GM, Ford knew about climate change 50 years ago
eenews.net
eenews.net
The only reason to doubt climate change is if you've been a victim of the concerted misinformation campaign. The campaign that was launched by the same spin doctors that launched tobacco companies' disinformation campaigns.
They were very clear on how they did this, and it's been amply documented in the media, just not super well known still, somehow.
They tied climate change denial to a political identity, because politics is how we turn off the rational part of our brain and activate the tribal defense mechanisms. Get your tribe to attack media vehemently anytime climate change is in the media. It makes news editors very nervous about covering the topic, because of the extremely virulent attacks. Even to this day, the media avoids bringing up climate change on relevant topics because they are scared of political blowback. This is the sort of "political correctness" that ends up harming society greatly.
Just because there are two sides does not mean there are two equally valid sides. And presenting them as such is a form of bias. Quite a pernicious one.
This is common practice in all sorts of stories. Journalists are trained to solicit / include some counterpoint or naysaying voice, no matter the topic. Even if the story is otherwise uncontroversial.
This was the mantra of the new atheist/skeptic movement of the early 2010s - that it wasn't worth to present the other side because the other side is just wrong. Given how this mantra is applied today where 'the other side' should not be heard from or platformed or is just plain evil, I'd rather hear both sides, even if that means I get to hear about creationism or climate change denial.
I don't want the media or tech companies to be the arbiter on what is and isn't reasonable to discuss. Having Jack Dorsey or some intern at some fact check org decide for me what is and isn't reasonable is much worse than merely hearing from a creationist why creationism should be taught in science class.
I support journalists making an effort to present both sides even if one side is unreasonable, because the alternative is they just decide for me what I should and should not be exposed to. That, to me, is much much worse.
The standard I advocate for is for journalists to make an effort to present both sides. There will always be a level of editorializing and they will get it wrong from time to time, but at least they are committed to the principle and there is underlying respect for the audience to make up their own mind.
Not like what you seem to advocating for - where you want the media to make the decisions for you to what you're exposed to .. because god forbid the media 'platforms' someone that may actually change your mind.
So let me ask you because I am curious: What is your limiting principle? At what point do YOU stop delegating to some doofus anchor what you should and shouldn't be exposed to?
Time cube Chemtrails Flat earth Lizard people Heavens Gate Time wave theory Etc.
Should we give them equal time? Why not?
The standard I advocate for is for journalists to make an effort to present both sides. There will always be a level of editorializing and they will get it wrong from time to time, but at least they are committed to the principle and there is underlying respect for the audience to make up their own mind.
Not like what OP and you are advocating for - where you want the media to make decisions for you what you may or may no hear because god forbid the media 'platforms' someone that may actually change your mind.
So let me ask you because I am curious: What is your limiting principle? At what point do YOU stop delegating to some doofus anchor what you should and shouldn't be exposed to?
Seems pretty simple to me.
You're conflating some issues here. Experts inform policy, not set policy. Democratically elected representatives should use experts but not delegate decision making to experts. Take climate change, even if 100% of scientist believe in climate change and certain outcomes of climate change, because any climate mitigations are going to drastically impact my life and the lives of all my fellow-citizens, I sure as heck want to hear alternatives and understand the full implications. I don't want climate scientists deciding climate policy (only informing it), because the cost for stemming climate change may be too high and when balancing all the other factors, we may instead decide instead to focus on mitigating the effects of climate change.
We see this with Coronavirus policy as well. Certain public health officials only focus on stemming the pandemic (a noble goal in a vacuum), but ignore the cost associated with some of the drastic measures to stem the pandemic (like lockdowns). Put another way, even if every single epidemiologist argues that lockdown is the best way to 'flatten the curve', we may decide to do something else because we need to balance all kinds of other factors in addition to 'flattening the curve'. The Great Barrington Declaration [1], for example, which presents an alterative coronavirus policy by all kinds of public health officials makes this case and has been censored by Twitter, and others, for it. Don't you think their point of view is a worthy topic for discussion? Or is this one of those things where you are afraid of 'platforming' an alternative lest it convinces some people?
