Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

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

Indeed!

The new revelations are based on previously unreported documents subpoenaed by New York’s attorney general as part of an investigation into the company announced in 2015. They add to a slew of documents that record a decades-long misinformation campaign waged by Exxon, which are cited in a growing number of state and municipal lawsuits against big oil.

 

[Aridas]

But this is also hard to believe,
Wow. Nobody else knew about the 'dangers' of burning fossil fuels, because oil companies didn't tell them?

I'd take that "hid" as being used more in the sense of the companies actively working to deceive the public and burying the truth sufficiently to prevent responsible action from being taken, rather than simply not telling.

 

[dann]

Old news.

But still relevant and not outdated. They are still doing it, and it still works.

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

The irony is misplaced. People who make an effort and have the time to look into this do know, but people who only read the headlines don't. They register that some people say one thing and others say another. It's how "a decades-long misinformation campaign waged by Exxon" worked. Big Oil didn't merely hide information. They didn't merely not tell people. They told them something else. The delivered fake news.
You should take a look at it.

 

[dann]

I'd take that "hid" as being used more in the sense of the companies actively working to deceive the public and burying the truth sufficiently to prevent responsible action from being taken, rather than simply not telling.

That is the point, and it is made clear in the article.
However, Roger Ramjets is hellbent on making it seem as if the people who were lied to are the ones who are to blame for believing it.

 

[Pixel42]

Plenty of people knew, but their attempts to alert others were deliberately undermined by a disinformation campaign knowingly created and paid for by the fossil fuel companies.

 

[dann]

I didn't say anything about boycotts.

And yes, industrialists are panicking.

Is Ford Falling Behind Tesla in the EV Race?

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

No, industrialists aren't panicking. Your quotations don't describe any panic. They face competition, which is not a new thing. They always did. If anything is going to make auto makers panic, it'll be something like this:

The United Auto Workers union is on strike against General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, the first time in its history that it has struck all three of the nation’s unionized automakers at the same time.
Union workers strike against Big Three automakers (CNN on YouTube, Sep 15, 2023 - 9:01 min)

Faiz Shakir, founder of More Perfect Union, talks with Alex Wagner just hours before the United Auto Worker strike against the Big Three automakers about what the union is demanding and why the automakers and the U.S. economy can afford it.
A clarifying moment: United Auto Workers demand fair share from Big Three automakers] (MSNBC on YouTube, Sep 15, 2023 - 6:43 min)

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “I really applaud the courage of Shawn Fain and the workers at the UAW for standing up and saying enough is enough.”
‘Disgusting’: Bernie Sanders reacts to comments from millionaire CEO, applauds unions (MSNBC on YouTube, Sep 15, 2023 - 7:01 min)

And it's not about limiting consumption. The auto manufacturers have been busy doing that by lowering auto workers' wages. It's about limiting the profits of auto manufacturers. It's about raising wages, so workers can support themselves and their families. And it's about time.
It will lead to more consumption in working class families, which is another reason why wind and solar should be used to produce electricity instead of fossil fuels.

If those auto workers would also abolish the market economy that both impoverishes them and ruins the climate, it would be perfect!

 

[dann]

PS

If anything is going to make auto makers panic, it'll be something like this:

Sorry, my bad! No panic! They're just "extremely frustrated and disappointed".

 

[Stout]

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.

These two obviously need convincing (an an education) and the only reason we know about them is because the story is too hilarious not to be printed. It's not "us", the general public that's out there gluing ourselves to roads and screwing up peoples days so we can wallow in the attention. That bit at the end just lets us know they're 1%, they probably flew private and made up that bit about their emissions and, no doubt, were relying on the family lawyer to cut a check for any fine(s) that they may incur.

So...uh....where have I declared nothing can be done? Oh, that's right, never. I'm just not buying into this whole idea of we can avoid 1.5C without a great deal of sacrifice and all it's goingt to take is a few extra guys putting up wind and solar (and hydrolectric, nuclear, and geothermal) and the world will instantly be saved. Same with simply blaming the oil companies, that's just taking the easy way out. We all like and want oil, even radical climate activists even though they pretend not to.

