Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Since Cambridge University Press has been publishing his books for 20 years, I'll go ahead and side with Cambridge University and let others call Lomborg a bald face liar and/or total scientific rube while pretending that says nothing about his character. Lomborg has an M.A. and a PhD in political sciences. Yes, he knows things, and yes, he is probably smart. But the fact that he is an expert in A field doesn't mean that he is an expert in THIS specific field. Right, and these Hundreds of scholars are complete know-nothing ######## too.
I love it that people with literally no earned degree in any relevant topic are here to denigrate the contributions of hundreds who've earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles, teach at accredited universities the world over, etc. ad nauseam.
No, the real fallacy is listening to someone who's accomplished nothing in academia hand waving away arguments from those who've put in the study and labor, who've listened to valid criticism, and published well reasoned books through the publishing arm of one of the top 10 universities globally.
Love it!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: No, the real fallacy is listening to someone who's accomplished nothing in academia hand waving away arguments from those who've put in the study and labor, who've listened to valid criticism, and published well reasoned books through the publishing arm of one of the top 10 universities globally.
Love it!
:D
You mean like your responses to the very credible evidence everyone else has provided? I would not listen to a rocket scientist about neurosurgery, nor a neurosurgeon about rocket science. But in context? That's about what you're trying to say should be done.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: I love it that people with literally no earned degree in any relevant topic are here to denigrate the contributions of hundreds who've earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles, teach at accredited universities the world over, etc. ad nauseam. ...says the guy who routinely claims that the climate models are completely wrong because he knows feedback effects better than the experts who develop them.
As to the "hundreds of scholars" Lomborg assembled to make suggestions on climate change... there were, in fact, five. All of them economists with no background in climate science and apparently no understanding of it. For example, they concluded that the absolute best course of action would be to spray chemicals into the air to whiten clouds and thus reduce the amount of light reaching the surface. The stupidity is staggering. Let's just go over the most obvious problems;
1: Their economic analysis concluded this was the best choice because it would cost the least to reduce temperatures... on a one time basis. That is, they had so little understanding of climate change that they thought they need only briefly cool the planet down enough to offset the observed warming. In reality, the 'cloud whitening' would last a few months at best. The chemicals would fall back to Earth and end the cooling forcing, but the greenhouse gases would still be up there continuing to cause a warming forcing... and thus they'd have to do it all over again... every few months... for thousands of years going forward. At unimaginably massive expense.
2: Less sunlight coming in would be a 'bad thing' <tm> in its own right. The cost from decreased crop yields alone (a factor they completely overlooked) would be staggering.
3: Let's spray massive amounts of chemicals all over the planet! What could go wrong? Again, they didn't factor in the environmental damage at all.
Basically, those five experts on economics analyzed fictional scenarios provided by Lomborg... 'spray some chemicals in the air for a few weeks and global warming is magically over'. Their math was fine. The 'facts' they based that math on were outright fraud.
Lomborg has repeatedly been demonstrated to spread disinformation. The fact that some of his defenders argued that he shouldn't be held to scientific standards because he isn't a scientist doesn't change that... he is still spreading blatantly false information. The 'maybe he does not know any better' defense is irrelevant (and IMO implausible). His claims are still false.
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Since Cambridge University Press has been publishing his books for 20 years, I'll go ahead and side with Cambridge University and let others call Lomborg a bald face liar and/or total scientific rube while pretending that says nothing about his character. Lomborg has an M.A. and a PhD in political sciences. Yes, he knows things, and yes, he is probably smart. But the fact that he is an expert in A field doesn't mean that he is an expert in THIS specific field. Right, and these Hundreds of scholars are complete know-nothing ######## too.
I love it that people with literally no earned degree in any relevant topic are here to denigrate the contributions of hundreds who've earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles, teach at accredited universities the world over, etc. ad nauseam.
No, the real fallacy is listening to someone who's accomplished nothing in academia hand waving away arguments from those who've put in the study and labor, who've listened to valid criticism, and published well reasoned books through the publishing arm of one of the top 10 universities globally.
Love it!
:D I've made specific points about methodology, which you have not addressed.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Since Cambridge University Press has been publishing his books for 20 years, I'll go ahead and side with Cambridge University and let others call Lomborg a bald face liar and/or total scientific rube while pretending that says nothing about his character. Lomborg has an M.A. and a PhD in political sciences. Yes, he knows things, and yes, he is probably smart. But the fact that he is an expert in A field doesn't mean that he is an expert in THIS specific field. Right, and these Hundreds of scholars are complete know-nothing ######## too.
I love it that people with literally no earned degree in any relevant topic are here to denigrate the contributions of hundreds who've earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles, teach at accredited universities the world over, etc. ad nauseam.
No, the real fallacy is listening to someone who's accomplished nothing in academia hand waving away arguments from those who've put in the study and labor, who've listened to valid criticism, and published well reasoned books through the publishing arm of one of the top 10 universities globally.
Love it!
:D I've made specific points about methodology, which you have not addressed. He hasn't addressed you? He hasn't even addressed my criticism that an expert for a specific field is not an expert in another specific field, all while directly quoting from the post where I say that. Instead he just baselessly claims that I "denigrate" Lomborg by saying that he is smart and has degreees in political science.
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Since Cambridge University Press has been publishing his books for 20 years, I'll go ahead and side with Cambridge University and let others call Lomborg a bald face liar and/or total scientific rube while pretending that says nothing about his character. Lomborg has an M.A. and a PhD in political sciences. Yes, he knows things, and yes, he is probably smart. But the fact that he is an expert in A field doesn't mean that he is an expert in THIS specific field. Right, and these Hundreds of scholars are complete know-nothing ######## too.
I love it that people with literally no earned degree in any relevant topic are here to denigrate the contributions of hundreds who've earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles, teach at accredited universities the world over, etc. ad nauseam.
No, the real fallacy is listening to someone who's accomplished nothing in academia hand waving away arguments from those who've put in the study and labor, who've listened to valid criticism, and published well reasoned books through the publishing arm of one of the top 10 universities globally.
Love it!
:D There are ... a lot of things wrong here.
A) I never said that these scientists are "know-nothing ########". You just assumed that I said that, because you are trying to build a strawman position that you can theatrically destroy.
B) To Quote myself: "But the fact that he (Lomborg) is an expert in A field doesn't mean that he is an expert in THIS specific field." Which is true for both him and most of those people on the list.
