the Christiania bike?!
“The most important thing is that it makes my little boy happy” (Christiania Bikes® UK, Jan 12, 2014) If you scroll down, there's a version where children are protected from wind and rain.

It's a bit tough to ride them against headwind, so many of them are going 'hybrid' nowadays: electric + pedals, but in Copenhagen I see many parents bring and pick up (sometimes several) kids, usually in rush-hour traffic where they take up a lot of space on the bike lanes, which can be a annoying. However, this has usually been taken into consideration when new bike lanes are established.

I was sitting in my hotel room after two days of shooting a few videos in Copenhagen and realized I had unconsciously become more fixated on capturing more on people riding with their children (and pets!) than in past trips. It could have something to do with the fact that I have a young son now.
Almost a joke I tweeted to Streetfilms fans asking if I put together a montage of kids and dogs being ferried about in Copenhagen would they watch it. I got over two dozen likes and plenty more replies in a very short time. So while at the airport waiting for my flight to Oslo and also using the flight time and bus ride to hotel, I put stitched this lovely bike poem together.
I hope you like it. Especially because I almost never use slow-mo. Why? I see people that lean on it all the time as a style. For me, I think it's best to use it sparingly. I've used slow-motion maybe twice in 700 Streetfilms. But this time it felt so right. Enjoy.
Cycling Copenhagen with Children, Canines & Couples as Cargo (Streetfilms on Youtube, Aug 7, 2016 - 2:55 min)

At least one of those examples is illegal. The one with the girl standing behind the mother at 0:26. I am pretty sure that the one with the dog on a leash at 2:43 is, too.
They are definitely not safe, and the girl doesn't even wear a helmet. So many things could go wrong there.

Can You Go Car Free In Winter? We Gave It A Try! (Global Cycling Network on YouTube, Dec 12, 2021 - 16:09 min)

 

[dann]

The problem is that halfway solutions don't always get you halfway results.

Cheap and fast bike infrastructure is generally worthless. Painting a line down the shoulder of a road and calling it a bike lane isn't a real solution. Putting up flexible posts isn't a solution. Bicyclists fully understand that paint and/or flex posts aren't a magic barrier that will prevent a negligent or malicious driver from killing them in their bike lane. If the bike lane isn't physically separated from car traffic, it's practically useless except to the bravest and/or stupidest cyclists.

I feel (and I think I am) quite safe in Copenhagen in the places where bike lanes consist of nothing but paint, but that is because drivers are used to bicyclists and bike lanes - even the painted ones. The worst kind of bike lane I have experienced have been in Germany where bicyclists and pedestrians are mixed like this.

It annoys the hell out of both pedestrians, who inadvertently walk on and cross the bike lane without even knowing it's there, and bicyclists, who should always assume that tourists have no idea that the sidewalk is also a bike lane. I tend to forget myself because I'm not used to it.

But I like it if I'm on in-liners, which have become illegal on bike lanes in Copenhagen, unfortunately.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I feel (and I think I am) quite safe in Copenhagen in the places where bike lanes consist of nothing but paint, but that is because drivers are used to bicyclists and bike lanes - even the painted ones. The worst kind of bike lane I have experienced have been in Germany where bicyclists and pedestrians are mixed like this.

It annoys the hell out of both pedestrians, who inadvertently walk and cross the bike lane without even knowing it's there, and bicyclists, who should always assume that tourists have no idea that the sidewalk is also a bike lane. I tend to forget myself because I'm not used to it.

But I like it if I'm on in-liners, which have become illegal on bike lanes in Copenhagen, unfortunately.

I speak a bit too glibly. Painted bike lanes can be adequate in some situations. Hell, no bike lane at all and a general expectation to share the road can be adequate on the slowest, low traffic roads.

The problem in the US is that they'll add these painted lanes in situations that are totally inappropriate and call it adequate. Multi-lane, higher speed roads with heavier traffic call for protected bike lanes, not paint.

I concede that culture probably plays a big role. American drivers don't expect cyclists because cycling is pretty rare. If anything that indicates American needs more protective bicycle infrastructure than places like Copenhagen if they want it to become more popular.

