ppf

In some ways, it sounds like you didn't pay enough, if the cost is subsidised by data collection and advertising.

I'm always amused by calls for the breakup of the "unbearable monopoly" of Google, when it is itself the epitome of the Silicon Valley "monopolies need disrupting!" business model.

Exactly, and what could be better for all than equality and diversity? Obviously what's best for all isn't best for everyone.

/s

The text below the graph does give a total for US emissions of CO2 equivalent, but it's not clear if that's what the graph actually shows.

As a slight tangent - if the greenhouse effect of CO2 is so catastrophic that we need to mandate the destruction of (Western) energy companies, as well as enormous lifestyle changes in the near future, then why aren't we as worried about methane? The US emitted 1/8th the amount of methane as CO2[1], but methane has 30x the greenhouse potential.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

Sure, except that rulings like the one in this article hinder western countries from being able to do the same (that is, manufacture their own solar panels and other energy-intensive "renewable" products).

How is it a hypothetical? You've already said that China has slipped on its carbon neutrality goals, all while we continue to import ever more manufactured goods from that country. Now would be the time to start taxing those, which as I pointed out, we would never do.

Why would we tax imports from China, when they make 90% of our solar modules?

Oddly enough, I don't see a "carbon-neutral" lifecycle assesment done for all the solar panels on the market. Or on an EV, discounting the ridiculous "carbon exchange" system.

The relative emissions of China and the developed world are linked. Every time we mandate some new energy-intensive technology (eg, EVs, solar, etc), and also ban the methods of manufacture in the developed world, it's China that gladly digs up some more brown coal and makes the stuff for us.

Until we also mandate the complete CO2 lifecycle of all the products we import, this is a completely meaningless move (by the Dutch court). Saying that we are currently "switching over to renewables", while ignoring exactly how that is happening (that is, by importing everything, with the aforementioned issues), is just self-delusional.

>What is this "free pass" of which you speak?

We gladly buy almost everything from China (lithium batteries, electronics, wind turbines, solar panels, all of which take a tremendous amount of energy to manufacture), without ever asking if they were made in a "CO2 neutral" way.

Every time we mandate that some product can't be produced in the West, China gladly fills the gap, burning huge amounts of brown coal in the process. Why do you think they have a global monopoly on solar cell and lithium battery production? They are incredibly energy-intensive processes.

It would be like, in your analogy, somehow by putting out your own fire, someone else's house started burning.

Yep - just looking at the reception my comment has recieved, you are absolutely correct about "running away or shouting down".

It's not just "China is burning coal", it's "China is burning coal to make all the crap we want/need and buy from them".

> Coal, oil and gas need to stay in the ground. People around the world are demanding climate justice

I look forward to seeing an EV battery manufactured entirely using renewable energy, instead of the current situation where developing countries burn huge amounts of brown coal to power their manufacture.

In my opinion, this is just mandated destruction of Western industry, and completely meaningless until we demand that all of the energy-intensive products we import from developing countries are also not made using fossil fuels.

Edit: Strange response. Where am I incorrect?

I don't understand how BMW hold on to their reputation for making cars that run reliably for years. In recent years, their cars are largely shiny toys for the lease market, with an excess of gadgets and value engineering.

Conceptually, one less derailleur is simpler. However, the design and manufacturing of 12-speed full-range rear shifting systems is pretty darn complicated. I run 2x9 on my main MTB, and love the simplicity of the parts.

The contents of said battery pack? I suppose they are relatively inert, if you just dumped it into landfill. But then that's still much worse than ICE engines, which can be very easily recycled.

An end-of-life EV = an end-of-life ICE - a block of metal + a large lithium battery pack.

I'm not sure which part of my previous comment you are actually objecting to. Your article also ignores the manufacturing energy cost of an EV, which is considerable.

88 mpg equivalent for an EV, that requires a huge amount of extra mineral resources and manufacturing energy, is not good enough when the average clapped-out diesel family car here in the UK gets around 60mpg. As I said, they are barely more efficient overall.

The ECU is an integral part of the drivetrain.

From a well-to-wheels standpoint, EVs are barely more efficient when you take into account power generation, transmission, and storage losses.

Obviously, we want our EVs powered from renewable energy. In that case, unless we go nuclear, in my opinion energy will become that much more expensive that using it to transport ourselves in massive, heavy wheeled metal boxes will be out of the question.

I'm sure you'll object to this, so I'll start by pointing out that most of our "renewable" energy sources are made in China using brown coal and awful working conditions.

Those are all relatively inert parts, and scrap steel and aluminium is relatively easily extracted.

I didn't set out to argue that ICE vehicles are much better (although, honestly, I think it might be a defensible position), but the waste products from an end-of-life EV are significantly more damaging than those from an ICE.

I'm not sure of the numbers on that, but even if so, it's much easier to mandate the recycling of a product that has net value at the end of its life. Currently, lithium batteries do not. If you are waiting on a rising cost in raw materials to make it viable, then battery packs will become correspondingly even more expensive.

Edit: It might also be an effect, that recycling mandates had to be introduced, becase lead-handling mandates had dissuaded anyone from recycling them. Not that I'm aruging against lead-handling mandates, it's a pretty nasty material.

It is absurd on its face to have developing countries burn oil and (usually low-grade) coal to manufacture huge battery packs (and all the other electronic items that our Western lives dictate), all so we can claim we live CO2-neutral lives.

You might be right, but EVs are not the solution. The solution is realising that we just can't use so much energy.

The existing system with lead-acid batteries is based on the fact that they are easy to recycle, and the lead has significant value.

Old oil is processed and re-used (as cheaper oil, or for heating). Lead-acid batteries have practically all of the lead re-used. I'm not sure where the acid itself, nor coolant, goes, but they're not the most damaging of pollutants.

>one of the hundreds of parts that needs replacing every X amount of time in an ICE

Yep, it's usually one of the electronic parts, which is why I have no faith that EVs will be significantly more reliable.

>It sounds like a problem that encompasses all of global trade, manufacturing and modern technology.

It is, which is why it is absurd on its face that supposedly more "sustainable" solutions to transport and electricity generation increase all three of those.

If we're talking about the size of the holes in a mask compared to a virus, then it would be more like wearing a "bulletproof" vest full of holes 10x bigger than a bullet.

Personally I don't think the market has yet caught up to the fact that today's new cars will make horrible purchases as the 3rd or so owner.

All the financiers have to do is make sure someone buys it for a good price after 3 years of being leased from new. That's not a bad proposition - the car will probably last a while longer with all of its electonic toys and gizmos working. It's the buyer after that (of which I am usually one) that will find out how expensive the car is to maintain.

>car makers are incentivised to try to ensure their vehicles have decent resale value

Why? They are only incentivised to make more profit, and selling high-tech expensive cars that break after 10 years is great for that. The ones that will bear the cost of that will be either the financing companies (and it would be fun to see the market collapse as the current crop of shiny German cars hits the 2nd hand market and no-one is dumb enough to buy one), or those poor souls who insist on buying old-ish cars instead of leasing like everyone else.