Let's assume that it gets "too hot" by exactly 2100 if the US continues as it is.
Let's assume that, somehow, not just California, but the entire US eliminates 100% of its passenger car CO2 emissions tomorrow... AND that there is ZERO increase in CO2 emissions from electricity production.
How long will the "too hot" date of 2100 be pushed into the future?
Forever? 100 years to 2200? I have an answer, but first, what's your guess?
What about just reducing air pollution?
Air pollution leads to lower test scores, more miscarriages, asthma, etc.
Its a scourge that rich countries should work very hard to eliminate.
Unfortunately California could reach net zero emissions but still face smog and air pollution due to China and India not giving a crap about the environment.
Not really. The EV tech of the first model s isn't a whole lot different than today's. The tech around it changes.
As to the second point, it is a hummer. They were crap by 100k as an ice. I doubt much has changed...
I am no EV expert but did the first Model S have accident avoidance technologies that the newer Model S has? Is the first Model S able to upload the technology for the accident avoidance systems?
And if the newer Teslas have a range of 500 miles versus the 330 or so of today's Teslas (just guessing on the range) I am not going to want the ones with 330 range. In fact, I may hold out for those with a range approaching 1000 miles which may not be coming any day soon.
Their rationale is simple. Gasoline cars pollute the environment. They are the biggest contributor to climate change in California.
I think you mean simplistic. The hidden assumptions are:
1) these electric "alternatives" are less polluting. Prove it! Include the coal plants, mining, manufacturing, disposal, everything. 2) climate change in one little corner of the world is caused by emissions in that one little corner of the world. WRONG! Gases float around and the rest of the world won't be banning gas cars, period.
The main reason is that gasoline cars allow for a breakdown of the free market. You can pollute for free, making them artificially cheap, a subsidy on a huge scale.
If gas cars were to take either of these steps, eliminate their subsidized behavior, they would become prohibitively expensive.
To specifically answer your question: because air pollution is the archetypal subsidy and subsidies are bad economically and, in general, morally.
Their rationale is simple. Gasoline cars pollute the environment. They are the biggest contributor to climate change in California.
2) climate change in one little corner of the world is caused by emissions in that one little corner of the world. WRONG! Gases float around and the rest of the world won't be banning gas cars, period.
You are only considering greenhouse gasses. Diesel particulate matter has 30+ toxic air contaminants and is a known human carcinogen. Particulate matter is not gaseous and there are much higher concentrations.
This is why a city like Beijing is more polluted than, say, Denver on a daily basis.
2) climate change in one little corner of the world is caused by emissions in that one little corner of the world. WRONG! Gases float around and the rest of the world won't be banning gas cars, period.
You are only considering greenhouse gasses. Diesel particulate matter has 30+ toxic air contaminants and is a known human carcinogen. Particulate matter is not gaseous and there are much higher concentrations.
This is why a city like Beijing is more polluted than, say, Denver on a daily basis.
And tailpipe emissions also have SOx and NOx which combine with sunlight on warm days to create ground level ozone (O3) better known as smog. Kids with asthma, people with CPD, emphysema, etc. end up in the ER if they do anything strenuous outside on high ozone days. And smog is believed to contribute to higher levels of cardiovascular disease in the general population.
Further, diesel particulates are just one of a bunch of different toxics that come out of tailpipes. Benzene and Butadiene 1,3 are also toxic tailpipe emissions in both gas and diesel vehicles. Studies have found higher levels of childhood leukemia in kids who live within 1000 ft of a busy road or highway due to all the toxic tailpipe emissions they are exposed to.
Tesla's are junk, they rank dead last for reliability, cost a fortune and probably have a very short life...Electric cars are so new that it's going to be 20-30 years before they aproach the reliability and lifespan of IC vehicles...The fools promoting them are left wing zealots who envision some utopean World that has never existed and never will.
2) climate change in one little corner of the world is caused by emissions in that one little corner of the world. WRONG! Gases float around and the rest of the world won't be banning gas cars, period.
You are only considering greenhouse gasses. Diesel particulate matter has 30+ toxic air contaminants and is a known human carcinogen. Particulate matter is not gaseous and there are much higher concentrations.
This is why a city like Beijing is more polluted than, say, Denver on a daily basis.
Do carcinogens cause climate change, because I was responding directly to a comment about that, which you conveniently un-quoted.
Not really. The EV tech of the first model s isn't a whole lot different than today's. The tech around it changes.
As to the second point, it is a hummer. They were crap by 100k as an ice. I doubt much has changed...
I am no EV expert but did the first Model S have accident avoidance technologies that the newer Model S has? Is the first Model S able to upload the technology for the accident avoidance systems?
Are people scrapping their ice cars because accidence avoidance? Are they selling them cause when they crash, it calls 911? Notice how you couldn't come up with a single EV specific thing? EV tech isn't improving that fast
I am no EV expert but did the first Model S have accident avoidance technologies that the newer Model S has? Is the first Model S able to upload the technology for the accident avoidance systems?