 

[lomiller]

I speak a bit too glibly. Painted bike lanes can be adequate in some situations. Hell, no bike lane at all and a general expectation to share the road can be adequate on the slowest, low traffic roads.

The problem in the US is that they'll add these painted lanes in situations that are totally inappropriate and call it adequate. Multi-lane, higher speed roads with heavier traffic call for protected bike lanes, not paint.

I concede that culture probably plays a big role. American drivers don't expect cyclists because cycling is pretty rare. If anything that indicates American needs more protective bicycle infrastructure than places like Copenhagen if they want it to become more popular.

There is only so much you can do to make protective bike infrastructure. There are cases where I feel safer on a sufficiently wide 60Km/h roadway with no bike lane than a protected bike path because cars still need to cross that path to exit parking lots, make turns, etc.

In fact the scariest part of my commute was always a stretch of multi-use path. The problem there was similar to the issue with bike lanes in that instead of stopping at the stop sign cars pull up to the roadway and start looking at oncoming traffic for a chance to make a right hand turn. Not only do they drive across the bike lane/multi-use path without stopping, they do it with all their attention focused to the left, so when you are approaching from the right they almost never see you.

Conversely if I'm only a 60Km/h road with 2 lanes of relatively heavy traffic going in the same direction as me, the cars are likely used to doing 50 or slower due to the heavy traffic, traffic lights, etc. If I'm doing 30-35KM/h the closing speed is relatively slow giving them a lot of time to see me, move over to the right hand side of their lane and passing me with relatively small speed differences. This presumes a relatively wide roadway. The occasional car will still crowd you but the issues with turning vehicles is much less.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Conversely if I'm only a 60Km/h road with 2 lanes of relatively heavy traffic going in the same direction as me, the cars are likely used to doing 50 or slower due to the heavy traffic, traffic lights, etc. If I'm doing 30-35KM/h the closing speed is relatively slow giving them a lot of time to see me, move over to the right hand side of their lane and passing me with relatively small speed differences. This presumes a relatively wide roadway. The occasional car will still crowd you but the issues with turning vehicles is much less.

Big complaint I hear a lot locally is that cars pass far too closely, occasionally side swiping cyclists and causing wrecks. Real problem that drivers think that any slow traffic gives them a right to pass immediately, even if it's not safe to do so.

Another issue is that bike lanes that run along the edge of the road often face the risk of getting doored by parked cars, which resulted in a death recently in the Boston area when a reckless driver opened the door of their parked car into the path of a cyclist.

 

[lomiller]

Big complaint I hear a lot locally is that cars pass far too closely, occasionally side swiping cyclists and causing wrecks. Real problem that drivers think that any slow traffic gives them a right to pass immediately, even if it's not safe to do so.

Another issue is that bike lanes that run along the edge of the road often face the risk of getting doored by parked cars, which resulted in a death recently in the Boston area when a reckless driver opened the door of their parked car into the path of a cyclist.

It depends on the street obviously, but in my case the road is wide enough that I can get 2.5 feet of clearance without the car even needing to go out of it's own lane. Also, no parking during rush hour on it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Industrialists are the ones who primarily benefit from CO₂ emissions,

But are they really the primary beneficiaries? No, we all benefit.

Just read all the objections to changing lifestyles. Can't bike because it's too dangerous (yet people have no problem driving cars at 60mph or faster). Can't buy an electric car because it costs more / doesn't have enough range / takes too long to charge / don't have a garage. Can't cut out those airplane trips or reduce meat intake because reasons. Can't afford products that last.

If everybody bought electric cars instead of gas cars, and biked or walked whenever practicable, and ate less meat, and got as much use out of products as possible before recycling them, those industrialists would be in trouble. "Why does nobody want our cars?", they will ask. "Why are gas stations and airports mostly empty? Why is nobody eating beef? Oh what can we do? Lobby government to make airplane trips mandatory, and electric cars and vegetables illegal? Make products that fail quickly, and prosecute anyone who tries to fix them?"

Oh yes, they are trying to do some of that. But it won't help. Capitalism works on supply and demand. No demand means no market and bankruptcy for those industrialists. We have the power. But most of us won't use it because we are benefiting from fossil fuels and throwaway products just as much as those industrialists - actually more, collectively.

