Ars Technica Article on Possible Upcoming Funding Changes for EVs and EV Infrastructure

[broncoaz]

Yep, China is doing great on reducing their CO2 emissions They are 35% of the world emissions.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/239093/co2-emissions-in-china/#:~:text=Carbon dioxide emissions in China 1960-2023&text=China released 11.9 billion metric,of countries where emissions increased.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview

https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions

 

[ccough]

Some data (links/citations provided):

https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statis...s-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

___
A few points:

China is currently the top emitter, emitting at 2.68 times the rate of the US (top figure).

It is observed that the US has reduced GHG emissions by around 17% since the peak around the year 2000. China has seen a 311% change in GHG output since 1990.

Transportation accounts for 29% of the GHG emission in the US (second figure). Of this, 57% is derived primarily from consumer "light vehicle" use (third figure). This use is, by some margin, the largest output in transportation sector and is ~16.5% (roughly 1/6) of total GHG emission in the US. Given total US emission of around 6,000 Mton-equivalent, personal transport accounts for roughly 1,000 Mton-equivalent emissions.

Comparing lifetime BEV to ICE usage, there is a ~50% reduction in greenhouse outputs (if a central value is assumed for EVs) (fourth figure). If all light-duty vehicles were BEVs, the US could reduce GHG emissions by 500 Mton-equivalent (to ~5,500 Mton-equivalent, if all other sectors hold).

This would offset 64% of the 784 Mton increase in GHG from China from years 2022 to 2023. This reduction exceeds GHG emissions of many smaller and/or less developed countries.

---
Of course, weighing such data in policy making making is a complex issue dependent on a number of personal and external "weighting" factors.

(*Post edited to get figures in correct positions)

 

[Firn]

Yep, China is doing great on reducing their CO2 emissions They are 35% of the world emissions.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/239093/co2-emissions-in-china/#:~:text=Carbon dioxide emissions in China 1960-2023&text=China released 11.9 billion metric,of countries where emissions increased.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview

https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions

Yes, they HAVE high emissions, as a country, but by populace they are still less than the US. And that does not in any way refute what was said, they HAVE implemented more green technology than we have, they ARE following the treaties better than we do, they are also growing and increasing their industrial base. This is far more than "oh look, big number, must be bad". This is an exceedingly simplistic look with zero depth on the subject that proves that just because you can quote some facts does not mean you have identified the truth.

 

[broncoaz]

Yes, they HAVE high emissions, as a country, but by populace they are still less than the US. And that does not in any way refute what was said, they HAVE implemented more green technology than we have, they ARE following the treaties better than we do, they are also growing and increasing their industrial base. This is far more than "oh look, big number, must be bad". This is an exceedingly simplistic look with zero depth on the subject that proves that just because you can quote some facts does not mean you have identified the truth.

I thought you might respond with that. The graph on the left below is per capita, notice China and India are increasing while we and other countries are decreasing. Their population is 4x ours meaning every small increase in emissions makes a much larger impact on global emissions. As India becomes more industrialized I would expect their emissions to also grow significantly. I have stated in other discussions that investing in having developing nations skip the coal and dirty fossil fuels portions of industrialization will have a greater impact on global emissions than severely restricting US and EU emissions where we burn things cleaner.

With respect to China following treaties: there is no transparency with respect to the numbers reported by a totalitarian regime, the numbers are what they say that are. They were so transparent with respect to Covid as it spread to the rest of the world and killed between a reported 5.9 million and estimates as high as 18 million. That same government engages in currency manipulation and is in the midst of a real estate crisis, both of which have impacts on the world economy. Forgive me for not trusting their government and climate numbers.

This is an interesting video on their housing crisis:

 

[The Weatherman]

They (China) have moved their auto industry to between 40-50% of new car sales being EV’s/Hybrids. Ice manufacturers are fleeing like never before due to the collapse of ICE.

The US and Europe are blocking and taxing Chinese car imports, which are primarily EV’s, for fear of their adaptation and that causing the collapse of our own auto industry. And yet the same people are doing everything in their power to squash our own EV option.

if we as a country don’t do something different it will not end well for anyone!

 

[Grumpy2]

if we as a country don’t do something different it will not end well anyone!

This is no longer a theoretical issue. Even if we were in "net zero" today (greenhouse gases produced equal amount removed) My 7 year old granddaughter will possibly experience a significant sea level rise (plus X feet) impacting all 3 edges of the USA.

 

[sotek2345]

This is no longer a theoretical issue. Even if we were in "net zero" today (greenhouse gases produced equal amount removed) My 7 year old granddaughter will possibly experience a significant sea level rise (plus X feet) impacting all 3 edges of the USA.

Famine from lost farming yields (drought / flood cycles) and the migration and war that will cause will impact her and us far faster than sea level rise.

 

[Firn]

I thought you might respond with that.

Then why did you use the other numbers first? "China bad, bigger number show China badder"?

The graph on the left below is per capita, notice China and India are increasing while we and other countries are decreasing.

Yes, because their industry and population are both increasing. You were upset because California is implementing restrictions on vehicles but what are you proposing, China and India stop developing and also prevent their population from growing? That seems a bit worse. Or are you saying they can grow unless it's all on "green" energy? The same energy you reject here?

Their population is 4x ours meaning every small increase in emissions makes a much larger impact on global emissions.

Which is just trying to push the conversation back to total numbers not one based on population. Why? Because it makes them look worse than us then?