C) The Copenhagen Consensus Center creates economic models from given inputs. If these inputs are wrong, what comes out of the models is flawed. And Lomborg was criticised for not only presenting only extreme ways to handle climate change instead of both moderate and extreme measures, but for deliberatly choosing experts that where already critical of climate change measures in general. Quoting economics professor and member of the Climate Change Authority of Australia John Quiggin:
John Quiggin wrote: It is clear from reading the papers and the discussion reports that the panellists approached the task in a serious and fairminded way. But, inevitably, the narrowness of the selection meant that many important issues were prejudged or not discussed.
(...)
The real problems, though, were not with the choice of panel members but with the assessment procedure, which was clearly designed to fit Lomborg's original example of a choice between spending on climate change and on clean drinking water.
(...)
The problems are even more severe in relation to issues like civil conflict. Stability and peace aren't alternatives to development programs, they are preconditions.
(...)
All of the doubts raised about the Copenhagen Consensus project have been confirmed by the use Lomborg has made of the results. He has said almost nothing about the positive merits of the options favored by the panel. When it emerged, in December 2004, that none of the money promised by the Bush Administration for the fight against AIDS had actually been spent, he was silent.
(...)
In summary, the Copenhagen Consensus project was created as a political stunt. It was designed, in every detail, to produce a predetermined outcome. Having got the desired outcome, the organiser has shown little or no interest in pursuing any of the other issues raised by the project.
As any computer scientist will tell you: It does not matter how good the computer is, if you put bulls**t in, you get bulls**t out.
D) Again, quoting our beloved wikipedia:
wikipedia wrote: One of the Copenhagen Consensus panel experts later distanced himself from the way in which the Consensus results have been interpreted in the wider debate. Thomas Schelling now thinks that it was misleading to put climate change at the bottom of the priority list. The Consensus panel members were presented with a dramatic proposal for handling climate change. If given the opportunity, Schelling would have put a more modest proposal higher on the list. The Yale economist Robert O. Mendelsohn was the official critic of the proposal for climate change during the Consensus. He thought the proposal was way out of the mainstream and could only be rejected. Mendelsohn worries that climate change was set up to fail. The list you have linked is a link of people that Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center have worked with. That does not mean these people agree with all or most of Lomborgs opinions.
But let's get to the most important problem of your "argument":
Michael Mann is an American climatologist and geophysicist, currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
He has "earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles", he has taught "at accredited universities the world over", he has "put in the study and labor", has "listened to valid criticism, and published well reasoned books through the publishing arm of one of the top 10 universities globally."
He is critical of Lomborg regarding climate change, and said that "Lomborg represents an insidious form of climate change denial".
So, who should we listen to? And remember, you shouldn't handwave away Mann's arguments, he is an expert.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
For the past five years there has been a merry-go-round of nonsense in this thread where the fact that the "current" Paris Agreement pledges were not sufficient to prevent 2°C warming was advanced as 'proof' that eventual warming must perforce be greater than that amount.
In response, it has been repeatedly pointed out, and just as frequently ignored, that the Paris Agreement pledges were always intended to be revised every five years.
Well, it has been five years... and now revised Paris Agreement pledges starting to come in.
As should have been obvious given improving renewable technologies, the revised pledges are better than the original values. So far 71 countries have improved their pledges. Many are now looking at 2030 targets rather than later decades. China and India are eyeing zero emissions growth decades ahead of previous estimates.
We'll have to wait and see how everything plays out and how much progress countries actually continue making, but both pledges and actual emissions are moving in the right direction... just as repeatedly predicted.
If you want to have some idea of the future, it is important to look at trends rather than 'snapshots'.
Somewhat bold new prediction: We have already passed the peak CO2 emissions year... 2019. That is, no future year will again have 40.1 billion tons (or more) of CO2 emissions. Obviously, 2020 is going to be down sharply (to ~37 billion tons)due to covid-19, but if things returned to 'business as usual' then we'd see emissions growth resuming in 2021 and later years. Instead, I am betting that the economic slowdown has accelerated the demise of coal power and thus even as economic activity returns to previous levels it will be less CO2 intensive. Maybe values tick up for a year here and there in the future, but not enough to get back to the 2019 level.
Devon Northwood wrote: So, who should we listen to? And remember, you shouldn't handwave away Mann's arguments, he is an expert. So Michael Mann is one informed voice and not without his biases, ego and hubris. Science only moves forward when ideas are challenged. Lomborg's detractors cried foul over 15 years ago now to no avail. Get over it.
Who to listen to?
Why Cambridge University Press of course!
:D
james014Aura wrote: I would not listen to a rocket scientist about neurosurgery, nor a neurosurgeon about rocket science. Indeed, the IPCC group had similar issues. Which climate model to believe?
IPCC Answer:
Let's average across 30 or so and hope that hits the mark.
Too bad if the real answer is one standard deviation above or below that. But by all means let's waste tens of trillions of dollars chasing the presumed average just in case it's right.
CB wrote: ....there were, in fact, five {co-authors}. All of them economists with no background in climate science and apparently no understanding of it. For example, they concluded that the absolute best course of action would be to spray chemicals into the air to whiten clouds and thus reduce the amount of light reaching the surface. Had you actually watched any of the linked videos or read anything published by Lomborg, as opposed to snippets of his detractors' twisted caricatures of what Lomborg 'says', you would know that the two things he promotes above all else are:
1) Fundamental R&D on green tech (with strong government support), and
2) Ways to improve the efficiency of things already widely used
But that would require you to engage in good faith with someone you prejudge and loath. Sucks for you that the truth is so close to hand but you refuse to even give it a cursory examination.
Who were the "five" co-authors?
"Copenhagen Copenhagen Consensus wrote: Expert Panel
To help promote discussion about the best response to global warming, the Copenhagen Consensus Center assembled an Expert Panel of stellar economists - including three Nobel Laureates - to consider the research presented in the project.
World-class economists have been chosen because they are specialists in analyzing costs and benefits.
They met in September 2009 to consider the research presented here, engage with the authors, and will then form conclusions about which solutions to climate change are the most promising.
So they engaged with the authors of the various research papers they considered? Huh.... how scientific of them.
I'm just posting to call out how QB outright ignored the REST of my post, that is the part that calls him out for doing exactly (just in different fields) what he just agreed shouldn't be done.
Quark Blast wrote: Who were the "five" co-authors?