Consumers vastly outnumber producers. If only 10% of us started doing the right thing, bottom lines would drop and industry would have to change course to meet the changing demand. That is actually starting to happen, and industrialists are panicking. There are shakeups coming in the motorcar industry, energy sector, consumer electronics and other areas. Expect to see big names go under, and perhaps even whole countries if they don't change tack.

But industrialists aren't the only ones panicking - people are too. The main reason you see all the pushback against climate change mitigation is that people don't want to change. They can smell it in the air and don't like it one bit. So when the shills come out with 'alternate facts' they can latch onto, they jump at the chance. The enemy isn't global warming, it's 'alarmists' and communists socialists addle-headed liberals who want to take away your freedoms.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But are they really the primary beneficiaries? No, we all benefit.

Just read all the objections to changing lifestyles. Can't bike because it's too dangerous (yet people have no problem driving cars at 60mph or faster). Can't buy an electric car because it costs more / doesn't have enough range / takes too long to charge / don't have a garage. Can't cut out those airplane trips or reduce meat intake because reasons. Can't afford products that last.

Am I wrong to assume that driving on these roads is safer than cycling? Cycling can be safe, assuming there's good infrastructure, but in places without that infrastructure it's often insanely dangerous. People are right to assume they should not cycle in certain places because they will get run over by a car.

You have a point that people tend to not think too much about the inherent high risks that come with driving, and it's a bit funny seeing people doing crime panic stories about public transit when it's objectively a much, much safer way to travel than driving, but for those of us in American style car-centric sprawl with no public transit and no cycling infrastructure, driving is probably the safest viable option.


Cycling is one of those issues that isn't solely a matter of individual consumptive choice. If the infrastructure doesn't exist where you need it, you'd have to be crazy brave or really stupid to choose to cycle. It's a problem of city planning, not of personal choice.

I think a lot of climate issues are ultimately collective action issues, and attempts to frame them as matters of individual consumption preferences is a soft form of climate denial itself. We shouldn't expect people to martyr themselves on the roadways in the name of doing the right thing, because that's ridiculous, we collectively need to prioritize greener options like cycling or mass transit and de-prioritize wasteful options like personal car ownership.

 

[dann]

But are they really the primary beneficiaries? No, we all benefit.

Just read all the objections to changing lifestyles. Can't bike because it's too dangerous (yet people have no problem driving cars at 60mph or faster). Can't buy an electric car because it costs more / doesn't have enough range / takes too long to charge / don't have a garage. Can't cut out those airplane trips or reduce meat intake because reasons. Can't afford products that last.

You do know that cars going "69mph or faster" don't make bicycling safer, don't you?
(TurkeysGhost said what needed to be said about dangerous bicycling and infrastructure.)
As for "changing lifestyles" and "we all benefit":
No, 'we' ******* don't!
Child poverty statistics show no annual change in the year ended June 2022 (stats.gov.nz, Mar 23, 2023)
What's Behind the Spike in Child Poverty in the U.S. (Time, Sep 12, 2023)
Some ordinary people may have what you consider to be luxury problems, but others certainly don't and are badly in need of having their 'lifestyles' changed.

(This is an aside, but when you mentioned speeding drivers, it occurred to me that I never looked up road deaths in the USA in comparison to post-vaccination COVID-19 deaths. In 2022, there were approximately 263,000* registered C-19 deaths. 42,795 died in "vehicle traffic crashes".)

If everybody bought electric cars instead of gas cars, and biked or walked whenever practicable, and ate less meat, and got as much use out of products as possible before recycling them, those industrialists would be in trouble. "Why does nobody want our cars?", they will ask. "Why are gas stations and airports mostly empty? Why is nobody eating beef? Oh what can we do? Lobby government to make airplane trips mandatory, and electric cars and vegetables illegal? Make products that fail quickly, and prosecute anyone who tries to fix them?"

And if everybody obeyed the law, there would be no need for jailers and policemen! Those industrialists will never be in trouble your way, and I think that both you and Myriad, who shares your fantasy, know that. I also think that you know what those industrialists really don't like: a successful strike that makes it possible for people to pay the rent and the children's school lunch. What they positively hate is a revolution that puts a stop them altogether.
Now, there's a real "Oh what can we do?" scenario worth considering!

