By on December 13, 2015

2015-Chevrolet-CorvetteZ06-016-sm

The internal combustion engine, with all its amazing sounds and brutal power, looks slated to become endangered if a group of politicians have their say about it. The ZEV Alliance wants to completely ban the sale of non-zero-emissions vehicles in its members’ constituencies by 2050.

That’s just a mere 35 years away, folks.

However, those ZEV Alliance members — California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, British Columbia, Québec, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom — may not have the legal authority to ban such vehicles, so this might all be for nothing.

(Also, according to Car & Driver, Québec is a country now. That’s good news for separatists.)

In addition to the ZEV Alliance, mayors on the United States west coast have also pledged to reduce carbon emissions some 80 percent by 2050, reports Green Car Reports.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and Eugene have signed a declaration stating they would move city-owned fleets to either electric or biodiesel, and invest more in public transit.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

185 Comments on “States, Provinces, Euro Countries Pledge to Ban Fossil Fuel Vehicles By 2050...”


  • avatar
    carguy

    Where do politicians get the courage to promise big and impractical goals for the distant future? You know, the future where they would have already been out of office for decades, leaving others to not deliver on their soon forgotten promises.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The politicians’ “Pledge to Ban” is a far cry from actually making it so. 35 years ago the politicians pledged to do a lot of things too, but they never even happened.

      • 0 avatar
        wumpus

        25 years ago Newt Ginch’s Congress swept into power and talked a lot about term limits (and won’t retire until they are good and ready). My guess is that this means most politicians world wide expect to keep their governments going 35 years. I don’t even think Japan’s government is that strong (didn’t they have a challenge a decade or so ago).

    • 0 avatar
      Sgt Beavis

      I think you have mistaken courage for stupidity. Even if such bans were to happen, it would happen after these people are out of office.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Makes for a great back patting session for all involved.

    • 0 avatar
      its me Dave

      Where do these politicians get off challenging the country to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade? Don’t they know their citizenry is weak and has no resolve?

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        >>Where do these politicians get off challenging the country to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade? Don’t they know their citizenry is weak and has no resolve?<<

        Headline: “‘Most powerful weapon’: John Kerry urges ‘public shaming’ to enforce new climate agreement”

        Five luxury homes, 76-foot yacht, SUV, and a private jet: John Kerry models the lifestyle of an AlGore-style politician who allegedly believes James Hansen's 1988 carbon dioxide warning.

        Can Prince Charles be far behind?

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          There are people who contend the policies of climate change are intended not to save the planet but instead to keep the poor and underdeveloped down. The wealthy don’t have to give up their lifestyle–unless they subscribe to a different ideology, of course. The poor are denied the opportunity to build/expand industry because it would mean an increase in emissions.

          While I can’t vouch for such claims, I do believe that people who stand to gain from climate certainly are pulling any lever they can to grab as much as they can.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

          Not that living a luxurious lifestyle is necessarily a good thing, but the lifestyle one leads can be independent from the philosophy they espouse. How poor is poor enough that you can be an advocate for greater environmental responsibility without being called a hypocrite?

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Rank hypocrisy is not irrelevant and remarking on it is not fallacy. If one claims to believe carbon dioxide is going to cause catastrophic man-made global warming, one’s carbon dioxide fiesta lifestyle casts doubt on credibility and supports suspicion of other motives.

            If a preacher claims the end of the world is coming due to sinful lifestyle and he needs your money to fight licentiousness but you later find out that he is running a whorehouse, his hypocrisy casts doubt on his sincerity.

            Still, the debate is academic. People burn all the hydrocarbons they can get their hands on because they don’t want to be poor. They have continued to do so and will continue to do so until hydrocarbons are more expensive than the alternatives. The hilarious farce of climate conferences is just further evidence of this fact.

