Global warming ...

[oilerlord]

Once upon a time government regulations forced gas companies to remove lead from gasoline. Those same regulations forced automobile manufacturers to install catalytic converters to reduce smog-producing emissions to improve air quality. And also decreed that cars should get better gas mileage, further reducing air pollution. Car companies didn't want to do any of that. They just wanted to sell their gas guzzling land yachts. And yet here we are some 40+ years later with cars that get great gas mileage & produce a fraction of the pollution due to those compliance requirements. Innovation wasn't stifled by those regulations, it was increased as manufacturers sought ways to comply.

I see the point you're making, but I think you're reaching a little. This isn't about bolting on a catalytic converter for reduced emissions or a turbocharger for improved power & efficiency; we're expecting the public to participate in a paradigm shift when there is little reason (from a product functionality standpoint) to do so. Should we really expect the public to do cartwheels because this "Game Changing" EV with cutting-edge technology has an amazing 238 miles of range, and "only" takes 3.5 hours to charge at home - providing of course you spend another thousand bucks for a 30-amp service + EVSE for your garage. That is, if you have a garage. What if you live in an apartment? What if you live in a city with little or no public charging?

Newsflash: Cars from 40 years ago had double that range on one "charge" which took only a couple of minutes to complete. The technology isn't ready, and as such, the demand for the end product isn't there either. Clearly, the public isn't buying what we're selling.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/your-grills-smoky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

 

[michael]

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/your-grills-smoky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

When the tree grows, atmospheric carbon gets tied up into the tree's structure.

When the wood is burned, whether as simple firewood or as charcoal, that carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide.

The only difference between modern wood and fossil fuels is that the plant material in the fossil fuels is from prehistoric times and the chemical structure has been changed by heat, time, and pressure. Burning either one releases carbon to the atmosphere.

 

[oilerlord]

Oh, and exactly how is the Paris Agreement, useless?

Because it's another wealth-transfer program disguised as an agreement to fight climate change.

In my province, we pay carbon tax. Our government gives carbon tax rebates to those individuals earning less than $47,500 per year. It's more than a little ironic that my brother in law took his first carbon-rebate cheque and bought himself a cast iron stove, and burns coal all winter to save on higher natural gas bills. In essence, he receives a carbon-rebate cheque for no reason, and with no environmental accountability on how he spends it.

I have 41 solar panels on my roof, planted over 200 trees & shrubs in our yard, have offset over six metric tons of CO2 (from solar alone), drive an electric car, use rain-barrels, grow some of our own food, and receive NO rebate or incentive to do so - just because I seemingly earn too much money. Please tell me how that makes sense, because I don't understand how the size of my paycheck is related to my personal CO2 footprint, or my overall contribution to fighting climate change?

When you monetize CO2, it becomes a more about sustaining a business & political agenda, than it is about environmental sustainability. The Paris Agreement is more of the same. As well meaning as agreements like these are, they do next to nothing in reducing global CO2 emissions.

 

[oilerlord]

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

So, I suppose rainforest deforestation and trees disappearing from urban centers isn't something we need to be concerned about either because really, all the carbon in those trees "came from the air" when the trees grew.

Right.

 

[LeftieBiker]

I see the point you're making, but I think you're reaching a little. This isn't about bolting on a catalytic converter for reduced emissions or a turbocharger for improved power & efficiency; we're expecting the public to participate in a paradigm shift when there is little reason (from a product functionality standpoint) to do so.

Think "seat belts" and "not driving drunk." No paradigm shift is complete in one or even two generations, but they do occur, and it's usually because of government mandates.

As for using local carbon tax inequities to try to rebut the Paris Accords, that's a bit of a reach. Carbon tax proposals are huge, flawed compromises between those who want to move away from fossil fuels, and those who don't want to do anything that costs them money. The Paris Accords are very flawed, but that is because they were the best that could be negotiated at the time between almost 200 governments, not because the environmentalists are money redistributing idiots.

 

[sparkyps]

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/your-grills-smoky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

I have a bag of charcoal.

If it sits in the bag how much CO2 is added to the air? 0

If I burn it how much CO2 is added to the air? 11 lbs

11 > 0

Burning charcoal adds CO2 to the air. Burning wood adds CO2 to the air. Burning ancient trees/plants/bushes in the form of coal adds CO2 to the air. Burning ancient trees/plants/bushes in the form of oil adds CO2 to the air.

 

[oilerlord]

I have a bag of charcoal.

If it sits in the bag how much CO2 is added to the air? 0

If I burn it how much CO2 is added to the air? 11 lbs

11 > 0

Burning charcoal adds CO2 to the air. Burning wood adds CO2 to the air. Burning ancient trees/plants/bushes in the form of coal adds CO2 to the air. Burning ancient trees/plants/bushes in the form of oil adds CO2 to the air.