Anybody who's even remotely been paying attention has known about climate change for decades yet we still load up out giant RVs and drive thousands of miles to Burning Man...and talk about how "they're" wrecking the planet.

 

[dann]

"... gluing ourselves to roads and screwing up peoples days so we can wallow in the attention."
'Because climate activists are narcissists trying to get attention, not to make people pay attention to global warming.'

"...they're 1%, they probably flew private and made up that bit about their emissions ..."
'Because there's no limit to who I can make up.'

'I can also make up what people mean when they advocate for the switch to renewables':
"... and all it's goingt to take is a few extra guys putting up wind and solar (and hydrolectric, nuclear, and geothermal) and the world will instantly be saved."

'Big Oil's manipulation and corruption of science and politics is inconsequential':
"Same with simply blaming the oil companies, that's just taking the easy way out. We all like and want oil, even radical climate activists even though they pretend not to."
Even though nobody but industrialists actually likes oil. Everybody likes power, in particular in the form of electricity, and most people don't give a **** where that power comes from and aren't inconvenienced in the slightest when it shifts from fossil fuels to wind and solar. They don't even know when it's one or the other.

"Anybody who's even remotely been paying attention has known about climate change for decades yet we still load up out giant RVs and drive thousands of miles to Burning Man...and talk about how "they're" wrecking the planet."
'Because nobody was ever fooled by Big Oil's propaganda and its corrupted scientists, politicians and media, and we all go to Burning Man, we damn 1%er hippies driving our giant RVs!'

The rant isn't worth the energy used to write, post and display it. Next time, look up the facts that people who have remotely been paying attention to global warming have known about for decades.

 

[Stout]

Yes it's true we all like power and don't really care where it comes from. We also like putting gas in our cars, trucks and boats, we like flying to Thailand for a piss up, we like our plastics and other products produced with oil... In short we like modern life.

So just to flesh out the fantasy a little more. Are we talking replacing all power generation, converting all homes and businesses to electric heating and appliances globally, or is this just a developed nations thing? How about our cars, trucks, boats and commercial conveyances? All converted to, and powered by, wind and solar as well? All in time to avert 1.5C warming? Can we throw in world peace as well?

I do like the idea that driving a monster RV to Burning man, (and the resulting emissions) isn't my fault idea though. Big oil propaganda left me no choice.

 

[dann]

Yes it's true we all like power and don't really care where it comes from. We also like putting gas in our cars, trucks and boats, we like flying to Thailand for a piss up, we like our plastics and other products produced with oil... In short we like modern life.

Yes, those of us who have access to them do actually like modern conveniences driven by electricity. We like convenient transport as well, and most places have done nothing to make anything other than gas-guzzling vehicles convenient.

You seem to be a victim of the delusion that the fossil fuel industry is there to serve the consumers, give them what they desire. But it's there there to sell a product and profit from the sale, and like Big Tobacco, Big Oil has been lying, deliberately, to those consumers about the harm done by the consumption, while making sure that everybody depended on fossil fuel.

So just to flesh out the fantasy a little more. Are we talking replacing all power generation, converting all homes and businesses to electric heating and appliances globally, or is this just a developed nations thing? How about our cars, trucks, boats and commercial conveyances? All converted to, and powered by, wind and solar as well? All in time to avert 1.5C warming? Can we throw in world peace as well?

Yes, we are obviously talking about "replacing all power generation ... in time to avert 1.5C warming." And not just as "a developed nations thing." But not at all coincidentally, developed nations consume considerably more fossil fuels than underdeveloped ones.
That the shift to renewables isn't happening is not because it's not feasible. It's because those developed nations aren't even trying. And the few who are aren't trying hard enough. They've all got other interests, which we let them get away with.

I do like the idea that driving a monster RV to Burning man, (and the resulting emissions) isn't my fault idea though. Big oil propaganda left me no choice.

Who claimed that Big Oil propaganda left you no choice? It would be the same as claiming that Big Tobacco left you no choice. They both persuaded you to believe that your consumption of their products does no harm - in spite of their own science saying the opposite.

