I'm all in for EV's, but just some random arithmetics:

Passenger cars produce 15% of total GHG.

Currently only only 15% of electricity is renewable (varies greatly by country and going to get way better in future).

That said EV's are about 2-6x more efficient in converting that energy to motion tho. Let's assume it's 3x better.

(0.15*0.85)/3 = still 4.25% of total GHG but will get much better in future. Overall ~10% GHG reduction.

The goal to stabilise climate is 60% reduction by 2050...

PC is a poor descriptor, and yes urgent and extreme action is necessary. But why does that action have to include going 100% electric on an impractical timeline? Surely there are debateble aspects to this approach, and probably other sources of carbon emission that can be more easily reduced, thereby allowing for at least some gas cars.

Do you really believe the entire country of India will be selling no gas powered cars by 2030? Surely this is just an overly-aggressive starting point by governments that they can further bargain on?

Because the “practical” timeline was one started 30 years ago. But proposals were met then with the exact same “now let’s not be hasty” counterarguments. The more time that elapses, the more drastic actions are required, no matter how painful.

>no matter how painful.

Why put unnecessary strain on your society to get from a 90% reduction to a 100% reduction if there are other initiatives that can be more easily accomplished and make that 10% look like small peanuts in comparison?

The answer is no one is gonna actually do this and this specific 100% number is just Govt and Businesses cynically trying to bargain.

I notice you are not listing any of these much easier to accomplish objectives. To be honest, I'm not very interested in your theory of public bargaining. Could you specify a few of the big ideas that you think will make a bigger difference over the next decade?

There are obviously hundreds of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, across many countries.

It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd say, which is the whole point I'm making.

Why not 99% for example?

Because 100% is not enough. We need to be carbon NEGATIVE to get back to the good place. (And, yes, we'll never be 100% non-emitting. We need to be NET negative.)

We're talking about 100% of cars being fully electric, not a % reduction in emissions.

Yes, but I don't have time to sort through hundreds of them. I'm asking which ones you think are the low hanging fruit. Just 3 or 4 examples would do.

How about converting electrical generation away from coal and natural gas?

Clearly this would have a larger impact than allowing 1% of cars sold to be hybrid or gas.

Now how about a reason you'd want 100% of cars to be electric and not 99? What about 98? Have you done any actual analysis here or are you just reflexively making the largest demands possible?

100% of new cars is critical because of how long cars last. People can keep a car running for 50 years after it’s sold, getting rid of ICE cars requires making them unappealing. As gas stations start to close owning an ICE car will become extremely inconvenient.

A hypothetical 10% of new cars being ICE eventually means only ~10% of gas stations survive, that’s just not enough. It’s vastly more efficient to do that in lockstep so people aren’t stuck with relatively new cars their unable to fuel which then get scrapped.

Hmm so then what about 99%? Is that also "not enough". How could you possibly know?

If 10% of new cars being ICE isn’t enough to keep most gas stations in business then any number less than 10% would also cause most gas stations to fail. In the early days people where willing to be inconvenienced because ICE where such a step up. But, if the alternative is drive 20 minutes each way to a gas station or charge up an your parking space it’s just not going to be worth it to drive ICE.

>it’s just not going to be worth it to drive ICE.

You seem to be mixing market forces with government mandate here a bit. Why not still allow 1% ICE and see how the market reacts? Maybe you're right and it would result in near-0 but why enforce 0 ICE?

It’s just a question of efficiency. The first day sales of new ICE are outlawed there are going to be a large number of ICE cars already on the road which keeps most gas stations in business the next day. In effect the difference between 0% ICE or 10% ice is only visible several years in the future.

It’s simply bad policy to create a situation where a lot of 5-15 year old cars get scrapped because nobody can find a gas station. The country is much better off when people scrapping cars because they can’t get gas are doing that to 20+ year old cars.

Well, there's abundant effort already going on to shift away from fossil fuels, as you are surely aware.

I haven't advocated for 100% of cars being electric; you appear to have me confused with someone else. You keep repeating this in every comment (to me and others) and try to hang responsibility for it on other people. It's sufficient to say you don't agree with the policy goal of the Indian government, rather than projecting it onto everyone you interact with.

You asked me what would "make a bigger difference" after I said that surely other initiatives could allow for ay least some gas powered cars.

It seems you already agree with this so why argue?

100% of new vehicles being EV in 9 years isn’t that fast. Assuming the average vehicle lasts ~25 years that’s a ~30+ year transition that simply looks scary to start with.

Also, EV’s don’t actually require that much energy 450w 24/7 powers a 4kW/mile EV for ~15,000 miles per year. People adding AC in India are a much larger load on the electric grid than EV’s.

> 100% of new vehicles being EV in 9 years isn’t that fast. Assuming the average vehicle lasts ~25 years that’s a ~30+ year transition that simply looks scary to start with.

I feel this distinction needs to be made every time there's talk about banning ICE.

I have yet to see any proposed laws that completely ban ICE. It's always a ban on selling new ICE. You'll still be able to buy used ICE, and they will eventually fade away through attrition.

I think current estimate is far sadder of only 50% new sales by 2033 or so - it's estimated by battery mineral mining schedules.

Which in a way means PHEV's with 10th of a battery of normal EV would be way better way to accelerate reduction of emissions.

Mineral extraction is very hard to predict 1 year from now let alone 12. I would be very cautious of an estimate that precise on those timescales.

Takes 4-12 years to setup one

From scratch yes, but increasing rates of extraction takes less time.

Edit: 4 mile per kWh.