"Copenhagen Copenhagen Consensus wrote: Expert Panel
To help promote discussion about the best response to global warming, the Copenhagen Consensus Center assembled an Expert Panel of stellar economists - including three Nobel Laureates - to consider the research presented in the project.
World-class economists have been chosen because they are specialists in analyzing costs and benefits.
They met in September 2009 to consider the research presented here, engage with the authors, and will then form conclusions about which solutions to climate change are the most promising.
So they engaged with the authors of the various research papers they considered? Huh.... how scientific of them.
Analyzing a 2004 paper from the Copenhagen Consensus, since it's been long enough now that we can see the outcomes of some of the programs that were proposed and enacted.
full text of the analysis.
First:
Quote: According to Lomborg´s own statements, the Copenhagen Consensus conference 2004 has had some influence on actual spending of aid for the Third World. For instance he claims that it has stimulated the American government to launch the President's Malaria Initiative, a $1.2 billion, five-year plan to fight malaria in 15 of the hardest-hit countries in Africa. Summary:
Quote: In summary, the expected benefit of about 40 times the investment - i.e. a benefit of about $ 600 billion from prevention of infection - became an actual benefit of nil. The only measurable benefit was from the least cost effective measure, the drug treatment. Based on the more than US$ 6 billion that PEPFAR had spent on this purpose in the 12 countries by the end of 2007, the researchers estimated the cost of each death averted at $2,450, which is a much lower cost than had been predicted by most experts - partly because the drug had become cheaper. Altogether, reality was very different from what was anticipated in Copenhagen four years earlier - which means that the type of cost-benefit calculations presented there should not be taken to represent anything near reality. Emphasis is mine.
One of the core issues is that Lomborg has promoted papers and projects that focused on anti-retroviral drugs, the least effective method of dealing with HIV/AIDS from a cost-effective measure.
From the Copenhagen Consensus website.
Quote: The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches and publishes the smartest solutions to the world's biggest problems. Our studies are conducted by more than 300 economists from internationally renowned institutions, including seven Nobel Laureates, to advise policymakers and philanthropists how to achieve the best results with their limited resources. And yet they've taken credit for billions of dollars spend on retrovirals, which cost $2450 per death avoided, and they have not been champions of condoms, which cost $14 per death avoided.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james014Aura wrote: I'm just posting to call out how QB outright ignored the REST of my post, that is the part that calls him out for doing exactly (just in different fields) what he just agreed shouldn't be done. That’s what he does.
james014Aura wrote: I'm just posting to call out how QB outright ignored the REST of my post, that is the part that calls him out for doing exactly (just in different fields) what he just agreed shouldn't be done. Two things:
1) Says the person who's ignored 95% of my posts to the topic at hand
2) So you're saying Nobel Prize winning economists aren't allowed to make economic analysis of proposed/actual economic programs?
Interesting.
As for the other copy-paste commentary:
Way to cite Lomborg's detractors instead of the primary documents. The topic not conveyed in simple enough terms for you by the geniuses at the Copenhagen Consensus?
Who to listen to?
Over what I've seen here, why I'll side firmly Cambridge University Press of course!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: 1) Says the person who's ignored 95% of my posts to the topic at hand You can whine about this the moment you actually say anything of value. Until then we will all regard you as the obvious red-pilled shill you really are.
How do we feel about Joseph E. Stiglitz? He seems like a pretty smart guy. In 2017 he did some work for the World Bank that seems to suggest the opposite of Dr Lomborg's views on carbon pricing and hitting the 2 degree Celsius cap.
Is Stiglitz secretly in the pocket of Big Solar or something? Is there some major flaw in his work and his carbon pricing has been debunked? Getting to the bottom of all of this is... really hard.
IT, I actually did my research this time and I don't think Dr Stiglitz has come up in the thread before. Quarktacular, are you waiting on responses from ME somewhere? I think I've gotten back to you on stuff so I think we're caught up but let me know.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
IT, I actually did my research this time and I don't think Dr Stiglitz has come up in the thread before. Quarktacular, are you waiting on responses from ME somewhere? I think I've gotten back to you on stuff so I think we're caught up but let me know.
Nice.
And don't let me shame you about specific information, other than patterns of BurgerQuark's behavior maybe. I will note that you're still waiting on him to provide truly clear remarks on the Yellow Vest movement.
If information sourced outside the thread is required, you should definitely request it. Even if it's been linked before, no one should force you to comb the thread to find it again.
Information ON the thread though is harder to research, especially the trends of who is on what side and what they've been saying. I am NOT trying to get you to read 4600+ posts. I know that I've personally read every post in this thread, but I did that over the course of 5 years... and I would not recommend it to anyone.
Themetricsystem wrote: Quark Blast wrote: 1) Says the person who's ignored 95% of my posts to the topic at hand You can whine about this the moment you actually say anything of value. Until then we will all regard you as the obvious red-pilled shill you really are. Not whining. Simply pointing out the dude's hypocrisy.
Mark Hoover wrote: How do we feel about Joseph E. Stiglitz?
....
Quarktacular, are you waiting on responses from ME somewhere? I think I've gotten back to you on stuff so I think we're caught up but let me know.
Stiglitz? No feels really. He makes some sound points but spends too much time trying to wale against Lomborg and mischaracterizes him to boot. There are real issues to spend ones time promoting. For example:
The Pandemic is triggering Another Disaster: Untreated Diseases
There will no doubt be more deaths next year from this knock-on effect of the Coronavirus than from COVID-19.
I mean, we could debate random factoids like "condoms are a cheaper HIV infection preventative than antiretrovirals" but that purposely* ignores the fact that condoms do ######## for IV drug use and fail like crazy when condom wearers are engaged in something besides vanilla vaginal sex; as a great many of them are. And of course condoms do zip for those already infected. Condoms too are within the means of even the most rudimentary NGOs and if we're talking about big funding, and we are because government is in the background to this discussion, it'll simply have to be governments and/or a few people like Bill Gates who has a bank account bigger than most countries.
Waiting on responses? Well I did line-item-reply to you. Now on the previous page. Check that out and see what you think.
* Gotta be on purpose as anyone who can type surely isn't really so daft; but I could be wrong about that, 'cause, you know, Internet.
Or we could discuss this:
Australia's path to net zero emissions is massively behind schedule
Gee no kidding. China's isn't but China's is only a promise at this point. And I suspect it's more like the "promise" that they won't use intellectual property illegally to the tune of $750 billion/year than it's like the type of promise they need to be making.