If you had "even remotely been paying attention," you would know about that.
Big Oil’s Decades-Long Gaslighting Campaign (MSNBC, July 22, 2023)

The Troll Army of Big Oil (Climate Town on YouTube, Jan 3, 2023)

 

[Myriad]

Yes, we are obviously talking about "replacing all power generation ... in time to avert 1.5C warming."

Why not just build a stationary track around Earth's equator, build a stator (like a continuous train linked in a circle) to run on the track, then tether the stator to the moon? That could generate far more power than we use today. Don't worry; it would would take hundreds of millennia for it to slow the planet's rotation (or the moon's orbital period) enough for anyone besides astronomers and horologists to notice.

That's every bit as theoretically possible and realistically practical as replacing all fossil fuel use by the mid 2030s (which wouldn't even avert 1.5C warming, just delay it a few more years).

 

[The Atheist]

Just in case anyone was holding out hope that the warming might be reversible, and that the Antarctic weather system would protect the ice, Antarctica says "Yeah, nah..."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

"When I started studying the Antarctic 30 years ago, we never thought extreme weather events could happen there," says Prof Siegert.

"It's so far outside anything we've seen, it's almost mind-blowing," says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's every bit as theoretically possible and realistically practical as replacing all fossil fuel use by the mid 2030s (which wouldn't even avert 1.5C warming, just delay it a few more years).

Nobody's talking about averting 1.5C warming, we know we are already locked in for that in any practical scenario. What (some of us) are trying to do is not let it go much beyond that.

But with all the selfish lazy sods who just want to party on saying it's impossible, it's going to be difficult.

Yesterday a retired friend of mine sent me an email with an article by Rowan Atkinson in the Observer - yes that Rowan Atkinson, who until now I didn't know was trained as an electronics engineer. So now he thinks he's an expert on EVs, and because he's a well known comedy actor people will listen to him. He says:-

“Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems...

As you may know, the government has proposed a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The problem with the initiative is that...

Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one. How so? The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles: they’re absurdly heavy, use many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they only last about 10 years. It seems a perverse choice...

If the lithium-ion battery is an imperfect device for electric cars, it’s a complete non-starter for trucks because of its weight...

The biggest problem we need to address in society’s relationship with the car is the “fast fashion” sales culture that has been the commercial template of the car industry for decades. Currently, on average we keep our new cars for only three years before selling them on, driven mainly by the ubiquitous three-year leasing model. This seems an outrageously profligate use of the world’s natural resources..

We need also to acknowledge what a great asset we have in the cars that currently exist (there are nearly 1.5bn of them worldwide). In terms of manufacture, these cars have paid their environmental dues...

A sensible thing to do would be to speed up the development of synthetic fuel... hydrogen engines...

Friends with an environmental conscience often ask me, as a car person, whether they should buy an electric car. I tend to say that if their car is an old diesel and they do a lot of city centre motoring, they should consider a change. But otherwise, hold fire for now. Electric propulsion will be of real, global environmental benefit one day, but that day has yet to dawn.”

And every single objection he makes to buying an EV is wrong.

Rowan Atkinson says he was 'duped' into buying an electric car to save the environment. I wish this was some kind of attempt at humor, but unfortunately (as we all know) he isn't actually funny. It's sad to see someone talking about a subject that 'in theory' he should know something about, and getting it so wrong. But millions of Brits will read that article and - like my English friend - think he knows what he is talking about. That's even sadder.

How are we going to do this thing when even people who purport to be fighting the good fight are actually working for the enemy?

 

[Myriad]

Nobody's talking about averting 1.5C warming, we know we are already locked in for that in any practical scenario. What (some of us) are trying to do is not let it go much beyond that.

I agree, but I was responding to dann's post where he literally said yes, we "obviously" are talking about replacing all [fossil-fueled, presumably] power generation in time to avert 1.5C warming.

But with all the selfish lazy sods who just want to party on saying it's impossible, it's going to be difficult.

Yesterday a retired friend of mine sent me an email with an article by Rowan Atkinson in the Observer - yes that Rowan Atkinson, who until now I didn't know was trained as an electronics engineer. So now he thinks he's an expert on EVs, and because he's a well known comedy actor people will listen to him. He says:-
And every single objection he makes to buying an EV is wrong.

