Possible 90% REDUCTION in CO2 emmissions by 2035?

If the commute distance was all that matters, I don't see why ~80% of EV owners would also own at least one gas vehicle. Clearly EV's arent good enough for everything.

And given that the average price of a used EV means that most used car buyers are still going to buy gas cars, because the average going price of a used EV is ~$40K and the average price of a used gas car is ~$25K. Until that gap closes, its not reasonable to expect used car buyers (which make up the VAST bulk of car buyer in the US) to buy EV as its simply outside of their price range.

I've never spent more than $3K on a car. What kind of EV can I get for $3K?

 

Have you read past the OP title? Watched the linked video?

 

I read the title. That's why I said it was a goal. And per the title, possibly.

I did not watch the video, however.

 

Well, the OP makes several false claims in the text following the title. Here’s an example.

The linked video in the OP and a peer reviewed study I provided show those claims to be made up. That’s why I was trying to determine if you cared about the OP making things up or just those you disagree with politically.

 

So, those of you who want to do away with cows. Do you think precision fermentation will have nappa leather seats for your EV as a byproduct of the fermentation process? Perhaps tires or antifreeze for your RV will be byproducts of fermentation. Probably shaving cream and piano keys as well. And cellophane wrap.

Wait, did you think beef was the only product of the cattle industry? Oh crap…reality intrudes on the utopian dream….

 

Exactly what "perspective" is that?

That's certainly not part of any such "perspective", being it's unrelated to the "CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere" factoid.

Please let us know exactly why you thought it was so vitally important to specifically state that "CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere". Until we know that, we can't know what "perspective" to have.

 

Quit being a sucker.

 

because it isn't dangerous at ten times that and at current rates of increase it won't hit .05 for another century if then.

 

LOL! @ the OP.

It has been pointed out how China is one of the biggest polluters in the world yet climate change whiners do not dare mess with them. I guess the State controlled media had to whip up some propaganda to cover for that fact.

 

You need to watch Michael Moore's "Planet of the Humans" which debunks this Pie in the Sky EV silliness .. and even if go 100% electric Cars by 2035 .. we would not reduce CO2 by anywhere close to 90% We are not there technologically .. nor do we have the infrastructure "Wind and Solar" is a bust a fairy tale as per Moors latest Enviro Flick

And China is increasing Coal usage big time .. to keep up with the rate of industrialization of its population... as is most all of the Global South.

What part of Without Nuclear we are using Fossil do some folks not get ? and if you want to have enough Nuclear to power all vehicles on Power by 2035 you better have had shovels in the ground yesterday .. like China and India are doing .. but not near enough to power the industrialization they are undergoing hence a net increase in Coal and other Fossil per year.

The Technology is improving but we are not there yet .. we will get there .. but not soon enough to be off of oil by 2035.. and auto's only account for something like 25% of the Total ..

 

We both agree and I sincerely hope that we can continue to DISAGREE about the LATTER without either of us becoming disagreeable.

Just found Common Ground with someone else on the moderate right this morning on the abortion issue.

Which leads me to ask which tyrannical policies would you like to see changed?

FTR I am opposed to the TYRANNICAL policies imposed on the LBGTQ community because I am trans.

Do you support them?

 

Poor QUALITY software can be the DOWNFALL of an otherwise good product.

In the instance above it is just a FAILED software download, there should be an automatic reload of the prior version so that the vehicle can still operate.

Ford doesn't have good programmers or they OUTSOURCED it on the CHEAP.

FAILURE to STRESS test software releases was a LESSON learned by Microsoft back in the 1990's.

Apparently it is a LESSON that Ford has yet to LEARN.

 

How small is the dose of Fentanyl that will KILL someone?

SIZE is IRRELEVANT to the DAMAGE that it can cause.

Just ask your local Corona Virus if you don't believe me.

 

It's hard to say you're bad when, despite improvements, you are still far worse on a per capita base.
Clean up your own mess then you can complain about someone else's.

Leading by example is always the best plan.

 

NOWHERE has that claim been MADE.

The OP referenced TWO other TECHNOLOGIES where ALL three COMBINED have the POSSIBILITY to REDUCE the CO2 emissions by 90% in 2035.

NOTHING at all was posted about being "off of oil by 2035", YOU made up that asinine STRAWMAN.

 

Off oil = 90 reduction in context. - and no, we do not have the possibility to get there by 2035 without nuclear.

 

OK, I can say "support" meaning "yeah swell" (and you're not hitting me up for a donation), but I'm not sure what that has to do w/ a 90% reduction in CO2. My concern w/ the CO2 nonsense is that it's taking money out of my pocket & I object.

 

The problem with his analysis is two fold as I already pointed out In order to even come close to generating enough consistant power with wind and solar to charge all those batteries they will also require battery back up not only that you are going to have to find a way to mass produce and in huge quantities at least near room temperature super conductors. And then replace all that copper wiring with it. Lots of luck. The second problem, of course. is that his projection that the EPA is going to permit mining of US lithium deposits. One other consideration before you try to launch into this wonderful all electric world, in temperature above 80 and below 40 battery range can drop as much as 25%.