Guardian wrote: The pandemic makes it look like the government has reduced emissions. But in reality our cuts are nowhere near enough. Far from being something to boast about, the latest projections for Australia’s greenhouse emissions reveal just how pathetic both our performance and our ambition are.
There's some scary-### graphs in this article. One wonders how sound they are. Is it a scare tactic? If not it's certainly demotivating.
Quark Blast wrote: I mean, we could debate random factoids like "condoms are a cheaper HIV infection preventative than antiretrovirals" but that purposely* ignores the fact that condoms do ######## for IV drug use and fail like crazy when condom wearers are engaged in something besides vanilla vaginal sex; as a great many of them are. And of course condoms do zip for those already infected. Condoms too are within the means of even the most rudimentary NGOs and if we're talking about big funding, and we are because government is in the background to this discussion, it'll simply have to be governments and/or a few people like Bill Gates who has a bank account bigger than most countries. If you're disagreeing with the $14 cost of condoms to save lives, you're arguing with Lomborg.
Are you saying that Lomborg is wrong about how much money it costs to save a life with condoms?
Quark Blast wrote: Or we could discuss this:
Australia's path to net zero emissions is massively behind schedule
The Australian government's (in)action on global warming has been amongst the worst in the world.
In contrast, the fact that Australia has some of the best solar resources in the world has led to a massive increase in private solar power and battery storage.
As such, while the Guardian article is rightly critical of the government, it wrongly assumes that all GHG reductions in the current year are due to the pandemic. Take another look at those 'scary' graphs. If you ignore the dishonesty inherent in projecting "actual emissions" through 2030 and look just at the years we actually have emissions data for (i.e. the PAST)... you'll see that the (projected) drop in 2020 is not new. They'd been averaging ~5Mt annual reductions from 2011-2019... more than double the trend the author projects going forward.
The Australian government, like that in the US, had promised to keep coal strong. In reality, the industry is collapsing into economic ruin. A newly built coal plant is now completely worthless... nobody will pay the rates they'd have to charge just for the cost of the coal to generate power, let alone recouping the cost of building the thing. So it's a complete loss... which means that no bank is going to be willing to loan money for more coal power in the future. That graph showing 35% coal power through 2030? Complete fiction. It may indeed be what the coal friendly government has been claiming... but it isn't going to happen.
Quote: China's isn't but China's is only a promise at this point. Nonsense. The first article linked above notes that China has the highest total and per year solar power installations in the world. They are far far ahead of even the rosiest international estimates from ten or even five years ago. That's reality. Not merely a promise.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: China's isn't but China's is only a promise at this point. Nonsense. The first article linked above notes that China has the highest total and per year solar power installations in the world. They are far far ahead of even the rosiest international estimates from ten or even five years ago. That's reality. Not merely a promise. All I can say is talk to David Fickling.
China’s Backsliding Could Break the Planet
”David Fickling” wrote: What Beijing does to turn around its carbon pollution in 2021 and over the coming decade matters more than in any other country. China already accounts for 29% of the world’s greenhouse emissions, double the U.S. share and three times that of the European Union….
Whereas carbon pollution in the U.S. and Europe is falling and down about 16% and 22% respectively from peaks in the mid-2000s(1) — equivalent to about 1.55 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide — over the same period China’s toll has climbed 36%, or 2.45 billion tons, roughly equivalent to India's total emissions….
The installed capacity of solar and wind power will rise to at least 1,200 gigawatts by 2030, he said, compared to 440GW at present. That represents pedestrian growth of around 76GW a year…. and China is by far the biggest developer of renewable power anywhere. Still, the planned pace is well below expectations of around 115GW a year from China’s solar and wind industry bodies.... If China hits its economic targets, that slow pace of deployment all but guarantees that emissions from fossil power plants will continue to grow....
As we’ve written, for all the periodic talk of deleveraging, “build, baby, build” is as central to China’s growth model as it’s ever been. Only in Bhutan, Ireland and Turkmenistan is gross fixed capital formation — building stuff, essentially — a larger share of the economy than it is in China.
After slowing during the country’s most serious attempt to switch from investment to consumption in 2015, steel output has run ahead of economic growth every single year. A strong economy driving profitable metal production would be a good thing, but that pattern suggests the reverse is happening: Growth is being propped up by unproductive industrial boondoggles, storing up a vault of non-performing loans for the future.
The effect on the planet will be devastating. The surge in metal production to lift China from a Covid-induced slump has caused emissions to hit a record level in the third quarter and trashed longstanding plans to cut steel capacity, according to climate and energy analyst Lauri Myllyvirta. Perhaps 2021 will be different — but after so many reversals, promises of deleveraging should be given about as much credibility as an alcoholic’s vows to give up the bottle….
Here's to China and David Fickling - Eminent Truthsayer!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: All I can say is talk to David Fickling. I don't see how any of the text you quoted constitutes 'backsliding'.
China's CO2 emissions were expected to have "climbed" from the "mid-2000s" to now. Indeed, if you went back to 2000, the estimates were much higher than the growth we have actually seen... because they hadn't started their massive push for renewable power yet.
Also from the article; "Nearly all new wind and solar projects in China already provide cheaper power than new coal generation, and about half would be cheaper than keeping existing coal and gas plants running, according to BloombergNEF estimates."
Yes, regional managers pushing as much coal (and steel, as cited by Fickling) development as possible to 'make their development numbers look good' has been a problem in China. However, basic economic realities (e.g. renewables are cheaper, unused steel costs money to store and degrades) make that a self correcting issue. As Fickling again alludes to himself; "At some point, as with every credit-fueled boom, the river of cash will dry up and borrowers will have to work harder to justify their loans."
So yes, there is currently irrational behavior in the Chinese market... as there always is in EVERY market. However, there are no mechanisms in place to reward or protect that irrational behavior... so throwing up a bunch of new coal plants that won't be able to sell any electricity because it costs more than buying from the solar plant down the road is going to prove to be a massive mistake (just ask the funders of the Bluewater coal plant in Australia I linked to a story about in my last post). Ditto over-production of steel to 'cook the books'. The bill will come due and when they can't pay those managers and/or the people funding the irrational activity will be out.
Thus Fickling's worry that these activities could represent a larger ongoing trend seem unfounded to me. You can't keep wasting money indefinitely. Eventually you run out or the people whose money you are throwing away notice and stop you.
