We've made a decision: we prefer to continue having this world (and all its conveniences including steak multiple times a week and flying for cheap) and lose it soon-ish than move to another one right now with less access to... stuff.
And the only way we can have it differently is with violence, which nobody wants. So we'll walk to the abyss together.
We already have insane and growing wealth inequality and stagnant wage growth. The one thing that somewhat compensated for it is cheap goods, taking that away is not a winning argument in this environment. It's also a hard sell when Jeff Bezos has a wedding in Italy where dozens of private jets flew in and collectively emitted more carbon for that one wedding than all the gasoline vehicles multiple generations of my family have driven in their lifetimes.
And yet I, with my already depressed wages and kids to feed, should sacrifice steak and coach airline tickets?
I'm all for climate action, but it has to be policy level. If it's a choice between a warming world where we're solvent with some middle class prosperity, and a warming world where my wife, kids and I are broke because we went into six figures of debt replacing our ICE cars with EVs and retrofitting my house to passivhaus stanadards, I'm taking the former.
God, Jeff Bezos's jet is such an inane distraction that I can't believe people are still falling for this. If you're upset about Bezos's CO2 footprint, the very easy way to fix it is to tax the rich more.
And then we can use the money for EV credits, more wind farms, and other initiatives. Hell, if you're really against climate policies, we could simply burn the money and at least that could help fighting inflation.
There is one party in the US that constantly shoots down climate policies. Guess what they also do to Jeff Bezos's tax. Somehow that doesn't bother all those "climate policy skeptics" that are deeply upset about his private jet.
> I'm all for climate action, but it has to be policy level
Policy level climate action is the only kind that has any hope of succeeding. That or some magic technology that can suck carbon out of the air at zero cost.
China scaling up EVs, solar, and batteries is what will do it. Most humans don’t have the will or constitution to make it happen, but China will out of rational economics. The politicians making these poor climate policy decisions will be out of office eventually. Just keep grinding towards success whenever possible while the death rate keeps aging out those slowing progress down.
(EVs and PHEVs are ~50% of car sales in China 2025 H1, global light vehicle TAM is ~90M units/year, we're installing 1GW of solar every 15 hours, roughly 1TW/year etc.)
The progress on EVs, solar, and batteries has been nothing short of stunning. It has to continue, and will spread in any place where people use brains over ideology. But it won't solve everything. We don't have emissions-free alternatives for jet travel and many industrial processes. Carbon-neutral maybe, by synthesizing hydrocarbons, but not emissions-free. And we have to undo the last 100 years of damage.
Not wrong, but we're mostly locked in on the light vehicles and electrification front, the rest (as you mention) can continue to be worked towards. There is no silver bullet, just lots of work towards all the problems at once. Half of marine traffic is moving fossil fuels around the world, for example. That evaporates in the future. India and Africa will buy electrification and light vehicles from China, versus locking in a fossil fuel based economy. Everyone who needs fossil fuels is racing away from them for obvious economic and national security reasons, and everyone selling them is going to be desperate to sell them to the shrinking demand for them. There was $800B more capital invested in clean energy (~$2T) than fossil fuels globally in 2024.
To your point, the most important part is going to be how to rapidly remove the CO2 industrialization has injected into the atmosphere. This remains to be solved for at reasonable cost, but importantly, we're going to need a material amount of low carbon energy for that process.
“This is not inevitable. We have the tools, the instruments, the capacity to change course,” Guterres said. “There are reasons to be hopeful.”
This whole climate thing is really humanity’s worst nightmare.
We’re insanely good at finding solutions, adapting, pulling together when under existential threat. I mean it, it will never cease to amaze me.
We’re shit at:
* giving stuff up for the greater good
* changing voluntarily
* trusting others (countries) to sacrifice as much as yourself
Guess which qualities we need in this case?
It’s like this huge ball with an insane inertia rolling toward us while most are still thinking “ah, I guess I have time for one more appletini, then I’ll just stop that little ball”.
My only hope is we find a cheap and scalable way to pump CO2 out, but that’s really far fetched (and it would also cause us to stop all other efforts around co2 avoidance if it was ever found…).
Electricity, heat, transportation, agriculture, and construction are the largest sectors of emissions. Therefore, electrification, low carbon energy, shelter thermal efficiency, and electrification of vehicles is of paramount importance from a prioritization perspective.
Yeah. We’re talking about the burning of gas in cars. Production of electric cars is worse that production of ICE cars in terms of CO2. So, really, we’re discussing the fraction of a fraction here.
To be clear, I am still astonished and pleased at the success of EVs.
But let’s keep it in context, it’s one battle amongst many many battles.
> Yeah. We’re talking about the burning of gas in cars. Production of electric cars is worse that production of ICE cars in terms of CO2. So, really, we’re discussing the fraction of a fraction here.
This is factually inaccurate. In all cases, EVs are superior to combustion vehicles with regards to lifecylce emissions (construction + operation).
> As electric vehicles become a bigger part of the global car fleet, a contrarian take seems to surface every few months: are electric vehicles really that clean?
> When it comes to lifecycle emissions, the answer is a resounding yes. According to a new report by BloombergNEF, in all analyzed cases, EVs have lower lifecycle emissions than gas cars. Just how much lower depends on how far they are driven, and the cleanliness of the grid where they charge.
You didn’t read the article you’re citing and you didn’t get my overall point.
To make it clear: my overall point is, the burning of gas in cars is a fraction of co2 emissions in transport, which itself is a fraction of the overall co2 emissions.
That’s my point.
Now to the detail you are mentioning (detail!), your article actually agrees with me. Production of electric cars is more co2 intensive than from ICE cars. Read it. There’s even a break even point because of this. Over their lifetime, electric cars emit less co2 though.
> Production of electric cars is more co2 intensive than from ICE cars
Collectors aside no one builds a car and doesn't drive it. Once you start driving both cars, the EV pulls ahead on emissions very quickly, which you admitted too. Repeating only that manufacture is more co2 intensive (and that's only today, it could change in the future) is a lie by omission.
Read the guidelines of HN please, your comment is antagonising, offers zero value. The article cited in the other response actually confirms this statement is correct, just read it.
You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to.
The comment you're replying to would be easy to respond to with a link containing refuting evidence. We understand this topic is an important one, and one that people get passionate about. But any topic that's important deserves to be discussed with solid evidence rather than personal abuse. Please make an effort to observe the guidelines if you want to keep commenting here.
You're right. I offer two points in my defence. The sibling comment already had solid evidence. And I didn't think telling someone to stop lying constituted "personal abuse". I considered GP's comment a lie by omission.
But you're correct that this type of comment isn't good for the site and I'll be more mindful.
Thanks. It's fine to disagree and respond with opposing arguments, we just don't want the swipes, and the guidelines ask us to "assume good faith", even when it's hard. If others are breaking the guidelines, you can flag their comments and/or email us.
If there is a structural force shifting the market places of ideas and decisions, forcing certain choices or protecting and harvesting voting blocs - it’s not “we” in the sense of personal choice.
I concede, that if we define corporations as an expression of human desires - then yes, “we” have made that decision.
And the only way we can have it differently is with violence, which nobody wants. So we'll walk to the abyss together.