EV are they worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you prove that man is contributing to climate change?
More to the point, are you claiming that if we all buy EVs, climate change will not happen?
Despite all the scientific consensus worldwide, you doubt that its true and expect me to prove it ?

If you are as old as you say, you will have noticed changes in your lifetime. If man hasn't contributed then its a very rapid change versus what's happened in history.

To change anything, you have to start somewhere. Small actions by lots of people can make a big difference.

So back to the original question. Do you think man is not contributing to climate change? Anything to back that up ?
 
Sponsored Links
So back to the original question. Do you think man is not contributing to climate change? Anything to back that up ?
Pollution, yes. However, countries such as India, China and America are doing far worse than us.

Climate change, no. Climate change is a naturally occurring series of events and has been going on for thousands, if not millions of years. We cannot stop it, however many EVs the fools buy!
 
Pollution, yes. However, countries such as India, China and America are doing far worse than us.

Climate change, no. Climate change is a naturally occurring series of events and has been going on for thousands, if not millions of years. We cannot stop it, however many EVs the fools buy!
Poor answer.

Just because others are worse is no reason to not do anything.

Have you looked at climate change in any detail? Rate of change for example.

You mind if I prefer science over your confusion?
 
However, countries such as India, China and America are doing far worse than us.
Contributing more to the problem but we don't include imports in our calculation. Sweden for instance intends to. ;) They also enforce fuel stations to stock certain fuels. Some are greener than others. China actually spends more than the entire rest of the world does towards solving their contributions but have a much larger problem than others due to exports and also their domestic market which is buying an ever increasing range of products.

.
Climate change is a naturally occurring series of events and has been going on for thousands, if not millions of years.
The current state is a shift in global temperature resulting erratic weather patterns and general warming. It's a rather difficult to blame anything other than CO2 etc The erratic weather patterns may even out but as things have been
getting worse for rather a long time that is unlikely unless the general warming rate is halted.

We cannot stop it, however many EVs the fools buy!
Attempts to electrify vehicles at the moment are far from ideal and rather expensive.
Mild hybrids - solve the problems - no. Cost increase due to a small battery, charging gear and need for electric motors. Less pollution? I have my doubts about being a significant factor. The battery is usually used to top up power on an ic motor. I do know of one model where this has been done an mpg can't compete with a diesel it replaces. I'd guess the on cost for going hybrid is ~£10k.

Plug in hybrids. Not much different really. One I am aware of allows a 50mile pure electric drive if needed and suitable. Much more cost increase on these due to the battery and charger. Are these really that much different to the mild versions. I'd say it's marginal.

Pure EV. I've only looked at high range ones as that is what I need. Tricky as a I make a 400+ mile round trip around once a month. The facilities needed just aren't there. A rather expensive Fiat 500 is available then some with a range of 150miles or so. Use those for holidays and motorway service car parks would need to be rather different and the usual look of a petrol station isn't on any more.

The basic problem is pretty simple

33.7 kilowatt hours
The ratings are based on EPA's formula, in which 33.7 kilowatt hours of electricity is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline (giving a heating value of 115,010 BTU/US gal), and the energy consumption of each vehicle during EPA's five standard drive cycle tests simulating varying driving conditions.


That includes a petrol engines efficiency. Diesel can do better. USA gallons - ours are larger.
 
Sponsored Links
Tricky as a I make a 400+ mile round trip around once a month.
A 200 mile journey, a 20 minute charging stop, followed by another 200 mile journey.
Easily within the capabilities of many EVs.

However if it's only once a month, why even bother - just rent a suitable vehicle for those occasions.
Use a vehicle with a more appropriate lower driving range for everything else.

The facilities needed just aren't there.
Which facilities and where?
 
I regularly do quite long trips in an EV (I've put 20,000 miles on it this last 12 months). The public charging facilities could always be better, but to be honest, I haven't had any real problems. The st-nav knows where all the chargers are. Sometimes the ones at motorway service stations are all taken, and I have a pathological aversion to queuing, so I just pick one that's a few hundred yards off a motorway junction or somewhere that isn't likely to be busy. To be honest, I'm at the point where if I had to choose between an EV with 400 miles of range, or a cheaper, lighter one with 200 miles of range, I'd go for the latter because as long as it has more range than my bladder, I'd be stopping anyway, so I may as well plug in while I take a leak!
 