And if the newer Teslas have a range of 500 miles versus the 330 or so of today's Teslas (just guessing on the range) I am not going to want the ones with 330 range. In fact, I may hold out for those with a range approaching 1000 miles which may not be coming any day soon.
It has taken them like 10 years to add like 100miles of range. And most of that increase was just sticking in more battery weight. And they still aren't close to 500. They are improving but the pace isn't super fast. Granted a lot of improvement is just in cost. 250mi is enough for most people. 70k on the other hand....
Of course 1000mi is stupid. Adding that much weight for occasional use isn't a good idea. If you are driving 1000 mi/day you are making some poor life choices...
And if the newer Teslas have a range of 500 miles versus the 330 or so of today's Teslas (just guessing on the range) I am not going to want the ones with 330 range. In fact, I may hold out for those with a range approaching 1000 miles which may not be coming any day soon.
It has taken them like 10 years to add like 100miles of range. And most of that increase was just sticking in more battery weight. And they still aren't close to 500. They are improving but the pace isn't super fast. Granted a lot of improvement is just in cost. 250mi is enough for most people. 70k on the other hand....
Of course 1000mi is stupid. Adding that much weight for occasional use isn't a good idea. If you are driving 1000 mi/day you are making some poor life choices...
The Lucid Air is at 500 miles range. 520 to be exact. Others will catch up.
Their rationale is simple. Gasoline cars pollute the environment. They are the biggest contributor to climate change in California.
With regard to quality, someone might out of habit or ideology might hold onto gas cars without recognizing that they are costlier to operate, have worse acceleration, need more frequent repairs, cause more illness, etc. That's why companies advertise to generate brand loyalty as early as possible, because people then irrationally hold onto the brand. On the other hand, gas cars can be cheaper and will continue to be cheaper until electric cars are truly mass market items. Even now, Tesla has very high profit margins and could sell its cars a lot cheaper but doesn't have to lower the sticker price because of lack of competition.
So I should get rid of my gas car and someone else buys it and it is still causing harm to the environment and now I have another car whose production causes harm to the environment. Why not just keep the car you have and stop producing so many new ones?
Instead of forcing everyone to buy electric, why not just limit how often you can get a new car. Producing more and more cars does worse harm.
Their rationale is simple. Gasoline cars pollute the environment. They are the biggest contributor to climate change in California.
I think you mean simplistic. The hidden assumptions are:
1) these electric "alternatives" are less polluting. Prove it! Include the coal plants, mining, manufacturing, disposal, everything. 2) climate change in one little corner of the world is caused by emissions in that one little corner of the world. WRONG! Gases float around and the rest of the world won't be banning gas cars, period.
Coal plants? That’s less than 10% of US electricity generation. This isn’t 1985.
Air pollution leads to lower test scores, more miscarriages, asthma, etc.
Its a scourge that rich countries should work very hard to eliminate.
Unfortunately California could reach net zero emissions but still face smog and air pollution due to China and India not giving a crap about the environment.
I think you mean simplistic. The hidden assumptions are:
1) these electric "alternatives" are less polluting. Prove it! Include the coal plants, mining, manufacturing, disposal, everything. 2) climate change in one little corner of the world is caused by emissions in that one little corner of the world. WRONG! Gases float around and the rest of the world won't be banning gas cars, period.
Coal plants? That’s less than 10% of US electricity generation. This isn’t 1985.
You're the most pathetic jackwad ever to post here.
Coal accounts for way more than 10%, despite being overtaken by fellow fossil fuel gas, and the power generation in question here is the EXCESS over what's used today. EV mandates would require a dramatic and quick increase, which would have to come from the most abundant and readily obtainable source. That's coal.
Notice you didn't even try to prove the total-cost emissions would be lower. You have no position.
Coal plants? That’s less than 10% of US electricity generation. This isn’t 1985.
You're the most pathetic jackwad ever to post here.
Coal accounts for way more than 10%, despite being overtaken by fellow fossil fuel gas, and the power generation in question here is the EXCESS over what's used today. EV mandates would require a dramatic and quick increase, which would have to come from the most abundant and readily obtainable source. That's coal.
Notice you didn't even try to prove the total-cost emissions would be lower. You have no position.
Coal accounts for 10% of US energy consumption. EVs are more efficient and will require LESS energy consumption. Glad this pathetic jackwad could help!
It has taken them like 10 years to add like 100miles of range. And most of that increase was just sticking in more battery weight. And they still aren't close to 500. They are improving but the pace isn't super fast. Granted a lot of improvement is just in cost. 250mi is enough for most people. 70k on the other hand....
Of course 1000mi is stupid. Adding that much weight for occasional use isn't a good idea. If you are driving 1000 mi/day you are making some poor life choices...
The Lucid Air is at 500 miles range. 520 to be exact. Others will catch up.
And costs like 170k. So basically in 10 years we have doubled the price and mileage. Does that really sound like progress?
Range is easy to add when you are willing to build a big expensive car. It is a lot harder to do in a mass production car that is price sensitive. Things are getting better but the pace is slow. It isn't remotely at the level to encourage people to upgrade quickly....
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