Oh yes, they are trying to do some of that. But it won't help. Capitalism works on supply and demand. No demand means no market and bankruptcy for those industrialists. We have the power. But most of us won't use it because we are benefiting from fossil fuels and throwaway products just as much as those industrialists - actually more, collectively.

Too little demand is a regular occurrence in capitalism. It's called a recession. Sometimes a regular crisis. Its first victims aren't industrialists, it's ordinary people losing their jobs and thus their ability to pay the rent and everything else. As consumers, we only have the power to buy what we can with our measly earnings. You are pretending that most people don't need to pay the rent, pay for food, clothes, transport, and in some places the children's education, too. You know, those frivolous luxuries that we could do without.

Your version of capitalism is as much a fairy tale as Myriad's:

As of June, 61% of adults are living paycheck to paycheck, according to a LendingClub report. In other words, they rely on those regular paychecks to meet essential living expenses, with little to no money left over.
Almost three-quarters, 72%, of Americans say they aren't financially secure given their current financial standing, and more than a quarter said they will likely never be financially secure, according to a survey by Bankrate.
Here's why Americans can't stop living paycheck to paycheck (CNBC, Aug 17, 2023)

Welcome to the real world! These are the powerful consumers you are talking about. I am pretty sure they have already cut down on beef. Lobster too, I guess. Myriad's consumption addicts. And some of them are the parents of the poverty-stricken children mentioned above. If you tell them to buy a Tesla, you are one of those guys who make paupers vote Republican. Or vote ACT in NZ, I guess. If they have cars, they probably aren't Lamborghinis, but ordinary fossil-fuel driven necessities used mainly to get to work

Consumers vastly outnumber producers. If only 10% of us started doing the right thing, bottom lines would drop and industry would have to change course to meet the changing demand. That is actually starting to happen, and industrialists are panicking. There are shakeups coming in the motorcar industry, energy sector, consumer electronics and other areas. Expect to see big names go under, and perhaps even whole countries if they don't change tack.

A hard rain’s a‐gonna fall, but it's due to climate change. It ain't one of panicking industrialists threatened by consumer boycotts because there isn't any. Your 10% may be considering buying electric cars if there are enough charging stations, but it won't change a thing if society isn't changed to accommodate a radical change of energy production.

But industrialists aren't the only ones panicking - people are too. The main reason you see all the pushback against climate change mitigation is that people don't want to change. They can smell it in the air and don't like it one bit. So when the shills come out with 'alternate facts' they can latch onto, they jump at the chance. The enemy isn't global warming, it's 'alarmists' and communists socialists addle-headed liberals who want to take away your freedoms.

Yes, if no alternatives are made available to people whose lives are already austere enough as it is, alarmists telling them they are frivolous consumers who need to consume less will definitely drive them into the arms of Big Oil. Conflating those alarmists with communists and/or Jews is comme il faut in those circles. Communists were always the enemies of industrialists and their paid fascists, so that isn't something we don't expect.


* Probably more, actually, since the cumulative number of C-19 deaths changed from 1,08 million to 1,09 million on Jan 6, 2023. From Jan 7, 2023, to May 7, there had had already been 40,000 C-19 deaths, and on May 21, the USA stopped reporting its numbers.

 

[dann]

Abstract
This planetary boundaries framework update finds that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity. Ocean acidification is close to being breached, while aerosol loading regionally exceeds the boundary. Stratospheric ozone levels have slightly recovered. The transgression level has increased for all boundaries earlier identified as overstepped. As primary production drives Earth system biosphere functions, human appropriation of net primary production is proposed as a control variable for functional biosphere integrity. This boundary is also transgressed. Earth system modeling of different levels of the transgression of the climate and land system change boundaries illustrates that these anthropogenic impacts on Earth system must be considered in a systemic context.
Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries (ScienceAdvances, Sep 13, 2023)

Many of the involved researchers are Danes, so I found it here:
Alarmerende udvikling: Seks af Jordens ni ‘planetære grænser’ er nu overskredet, advarer forskere (Videnskab.dk, Sep 14, 2023)
You can see some of the graphics in the very short Danish article.

 

[dann]

PS

Consumers vastly outnumber producers. If only 10% of us started doing the right thing, bottom lines would drop and industry would have to change course to meet the changing demand. That is actually starting to happen, and industrialists are panicking.

