I’m not as gloomy. I can acknowledge progress. But when it comes to cars, it’s been worse, not better. But at least now the technology is better and can hope for the curve to finally invert itself.
Normal growth is enough to explain why that hasn't (yet) resulted in a net decrease. If the growth rate continues at 50+%, that will change in about 5 years, though.
> In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use increases its demand, negating the efficiency gains.
Coal peaked, but gas and oil extraction are still growing fast.
You are conceding the point with extra words here
Reality is that the amount of vehicles is increasing, and by rule of thumb 50% of the emissions released by vehicles come from their own construction, steel, copper, manufacturing, chemicals needed for the production
Given the size of a f150, would you take the bet that its manufacturing cost co2 wise is lower than a prius?
This is obviously, bypassing the fact that rather than having to buy a 0km vehicle instead someone could have bought a second hand f150 and therefore not strictly needed to increase the total amount of vehicles in circulation
But that's for an electric car vs a fuel efficient car. An electric truck vs a 15 mpg gasoline truck will go carbon negative a lot faster than 6 months.
That the real deal is figuring how to reduce the number of vehicles in total.
Is the F150 Lightning better than commuting to work in a deuce and half? Sure. But it is not carbon neutral or negative except when compared to something worse - and there’s always something worse that could be compared.
I think people are looking at different derivatives.
If you compare the rate of change of emissions, they do continue to rise as new electric vehicles are produced. But, the claim that an EV is more efficient than a regular truck is not a claim about the first derivative, but about the second.
That is, in theory, an EV raises CO2 emissions less than the equivalent truck. That's saying the impact should be visible in the *2nd* derivative being negative, but not necessarily the first.
I suspect there is not in the US (as almost everyone who wants a vehicle has one or two already) but there certainly could be in less vehicle-saturated markets.
When it's a straight 1 over 1 it's easy - for example, if someone were to buy me a Milwaukee M18 lawnmower, I'd be willing to scrap the existing gas one, so it can no longer pollute. If I were to give it away or sell it, it would still be doing whatever it does for someone else.
Yep, that's always a concern, and one of the reasons I framed my response around what the argument was, and what the claim was. I haven't really done enough research to know or feel confident in whether that claim is borne out or holds and the concern you've raised is the major thing that could get in the way.
I was largely just commenting on the disconnect in the discussion that I was observing.
And coal plants are being shut down at a very significant rate.
The number of ICE vehicles being sold annually is also going down.