A 300MPH speed run in an ultra low production Bugatti car is more or less insignificant in the fight against climate change.
Sure you can but it will be heavily inconvenient (at least for many in the west). But do you know what reduces the carbon footprint by about 75% in a country like Germany? 1.) Electric cars/trains 2.) Electricity from renewables 3.) Heating using electrical power from renewables (heat pumps)
Of the last 25%, there are 20% from industrial production and in the last 5% you could include air travel (2%) among other things.
Heating and driving and getting power from renewables makes your lifestyle about 0% different from what it is now. Buying goods that last longer even means giving life a touch of luxury. A better, more luxurious lifestyle that produces about 75% less carbon dioxide. Impossible? In a growing number of countries, this will be possible soon. Of course, not flying, not consuming gives you that "holy" feeling of "having done something". But done right, a sustainable lifestyle makes the life we have now even better. It takes a bit of political willpower, of course.
But the carbon footprint created within the West is just a small amount of the carbon footprint that the West contributes to. We can't just reduce our own carbon footprint if it simply pushes that carbon footprint onto other, less developed countries.
I think it will be very unlikely that we will continue to live with the same luxuries that we enjoy today while still aggressively reducing climate change. It won't be a case of "we have electric transport, but I can still buy a new iPhone once a year". It will be a case of aggressively cutting back everywhere and and ultimately growth and our economy will suffer in the short-term for long-term sustainability.
Using solar, wind and water to create power will, by the way, not push the carbon footprint somewhere else. It will, to a great part, vanish. And those economies who, in future, produce their own energy instead of importing them, will have a higher GDP and less dependence of foreign markets.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...
The articles about SO2 and NOx emissions are clickbait. They compare to cars, which are extremely clean in this respect. In any case, the subject here is climate change and these pollutants are irrelevant. (Strictly speaking, they slightly mitigate warning.)
I’m not saying we should ignore shipping, but I don’t see why it should be anywhere close to first on the list of things to focus on when fighting climate change.
I recently bought a new car in Germany (combustion engine as I needed a 7-seater). People ask me why I took the base engine (140HP) while adding all other optional equipment possible. I tell them: in and around a city, even those 140HP will never get used. And the times I am on the Autobahn AND (!!) being able to actually drive more than 130km/h are so rare that I would never put my money into higher speeds/acceleration. The question of "enough power" has been solved some years ago. Now let's make this power intelligent and sustainable.
People then tell me that they think that is stupid and like having the acceleration when getting on the interstate. In all those years, I never found acceleration to be a problem. We've been pitched cars that have way more power than we need and that use way more fuel than we need. Magazines like Car and Driver will write negative editorials if a car isn't "zippy". What should matter is safety, cost, and fuel economy.
In the US' South region, nearly everyone feels the need for a giant truck. It has been engrained as a lifestyle choice. You get your truck to help you haul your four-wheeler for deer hunting and your boat for fishing. However, 90% of these trucks are used by single individuals as daily drivers to office jobs which is extremely wasteful. They even live in suburbs which have to get bigger garages to compensate. Each man's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather drove one too, so it is deeply tied to one's masculinity. The south also has some of the nation's poorest citizens and Mississippi/Alabama/Louisiana/Arkansas have some of the worst elementary and highschools in the nation. It isn't uncommon for folks to get extremely in debt on a $50k lifted 4x4 deisel pickup truck.
1. Reduce intake temperatures/prevent pre-ignition
2. Produce enough power to sustain a constant speed of 120KPH or whatever
This means that they are far less efficient than they should be, and in some cases get more or less the same efficiency as larger displacement high capacity engines.
Most small hatchbacks will be producing somewhere between 90HP and 170HP. Estates and wagons from 190HP to 250HP and SUVs somewhere similar.
If that's correct, your comment makes no sense. Many of the developments needed for combustion-powered records would apply to electricity-powered records as well, such as suspension, wheels/tires, gears, ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_car_speed_record
Halo car engineering results in trickle down effects to all of the vehicles you and I drive on a daily basis. Tire materials and engineering, aerodynamics r&d, suspension improvements, and so forth can apply to all types of vehicles, regardless of whether or not the power comes from an ICE engine or electric motor.
So while you may see this as a needless exercise in achieving 300 mph on a combustion engine, I see this as perhaps something that could give a 1% increase in fuel economy to VAG's entire fleet. Of course it's not a given, but let's applaud and support the potential.
Our values determine where we devote our engineering resources -- time, money, attention, brilliance. If we degrade the environment to where it can't sustain our population, people will suffer. What are the relative values of millions maybe billions of climate refugees versus a fast car powered by unsustainable fossil fuels?
Imagine we devoted those resources to solving political and environmental problems.
In German, there is this phrase, which describes the time period after a certain success/enjoyment/well-being. Literally translated it meanss the fat years are over ("Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei."). It's usually used in the context of forced savings vs voluntariy expenditure, but it fits with the current state of our environment as well. The times of making faster cars and enjoying high speeds are over, if we don't want to demise as a species. Environmentally safer beahviour should become more fun.