No, industrialists really aren't panicking. And they don't fear any consumer boycotts.
On the contrary, they are trying to figure out how to lower the consumption of ordinary consumers by raising unemployment.
Short clip (1:11 min) from Financial Review on Twitter:
Some of the most evil people in the world are getting more arrogant… (David Griscom, Sep 12, 2023)
Now he is busy apologizing (BBC) because the little people weren't meant to have listened in on what he revealed about his attitude.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Am I wrong to assume that driving on these roads is safer than cycling? Cycling can be safe, assuming there's good infrastructure, but in places without that infrastructure it's often insanely dangerous. People are right to assume they should not cycle in certain places because they will get run over by a car.

Obviously some roads are not suitable for bicycles. There are places in New Zealand where I even avoid taking my car due to the bad driving habits here. I have seen too many car accidents and am always nervous about driving in traffic. Would hate to have my day ruined by some bastard running into me. I also know people who were in serious car accidents and hospitalized for months. One friend of mine lost an eye and had health issues for the rest of his life.

But we have cycle ways here alongside main roads that I feel perfectly safe on, as well as routes well away from traffic. I would rather bike than drive most of the time because where there are cycle lanes the chances of crashing on my bike are much lower than in a car.

You have a point that people tend to not think too much about the inherent high risks that come with driving, and it's a bit funny seeing people doing crime panic stories about public transit when it's objectively a much, much safer way to travel than driving, but for those of us in American style car-centric sprawl with no public transit and no cycling infrastructure, driving is probably the safest viable option.

Yes, a car is usually the only viable option for longer trips, transporting large items, in bad weather etc. That's where electric cars come in. If you can't bike or use public transport, you can drive an EV. The advantages of switching to electric are numerous - lower carbon footprint, cheaper to run, nicer to drive, quieter and less polluting. Other people who bike will appreciate it too - as will you when you are biking.

Cycling is one of those issues that isn't solely a matter of individual consumptive choice. If the infrastructure doesn't exist where you need it, you'd have to be crazy brave or really stupid to choose to cycle. It's a problem of city planning, not of personal choice.

Once again it's a matter of supply and demand. While nobody is biking there is no incentive to provide the infrastructure. My city has been proactive in recent years, creating cycle ways when roads are upgraded. However few people take advantage of them, and many car owners complain about the cost of cycle ways and the inconvenience of (sometimes) narrower roads. They also complain about lowered speed limits, which many regularly ignore. This prevailing attitude must be quite disheartening for councilors planning for the future - a future they may not be in if public sentiment goes against them.

I think a lot of climate issues are ultimately collective action issues, and attempts to frame them as matters of individual consumption preferences is a soft form of climate denial itself. We shouldn't expect people to martyr themselves on the roadways in the name of doing the right thing, because that's ridiculous, we collectively need to prioritize greener options like cycling or mass transit and de-prioritize wasteful options like personal car ownership.

BS. Governments around the world are trying to do the right thing, but people are bucking it. We need to encourage and support the government's efforts by electing people who are committed to it and indicating our desire for more. But just as importantly we must use the infrastructure being provided, even if it is not yet the best. Supply won't increase without demand.

That's where we can make difference both collectively and individually. I might be one of very few who bike to work, but I am noticed by all the cars driving by - and the cars stuck in traffic while I breeze past them! The city also notices. It would only take a few hundred of us to show them that putting in more cycle ways is worth it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

No, industrialists really aren't panicking. And they don't fear any consumer boycotts.

I didn't say anything about boycotts.

And yes, industrialists are panicking.

Is Ford Falling Behind Tesla in the EV Race?

Ford's Model e segment -- formed early last year to focus specifically on electric vehicles and connectivity -- did see revenue climb 39% year over year to $1.8 billion (4.2% of the company's total). But management also said that the Model e segment is expected to incur an eye-watering EBIT loss of $4.5 billion in 2023.

Management further told investors they don't expect to get EV production's annualized run rate ramped up to 600,000 units until some time in 2024. Previously, the stated target for that milestone was the end of 2023. The issue, Ford said, was the slower-than-expected adoption of Ford's EVs to date...