The operative word is added.

Technically, CO2 is released, but not added to the atmosphere because the trees/plants/bushes stored the 11 lbs of CO2 in that bag of charcoal during their lifetime. If you choose to burn it, those 11 lbs of CO2 go back into the atmosphere.

I had this debate on another forum where it was argued that the net CO2 released from burning wood is zero. While that is technically true, CO2 is stored over decades, centuries, or millennia, and is usually released naturally over decades or centuries as trees decompose - not suddenly and irresponsibly as illustrated in the photo above.

The global warming argument maintains that we're releasing CO2 at a faster rate than the world is able to absorb. Probably should keep those 11 lbs of CO2 in the bag.

 

[SeanNelson]

Carbon tax proposals are huge, flawed compromises between those who want to move away from fossil fuels, and those who don't want to do anything that costs them money.

Carbon taxes are an incentive for polluters to clean up their act. There's obviously a huge resistance to them from the biggest polluters, but society as a whole stands to gain and so IMHO should be favourable to it. The key is in making the taxes "revenue neutral" - for every dollar earned through carbon taxes you take a dollar less in general tax revenue. This actually works as both a carrot and a stick - because the general tax reductions reward conservers while the carbon tax punishes the polluters.

My Canadian province of British Columbia implemented a revenue neutral carbon tax almost 10 years ago. There is some debate about how "revenue neutral" it really is, but the electorate accepted the premise and there was surprisingly little pushback (contrast this with the HST debacle). Since then our carbon consumption has gone down and our economy has grown. It really can work, and without pain.

 

[oilerlord]

Carbon taxes are an incentive for polluters to clean up their act.

Right.

The reality is that I'm now paying more taxes, regardless of being environmentally responsible. My environmentally irresponsible brother-in-law receives a carbon tax rebate cheque every three months. That money sure comes in handy when it's time to fill up his F-150.

There's obviously a huge resistance to them from the biggest polluters, but society as a whole stands to gain and so IMHO should be favourable to it. The key is in making the taxes "revenue neutral" - for every dollar earned through carbon taxes you take a dollar less in general tax revenue. This actually works as both a carrot and a stick - because the general tax reductions reward conservers while the carbon tax punishes the polluters.

Big Oil either pays the tax as the cost of doing business, or moves to a different jurisdiction where the business of oil extraction is more economically viable,. More Albertans are out of work, and the ones that are working get to pay more to heat their homes, and subsidize the ones that aren't. Part of the carbon tax I pay goes to send people to people's homes to install energy efficient light bulbs...because Albertans are seemingly incapable of doing it themselves. I can absolutely see how a left-leaning socialist would find ways to spin our carbon tax as an environmental win though.

Since then our carbon consumption has gone down and our economy has grown. It really can work, and without pain.

Sean, where are you coming up with this stuff? Perhaps weed is now legal in BC. The reality is that BC's revenue, and revenue relative to GDP has either remained flat for the last 20 years, or is in decline.

http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/provincial-forecasts/prov_fiscal.pdf

Congratulations on your new NDP government though...based on what they are doing in Alberta, I'm sure they will fix that right up. We went from two decades of being debt-free, to being $9.5B in debt in their first year in office.

 

[SeanNelson]

Sean, where are you coming up with this stuff?

Link was in the original post.

 

[phil0909]

Sorry, I can't follow your logic. How does China etc, taking the lead on fighting global warming negate my contribution?

Fighting??? Good Lord, no, China leads the world in PRODUCING carbon dioxide emissions. I assumed you understood that. All developing countries are entitled to their industrial development, just like we've had ours, and they will not be deterred. Your 'contribution' will be infinitesimal compared to the growth of pollution from Africa, India and Latin America.

Your electric motorcycle will not contribute to saving the world, because the world is not being saved. But hey, look on the bright side. Your grandchildren will be able to tell all their friends: "My grandpa made a futile gesture, and yours didn't." As they all choke to death on the burning hot surface of the earth.

 

[wwhitney]

Buying an EV is a categorical imperative. I can't control how others act, I can only act in a fashion which, if everyone acted similarly, will abate global warming.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[phil0909]

Buying an EV is a categorical imperative. I can't control how others act, I can only act in a fashion which, if everyone acted similarly, will abate global warming.

Cheers, Wayne

Hmmmm. Feels like there's a flaw in this plan somewhere, I just can't put my finger on it. Where could it be?

 

[wwhitney]

No flaw--when it comes to individual choices, that's all one person can do. The value of my not littering is not diminished just because other people litter.

Now, when it comes to what we should do collectively, through our governments, that's much trickier.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[phil0909]

No flaw--when it comes to individual choices, that's all one person can do. The value of my not littering is not diminished just because other people litter.