It's irrelevant to on-demand content delivery methods like the internet, where you can carry everything at once.
No one's saying that he should, so this is a strawman. Also let's not conflate social media (dumb-pipes for following anyone) with newspapers and cable "news" (editorial, selective).
What are you talking about? Where have you been since 2016? Democrats and media is pushing Twitter, YouTube and Facebook to increase censorship of right-wing viewpoints.
>Also let's not conflate social media (dumb-pipes for following anyone) with newspapers and cable "news" (editorial, selective).
Social media is exerting more and more editorial control and acting more like a publisher and not a platform. I get that there will always be some of standards that not every person will like (since those companies do not want their networks to be used for crime or spam, for example), but the way Twitter and Facebook shut down the Hunter Biden is insane and I don't understand why nobody is not bothered by it.
Another is also the politization of issues... if you first argue against climate change, and then you argue against meat because of climate change, then I know you’re just using it to push your preferred ideology. How can I be sure you’re also not pushing climate change itself just as ideology?
Note: I agree that less meat is a solution (or part of a solution), but unacceptable to push it as the solution, instead of e.g. general carbon taxation...
Denying climate change is also tied to a political identity.
Why UBI? It redistributes the tax collected from high emitters (likely to be higher income) to low-emitters (likely to be lower income) so progressives like it. It keeps the tax revenue neutral and doesn't allow the government to expand so conservatives like it.
> Why do these same activists also campaign against nuclear power?
Because of the long history of cost overruns, waste disposal and management issues, and the fear of a minuscule chance of catastrophic failure (not saying this last one is a rational fear).
Why fixate on nuclear power whenever climate change comes up? Why not institute a carbon tax and leave the rest to the market? Some countries (France, India, the UK) love nuclear power, and others (US, Japan, Germany) are not so hot on it. If they all have carbon taxes, each country can figure out for itself what it wants to do, and collectively embargo/tariff countries that don't have a carbon tax.
It's weird that a lot of people's default position is "I won't do anything for climate change unless we get nuclear power." Almost like they know there's very little chance of the national opinion about nuclear power changing very soon, so that gives them an "out" on taking any other action.
I used to agree with this, and now I don't.
A carbon tax has to be an approximation, and there are significant judgement calls on what the total carbon burden of a given product or service might be. This is a recipe for paperwork, loopholes, and a raft of unintended consequences.
Instead, I support an across-the-board carbon sales tax on everything. Use some of this to subsidize carbon-reducing technology at the point of sale. Put the rest of it toward everything else we use taxes for, and make sure that renewable research, nuclear energy, and so on, are adequately funded. UBI? sure, why not; but let's not attach it directly to a climate tax, that only confuses both issues.
There are some exceptions: it's practical to calculate the carbon burden of electricity, and handle the taxation-and-subsidy market directly in that field.
Sorry, could you explain more? I always assumed a carbon tax meant an extraction tax on any fossil fuel. For example, taxing companies per barrel of crude, per ton of natgas or coal they take out of the ground. Since practically all carbon emissions involve the use of a fossil fuel somewhere in the chain, wouldn't this capture the carbon output of any product or service?
But in the world we have, it's not going to work: that tax would be imposed on only the developed world, which already has issues competing in manufacturing, due to paying reasonable amounts of money for labor, and at least some attention to workplace safety and environmentally-responsible behavior.
So you'd have to apply tariffs of some sort on imported goods, and base it on some guesswork as to the carbon footprint of the items. At which point, just giving up and charging a sales tax is better, for the reasons I described.
I agree this would still require a fair amount of coordination between the countries that do the tariffs. But less so than deciding tariffs on individual products based on their pollution.
A little bit? A carbon tax is workable, I've just come to favor a sales tax as simpler.