I see no point in arguing with people who assure me that they know it all and that I know nothing.
I shall leave this discussion to 'experts' alone and wish you well with your EVs in your sure belief that they will prevent any further climate change and will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of the need of that gas by all green vegetation upon which we all depend!
Instead, lets just wait and see who was correct and who was 'misinformed'.
Come back to me in about ten years. Perhaps we shall see some changes by then!
 
I see no point in arguing with people who assure me that they know it all and that I know nothing.
I shall leave this discussion to 'experts' alone and wish you well with your EVs in your sure belief that they will prevent any further climate change and will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of the need of that gas by all green vegetation upon which we all depend!
Instead, lets just wait and see who was correct and who was 'misinformed'.
Come back to me in about ten years. Perhaps we shall see some changes by then!

That's a good move on your part. Leave it to people who know about these things - that's what I do!

Funny enough, there were people 10 years ago, saying "lets just wait and see who was correct and who was 'misinformed'. Come back to me in about ten years. Perhaps we shall see some changes by then". However, they seem to be keeping their heads down these days, as the climate scientists' predictions have continued to come true...
 
I see no point in arguing with people who assure me that they know it all and that I know nothing.
I shall leave this discussion to 'experts' alone and wish you well with your EVs in your sure belief that they will prevent any further climate change and will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of the need of that gas by all green vegetation upon which we all depend!
Instead, lets just wait and see who was correct and who was 'misinformed'.
Come back to me in about ten years. Perhaps we shall see some changes by then!
So you do mind me preferring science to your confusion

Sorry if it seems wrong to you, but to me it makes sense
 
I see no point in arguing with people who assure me that they know it all and that I know nothing.
I shall leave this discussion to 'experts' alone and wish you well with your EVs in your sure belief that they will prevent any further climate change and will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of the need of that gas by all green vegetation upon which we all depend!
Instead, lets just wait and see who was correct and who was 'misinformed'.
Come back to me in about ten years. Perhaps we shall see some changes by then!

I'm no expert,

You're no expert,

These people, however, are experts:

"We are very grateful for the expertise, rigour and dedication shown throughout by the volunteer Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors, working across scientific disciplines in each chapter of the report, with essential help by the many Contributing Authors. The Review Editors have played a critical role in assisting the author teams and ensuring the integrity of the review process. We express our sincere appreciation to all the expert and government reviewers. A special thanks goes to the Chapter Scientists of this Report who went above and beyond what was expected of them: Neville Ellis, Tania Guillén Bolaños, Daniel Huppmann, Kiane de Kleijne, Richard Millar and Chandni Singh.

We would also like to thank the three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Vice-Chairs Ko Barrett, Thelma Krug, and Youba Sokona as well as the members of the WGI, WGII and WGIII Bureaux for their assistance, guidance, and wisdom throughout the preparation of the Report: Amjad Abdulla, Edvin Aldrian, Carlo Carraro, Diriba Korecha Dadi, Fatima Driouech, Andreas Fischlin, Gregory Flato, Jan Fuglestvedt, Mark Howden, Nagmeldin G. E. Mahmoud, Carlos Mendez, Joy Jacqueline Pereira, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Andy Reisinger, Roberto Sánchez Rodríguez, Sergey Semenov, Muhammad I. Tariq, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Carolina Vera, Pius Yanda, Noureddine Yassaa, and Taha Zatari.

Our heartfelt thanks go to the hosts and organizers of the scoping meeting, the four Special Report on 1.5°C Lead Author Meetings and the 48th Session of the IPCC. We gratefully acknowledge the support from the host countries and institutions: World Meteorological Organization, Switzerland; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Brazil; Met Office and the University of Exeter, the United Kingdom; Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Sweden; the Ministry of Environment Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism, the National Climate Change Committee in the Department of Meteorological Services and the Botswana Global Environmental Change Committee at the University of Botswana, Botswana; and Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) and Incheon Metropolitan City, the Republic of Korea. The support provided by governments and institutions, as well as through contributions to the IPCC Trust Fund, is thankfully acknowledged as it enabled the participation of the author teams in the preparation of the Report. The efficient operation of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit was made possible by the generous financial support provided by the government of France and administrative and information technology support from the Université Paris Saclay (France), Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL) and the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE). We thank the Norwegian Environment Agency for supporting the preparation of the graphics for the Summary for Policymakers. We thank the UNEP Library, who supported authors throughout the drafting process by providing literature for the assessment.