Rowan Atkinson says he was 'duped' into buying an electric car to save the environment. I wish this was some kind of attempt at humor, but unfortunately (as we all know) he isn't actually funny. It's sad to see someone talking about a subject that 'in theory' he should know something about, and getting it so wrong. But millions of Brits will read that article and - like my English friend - think he knows what he is talking about. That's even sadder.

How are we going to do this thing when even people who purport to be fighting the good fight are actually working for the enemy?

Atkinson is wrong about lithium battery lifetimes, the practicality of synthetic fuel or hydrogen engines, and the economics of the fast replacement of new cars. (Does he think cars get junked when their 3 year leases expire? He might; it's probably been a very long time since he drove or rode in a 4 year old car.) He's not wrong about battery weight and range being an unsolved problem for trucks, assuming by trucks he means commercial cargo hauling vehicles rather than pickup trucks used as cars by suburbanites. And he's not completely wrong about the large past energy investment in existing cars. On the face of it that's just a sunk cost fallacy. But the flip side is the even larger present or future energy investment that would be required to replace all those existing cars with new electric ones any faster than the normal replacement cycle (and we can't even come close to doing that with current production levels). We can't get from here to there with some all-out crash program to replace every car (along with every power plant, boiler, furnace, kiln, truck, cargo ship, locomotive, plane...) while conducting business as usual in all other respects. The only "theres" with meaningfully curtailed warming we can get to are ones that, one way or another, involve fewer cars and less driving, at least over a long transition period if not indefinitely.

I don't know anything about Atkinson's personal life or politics, but I'm going to assume unless told otherwise that his lifestyle doesn't resemble that of the characters he portrays. Rather, being about as wealthy as his enduring popularity suggests, and working for media supported largely by the sponsorship of large corporate interests, he's most likely to want to party on, or at least be influenced by his friends who do.

 

[dann]

Atkinson was cherry-picking - and has admitted that he was. He uses the tired old excuse that everybody cherry-picks and that he did it "to encourage debate":

“We’re trying to take the world to a better place here,” Hoekstra said. “We’re really trying, and this sort of cranky nitwittery really makes it harder.”
He said a good rule of thumb is that an EV has a net benefit in terms of life cycle emissions compared to a gasoline vehicle after about 20,000 miles, and the benefit increases over time.
Inside Climate News contacted Atkinson to respond to the criticism that he was cherry-picking the evidence to present a misleading conclusion.
“Everyone cherry-picks evidence to support his or her thesis and I’m sure that your scientists and experts will be doing the same,” he said in an email. “My primary aim was to encourage debate, perhaps a more nuanced debate about the vastly complex issue of carbon emissions and the motor car than I have seen hitherto. The fact that you’re having your discussion at all is great news to me.”
Regardless of What Mr. Bean Says, EVs Are Much Better for the Environment than Gasoline Vehicles (InsideClimateNews, June 5, 2023)

One comment is about Atkinson's vested interest in gas guzzlers:

To a wide audience, Atkinson reinforced various doubts that the fossil lobby is pushing, all for what appeared to be his self-entitled rationalisations over his vintage car collection which at various times has reportedly included a McLaren F1 (1997), Aston Martin V8 Zagato (1986), Ford Falcon Sprint (1964), Bentley Mulsanne Birkin-Edition (2014), Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead (2011), BMW 328 (1939), Lancia Delta HF Integrale (1989), Lancia Thema 8.32 (1989), Mercedes 500E (1993), Honda NSX (2002), and Aston Martin V8 Vantage (1977). https://lnkd.in/ga5Y5U-3
David Hall, Climate Policy at Toha (Linkedin)

Mr.Bean(Rowan Atkinson) - Car Collection | House Tour 2018 (Gym4u on YouTube, Sep 13, 2018)


See also:
Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles (TheGuardain, June 8, 2023)
Debunking Mr Bean’s electric tropes: EVs are far better for the planet than ICE vehicles (TheDriven.io, June 5, 2023)

That said, proper infrastructure with bike lanes and efficient public transport based on solar and wind-generated power is still a hell of a lot better for the environment than even private EVs.
I'll get back to why nation states aren't interested, mainly based on this.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

He's not wrong about battery weight and range being an unsolved problem for trucks, assuming by trucks he means commercial cargo hauling vehicles rather than pickup trucks used as cars by suburbanites.