They're both consumption taxes, the latter says "ok, this is what we have to take out of the economy to pay for mitigation, lets do it as a sales tax and then pay some of it back for products that reduce carbon burden, either directly or as substitute goods for especially polluting technologies".
The more moving parts something like this has, the more opportunities there are to take advantage of that. Sales tax already exists, it's well understood, this would be fire-and-forget, and it wouldn't create a bunch of new jobs for accountants (nothing against them, but we don't want that).
That's the part I'm not convinced about. A flat sales tax rate for carbon will inevitably under-tax or over-tax something. Making it fairer will require armies of accountants poring over the carbon intensity of product categories. And of course companies will say "our factories/trucks/warehouses/stores run on wind power, give us a rebate". I understand the appeal of tacking a carbon tax on to an existing tax regime, but would it really be so easy or fair?
PS I've upvoted all your comments in this discussion and I appreciate you engaging with me so far. It's given me a lot to think about.
You can just impose such a tax domestically, and tariff all imports from countries that don't have that tax.
The low-carbon industries in those countries will very quickly force their governments to implement a carbon tax, because such a tariff punishes them unfairly.
If driving an electric car becomes less expensive relative to driving a gasoline car, people buy electric cars. If heating with electric heat pumps becomes less expensive relative to heating with oil, people install heat pumps. If generating electricity from wind or nuclear becomes less expensive than generating electricity from coal, people build new power plants accordingly.
Which part of the problem doesn't this solve?
It was known anecdotally for a hundred years that smoking was unhealthy, despite a very widespread cultural acceptance of it. The evidence was overwhelming to anyone with ears and eyes who knew lifetime smokers. The tobacco companies went so far as paying cardiologists to invent the so called 'Type A' personality to explain excess heart attacks among smokers.
Climate change on the other hand is much more subtle. The greenhouse effect is not an obvious on its face, one typically needs to be taught about it in school. Additionally, the natural variation both in weather and climate obscure effects. And the difficulty in measuring global historic temperature series and modelling climate needed to be invented over the past couple of decades.
It may seem obvious to many people today, but that's more than likely because they grew up in an environment of scientific consensus.
What's funny in the original article, is the the first paper cited, was GM sponsored research to indicate that the particulate pollution (aerosols) couldn't be causing the growth in polar ice caps because aerosols would have a warming effect. The true irony here is that this wasn't a warning about warming, it was sponsored research showing that GM wasn't responsible for cooling which had been observed. (Please note -- I am not claiming that there was ever a consensus about a 'global cooling threat', there wasn't. There was a limited concern that aerosols could have this effect, and luckily GM research was able to step in and show them how those fears were misguided.)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-i...
Nobody doubts climate change because the climate has and always will be changing.
The environmentalist movement has avoided:
* Pushing overpopulation into the political conversation (we've roughly doubled the global population since 50 years ago. The new arrivals are largely people in dire need of better energy access). We have a lot more talks about banning coal than pushing for a 1 child policy in Africa.
* Nuclear energy. Pointing out the obvious, the most successful climate change initiative in the past 50 years has been the energy grid in France. Pro-climate-action has generally correlated with anti-nuclear.
* Talking seriously about the costs or implementation strategy. As I recall, people were saying solar was a cheap option when Germany launched their Energiewende. They now have the most expensive power in Europe.
The best argument historically for ignoring climate change has been that its supporters don't seem to be taking it seriously; they ignored a bunch of contributing factors or picked solutions based on political beliefs rather than trying to support cheap clean energy for everyone. GM and Ford are not responsible for that.
let people prioritize what things they find important
That is a mechanism to achieve the goals of the environmental movement. Not a reason to achieve the goals of the environmentalists, or an argument that it is the best path.
The only sensible implementation of a carbon tax is the one in which all of the money is refunded to the population.
A program that causes everybody to get ~$1000 while only paying ~$500 in taxes because large corporations are responsible for the majority of carbon emissions would seem to be very popular, absent a misinformation campaign, since the average person would net ~$500 (out of the pockets of Exxon et al).