I have stated in other discussions that investing in having developing nations skip the coal and dirty fossil fuels portions of industrialization will have a greater impact on global emissions than severely restricting US and EU emissions where we burn things cleaner.

So again, they should do more than we are? You even reject our government trying to implement those technologies here, but claim others should be doing so?

With respect to China following treaties: there is no transparency with respect to the numbers reported by a totalitarian regime, the numbers are what they say that are.

Do you have information proving that? Or are you just coming up with excuses as to why you don't have to believe something you don't like? You do realize this is exactly how "only listen to what they want to hear" works right? If you have alternative sources that say different then provide them, otherwise it seems that the numbers just don't say what you want and so you came up with a reason they are not true.

Bottom line nothing i, or anyoen else here, says will change your confirmation bias. I'm out

 

[broncoaz]

Then why did you use the other numbers first? "China bad, bigger number show China badder"?

I was traveling in airports yesterday posting mainly from my phone. I did choose to reference the entire number rather than per capita. Yes, it’s better for my position here but more importantly total emissions of a country seems relevant regardless of population density with respect to the impact of those emissions at a global scale.

Yes, because their industry and population are both increasing. You were upset because California is implementing restrictions on vehicles but what are you proposing, China and India stop developing and also prevent their population from growing? That seems a bit worse. Or are you saying they can grow unless it's all on "green" energy? The same energy you reject here?

How am I rejecting green energy? I spent $50K putting solar on my home and another $90K on EV’s to fully utilize the energy produced. I am rejecting the idea of government making the decision for the consumer rather than letting market forces dictate the choices. In my personal case the solar investment is worthwhile due to the cost of electricity from the mains. If someone has inexpensive power from hydro or nuclear they may not choose to make the same investments I have.

As a country we should be concerned by China’s strategic dominance in certain industries and their military saber rattling in the South China Sea with regards to Taiwan. I’m also concerned about their worldwide hegemony in the pursuit of resources. Damn right we should be concerned about their population growth and its potential impact on the overall health of the planet.

Which is just trying to push the conversation back to total numbers not one based on population. Why? Because it makes them look worse than us then?

Yes, global emissions matter.

So again, they should do more than we are? You even reject our government trying to implement those technologies here, but claim others should be doing so?

Our numbers are decreasing, theirs are increasing. I suggested that investing in third world countries to allow them to skip the dirtier parts of industrialization would be a win for everyone. China is not a third world country, they are an industrial powerhouse. Unfortunately China doesn’t do much innovating, they are better at stealing the intellectual properties of others and mass producing them for a lower cost. I feel like we lucked out with green power, the demand in the US and EU lead to China ramping up production and adapting it quicker for their own uses. Had other countries not been making the push to reduce carbon China might still be ramping up coal fired power plants like they were not too long ago.

Do you have information proving that? Or are you just coming up with excuses as to why you don't have to believe something you don't like? You do realize this is exactly how "only listen to what they want to hear" works right? If you have alternative sources that say different then provide them, otherwise it seems that the numbers just don't say what you want and so you came up with a reason they are not true.

Obviously I can’t prove China does or doesn’t report accurate data to the global bodies who track such things. It seems pretty obvious that the Chinese government doesn’t like airing their dirty laundry, and without any independent verification of their numbers or a free press they could report whatever they’d like. I have no malice towards China or their citizens, but I’m not naive enough to believe their government has no aspirations that could have negative consequences for those of us in the US.

 

[Jim Lewis]

I think the real elephant in the room that no one (at least no politician) wants to address is there are too many people in the world. If the world had a much smaller population and rainforests weren't being cut down like crazy, etc., we could all drive monster ICE trucks around, and the earth's biosphere would literally just suck it up. Since it requires 2.2 children per family, on average, just to sustain a population (because some offspring don't reproduce), if every couple in the world had just two kids on average, the world's population would slowly decrease. "Be fruitful and multiply" is a cultural adage left over from when most children in a family did not survive to adulthood.

In the meantime, before we achieve zero or negative population growth, we'd better do something else to keep stayin' alive.

The other elephant in the room, being well-off, is predicated on the Ponzi scheme of economic growth. Money goes elsewhere if there is no prospect of profit-making growth. If increased fuel consumption is tied to growth and every year, the economy has to increase at least several percent to support an expanding population, you've got a (slow) exponential that eventually leads to balloons popping, as the world is a finite place.

There are about 8 billion people and counting in the world today. The world supposedly has land and other resources to support only one to two billion people in the American middle-class lifestyle.

 

[Jim Lewis]

Rather than make other countries an excuse for ignoring our own balancing act, why not just stick to whether EVs have a significant role to play now and for the future in the U.S? "It doesn't matter what we do because X, Y, and Z are doing thus-and-so is not a very good rationale. Maybe we, as well as X, Y, and Z, all need to get our acts together..., for whatever a sustainable future shapes up to be.

 

[Grumpy2]

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a district court ruling in the nation’s first constitutional climate change trial, affirming that the youth plaintiffs have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment” while revoking two Montana statutes.

"The court also considered the argument that to have standing, plaintiffs must show that legal relief will alleviate their injuries. Lawyers for the state argued that because climate change is a global problem, whereas Montana’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emission is comparatively negligible, “no single judicial action in Montana can meaningfully reduce climate change, and thus redress Plaintiffs’ injuries.”

However, the court rejected that notion, stating it could potentially “immunize the state from litigation” for similar constitutional claims, and citing a Massachusetts case that acknowledged “a reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere.”


https://stateline.org/2024/12/19/mo...irms-decision-in-historic-youth-climate-case/

Sponsored