No, he's wrong there too. He said batteries were 'absurdly' heavy (for all electric vehicles) and a 'complete non-starter' for trucks. Both statements are untrue.

He might have had a point if he didn't lay on the hyperbole, but then he would have to water down his argument.

I did the math on weight when I bought my Leaf. Kerb weight was a bit heavier than my previous Nissan Sentra, but it's a larger car (which I appreciate for the better visibility over other vehicles) so the proportional difference isn't much.

The Tesla Semi is doing the job for Pepsi running for up to 12 hours a day and 250 to 450 miles. There may be some routes that aren't yet suitable for electric trucks, but we don't need to replace all of them just yet. Even the lower range models made by other manufacturers probably suit 99% of use cases in the UK.

Here's the 5 electric truck models that Volvo sell in New Zealand:-

The full range. All ready. Electric.
FH, FM, FMX models 44 tonnes GCW and 300km range.
FE model 26 tonnes GCW and 300km range.
FL model 16 tonnes GCW and 450km range.

And here's an example of a 'big' electric truck:-

XDR80TE Mining Dump Truck
Loaded weight 109t
Payload 72t
range 140km

That thing would go all day in typical quarry operation.

It's even possible to convert a conventional truck to electric for quiet emission-free running:-

Foodstuffs and EECA partner up to build NZs first 100% electric refrigerated logistics truck

EECA had previously co-funded Foodstuffs to deliver 61 fast charge stations, 28 electric delivery vans and two ambient trucks. “Foodstuffs has developed a great track record in this space, proving the viability of electrification,” added Mr Briggs.

With EECA’s backing, Foodstuffs pulled together a brains trust of some of the country’s brightest and best transport, electrical and refrigeration engineers to convert the standard Isuzu FVY, 24 tonne, 6 wheel diesel truck to be 100% electric powered.

After extensive testing and driver training, the electric truck recently set out on its first official delivery run to New World Miramar, a 60 km round trip. With a range of between 150 and 200 km and capable of transporting 14 pallets of product at temperatures as low as minus 15 degrees centigrade, the truck completed its inaugural journey with ease.

And he's not completely wrong about the large past energy investment in existing cars.

But he's still wrong. Old gas cars don't magically stop needing oil changes and replacement parts, in fact they need more maintenance as they get older. A friend of mine recently spent $9000 on a second-hand diesel engine to replace the one in his Mazda ute that blew up. And now that one is starting to smoke and needs a service.

Rowan Atkinson is right about one thing though. EVs do tend to last longer due to the cleaner drive train and fewer moving parts. No exhaust system to rust out or catalytic converter to clog up. No belts to replace. No vibration shaking everything to bits, no heat cooking stuff. The engine bay stays clean as a whistle and the 12V battery (which most EVs still need for accessory power) generally lasts much longer since it doesn't need to power a starter motor (another part you don't have to worry about).

My Leaf was 8 years old when I bought it and looked practically brand new. When the battery finally dies (assuming I don't go first) I will replace it rather than buying a new car, both because it will be cheaper and because I like my current car. No reason it shouldn't last 20 years like my previous two gas cars (which frankly were shot by then - I had them crushed). If only Nissan would offer their battery swap service in New Zealand...

On the face of it that's just a sunk cost fallacy. But the flip side is the even larger present or future energy investment that would be required to replace all those existing cars with new electric ones any faster than the normal replacement cycle (and we can't even come close to doing that with current production levels).

Actually we will replace them in the 'normal replacement cycle'. Most countries have set a time limit of 2035 for stoppiing sales of new gas cars, but the switchover to electric will have largely occurred long before then. Contrary to Rowan Atkinson's concern, the fast turnover of new electric cars after 2-3 years use is good for that. In the next 10 years EVs will gradually displace gas cars on the second-hand market, speeding up adoption.