Now, when it comes to what we should do collectively, through our governments, that's much trickier.

Cheers, Wayne

And the resulting global failure gives you no pause? Sure the world will burn, but I did my part, so those other people are to blame.

Okey dokey!

 

[wwhitney]

And the resulting global failure gives you no pause?

I've said no such thing. I'm not saying that buying EVs is a sufficient plan, I'm saying that it is a necessary part of the plan (if we want to continue using automobiles). Edit: I acknowledge that collective action is also required.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[oilerlord]

Buying an EV is a categorical imperative.

Buying an EV makes a statement, and little else.

We tend to ignore the immediate effect that 3600 pounds of steel, glass, petrochemicals, along with the amount of energy required to create it has on our own personal CO2 footprints.

Then, we only lease that 3600 lb lump for 3-years/36,000 miles (or less) before it has any chance of offsetting it's own CO2 from it's manufacture, and order GM (or someone else) to manufacture another 3600 pound lump of planet-saving goodness every three years. Hey, as long as we aren't burning gasoline right? Not necessarily. Most people don't keep their EV's long enough to offset the difference CO2 between buying a fuel-efficient gasoline car and an EV. They just keep leasing them. In only 9 years, they've added 4 more cars to the planet that Mother Nature has to deal with. Wow...great job!

I'm already hearing the replies. Hey, the next guy is going to buy my old car! We just went through pages of how doing the "right thing" as individuals is such an important responsibility, but suddenly we're now relying on someone else to clean up the CO2 mess we caused. How convenient it is to take responsibility for our own personal CO2 footprints only when it suits us! The hypocrisy is off the scale.

So if driving an EV makes you feel great. Fine. You want to make an environmental or political statement? Fine. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that buying an EV is a "categorical imperative" for the environment. It isn't.

 

[wwhitney]

Buying an EV makes a statement, and little else.

I disagree. I guess my position needs to be refined to "when the choice to buy (not lease) a new vehicle has been made, choosing an EV when feasible is a categorical imperative." I believe that addresses all of the concerns you've raised.

Most people don't keep their EV's long enough to offset the difference CO2 between buying a fuel-efficient gasoline car and an EV.

Your statement implies that the new EV starts off at a CO2 deficit compared to the fuel-efficient gasoline car, I'm not aware that is the case.

In any event, I don't believe that's the correct metric, what matters is the "cradle to grave" analysis. At end of life (and recycling), which vehicle has had the bigger CO2 footprint?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[oilerlord]

I disagree. I guess my position needs to be refined to "when the choice to buy (not lease) a new vehicle has been made, choosing an EV when feasible is a categorical imperative." I believe that addresses all of the concerns you've raised.

Most people don't keep their EV's long enough to offset the difference CO2 between buying a fuel-efficient gasoline car and an EV.

Your statement implies that the new EV starts off at a CO2 deficit compared to the fuel-efficient gasoline car, I'm not aware that is the case.

In any event, I don't believe that's the correct metric, what matters is the "cradle to grave" analysis. At end of life (and recycling), which vehicle has had the bigger CO2 footprint?

Cheers, Wayne

Not only implies, a new EV does start off at a CO2 deficit compared to a gasoline car. The following compares the difference between 84 mile and 265 mile BEV's and their gasoline counterparts. They used a Tesla with 85kWh battery, and mentioned that it takes 19,000 miles to overcome the "extra" emissions from the manufacturing process of the battery. I suppose we could assume you would need to drive the Bolt for 15,000 miles since it has a smaller 60kWh battery.

At first glance, a 265 mile EV has a whopping 53% fewer global warming emissions in this cradle-to-grave analysis. Awesome, right? Read the assumptions:

The study assumes that the full size (85kWh) vehicle's lifetime is 179,000 miles, and that a consumer buying a BEV would drive it the same total miles as a corresponding gasoline vehicle. How many people buying a Bolt will ever drive it more than 36,000 miles - much less 179,000? As I mentioned, you need to drive 15,000 miles just overcoming the extra CO2 from the manufacturing process of the battery

They also assume grid emissions based on a sales-weighted average of where EV's are being sold today. That's an EV's emissions equivalent with driving an 68 MPG vehicle...not the Midwest where a grid-powered EV has the equivalent emissions car with the fuel efficiency of a car that returns 35-43 MPG.

So, if you bought the car in Michigan, you'd need to drive the Bolt for about 30,000 miles - just to offset the initial CO2 from the manufacturing of the battery. You haven't even begun to offset the CO2 caused from the manufacturing of the rest of the car. By that time, you're almost ready to lease again, and start the cycle all over again.

See where I'm going with this? Just because we're driving around in an EV, mitigating factors dictate that we're not necessarily reducing global CO2...we may in fact be piling onto the problem without realizing we're doing it.