The standard remedy for an externality is a tax. So, to address climate change you would:
1. Institute a tax on carbon
2. Work through an international framework like the UN or WTO to have other countries also institute this tax, and to levy tariffs on any countries that don’t.
3. Since carbon is taxed, you can lower other, less efficient taxes such as the income tax, which is a drag on productivity.
4. You can also redistribute some of the money to compensate the poor for the effective tax increase. For instance this is how canada deals with its sales tax.
There are other coherent plans but that’s a big one. Had we implemented thus tax 50 years ago, the effects would have been:
* energy efficiency is encouraged in production as there is a higher cost
* other forms of energy such as nuclear and hydro gain an advantage
* There would have been more capital available for researching other alternatives such as solar
* The economy would have remained good due to the benefits of a sharply lower income tax
Environmentalists tend to be rather bad at math and not good at thinking through economics or evaluating tradeoffs. Because everyone else abandoned the field, they produced the most prominent (and wrong headed) solutions.
But with gradual economically sensible action 50 years ago, we could have been in for a very soft landing. We could have still used fossil fuels too! They were pretty necessary, but the system I outlined would have nudged us towards a different energy base.
Instead, the only actual ideas that actual people actually propose are 100% braindead.
Ban meat (lol), ban nuclear (lol lol), ban plastic straws (lol lol lol), ...
There are many overlapping problems, not only climate change. It's complex. Partial solutions are still solutions. They are just incomplete
You will continue to see things in black and white "the problem", "real solutions".
I will continue to see a mosaic of overlapping issues.
I personally hold that the best and most realistic solution is a headfirst, committed dive into nuclear energy.
Should be quite feasible to make it revenue neutral and this rob no politician of their project.
Nuclear would have been great 50 years ago! My argument is that the project I outlined above would have given market based incentive to make nuclear competitive.
If level headed people of all stripes had focussed on the problem it would have been solveable.
(Since I can’t edit my comment above, I should add for posterity: obviously not all environmentalists are bad at math or systems thinking, and some of them had sensible solutions. But we would have had better solutions if others joined too)
And overpopulation? Um... because draconian population control tactics and policies are evil? China's one child policy was unconscionable.
German energy is costly not due to production costs, but instead due to taxes on energy utilization in general to subsidize a more rapid transition to environmentally sound energy. Other countries, i.e. France, have chosen to lower costs substantially. (France is unwise, IMHO. Lower costs increases utilization which offsets carbon gains, see rebound effects [0]. Germany is doing the right thing) [1]
Nuclear: Has always been on the table. Environmentalists are not a unified block. The Gates foundation is substantially funding nuclear.
Most of what you think of as "environmental support" is actually funding from petroleum based business. The whole personal recycling movement? paid for by the petroleum industry. [2]
Finally, the petroleum industry hired the exact same goons that the tobacco industry did to peddle pseudoscientific nonsense. [3]
There are coherent, comprehensive, effective plans for fighting climate change. You are just unlikely to hear about in the news because they are deeply wonky. There are paths out, they are neither easy (there will be losers) nor simple (it's a complex system).
However, most of what we hear are the voices of very, very, very rich and powerful oil industries trying to muddy the waters. And lets be clear: they will be the losers, if the rest of us have any hope of not either having to bear terrible austerity or the horrors of climate change.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-i...
I'm shocked, shocked by your suggestion that bad actors would conduct disinformation campaigns to discredit and neutralize inconvenient truths.
It’s a well known phenomenon that if you give people a small, concrete thing that they have agency over, i.e. recycling their cans, even though that thing is next to useless in terms of systemic change, they will be less likely to support broad based, effective system legislation.
The bad actors pretend to be “environmental” in order to muddy the waters, sap support for actual change, and paint the entirety of the movement as ridiculous by funding outspoken lunatics.
It’s straight out of Putin’s playbook. [0] Putin funds “anti-Putin” organizations, but only ones that are absurd and implausibly idealistic. Those likely to offend other Russians.