New EVs have much longer battery life than my 2011 leaf, and should easily last more than 10 years without severe capacity loss. Even the new Leaf is showing much less degradation than older models. In New Zealand most car dealers don't sell used gas cars that are more than 10 years old anyway, because they are generally worn out, unreliable, and have to be sold cheap so the profit is low.

EV manufacturing capacity has greatly increased recently. The world's largest EV battery maker, Chinese company CATL, is only running at 60% capacity despite new car sales in China being over 30% electric. Most car makers can switch from gas to electric without having to increase total capacity at all. Some, like Stellantis, are already doing it. So all that is happening is their customers are buying electric cars instead of gas cars. But some other car companies - those that don't switch to EVs - will be making less cars. Some may soon be making no cars at all.

Another concern people shouldn't have is that there might not be sufficient resources of metals like lithium and cobalt. These are actually being used more in other things (glass, steels) and alternatives are being found for EVs. Batteries are moving away from cobalt both to avoid supply issues and increase longevity. The latest batteries are using sodium (that stuff in salt) which is very abundant. Tesla have developed a motor that doesn't need rare earth magnets - not that it matters much because new ore deposits were quickly discovered once we bothered looking for them.

We can't get from here to there with some all-out crash program to replace every car (along with every power plant, boiler, furnace, kiln, truck, cargo ship, locomotive, plane...) while conducting business as usual in all other respects. The only "theres" with meaningfully curtailed warming we can get to are ones that, one way or another, involve fewer cars and less driving, at least over a long transition period if not indefinitely.

There is no 'all-out crash program to replace every car', 2030 is over 6 years away! Any car maker who can't make the switch in that time shouldn't be in business. Tesla even gave away their patents to make it easier for them! And we don't need to replace every car, plane, ship etc., just the majority of CO₂ emitters.

It's not hard as you make out either. Many boilers, kilns, furnaces and locomotives are already electric powered. Designs for ship that use wind and solar are already on the drawing board, and other solutions are being investigated. Synthetic fuels may be a part of it - but only if they can be made much cheaper than at present.

Rowan Atkinson says we're 'not there yet' with batteries, so we will have to use synthetic fuels and hydrogen. But we are further along than he thinks, while those other solutions are not. For example Toyota says it is developing an engine that runs directly on hydrogen, but they haven't actually produced one yet. Hydrogen and synthetic fuels are still very expensive, with no indication that they will get much cheaper. Batteries OTOH are getting cheaper and better.

I don't know anything about Atkinson's personal life or politics, but I'm going to assume unless told otherwise that his lifestyle doesn't resemble that of the characters he portrays. Rather, being about as wealthy as his enduring popularity suggests, and working for media supported largely by the sponsorship of large corporate interests, he's most likely to want to party on, or at least be influenced by his friends who do.

No, that's not it. He is a car enthusiast who says that EVs are 'a bit soulless', which reveals that he is in fact a petrol-head who wants to drive a gas car for the nostalgia. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just wish he was more honest about his motives.

Rowan Atkinson says we're 'not there yet', and therefore you probably shouldn't buy an electric car. But this is lie. There are dozens of electric cars for sale in the UK right now that would suit the majority of people looking to buy a new car, like AutoExpress's Affordable Electric Car of the Year 2023, the MG4:-

As it stands, EVs are expensive, due to the cost of the materials and tech needed to build them – but nobody seems to have told MG that when it built the MG4. Prices start from £26,995, meaning this all-electric family hatch is on a par with a regular petrol five-door model for cost, yet you don’t have to sacrifice technology, practicality, driving dynamics or usability.

What Rowan Atkinson is doing is not helpful. By discouraging people from buying an EV he is making it more likely that we will need an 'all-out crash program' to replace every car - the very thing we are trying to avoid. This attitude that 'if we can't do it all right now then we shouldn't do anything' is bogus and dangerous.

You don't even have to want to save the planet to want an electric car. It wasn't my primary motive. Mostly I just wanted to try out this new technology, and perhaps save on fuel costs. Zero emissions are better not only so you can feel less guilty, but because it doesn't smell and drip stuff on the garage floor. Even if there was no global warming crisis, an electric car could still be a worthwhile purchase.

