New German study: Diesel vehicles produce less CO2 than electric vehicles
(jungefreiheit-de.translate.goog)
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Article is auto-translated.
tl;dr:
A new study from Germany came to the conclusion that EVs produce more CO2 than diesel vehicles. EVs already produce more CO2. However once Germany shuts down its nuclear power plants early next year EVs will produce over 20% more CO2 than diesel cars per kilometer.
No problem, we already got the solution for that and that is to limit the amount you are allowed to use the electric car, if you use a electric car only half of the amount you use a diesel, then the totals are less you see.
but.. wait, how can I go to work then?
you will have to move your residence near the place where you work
but,, I cannot afford that!
specially made pod storages will be built to accommodate such change in lifestyle no worry
a pod? but my family...
family? ahahahahahahah ahemm... the state will take care of that :)
So if we had nuclear power, this headline wouldn't be true.
It would be less but still true. As the nuclear power plants are still running, EVs currently "only" produce over 14% more CO2.
I’ve read articles saying that more CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing because it’s caused more plant growth due to better temperatures. Anyone ever see any articles like that?
Well, you're basically increasing their food supply. So yes, that does promote plant growth. The "CO2 causes global warming" hysteria was always exactly just that. It always relied on shoddy models that don't even remotely properly reflect climate on Earth. It's true that it can cause smog in large cities or industrial centers, though. But if the ecoterrorists really want to "protect" the planet, then they should look elsewhere. Like how many Asian countries literally use rivers as replacements for landfills, causing tons of plastic to drift into the oceans every year.
ding ding on the plastic issue. The down stream effects it has on the food chain is way worse than so called climate change has ever been. But every large corp and their mother sells plastic in some form, so they don't talk about it.
You're pretty informed about the argument so let me put in my 2c. To me the alarmist side is a prima facie lie because they refuse to give the public any figures on how much carbon needs to be reduced and why. It's all vague moralizing designed to make you save just a little more every day without ever stopping to consider whether that amounts to significant change.
The only broad assessment that has been published, to my knowledge, is that it would take about 1000 years for CO2 levels to return to "normal" if we somehow stopped producing it tomorrow. So given that statement, we have been an industrial world for 150 years give or take, therefore supposedly imbalancing the climate for 150 years. How many tons of CO2 are in the atmosphere right now over the natural "baseline"? Are we already past the "point of no return"?
Why are climate advocates so obsessed with emissions agreements like the Kyoto Protocol that merely limit emissions to levels in the recent past? Surely this means we are still marching toward the cliff, just marginally slower. As any CO2 added to the atmosphere is essentially permanent, one would need to reduce emissions by 100% or even remove CO2 from the atmosphere in order to "save the planet."
If people really thought we were going to go extinct, we would see a full array of strategies explored including carbon trapping and storage. Instead the face of the movement is a couple college age girlies who are "forced" by their parents to fly across the world for vacation.
Looooooool...
No of course, but I'm referring to the generally accepted statement that the atmosphere would need around 1000 years to fully reset if we returned to the Stone Age tomorrow. In that context any added carbon is effectively permanent.
Thank you. I read an article and was giving a summary of what I remember. Thanks for the breakdown. A huge problem is that the climate change cult people make it to where you can’t have an honest environmental discussion
The thing about the "CO2 causes a small increase which causes more water vapor which causes a large increase" argument that I have a hard time with is- if water vapor is sensitive to small increases in temperature and water vapor also causes a large increase in temperature- wouldn't water vapor all by itself cause run away climate change?
Plants grow better with more CO2 up to a point, around 800-1000 ppm depending on the plant.
But that is in a greenhouse with unlimited nutrients. In nature nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium are limiting factors, or just growing in a place without enough water or light. This is why plants haven't evolved better respiration, because CO2 is usually not the limiting factor.
This is why plants in nature won't just soak up the excess CO2, and also why iron seeding the oceans works so well; the oceans have tons on nutrients for photosynthesis except for iron. So you add some iron and you get a huge bloom that soaks up CO2 and then the algae falls to the sea floor.
Thanks. I do feel like the climate hysteria makes it impossible to have honest discussions
It's hard to get to the truth because there's irrational hysteria on both sides.
A lot of the arguments against the warming are 'flat earth' where they grasp at straws to justify their belief, and they sound reasonable to a layman except with flat earth you can look at pictures of the earth and see it's nonsense. On the other hand, climate scientists seem to be in a Covid-like 10x worse than it is hysteria where they'll get fired and lose their funding for questioning the party line and then media hypes that into 100x worse.
Personally I judge these things by comparing risk. The scientists and people in charge clearly do not believe it's a major problem or they'd be strongly behind using geoengineering to control climate. There are known methods that quickly extract massive amounts of CO2 (like iron seeding), simulate volcanoes, and so on but each with some seemingly small risk to them.
So these people who study climate as their day job believe the risk from growing CO2 is less than the risk of these geoengineering solutions.
Also I remember someone saying that if they were truly sincere they would promote nuclear power.
Absolutely. If climate alarmists were serious about this, the best way to phase out fossil fuels in the power grid is switching to all-nuclear power generation, or as close to it as possible. Green energy sources like solar and wind are nowhere close to being able to replace the baseload power draw of modern societies. Not only that, we should be working on miniaturizing and idiot-proofing nuclear reactors for use in international shipping boats, airplanes, cargo trains, etc. We will never stop needing fossil fuels until we can at least run our trade and good transport systems on something that isn't a combustion engine. Military aircraft carriers and submarines already run on nuclear generators and those boats are filled with bored idiot soldiers, so it's clearly possible.
And thank you for explaining this.
Politicians and bankers own too much waterfront property. Florida was supposed to be underwater by now if my high school was to be believed.
Releasing the carbon sequestered during the Carboniferous period will contribute to a return to a climate that did promote greater plant growth, but that doesn't mean that a Carboniferous climate would be good for humanity.
We shoulda tested the Trinity Project on Berlin first.
So you're saying the TDI I had to get rid of isn't really the horrific sin against nature the government said it was?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!!!
Because it's not about CO2 emissions.