[0] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/05/31/putins-propaganda-m...
The exploitation of our cognitive "loopholes" is the best case against Freedom Speeches™. Paraphrasing: We're not rationale, so countering falsehoods with truthiness simply cannot work.
The only legal mitigation I can think of is authenticate (optionally) speech. Just like the authenticity facets of the replication crisis. Meaning show your data, cite your sources, sign your works. And then maybe over time our culture learns to discount anything unsourced and unsigned.
Low-carbon-footprint urban lifestyle doesn't feel "scaled back." If anything it feels scaled up, intense, high maintenance, premium. Something for wild and rambunctious twenty-somethings. It leaves people yearning to settle down in "the simple life" with a big lawn, a big SUV, and a big steak on the grill.
The first problem is that housing stock takes a lot of modification to get to modern energy usage (essentially, 0 joules after construction). We haven't started down that road in any serious way as a society, even though the technology is commercial and past early-adopter pricing. But living in that house, it's no different to living in any other nice house -- a McMansion has a big reception hall, my passive solar house has a airlock/mudroom -- that's not a difference in lifestyle, just in detail.
The second problem is transport. At a personal level this might mean EVs, except that they are so very expensive. You might afford to replace one of the family's cars, but not all of them. Public transport would appear to be an alternative, but if you don't have access to that already, then the build time for that is over a decade. So there's going to be an uncomfortable interim of, say, twenty years. Which I suspect will be filled with bikes and e-bikes, as adding bike lanes and bikeways are minor projects. There are times when your description of personal transport as "scaled up" is very true.
There are many small annoyances from being slightly ahead of the bulk of the population. But one of the things Covid-19 has done has been to make local government is far more open to change: they've flipped from sending me letters about my vegetable garden in my front yard, to asking me if I'd be happy for their staff to tour it and collect ideas.
As an example, California took action to clean up tailpipe emissions because people could SEE smog.
And you can say something meaningful like "1 gallon of gasoline creates 20 pounds of CO2" but since CO2 is colorless and odorless nobody really gets it.
It's also incredibly distressing to think about what the future will look like, why wouldn't people want to put their head in the sand?
When I hear the average person deny climate change, I feel it's more to do with being afraid. At this point people look for something to validate their doubt, which is why misinformation works so well, it's convenient to believe in nonsense.
If you told people that climate change was actually beneficial to them, they'd be more likely to want to believe it. In fact this what some political figure heads are doing.
I think most people are in shock at this point that it's become real. Especially people who have been deniers for the last 20-30 years.
https://skepticalscience.com/1982-exxon-accurate-prediction....
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
Tens of thousands of scientist spend decades doing the hard work of collecting data, building models, testing hypotheses and on the other side some politician or talking head with a reach of millions says: "Fake news. Scientists say that because they are getting paid to toe the party line.", often paired with "It would cause immeasurable wealth to change things and destroy the economy" without doing one damn thing to quantify or prove their claims. And yet these thought leaders are treated with respect by the press.
If a climate researcher is willing to sell their soul and lie about climate research for a $50K/year job, just imagine how much lying corporations are willing to do for tens of billions of dollars a year.
I find it very hard to believe this was ever the case.
Historically, an inability to work with the other side usually resulted in localized armed conflicts, or civil war.
This has been true up until the middle of 20th century, when the relative abundance that was brought on by intense exploitation of fossil fuels (and globalization as a result) pacified political interests, as they were now beholden to global corporatism, rather than the support of the local militia or the army.
Unfortunately for everyone involved, as we get off the fossil fuel needle, the political climate is only going to get worse, not better, unless we also manage to decouple prosperity from CO2 emissions at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg
That was 17 years before An Inconvenient Truth, and three years before the Kyoto Protocol was written up. Thatcher was a hard core conservative, who also happened to have a degree in Chemistry from Oxford.
Politicians are always happy to say one thing while doing another, a few examples of rhetorical opposition to climate change do not demonstrate that there was actual political will to do anything about it.