So all the objections he has are irrelevant to the prospective purchaser. Let them make their mind up according to how they feel about the car itself, not put them off for 'reasons'. Then we will get faster adoption of EVs and maybe get closer to meeting our goals without so much pain.

 

[dann]

Does anybody here have any experience with electrical motorcycles?
When I bought my most recent Kawasaki, I considered going electric, but it seemed to be too niche at the time, but nowadays ordinary motorcycle dealers have them, and the infrastructure (based on electric cars) has improved considerably since then.

There are even plans to manufacture electric motorcycles in Denmark - the design based on an old Danish motorcycle from the 1940s and '50s - but I'm not sure that they are realistic.

 

[dann]

Climate Week NYC

NEW YORK — They arrived by the thousands, wearing gas masks and melting-snowmen costumes and carrying signs calling for an end of burning fossil fuels.
Climate Week started out with a bang as protesters inundated the streets of Midtown Manhattan from Sunday into Monday, calling for the United States to do more to combat climate change. The New York Police Department arrested 114 people Monday after protesters blocked the entrance to a Federal Reserve building.
Massive climate change protests in New York aim to turn up heat on Biden (WashingtonPost, Sep 18, 2023)

Join us at Climate Week NYC - We Can. We Will. (ClimateWeekNYC - Sep 17-24)

What are protesters demanding?
Ahead of the protests, organizers issued an open letter to President Biden calling for his administration to end approving more fossil fuel extraction and phase out existing production. During the 2020 campaign, Biden promised to stop permitting new drilling on federal lands and waters, but following through has proved difficult legally.
“Right now, the United States continues to be approving record number of fossil fuel leases, and we must send the message right here, today, right now that that has got to end,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in a Sunday speech at the protests.

Democratic US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined a climate rally in New York ahead of the UN General Assembly.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joins climate rally in NYC (Reuters on YouTube, Sep 18, 2023 - 0:51 min)

During the rally at Sunday’s March to End Fossil Fuels in New York City, activists decried President Joe Biden’s continued investment in fossil fuels and his refusal to declare a national emergency over the worsening effects of climate change. Louisiana climate justice activist Roishetta Ozane said Biden is “personally accountable” for climate change-fueled natural disasters, while 16-year-old Fridays for Future organizer Helen Mancini proclaimed, “There is not enough time to put this off another term.” Both emphasized the role of impacted communities — from those living in the shadow of toxic production plants to youth facing the prospect of an increasingly uninhabitable planet — in demanding climate action, a call echoed by Teamsters Local 808’s Chris Silvera, who declared that the fight for climate justice “is a workers’ fight.”
Frontline, Labor & Youth Voices Call on Biden to Immediately Act to Prevent Climate Catastrophe (DemocracyNow on YouTube, Sep 18, 2023 - 12:02 min)

Maybe newyorkguy can tell us more.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Does anybody here have any experience with electrical motorcycles?
When I bought my most recent Kawasaki, I considered going electric, but it seemed to be too niche at the time, but nowadays ordinary motorcycle dealers have them, and the infrastructure (based on electric cars) has improved considerably since then.

There are even plans to manufacture electric motorcycles in Denmark - the design based on an old Danish motorcycle from the 1940s and '50s - but I'm not sure that they are realistic.

It depends on why people are buying motorcycles. As a cheap commuter vehicle, an electric motorcycle will probably work just as well as a gas motorcycle.

But I imagine a lot of buyers of motorcycles are seeking them out as recreational, rather than practical, reasons. Not sure an electric motorcycle will have the same thrill factor. Electric motor means no gear shifting, for example, and no noise or rattle associated with motorcycling. As a motorcyclist in prior years, it just doesn't strike me as much of a fun riding experience, though I would point out that electric motors have tremendous potential for instantaneous power and acceleration.

Ebikes seem to take a lot of the market for practical, short distance, low speed commuter vehicles and are pretty cheap. I just don't know how much of a market there are between slow, cheap ebikes and ICE motorcycles for EV motorcycles to be that popular.

Ebikes really seem to hit the sweet spot for many people. Decent speeds for urban and low speed commuting, relatively cheap, and still light enough to treat like a bicycle when it comes to storage and other practical concerns.