In any case, the targets set by the Chinese government and the actual results achieved by the country continue to improve every few years.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: All I can say is talk to David Fickling. I don't see how any of the text you quoted constitutes 'backsliding'. All I can say is talk to David Fickling.
CBDunkerson wrote: Thus Fickling's worry that these activities could represent a larger ongoing trend seem unfounded to me. You can't keep wasting money indefinitely. Eventually you run out or the people whose money you are throwing away notice and stop you.
In any case, the targets set by the Chinese government and the actual results achieved by the country continue to improve every few years.
All I can say is talk to David Fickling and maybe consider that what he's arguing is a delay in the drop in China's CO2 curve. Any delay is bad and this could turn into a two or three year delay. Furthermore, any outstanding debt hinders future investment - wasted money is money you don't have to spend in non-wasteful ways.
Those results would be really bad. And this is why I hold out hope for near-miracle tech and/or CC&S at the Gt-scale.
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: All I can say is talk to David Fickling. I don't see how any of the text you quoted constitutes 'backsliding'. All I can say is talk to David Fickling. In which case, you are not really a participant in this discussion... merely a parrot... incapable of really contributing anything, but endlessly repeating a few limited slogans... without really understanding even those.
Quote: And this is why I hold out hope for near-miracle tech and/or CC&S at the Gt-scale. Relying on miracles to solve your problems will inevitably lead to eventually needing one.
Quark Blast wrote: <squawk> Pieces of eight! <squawk> ”Wal van Lierop” wrote: Increasingly, though, it seems unlikely that these technologies can address the second half of the energy transition: how to power cement, steel, chemicals, and the other heavy industries that account for at least 40% of worldwide emissions.
Many decision makers in heavy industry are scratching their heads about what to do when they must retire their coal-fired powerplants in the early 2030s, as per their Paris Agreement commitments.
That's odd... as coal-fired power plants have nothing to do with the heavy industry processes mentioned.
”Wal van Lierop” wrote: As we start 2021, what should be the focus of our Operation Warp Speed for the Climate? I’ll highlight three action areas: lifestyle changes, financing for breakthrough technologies and geoengineering. Hmmm... so, a person who makes their living by getting people to invest in technology startups is suggesting that we; make lifestyle changes which will require greatly expanded use of relatively new technologies, increase funding and remove roadblocks for government investment in technology startups, and develop radical new technologies to actively 'manage' the global climate. Hmmm... I wonder what his motivations could possibly be?
As to the 'logic' that finding the best of many existing options to (for example) eliminate CO2 production when converting iron into steel will require 'near miracle future technology', while pursuing entirely theoretical planetary scale terraforming technologies is a viable option... again, it's almost like there is another agenda here distorting the realities of the situation.
CBDunkerson wrote: ”Wal van Lierop” wrote: Increasingly, though, it seems unlikely that these technologies can address the second half of the energy transition: how to power cement, steel, chemicals, and the other heavy industries that account for at least 40% of worldwide emissions.
Many decision makers in heavy industry are scratching their heads about what to do when they must retire their coal-fired powerplants in the early 2030s, as per their Paris Agreement commitments.
That's odd... as coal-fired power plants have nothing to do with the heavy industry processes mentioned.
I think "chemicals" could have something to do with coal power in certain regions as they are rather energy intensive on the whole, even if not so much needing extreme heat, else the strategic use of "other" certainly does catch-all remaining objections to his claim.
CBDunkerson wrote: ”Wal van Lierop” wrote: As we start 2021, what should be the focus of our Operation Warp Speed for the Climate? I’ll highlight three action areas: lifestyle changes, financing for breakthrough technologies and geoengineering. Hmmm... so, a person who makes their living by getting people to invest in technology startups is suggesting that we; make lifestyle changes which will require greatly expanded use of relatively new technologies, increase funding and remove roadblocks for government investment in technology startups, and develop radical new technologies to actively 'manage' the global climate. Hmmm... I wonder what his motivations could possibly be?
As to the 'logic' that finding the best of many existing options to (for example) eliminate CO2 production when converting iron into steel will require 'near miracle future technology', while pursuing entirely theoretical planetary scale terraforming technologies is a viable option... again, it's almost like there is another agenda here distorting the realities of the situation.
Distorting reality (or rather the perception thereof) is what the 1% (and more so the 1/10th of 1%) are all about. With nuclear fusion, at scale, we could all live the 'COVID-19 Lifestyle' Wal so eagerly promotes. If you have the money it's a snap to feel good about the disconnect between what you say and what you do.
For example:
Climeworks offers a monthly subscription so that one may convert one's annual travel footprint into rocks. Et voilà! No more flight shaming* for Wal et al as they fly to the French Riviera, Bali or Bora Bora for vacation.
Virtue signaling at its most pernicious!
:D
* What follows is but a sample excerpt from the marketing geniuses over at Climeworks:
"This is of course up to you! Do you want to enable the removal of some carbon dioxide to reduce your personal footprint? Good! Are you planning a long flight and want to build up some carbon dioxide "allowance" first? Even better! Do you believe that the Climeworks technology is surprisingly cool and deserves some more publicity? Great! Join us on the climate positive journey."
The Sverige Teen Titan has spoken again recently.
Grreta spoke, not wrote: The gap between what we need to do and what is actually being done is widening by the minute. We are still speeding in the wrong direction! By her calculus we have a mere 7 years to stop net CO2 emissions globally. Do you suppose that's right?
Gretta was referring to the IPCC report's Co2 Budget from the 2018 report, as explained here.
Basically if we keep going the way we're going than in the next 7 years we'll miss the window to try and keep temp rise below 1.5 C. I think the larger message of her plea was "treat this crisis as a crisis."
On the one hand, I've got the Lomborgs of the world telling me this isn't much of a big deal, and even if we did nothing it'd be, like, .4% GDP and minimal impact to human life. We're good.
On the on the other hand I've got The Thunbergs of the world telling me that this is a crisis and that droughts and flooding really ARE getting worse, and they're coming for me right now.
Bottom line, no matter who's right, we're well past talking nicely about it at the UN.
Quark Blast wrote: The Sverige Teen Titan has spoken again recently.
Grreta spoke, not wrote: The gap between what we need to do and what is actually being done is widening by the minute. We are still speeding in the wrong direction! By her calculus we have a mere 7 years to stop net CO2 emissions globally. Do you suppose that's right?