I have a relative that was doing climate research in the 70's and 80's. He was considered a radical, and ended up leaving the field because his funded dried up, he eventually went into teaching.
He'll tell you that the current models are all B.S., that's it's much worse than we've been led to believe.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
So what? You don't get to assume something because something completely unrelated happened.
So that makes it okay? Perhaps the thing that needs to change is our expectations of corporations.
Why is it reasonable to not lobby against environmental regulations? What if the environmental regulations are unreasonable? For example, 'The Green New Deal' is 90% batshit crazy.
https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled
It's all out there in the memos from these companies.
"I think there is too much information around for the average person to filter and process and digest. All three are important parts of living in a society and it looks to me like even with e.g. economic issues alone, it's just very hard for (to be fair) anybody to keep up.
In turn, people reach out to conspiracy theories to simplify the world around them with obvious answers and explanations."
In 1980 Cosmos: A Personal Voyage came out. A companion book came out the next year. In it, Carl Sagan warns about the dangers of global warming.
We knew. Climate science 50 years ago was good enough to identify this as a problem.
Al Gore decided to be Clinton's running mate in part due to how HW Bush was handling environmental issues. Issues he was bringing up in Congress since 1976 when he was first elected.
Once again, we knew.
We also knew that the best time to get a handle on the problem was then.
Anyway, disclaimer: I work for Cruise and so I'm clearly a shill for GM, so you can just ignore a lot of what I say because I'm 100% biased.
James Hansen testified to Congress and the IPCC was setup back in 1988.
Everyone has ignored these warnings. Now they want to point fingers to assuage their own guilt. Get real.
32 years later I'm not.
Electric vehicles are projected to have far fewer costs per mile from service compared to ICE vehicles.[0][1]
I really like only having to worry about tires and windshield wipers (and other shared mechanical equipment at the appropriate mileage).
0. https://insideevs.com/news/340365/electric-car-servicing-cos... 1. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/12/does-lower-total-cost-o...
Electric vehicles have no engine, and the entire drive-train is simpler, so it's now easier and more important to be vertically integrated (like Tesla).
Clearly there is a reason.
Even today, it's obviously true that EVs have major limitations. Limitations that were more pronounced before modern-day electronics and battery technology. I'm not sure if you could release a competitive EV in the 80s (for example).
The automobile industry has invested hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars into R&D for the internal combustion engine.
That said, there were definitely people excited about electric commuter cars and the big automakers were disdainful of them. GM's famous EV1 that they refused to sell (only lease) because they wanted the power to destroy them the instant the government got off their back about electric cars.
There was a missed market opportunity for a startup that did electric commuter cars in the 90s and 2000s. Maybe not a huge userbase, but very loyal. Of course a small company would face the same dealership franchise headwinds that Tesla had to fight and might not succeed, especially in a world with relatively little Internet connectivity and less comfort with shopping and buying online.
[1] https://innovationmanagement.se/2017/05/24/the-innovators-di...
They just don't ship them in volume because it's not yet profitable to do so. Whatever they produce of the Bolt, they sell. They just don't produce that many. Still, not as bad as some other companies, like Toyota, etc. that have only produced EVs where required by compliance.
Unlike Tesla, they don't have investors willing to take risky bets. They have to turn a profit and pay dividends. They're a massive multinational corporation that ships many multiples of the volume that Tesla ships.
When batteries get cheap enough and the supply of them reliable enough, they will be entirely able to supply any demand that is out there.
Doesn't look like Chevy actually makes the Volt anymore. Also, my point was that had they invested as much in EV as they did ICE doesn't logic suggest we would have had practical EV much earlier than 2011? Take this in the light of the actual article of this post saying that GM knew ICE automobiles were major cause in climate changing conditions.
And the GM EV1 was really the first modern electric car, produced in 1996. They killed it, and it wasn't great (NiCad batteries, weird design, etc.) but it predates anybody else's serious efforts, apart from some stuff in the 70s oil crisis that was built around lead acid batteries.