As Ford seems to be telling it, many of its customers simply aren't ready for fully electric vehicles yet. Rather, they prefer to buy something like a hybrid vehicle as a stepping stone toward eventually going 100% electric.

But this highlights what is arguably the biggest dilemma for traditional automakers as the industry inevitably shifts toward electric vehicles: As pure-play electric vehicle makers focus on driving down costs while simultaneously ramping up production in line with demand -- and make no mistake, the demand is there for companies delivering the right vehicle offerings at the proper prices -- how can legacy automakers follow suit without cannibalizing the sales of their bread-and-butter ICE lines?

Tesla still holds the dominant position among EV makers. It commanded a nearly 60% market share in the U.S. during the first half of 2023 with 336,892 units sold (up 30% year over year). Ford, by contrast, sold only 25,709 EV units in the U.S.

Wholesale electricity prices down almost 60% a year on from Australia’s short-lived energy crisis

The rise of renewable energy, particularly rooftop solar, increasingly nudged out fossil fuels from the grid. Both black and brown coal power plants reported lower utilisation rates during the quarter.

“Increased market share of lower marginal-cost renewables helped push down the wholesale electricity cost from [the June quarter of] 2022, despite this quarter having the highest Q2 underlying demand recorded since 2016,” said Violette Mouchaileh, an Aemo executive general manager.

“Rooftop solar generation increased 30% from Q2 2022,” Mouchaileh said. “Coupled with higher renewable output, wholesale prices were zero or negative [for] 9% of the quarter throughout the NEM, a new Q2 record.”

The electricity industry remains Australia’s biggest source of greenhouse emissions but has more competitive low-carbon alternatives than other sectors. During the quarter, emissions from the NEM – which serves about 80% of the population – dropped 6.6% from a year earlier...

Gas continued its retreat as a source of electricity generation, averaging just 1,469MW for the quarter. That tally was down a third from the June quarter of 2022 and the lowest output for any April-June period since 2006

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Your version of capitalism is as much a fairy tale as Myriad's:

As of June, 61% of adults are living paycheck to paycheck, according to a LendingClub report. In other words, they rely on those regular paychecks to meet essential living expenses, with little to no money left over.
Almost three-quarters, 72%, of Americans say they aren't financially secure given their current financial standing, and more than a quarter said they will likely never be financially secure, according to a survey by Bankrate.
Here's why Americans can't stop living paycheck to paycheck (CNBC, Aug 17, 2023)

Welcome to the real world!

You think I don't live in the real world? In 2020 Covid destroyed what little income I was getting and I struggled to survive. Luckily I got 3 weeks of casual labour during lockdown, which was hard work but (almost) kept the wolf from the door. After that I got the occasional week or two and did odd jobs, receiving a total of NZ$12,000 for the 2021/22 financial year. One thing that helped a lot was that in 2019 I bought a used Nissan Leaf to replace my aging Sentra. Best decision I ever made, after moving house to a smaller place in 2015 just before real estate prices began to skyrocket (I could not afford to move now).

I would have killed for a regular pay check these past few years. Watching what little was left of my savings dwindle was no fun. I turned off the hot water for 3 months to save power (cut my electricity bill by 1/3rd!). Last year, just when I had saved up enough to pay the insurance bills, my microwave oven blew up, the fridge died, and my hotwater cylinder sprung a leak (due to the council putting excessive chlorine in the water supply after the neighboring town's supply got infected a few years ago and half the people there got sick) and had to be replaced.

Now I am getting the pension and it's Heaven. It's only a bit over half what I would earn on a 5 day week minimum wage, but now my bank balance is going up rather than down! I still do the occasional day or two's work when the research company needs some extra hands, but I can turn it down without fear. The Leaf has saved me a ton of gas money, even more now that petrol is NZ$2.80 a liter. Riding my bike saves even more.

Food prices have gone up but I'm not worried because by eating sensibly they are still only a small part of my total expenses - which are more and more being affected by global warming. After cyclone Gabrielle council rates went up 17% to pay for the damage, and I expect a similar rise in insurance rates. Fresh food prices have also increased dramatically due to destruction of local crops and orchards - but this will pass.