Do you? You're the one bringing her comment into this.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Gretta was referring to the IPCC report's Co2 Budget from the 2018 report, as explained here.
Basically if we keep going the way we're going than in the next 7 years we'll miss the window to try and keep temp rise below 1.5 C. I think the larger message of her plea was "treat this crisis as a crisis."
On the one hand, I've got the Lomborgs of the world telling me this isn't much of a big deal, and even if we did nothing it'd be, like, .4% GDP and minimal impact to human life. We're good.
On the on the other hand I've got The Thunbergs of the world telling me that this is a crisis and that droughts and flooding really ARE getting worse, and they're coming for me right now.
Bottom line, no matter who's right, we're well past talking nicely about it at the UN.
Thing is, if the bolded portion of your post is right, like no-qualifiers-needed-right, then clearly it's already too late because the warming effects don't happen instantly (roughly by the end of the decade in which it was emitted), and then continue to warm the Earth for another few hundred years. If - IF - the wildfires and droughts and Cat 5 hurricanes are the result of AGW, then without a barely concievable CC&S effort the year 2100 is going to be the biggest #### #### since the War of the Worlds and 2050 will suck beyond historical measure of human suffering.
You can follow along in "real time" if you care to: Climate Clock
The current clock is what the Teen Titan was referencing. Funny thing is just two years ago the clock was saying we've got 11 years, 11 months, + remaining. Now it's 7 years & 10 days.
There is a delicate balance between CRISIS and crisis. Lean too much on the former and it's rather discouraging, too much on the latter and one's crisis is declared an opportunity.
OTOH the Cornonavirus has mutated significantly somewhere in England and is now spreading about the continent. Perhaps the CO2 impact will be significant after all?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: If - IF - the wildfires and droughts and Cat 5 hurricanes are the result of AGW The measured increase in activity of those (and other) types is unquestionably due to global warming.
Quark Blast wrote: then without a barely concievable CC&S effort the year 2100 is going to be the biggest #### #### since the War of the Worlds and 2050 will suck beyond historical measure of human suffering. Nonsense. Neither of those outcomes is unavoidable, and CC&S remains amongst the least likely solutions for stopping them.
Quark Blast wrote: Funny thing is just two years ago the clock was saying we've got 11 years, 11 months, + remaining. Now it's 7 years & 10 days. The 'time remaining' to +1.5°C is an estimate based on emission rates and other factors. If emissions are higher than expected then the 'time remaining' goes down. If we manage to reduce emissions drastically then the 'time remaining' may become infinite.
All of which is IMO silly to begin with, because global warming is NOT a cliff with everything fine on one side of a line and free-fall on the other. Unfortunately, that's the kind of problem many people seem to need in order to 'understand' the issues. In reality, it is already 'too late' to avoid effects of global warming that we are already seeing (e.g. increased wildfires) and will never be too late to avoid effects that global warming just won't reach (e.g. end of all life on Earth).
Quark Blast wrote: OTOH the Cornonavirus has mutated significantly somewhere in England and is now spreading about the continent. Perhaps the CO2 impact will be significant after all? Nope. Math still exists. The ~7% drop in CO2 emissions from 2019 to 2020 is miniscule. Instead of atmospheric totals going up ~2 ppm per year they'll go up ~2 * 93% = ~1.86 = ~2 ppm per year. It is literally within the scope of a rounding error. If covid-19 kept the world in lockdown conditions equivalent to 2020 for a decade (not going to happen) we'd be talking about ~18.6 ppm increase rather than ~20 ppm. The global warming impact of 1.4 ppm by the year 2100 is simply too small to measure. Heck, variability of atmospheric CO2 levels within each year is greater than that.
CBDunkerson wrote: Nope. Math still exists. The ~7% drop in CO2 emissions from 2019 to 2020 is miniscule. Instead of atmospheric totals going up ~2 ppm per year they'll go up ~2 * 93% = ~1.86 = ~2 ppm per year. It is literally within the scope of a rounding error. If covid-19 kept the world in lockdown conditions equivalent to 2020 for a decade (not going to happen) we'd be talking about ~18.6 ppm increase rather than ~20 ppm. The global warming impact of 1.4 ppm by the year 2100 is simply too small to measure. Heck, variability of atmospheric CO2 levels within each year is greater than that. Indeed! Let's take those statements at face value shall we?
Now, look how hard it is, what a massive effort the Coronavirus has precipitated upon the global economy. And yet - yet! - it's merely a rounding error. So, for the sake of argument: Agreed!
Now you see just an inkling of the scale of the endeavor that a +1.5°C year 2100 really is.
Yeah... people aren't going to intentionally make themselves that poor. Not if they have a choice.
Then you have "green" efforts like the following fiasco:
China's winter chills clean energy transition as factories fire up
Reuters wrote: The surge in demand also comes as the cold hampers the ability of renewable energy to fill the gap left by a severe coal shortage, raising doubts about the reliability of cleaner sources to power the world’s second-largest economy during critical periods. They really should've learned from Germany's fool's gambit with going all in on solar and wind so quickly. Ah well, coal will fill the gap - it may be in "short supply" but energy consumption is up over last year by about 10% and I expect they'll find enough coal for this year.
Reuters wrote: To address localised power shortages, Beijing has urged coal miners to ramp up output and energy firms to diversify gas sources. It has also allowed customs to clear imported coal that had built up at ports during the summer due to unofficial import quotas aimed at supporting local producers. Ah! See? Gas too, so no problem.
:D
Reuters wrote: In Hunan, wind turbines were frozen by an early cold snap this month that brought ice and snow. Really? <insert shocked face here> Who could possibly imagine wind turbines blow when it comes to cost and reliability?
Now someone will argue that they will add power storage and better integrate the renewable sources with coal and gas generation to stave off future situations like the present. And I'm sure they will. But remember, we've lost 5-years of CO2 budget in the last 2-years and have only 7-years left. Stunts like this will no doubt cut faster into that 7-year budget than 1:1.
How many mistakes of this caliber can the globe take and still see us under 2°C in the year 2100?
As another case in point about governments ######## #### up:
Why The COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Has Gotten Off To A Slow Start
Among several other countries the USA is sucking hard.
npr wrote: The rollout of vaccines for COVID-19 has been slower than expected. Reasons include local logistics, lack of funding and staffing struggles during the winter holidays. Holidays were a problem? Well ####!
