Hacker News Reader

Comment by adrianN | Hacker News Reader

Because the literal destruction of the ecosphere due to global warming is not a sufficient motivation.

You are being sarcastic, but this is literally true. Sadly loads of people don't even believe the truth of global warming (as if science is subject to the whims of people's beliefs).

What would these people find more compelling? A slow, systemic process like global warming, which involves incremental changes taking place over decades - or the spectacle of exploding oil refineries, armed drones, and the drama of conflict.

Probably the latter, even if the first is far more catastrophic.

For something to be Science, it requires the ability to stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

Edit: Imagine what kind of thinking could get this idea downvoted. It is not a good thing.

Your comment reads like climate change denialism, reading the parents comment on yours I'm not entirely sure that's what you meant, so I invite you to clarify your position.

>Your comment reads like climate change denialism

I think this is religious thinking. You are attacking my idea for being somehow a kind of Wrongthink, and your implication is that expressinf Wrongthink is the reason for the disagreement. But then when you read the comment, it is a statement about what Science is.

That being said, I don't feel my personal opinion matters, what is true is my statement. So I think for any further clarification, my comment should be applied to the subject. Can you scientifically prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Yea. Can you scientifically prove the world is going to end? No. This latter expression of alarmism is an opinion. This kind of consensus is wrong all the time. Remember Morton's skulls? Look up the history of some of the most embarassing Nobel Prizes.

You might think I am a non-believer, heathen by now. Actually, I do try to reduce my carbon footprint, in stark contrast to my observations of most eco-holier-than-thou's behaviors. But I don't buy into the extreme alarmism, nor am I dumb enough to consider this apocalypse a fact. If you're buying this you're just regurgitating ideas that people more powerful than you want you to believe. Probably because they want more authority over the global economy and our lives, and to stop Russia from getting its massive windfall in economic resources that it would get from a significant increase in temperatures.

Man, I wish climate scientists were some sort of powerful cabal that had significant power, but the evidence of utter nonaction for thirty years suggests the exact opposite, that there is in fact a powerful group of people who make a lot of money by continuing to rape the climate for profit.

People die all the time. Our government has bombed hospitals, weddings, schools. We gun down journalists, then prosecute the whistleblower who published the video. Prosecutors fight to keep innocent people in jail or even on death row. It's not about helping people. And so contrast that with coastal Florida real estate prices continuing to rise. It's also not about saving such supposedly doomed resources. The earth is also not going to end. We already have prosperous metros below sea level. It is about power and control.

But yes this religion has truths to it. We should follow a principle to first do no harm, and to artificially impact the climate would break a supposed hippocratic oath. But I find it strange and disturbing how psychopathic everyday people can become when it comes to these things. So much hand waving and holier than thou talk and yet I watch the samd kinds of people's behavior and the two do not reconcile.

You are implying (hopefully inadvertently) that the scientific consensus about global climate change does not “stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method”.

This is a radical and extremely dangerous position, which is primarily promoted by sociopathic industries profiting at the expense of global ruin, along with members of the public who they have successfully deluded through a very large-scale long-term propaganda effort.

> Because the literal destruction of the ecosphere due to global warming is not a sufficient motivation.

Events like this can't shake it. Sadly so much money and power involved in the oil business.

And looking into what giant energy companies are doing for more money and power, you realize the last thing they care is ecosphere.

If there's something I've had to accept is that at the end of the day, societal changes are realized either because the alternative causes financial losses or the "new thing" will bring in higher profit. For example, "pink money"[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money

Who owns the supply of minerals required to make electric car batteries?

Does anyone know?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial

I'm not sure you've established cause and effect here. Theres plenty of dirty money around, that hasn't made it socially more acceptable.

I'm not saying that involving money with any X will make X socially acceptable. My comment is specific to most social causes which only gain traction not because of goodwill but because there is a threat of financial/economic losses and/or promise of financial/economic gains. Primary example of 'threats' would be business disruption through protests and boycotts, while the opposite will be promotion and recommendation. Or in the case of this article, people might be convinced of using EVs because there is threat of higher oil prices, not because the environment is being destroyed.

Curious - how much impact we would have on global warming if each and every car currently running is electric? Given that most of the electricity is provided by fossil fuels.

Dont want to come across as a denier, this is a genuine question.

Probably a rather small impact. On the other hand, replacing all energy consumption but transportation with carbon free alternatives isn't enough either.

Global warming doesn't have a simple solution. We need to attack a large number of problems simultaneously if we want a chance to prevent catastrophe.

I was hoping for a number, like say 1%. I wish there was a website which shows you exactly what are the causes of global warming and how much they contribute to it, preferably by industry and country. For example a small country like Australia which has less than 1% of human population, contributes enormously (15% of methane due to animal husbandry) but there is very little being done in that country to control this.

ipcc.ch

From the proverbial horse's mouth.

Could only find numbers from the EU, but there passenger cars account for ~18% of total CO2 emissions. Everybody else seems to report cars and trucks as one group so it's hard to estimate how much of that impact is cars.

The overall losses between the power plant and consumers is in the range between 8 and 15%. An electric motor typically is between 85% and 90% efficient. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels. State-of-the-art fossil fuel plants at 46% efficiency. Using average values gives a ratio of 46x0.885x0.875/19=1.87 (electric almost twice as efficient). This calculus has not taken into account transport and filling the tank and older fossil fuel plants (maybe they compensate each others).

You should also take into account the embodied energy of the battery which is currently produced with fossil fuels. That narrows the efficiency gap a lot.

Yes building an electric car requires more energy than building a conventional vehicle. According to https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-a..., this requires 2.1 year to amortize the difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com