 

You were the one who raised the point about "tyrannical policies" so I am not sure what you meant by them.

There is NO money coming OUT of YOUR pocket for anything in the OP. The OP does NOT advocate for any tax subsidies or require anyone to pay any additional fees or levies as far as CO2 is concerned.

The REDUCTION in CO2 in the OP is anticipated to HAPPEN because it is in the SELF INTERESTS of the corporations and individuals that are making it happen.

If you were my neighbor and I told you that I am saving $300 a month on my utility bill with my solar system your interest would be piqued. Odds are you would love to save $300 too because that KEEPS that money IN your pocket. What OBJECTION would you have to that happening?

 

I'm a very conservative Libertarian. I think a paradigm shift in energy should be dictated by market demand, not mandate.

I own the following vehicles plus my firm owns a few:

-2019 BMW X7 50i with the V8
-2021 BMW 850i with the V8
-2022 Chevy 3500HD with a Duramax
-2021 Tesla Model Y long range

Company:

-(2) 2022 Ford F-150 with ecoboost V6
- 2023 Ford Transit Connect 4 cylinder
- 2023 Ford Transit 6 cylinder


I also have a fifth wheel RV that I just installed 2500 watts of solar on the roof and 1200 ah of batteries. It doesn't really ever need to be plugged in.

Why am I telling everybody this? Because the transition away from fossil fuels should be because it makes sense. I have different vehicles for different purposes. The heavy duty truck does a very different job than the tesla.

The problem is, it's been politicized because some want to use force for compliance with out considering individual needs. That's a problem.

Me buying and upgrading electric vehicles has nothing to donwith climate change.

It's possible to drive change without force if the situation is right for people.

 

We have people on opposite sides of every issue that make their case by selectively ignoring half the picture. This is precisely of that nature.

The ability to set a logical, effective course for the future requires you know and examine every factor of relevance you can find, so that you fully understand what the best options are.

Continually ignoring the undesireable facts to justify embracing something is not a solution, it's stupidity.

It's a bit like Joe Biden. Stop using gasoline lawn mowers, that cuts down on carbons. True- If you don't look any further.
When you consider the whole picture, that means scrapping millions of existing mowers and producing millions of electric ones. The cost of that, the waste produced, the costs of production and the pollutions that result, plus the fact that you will charge most of those mowers with power produced by means that generate some pollution are all part of the picture. Unless, you just ignore them. That doesn't make them go away, it just leads you to stupid conclusions.

It's like California's idea to reduce methanes by requiring farmers to strap balloons on cow's asses to catch farts..... therefore, methane contained, mission accomplished- with no thought beyond that goal.
Farmers there should send all the bags of contained farts to the legislature.

It's hard to understand how people that limited in capacity could ever wind up in politics. Opportunities for morons seem to be unlimited these days.

 

The OP is ALL about MARKET driven CHANGE that could possibly result in a 90% CO2 decine.

What YOU are doing is EXACTLY what the MARKET is EXPECTING you to do as these DISRUPTIVE technologies emerge.

In another decade you might need to replace your COMMERCIAL vehicles, two of which are TRANSIT vans. Odds are the Math will make sense to choose EV Transit vans. That too will be part of the SAME market driven forces to REACH that CO2 level.

Keep up the good work and let's stay on track and NOT allow the nefarious politicians tell us BS LIES about Green Energy and EV's for their OWN personal gain and YOUR detriment.

 

If "size" were such an insignificant factor, then the proportionality of ingredients in a formula wouldn't matter. Your statement really is completely illogical and is wrong on its face. Is a Black Cat firecracker less damaging than a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb?

But why this Leftist fixation on CO2 specifically? Is it because CO2 is a by-product in the exhausts of power plants that drive our economies? And as Sergeant Barnes in the movie, "Platoon", observed ominously, "When the machine breaks down, WE break down!" But, the hyperliberal Left in this country yearns for the day when the American machine finally does break down, so they can replace it with a machine of their own (which will probably pollute just as much, if not more).

Why doesn't the Left bitch about nitrogen, which makes up a whopping 78% of the Earth's atmosphere? Exposure to nitrogen is dangerous because it can replace oxygen and lead to suffocation! . Also, excess nitrogen has also contributed to acid rain, polluted drinking water, and caused oxygen depletion and “dead zones” in water bodies such as the Gulf of Mexico, which causes serious harm to aquatic wildlife. . It's funny what some people pick to make a larger-than-life BIG DEAL, but ignore others altogether!

And, to the Left, it's important that they rail and rant about CO2 emissions in the UNITED STATES -- while completely ignoring the fact that India and China are building many new coal-fired energy plants (big ones) all the time!

Judge a person's true motives by who, what and why he picks only certain targets for destruction!

 

Nothing prevents me from generating as much of my own power as I want now. Hell, there are solar powered generators. There is no authoritarian control by big oil.

 

MINIMAL content RELEVANT to the OP duly noted.

The OP has NOTHING to do with the Climate Deniers whining about the Left. That is a DISTRACTION from the topic.

The OP specifically INCLUDES China as one of the major MARKETS where these DISRUPTIVE technologies are ALREADY having an impact.