Who knew Hanukkah, Christmas and New Years were all piling in on December? Can't really blame global governments for missing something as obscure as those so-called "holidays". Amiright?
.
The Jab Race
BBC wrote: Israel has a rate of 11.55 vaccination doses per 100 people , followed by Bahrain at 3.49 and the UK at 1.47, according to a global tracking website affiliated with Oxford University.
In comparison, France had vaccinated 138 people in total by 30 December.
Okay, scratch Hanukkah, that doesn't seem to be a problem. But France though! In other circumstances this would be funny. I'm pretty sure my dentist's office has more people vaccinated than that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: As another case in point about governments ######## #### up:
Why The COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Has Gotten Off To A Slow Start
Among several other countries the USA is sucking hard.
By that logic, if you've ever made a mistake, then everything you say is wrong.
So, are these reports supposed to illustrate that governments suck at managing big initiatives, thus they are useless for fixing climate change?
The NPR piece specifically calls out that part of the "holidays" challenge was the very human issue of frontline workers wanting to take some time to themselves over said holidays. That's not a government failing at all; that's private medical corporations doing what private businesses in a capitalist society have always done since the dawn of capitalism: staffing lean, not planning staff redundancies in case of emergency, and working their employees to their absolute limits regardless of the time of year.
Also in other pandemics the American government, even when underperforming, has never actively misled their own voter base on the efficacy of CDC warnings and the medical experts meant to advise them. I think several of those complications can be specifically traced to one guy in the Executive branch.
So, we're starting off the year not on topic for the thread, making fun of governments for their responses to a pandemic. A pandemic, mind you, which has been unprecedented for a hundred years, strained nearly every developed nation on the planet, shut down whole economies, and the disease of which has already mutated faster than the vaccine for the initial strain.
Happy belated new year Blasty McQuark Pants.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: So, are these reports supposed to illustrate that governments suck at managing big initiatives, thus they are useless for fixing climate change?
The NPR piece specifically calls out that part of the "holidays" challenge was the very human issue of frontline workers wanting to take some time to themselves over said holidays. That's not a government failing at all; that's private medical corporations doing what private businesses in a capitalist society have always done since the dawn of capitalism: staffing lean, not planning staff redundancies in case of emergency, and working their employees to their absolute limits regardless of the time of year.
It's also pretty common for big rollouts of anything, by anyone, to be plagued with problems. Often those are quickly sorted out and speed and quality picks up dramatically.
But it's easy to trash those first weeks and to make long term predictions about how disastrous it'll be by just straight out extrapolating "if it goes on like this".
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: So, are these reports supposed to illustrate that governments suck at managing big initiatives, thus they are useless for fixing climate change?
The NPR piece specifically calls out that part of the "holidays" challenge was the very human issue of frontline workers wanting to take some time to themselves over said holidays. That's not a government failing at all; that's private medical corporations doing what private businesses in a capitalist society have always done since the dawn of capitalism: staffing lean, not planning staff redundancies in case of emergency, and working their employees to their absolute limits regardless of the time of year.
Also in other pandemics the American government, even when underperforming, has never actively misled their own voter base on the efficacy of CDC warnings and the medical experts meant to advise them. I think several of those complications can be specifically traced to one guy in the Executive branch.
So, we're starting off the year not on topic for the thread, making fun of governments for their responses to a pandemic. A pandemic, mind you, which has been unprecedented for a hundred years, strained nearly every developed nation on the planet, shut down whole economies, and the disease of which has already mutated faster than the vaccine for the initial strain.
Happy belated new year Blasty McQuark Pants.
See the thing is with the whole mitigating AGW thing is that it's a timing issue - as I so adroitly outlined in this recent post which you didn't engage with at all.
And the way world governments are going about this (Cf. the Paris Agreement) we will be out of "CO2 cushion" ( our allotted emissions before Net Zero emissions are critical) in 2.8 years. A +2.0°C year 2100 becomes essentially impossible by even the most optimistic scientific estimates once we run out of that cushion. And we have about 33 months to get with the program. Ain't happening I'll wager*.
And as for who to blame... your chosen dead horse cheeto to flog doesn't explain France being in last place given their mode of government. And even if there were an "orange factor" in the mix, it's really rather minor given states are in charge and had most of a year to prepare. That's plenty of time to prep for vaccine administration.
Again, because there's a definite reading-for-comprehension deficit regarding my posts, my point is big government can't do big projects fast and efficiently, and we desperately need both for the whole 'war on AGW' thingy.
* I see the more likely scenario being at least a +2.5°C year 2100.
Except states can't actually do that due to how state budgets are constructed.
thejeff wrote: But it's easy to trash those first weeks and to make long term predictions about how disastrous it'll be by just straight out extrapolating "if it goes on like this". Speaking of 'long term' predictions;
CBDunkerson wrote: I see electric vehicles spreading in three stages;
1: Early adopters - A small percentage of people willing to pay extra for novelty / bragging rights / drag racing wins (a big selling point for Tesla apparently) / whatever. We are currently in this stage.
Quark Blast wrote: We'll be in the "novelty" stage for another 15 years or more. CBDunkerson wrote: Five years. At the outside. That was back at the end of November 2016. Here we are just a little over 4 years later and how are EV sales doing?
Norway continues to lead, becoming the first country with majority EV sales. For 2020 BEVs averaged 54.3% of the market, up from 42.4% in 2019. For December 2020 that figure had risen to 66.7% (2/3rds). They appear to be ahead of their targets of 65% in 2021 and 100% by 2025.
Europe as a whole hit 10% PEVs for 2020, and 20% in December.
In China, 2020 BEV sales are going to be about 6%, with individual months now hitting double digits. That's well over a million cars per year and more than 100% growth over the previous year.
Yes, in North America, where 6 of the top 10 selling European EVs are not even available yet, EV sales are only around 2% of the market. However, given global growth of EVs (e.g. China's auto market is 150% the size of the US's) it won't be long before they become 'mainstream' here too. In any case, with over a million BEVs on the road even the US is well past the 'novelty' phase.
By November 2031 ("15 years or more") a new internal combustion engine car will be a novelty.
I didn't engage b/c frankly I didn't get the math, from either of the folks in that post. What I think it boils down to is:
1. We need to keep a "Co2 cushion" (a search term that didn't yield any results just now on a couple of browsers) down in order to hit the 1.5 C goal of the Paris agreement
2. 2 years ago, we had... 10 years worth of cushion?