We would also like to thank Abdalah Mokssit, Secretary of the IPCC, and the staff of the IPCC Secretariat: Kerstin Stendahl, Jonathan Lynn, Sophie Schlingemann, Judith Ewa, Mxolisi Shongwe, Jesbin Baidya, Werani Zabula, Nina Peeva, Joelle Fernandez, Annie Courtin, Laura Biagioni and Oksana Ekzarkho. Thanks are due to Elhousseine Gouaini who served as the conference officer for the 48th Session of the IPCC.

Finally, our particular appreciation goes to the Working Group Technical Support Units whose tireless dedication, professionalism and enthusiasm led the production of this Special Report. This Report could not have been prepared without the commitment of members of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit, all new to the IPCC, who rose to the unprecedented Sixth Assessment Report challenge and were pivotal in all aspects of the preparation of the Report: Yang Chen, Sarah Connors, Melissa Gomis, Elisabeth Lonnoy, Robin Matthews, Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, Clotilde Péan, Roz Pidcock, Anna Pirani, Nicholas Reay, Tim Waterfield, and Xiao Zhou. Our warmest thanks go to the collegial and collaborative support provided by Marlies Craig, Andrew Okem, Jan Petzold, Melinda Tignor and Nora Weyer from the WGII Technical Support Unit and Bhushan Kankal, Suvadip Neogi and Joana Portugal Pereira from the WGIII Technical Support Unit. A special thanks goes to Kenny Coventry, Harmen Gudde, Irene Lorenzoni, and Stuart Jenkins for their support with the figures in the Summary for Policymakers, as well as Nigel Hawtin for graphical support of the Report. In addition, the following contributions are gratefully acknowledged: Jatinder Padda (copy edit), Melissa Dawes (copy edit), Marilyn Anderson (index), Vincent Grégoire (layout) and Sarah le Rouzic (intern).


 
Last edited:
I'm no expert,

You're no expert,

These people, however, are experts:

"We are very grateful for the expertise, rigour and dedication shown throughout by the volunteer Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors, working across scientific disciplines in each chapter of the report, with essential help by the many Contributing Authors. The Review Editors have played a critical role in assisting the author teams and ensuring the integrity of the review process. We express our sincere appreciation to all the expert and government reviewers. A special thanks goes to the Chapter Scientists of this Report who went above and beyond what was expected of them: Neville Ellis, Tania Guillén Bolaños, Daniel Huppmann, Kiane de Kleijne, Richard Millar and Chandni Singh.

We would also like to thank the three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Vice-Chairs Ko Barrett, Thelma Krug, and Youba Sokona as well as the members of the WGI, WGII and WGIII Bureaux for their assistance, guidance, and wisdom throughout the preparation of the Report: Amjad Abdulla, Edvin Aldrian, Carlo Carraro, Diriba Korecha Dadi, Fatima Driouech, Andreas Fischlin, Gregory Flato, Jan Fuglestvedt, Mark Howden, Nagmeldin G. E. Mahmoud, Carlos Mendez, Joy Jacqueline Pereira, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Andy Reisinger, Roberto Sánchez Rodríguez, Sergey Semenov, Muhammad I. Tariq, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Carolina Vera, Pius Yanda, Noureddine Yassaa, and Taha Zatari.