But basically GM started producing EVs as soon as lithium ion battery manufacturing chains made it possible. Thank Bob Lutz.
But I never said GM wasn't .. basically evil :-) Of course they're riding/pushing the ICE & petroleum wave, and pushing hard on it, that's what makes them money. Because for the last 100 years that's all that was practical, and it's what made them as a company. Boxes that burn dinosaur juice to move. But there was no battery tech until LiOn that could make EV feasible as any kind of alternative.
However GM's evil is subsidiary to the petroleum company's evil. Whatever bad GM has done, oil companies have done x 100.
The fact that 99% of Americans live within spitting distance of a gas pump that will fully charge an ICE car in under 3 minutes.
I would love to ditch my family's ICE car for an equivalent EV, but because we live in an apartment, and because my wife (who drives) does not work for a fabulously wealthy tech company that has employee garage chargers [1], we have nowhere to charge it.
As chargers are slowly getting better, and slowly proliferating into garages and parking spaces, and dedicated EV charging stations, this equation changes. But this sort of thing takes decades of effort, and trillions of dollars of capital investment.
The same way that it's been the year of Linux on the desktop [2] (for the past 20 years), every year has been the year of the EV. It's going to happen someday [3], but it's not going to happen quickly.
[1] When I did drive to my workplace at a fabulously wealthy tech company, it had twelve charging stations in a five-hundred vehicle parking lot. You look at that, and then tell me if EVs are ready for prime-time.
[2] Ironically, we've long hit, and passed the point where we hit the year of Linux in the car.
[3] Unless climate change (likely) or nuclear war (less likely) wrecks our civilization first.
EVs are still not a slam dunk. Battery recycling is an issue. I’ve talked with people who handle car fleets and there are still other issues for them.
I look forward to these things being solved. I wish the innovation had started earlier so we’d be further along.
They were to threatened by EVs that they had to spend lots of money creating some nonviable prototypes so they took people's attention away from the iable tech. All that instead of just investing on EVs themselves.
At this point what's not to like.
[1] Really they care about their trade balance.
That could have changed if society had (through regulations, subsidies or taxes) changed the rules, but it didn’t until fairly recently.
Even today, I haven’t seen numbers (but I haven’t looked hard, either) of _any_ manufacturer that shows they make a profit making and selling electric cars.
Tesla’s profits, for example, as far as I know, always were smaller than the money they get from selling regulatory credits (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/teslas-sale-of-environmental...).
That’s society finally saying ICE cars must go out.
Government mills mill slowly, but I think many people underestimate how much they can accomplish in the long run.
Obviously it was never going to happen at the time. The car industry was incredibly unpopular, and would never have been able to get congress to push such an unpopular tax for their benefit.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-in...
There was then a huge business-run propoganda campaign which has succeeded on convincing many people that climate change is not real.
Edit: 30-35 years ago.
Of course smog was a concern too, but the science has definitely evolved since we were in school.
For others: Svante published a paper on the effects of CO2. In 1896. Let that year sink in.
In other words, is our ability to generate electricity for all the electric vehicles more efficient and better for the earth than how we currently power them with gasoline?
The question wasn't if it was warming/cooling, but simply how much impact humans were having on the atmosphere. There's a whole lot of atmosphere and humans are very small so it wasn't as clear how big of an impact we were having. Even for people who knew the math there was uncertainty in the inputs. Oil companies were best prepared to know how much CO2 were were releasing because they knew exactly how many barrels a day they were extracting from the ground. Everybody else has to go on public figures that may or may not be accurate.
Icebergs they used to navigate went AWOL causing much confusion
Do your job and do it well. Otherwise you get fired.
Chances are, no executive capable of making a single decision about shifting away from fossil fuels or aiming towards fuel efficiency ever heard this. An army of middle managers would have funneled it elsewhere as soon as they realized it wasn't going to create profit, and was inactionable with technology of the time.
And I definitely don't buy that no executive ever heard this.