3. We've lost 5 years' worth of cushion in 2 years, per your post
4. We've only got 7 years of actual time left to hit the goal
5. Per the math of the previous post and what you're reposting here, we ACTUALLY only have 2.8 years worth of time left at current Co2 rates
Do I have all that right QB?
Also QB, in the bit of mine you quoted there, I tried to make the point that the NPR article you cited said hospitals and their staff were largely to blame for the "holidays" slowdown. Here's another article illustrating that private medical businesses are retarding the vaccine rollout.
How does that equal poor government? Hospitals aren't state-run. CVS is a publicly traded corporate entity. Neither of these were a failure of the US government.
You went out of your way to say that I didn't engage with your post, then seemed to insinuate that I have poor reading comprehension skills. Both of those are a personal shot at me which I didn't really appreciate. Despite that, I'm going to politely ask you where the disconnect is on why you're not addressing my whole post before I make any similar remarks about your own seeming lack of ability to read and engage with my post.
CBDunkerson wrote: thejeff wrote: But it's easy to trash those first weeks and to make long term predictions about how disastrous it'll be by just straight out extrapolating "if it goes on like this". Speaking of 'long term' predictions;
CBDunkerson wrote: I see electric vehicles spreading in three stages;
1: Early adopters - A small percentage of people willing to pay extra for novelty / bragging rights / drag racing wins (a big selling point for Tesla apparently) / whatever. We are currently in this stage.
Quark Blast wrote: We'll be in the "novelty" stage for another 15 years or more. CBDunkerson wrote: Five years. At the outside. That was back at the end of November 2016. Here we are just a little over 4 years later and how are EV sales doing?
Norway continues to lead, becoming the first country with majority EV sales. For 2020 BEVs averaged 54.3% of the market, up from 42.4% in 2019. For December 2020 that figure had risen to 66.7% (2/3rds). They appear to be ahead of their targets of 65% in 2021 and 100% by 2025.
Europe as a whole hit 10% PEVs for 2020, and 20% in December.
In China, 2020 BEV sales are going to be about 6%, with individual months now hitting double digits. That's well over a million cars per year and more than 100% growth over the previous year.
Yes, in North America,... Right, in North America. Glad we agree.
You've got 10 months for your prediction to come true. I predict it won't.
:D
As for your link to my "wrong" prediction:
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Basically, the technology is already available to anyone in the country who can afford it. That's not exactly a resounding cheer for EV's now is it? Which... would be why I said earlier that we are still in the 'novelty stage' of EV adoption.
However, that is set to start changing in a few weeks. And with an MSRP of $36,620 for the Bolt it won't be having much of an impact.
We'll be in the "novelty" stage for another 15 years or more. I boldified the context of my quote which I'm sure you "accidentally" left out.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: I didn't engage b/c frankly I didn't get the math, from either of the folks in that post. What I think it boils down to is:
1. We need to keep a "Co2 cushion" (a search term that didn't yield any results just now on a couple of browsers) down in order to hit the 1.5 C goal of the Paris agreement
2. 2 years ago, we had... 10 years worth of cushion?
3. We've lost 5 years' worth of cushion in 2 years, per your post
4. We've only got 7 years of actual time left to hit the goal
5. Per the math of the previous post and what you're reposting here, we ACTUALLY only have 2.8 years worth of time left at current Co2 rates
Do I have all that right QB?
Yes.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Also QB, in the bit of mine you quoted there, I tried to make the point that the NPR article you cited said hospitals and their staff were largely to blame for the "holidays" slowdown. Here's another article illustrating that private medical businesses are retarding the vaccine rollout.
How does that equal poor government? Hospitals aren't state-run. CVS is a publicly traded corporate entity. Neither of these were a failure of the US government.
You went out of your way to say that I didn't engage with your post, then seemed to insinuate that I have poor reading comprehension skills. Both of those are a personal shot at me which I didn't really appreciate. Despite that, I'm going to politely ask you where the disconnect is on why you're not addressing my whole post before I make any similar remarks about your own seeming lack of ability to read and engage with my post.
I don't argue with MSNBC, CBS, Fox, etc. Sorry, 'tis not really news but only hype and click-bait "reporting".
I'm sorry you took offense.
Quark Blast wrote: You've got 10 months for your prediction to come true. I predict it won't. It obviously already has. You're just too intellectually dishonest to admit it. Claiming EVs are still just a novelty at this point is ridiculous.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You've got 10 months for your prediction to come true. I predict it won't. It obviously already has. You're just too intellectually dishonest to admit it. Claiming EVs are still just a novelty at this point is ridiculous. I don't know, the Chevy Bolt is still sitting right at $38,000, and that's after $5,000 "cash back" from the maker. So, was $36k and now is $38k+... doesn't sound like your affordable Eden is quite yet attainable.
:D
The median price for all new cars sold in 2020 was $37,851, so that would place the Bolt within the price range of approximately half of all car buyers.
Not affordable to those on the low end, but not nearly as expensive as you're trying to imply.
EV purchase costs being, relatively, high also isn't the question. They are selling ANYWAY. They are no longer uncommon 'novelty' vehicles because they are selling in large numbers even in the few countries that have adopted policies actively hostile to their introduction.
The suggestion that EV purchase costs need to drop significantly below comparable ICEs in more places (i.e. they already have in Norway) and low cost models become available in more places (e.g. China already has several dirt cheap EV models) in order to not be 'novelties' is ridiculous. When those price points are met EVs become the dominant option... like they have in Norway. Setting that as the bar for not being a 'novelty' is absurd.
Quark Blast wrote: Mark Hoover 330 wrote: I didn't engage b/c frankly I didn't get the math, from either of the folks in that post. What I think it boils down to is:
1. We need to keep a "Co2 cushion" (a search term that didn't yield any results just now on a couple of browsers) down in order to hit the 1.5 C goal of the Paris agreement
2. 2 years ago, we had... 10 years worth of cushion?
3. We've lost 5 years' worth of cushion in 2 years, per your post
4. We've only got 7 years of actual time left to hit the goal
5. Per the math of the previous post and what you're reposting here, we ACTUALLY only have 2.8 years worth of time left at current Co2 rates
Do I have all that right QB?
Yes. So then, does anyone else have anything on the Co2 cushion? As I said, I searched up that phrase but didn't come up with anything.
|