Our heartfelt thanks go to the hosts and organizers of the scoping meeting, the four Special Report on 1.5°C Lead Author Meetings and the 48th Session of the IPCC. We gratefully acknowledge the support from the host countries and institutions: World Meteorological Organization, Switzerland; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Brazil; Met Office and the University of Exeter, the United Kingdom; Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Sweden; the Ministry of Environment Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism, the National Climate Change Committee in the Department of Meteorological Services and the Botswana Global Environmental Change Committee at the University of Botswana, Botswana; and Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) and Incheon Metropolitan City, the Republic of Korea. The support provided by governments and institutions, as well as through contributions to the IPCC Trust Fund, is thankfully acknowledged as it enabled the participation of the author teams in the preparation of the Report. The efficient operation of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit was made possible by the generous financial support provided by the government of France and administrative and information technology support from the Université Paris Saclay (France), Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL) and the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE). We thank the Norwegian Environment Agency for supporting the preparation of the graphics for the Summary for Policymakers. We thank the UNEP Library, who supported authors throughout the drafting process by providing literature for the assessment.

We would also like to thank Abdalah Mokssit, Secretary of the IPCC, and the staff of the IPCC Secretariat: Kerstin Stendahl, Jonathan Lynn, Sophie Schlingemann, Judith Ewa, Mxolisi Shongwe, Jesbin Baidya, Werani Zabula, Nina Peeva, Joelle Fernandez, Annie Courtin, Laura Biagioni and Oksana Ekzarkho. Thanks are due to Elhousseine Gouaini who served as the conference officer for the 48th Session of the IPCC.

Finally, our particular appreciation goes to the Working Group Technical Support Units whose tireless dedication, professionalism and enthusiasm led the production of this Special Report. This Report could not have been prepared without the commitment of members of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit, all new to the IPCC, who rose to the unprecedented Sixth Assessment Report challenge and were pivotal in all aspects of the preparation of the Report: Yang Chen, Sarah Connors, Melissa Gomis, Elisabeth Lonnoy, Robin Matthews, Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, Clotilde Péan, Roz Pidcock, Anna Pirani, Nicholas Reay, Tim Waterfield, and Xiao Zhou. Our warmest thanks go to the collegial and collaborative support provided by Marlies Craig, Andrew Okem, Jan Petzold, Melinda Tignor and Nora Weyer from the WGII Technical Support Unit and Bhushan Kankal, Suvadip Neogi and Joana Portugal Pereira from the WGIII Technical Support Unit. A special thanks goes to Kenny Coventry, Harmen Gudde, Irene Lorenzoni, and Stuart Jenkins for their support with the figures in the Summary for Policymakers, as well as Nigel Hawtin for graphical support of the Report. In addition, the following contributions are gratefully acknowledged: Jatinder Padda (copy edit), Melissa Dawes (copy edit), Marilyn Anderson (index), Vincent Grégoire (layout) and Sarah le Rouzic (intern).



I think you're maybe missing some of the subtleties of terminology, though. This, remember, is the era of the "post-truth society".

Someone with lots of qualifications and letters after their name who agrees with you, is an "expert".

Someone with lots of qualifications and letters after their name who disagrees with you, is an "enemy of the people". ;)
 
Funny enough, there were people 10 years ago,
Actually only one aspect of factors used to prove climatic warming had a question mark against it. The person who found it ha associations with the petro industry but that is besides the point really and may even be misinformation.

The hole was tree ring growth rate related. There was a period where this didn't tally with other methods of studying the changes. I think this cropped up in the first COP and politicians who for obvious reasons aren't keen on the dramatic changes needed to reduce CO2 emissions latched on to it. From memory the data from this aspect tracked well for extended periods of time and then had a period where it didn't. Air in ice cores gives a direct indication of CO2 build up.
 
Last edited:
Actually only one aspect of factors used to prove climatic warming had a question mark against it. The person who found it ha associations with the petro industry but that is besides the point really and may even be misinformation.

The hole was tree ring growth rate related. There was a period where this didn't tally with other methods of studying the changes. I think this cropped up in the first COP and politicians who for obvious reasons aren't keen on the dramatic changes needed to reduce CO2 emissions latched on to it. From memory the data from this aspected tracked well for extended periods of time and then had a period where it didn't. Air in ice cores gives a direct indication of CO2 build up.

Fair enough - and I claim no expertise in this field myself, but by the time 97% of the scientists in the whole world are in agreement, I think it's time to take it seriously. I'm usually pretty happy with a 75% consensus on most things, at 90% I think it's pretty much definite, so 97% is about as good as it gets, as far as I'm concerned!
 
Screenshot_20231230-085153~2.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top