this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
59 points (70.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5138 readers
536 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Maybe EVs are not a comprehensive climate solution??

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schizoidman@lemm.ee 55 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Perhaps there should be policies in place to lower the cost of electric cars so more average income people can replace their ice cars?

[–] dotslashme@infosec.pub 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is why I'm frustrated with the US and the EU, who are placing heavy penalty tariffs on Chinese EVs.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Uyghur slave labor should not be seen as the solution to our emission problems. Tariffs are the right thing here, albeit for the wrong reasons.

[–] dotslashme@infosec.pub 3 points 6 days ago

That is a very good point I had not considered, thanks for pointing that out!

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

There are, with the federal government alone paying 7k on most EVs sold in the US. The problem is that they are neoliberal flat subsidies applied at the point of sale that needed Republican support to enter law and as such companies just tack on 7k to the price customers are willing to pay anyway.

What we need is to incentivize manufacturers to focus on bringing down costs by focusing on things like LFP batteries and smaller vehicles, but manufacturers are currently incentivized to make larger vehicles because people are willing to pay a lot more than the added space cost to make, thusly increasing margins. At the very least making the full subsidy only available on vehicles under 25k, with a decreasing subsidy for vehicles under 50k would probably help, but you would need to be ready and willing to call manufacturers on their near certain attempts to get around it.

Some actual price wars between manufacturers would help too, but US auto manufacturers will fight tooth and nail to forestall that possibility.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Perhaps the tax credit should be down payment assistance of the same value for those who purchase the EV if they have a household income below 150k. Maybe limit it to vehicles below a certain total cost as well.

Up front cost is a bigger road block than taxes.

Aren't your just describing the current credit? There's a mechanism for the dealer to provide the incentive at the time of purchase vs during tax filing the following year. There's also an income limit for eligibility.

That being said, the whole point is to move battery supply chains to the US, not to actually make cheap cars for folks.

[–] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Perhaps there should be policies to even out the wealth distribution.

Yes, but that's not specific to EVs.

[–] AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 7 points 1 week ago

Exactly. I don't drive an EV because I can't afford one. That's literally the only reason. I'd like to have one.

Can also eliminate all corporate offices, if your job can be done on a computer, there shouldn’t be an office. Unless you need to be physically at your job, no need for you to be commuting at all.

The concept of corporate buildings isn’t even that old.