These are the powerful consumers you are talking about. I am pretty sure they have already cut down on beef. Lobster too, I guess. Myriad's consumption addicts. And some of them are the parents of the poverty-stricken children mentioned above.

Yes, and I am one of them. I could have bought a gas car - but I didn't. I could have bought a full-size fridge and put in gas hot water heating - but I didn't. I could have bought a lot of junk food and shiny objects, and then complained about having no money - but I didn't. I could have shacked up with multiple girlfriends and got them pregnant - but I didn't.

If you tell them to buy a Tesla, you are one of those guys who make paupers vote Republican. Or vote ACT in NZ, I guess. If they have cars, they probably aren't Lamborghinis, but ordinary fossil-fuel driven necessities used mainly to get to work

I didn't tell anyone to buy a Tesla. I do point out second hand electric cars that they can buy for less than the price of a new granny car or heap-of-trouble used gas car. Then the objections start tumbling out - everything from "But I might want to drive to Auckland and back in one day without stopping!" to "What about all those children in the Congo who were exploited to make it?". You can lead a horse to water...

Yesterday I was at the supermarket and spied another Leaf just like mine in the car park. For sale sign on the window gave all the specs (better battery health than mine) and a great price. If only I didn't already have one... You don't see cars like that in local dealer's yards though - nobody wants them. But they'll pay 30, 40, 50 grand for a behemoth SUV do do their shopping and take the kids to school.

 

[The Atheist]

But hey, if we can't convince radical activists not to gobble up fossil fuels for a holiday the bottom up idea is looking as feasible as the top down leaving resilience and adaptation as the most useful courses of action.

Pretty well nailed, I'd say.

Instead of talking about targets, plan for them not to be reached.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But hey, if we can't convince radical activists not to gobble up fossil fuels for a holiday the bottom up idea is looking as feasible as the top down leaving resilience and adaptation as the most useful courses of action.

I disagree. Radical activists are not the people we need to convince. There are only a few of them and they are self-policing wrt carbon footprint.

But of course that's not what this is all about. The actual intent of that article is to justify our own poor behavior by accusing others of being hypocritical. Oh yeah, two people in the whole world decide they will take that one trip of a lifetime, and tally up how much carbon they are on the hook for, and that justifies you throwing up your hands and declaring nothing can be done so we will all just have to rely on 'resilience and adaptation' to deal with the inevitable cataclysm because nobody could be bothered stopping it.

That has to be one of the worst arguments ever for letting global warming continue abated. But hey, anything that works - right?

BTW I love how the author threw this in at the end,

It’s not the first time Germany’s climate movement has faced questions over privilege and responsibility. Two of the country’s best-known climate activists, Luise Neubauer and Carla Reemtsma, are members of one of Germany’s wealthiest families. For a century the Reemtsma’s owned Germany’s largest tobacco firm and, in the 1930s, were prominent supporters of Adolf Hitler.

Nobody whose family did anything wrong ever has the right to be an activist?

You see, all these so-called activists are just spoiled brats who support tobacco companies and Hitler, so we can safely ignore their message and continue with business as usual.

 

[macdoc]

a reminder

New files shed light on ExxonMobil’s efforts to undermine climate science
Executives privately sought to downplay link between fossil fuels and climate change despite public pronouncements, WSJ reports

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...documents-wall-street-journal-climate-science

 

[Roger Ramjets]

a reminder

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...documents-wall-street-journal-climate-science

Old news.

When asked by the Journal about the new documents, the Exxon chief executive, Darren Woods, said: “When taken out of context, it seems bad.”

“But having worked with some of these colleagues earlier in my career, I have the benefit of knowing they are people of good intent,” he said. “None of these old emails and notes matter, though. All that does is that we’re building an entire business dedicated to reducing emissions – both our own and others’ – and spending billions of dollars on solutions that have a real, sustainable impact.”

They're still an oil company, so take that with as many grains of salt as you need.

But this is also hard to believe,

The documents could bolster legal efforts to hold oil companies accountable for their alleged attempts to sow doubt about climate science. More than two dozen US cities and states are suing big oil, claiming the industry knew for decades about the dangers of burning coal, oil and gas but hid that information.

Wow. Nobody else knew about the 'dangers' of burning fossil fuels, because oil companies didn't tell them?