            Very few are changing their CO2 lifestyles, much less the “deeply concerned” wealthy. Argue till you run out of breath Climate Apocalypsians, your actions belie your words. In the real world, outside of government and academia, actions speak louder than bullsht.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            You lose.

            “When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.”

            And, btw, no one is accusing Kerry of environmental responsibility.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Maybe in your college mass debate society, but not in reality.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            Demonstrating hypocrisy on the topic of the argument is not an ad hominem. It demonstrates the importance of the topic to the person making the claim.

            If the purpose of an argument is to change behavior, then its effectiveness is measured in how many people change their behavior & to what extent it changes. This measurement can be considered data–a survey–of what people think of the argument, much like the argument’s stock price. The more people change their behavior & change it more extremely, the greater the stock price of that argument.

            An ad hominem is an attack–an insult–to the person. If the demonstration of hypocrisy is not an insult, a belittling of their character, it isn’t an ad hominem. Hypocrisy is is a survey of what the person actually believes instead of what they argue and thus is not necessarily a personal attack. It just happens that we think less of people who argue something they don’t believe.

            A person may argue for Candidate A’s platform, but then they vote for Candidate B. Is voting for Candidate B a personal attack–an insult? Does it provide data that their arguments for Candidate A are not strong?

            A person may argue that gold and real estate are the best investments for retirement, but then they invest in stocks. Is investing in stocks a personal attack–an insult? Does it provide data that their arguments for gold & real estate are not strong?

            Stating that Kerry, Gore, et al, live affluent lives is not an insult. That is not an ad hominem. Stating that their affluent lifestyle is inconsistent with their arguments shows they personally don’t believe their arguments. Feeling they are bad people is a collateral effect, much like showing an argument to be inherently stupid makes people think the arguer is similarly stupid.

            However, the counter claim is that lifestyle is not necessarily the same as change of behavior, which is the real test. If they have changed their behavior according to their arguments, but their lifestyle is still beyond others, then the it instead shows they do believe their own argument.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Hypocrisy discredits the character of a person who makes an argument, but it does not discredit the argument itself.

            If a fire-and-brimstone Protestant preacher bangs on about the evils of infidelity while simultaneously cheating on his wife, that does not change the rules of the religion (“thou shalt not commit adultery” is pretty clear cut).

            Al Gore may or may not be a hypocrite, but the carbon cycle and climate science are what they are. And I have no doubt that most of you are completely unqualified to offer an opinion that is worth hearing, as you don’t know a damned thing about it. (And no, getting your “facts” from Breitbart, etc. does not bode well for you.)

    • 0 avatar

      “Where do politicians get the courage to promise big and impractical goals for the distant future?”

      I also laugh at all those idiots in CA and Europe who plan decades ahead. Imagine them planning in 1985 what will happen by 2015. There was no WWW then and they would be off by a large margin. They would plan to land on Mars by now. Irrelevant. Everything may (and I am sure will) radically change by 2050. Europe will be very different by 2050 to begin with taking into account shrinking native population and population explosion in Africa. Europeans are rapidly turning into pagans will be ripe for adopting new religion, whatever it might be – fascism, communism, Islam, Scientology or new thing we cannot imagine today. Native white population in Europe will be minority living in fear by them. I am not saying it will be good or bad but different continent with changed culture. Like Italians being very different from Romans. In US change is more organic since US changes all the time but US will also be a different country. It is already the different country compared with what I remember from my days in college and not necessary better in some aspects.

      • 0 avatar
        PeriSoft

        Europeans are turning into pagans and therefore will adopt Islam? I think you might need to brush up on your… everything.

        • 0 avatar
          RideHeight

          Agreed. I can’t see pagans accepting the necessity of going rump-up on knees and elbows five times daily.

          But real pagans would already be slaughtering the muslims in Europe so I don’t think that will be the actual denouement of Euro’s whities.

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          At least quote correctly.

          “Europeans are rapidly turning into pagans will be ripe for adopting new religion, whatever it might be – fascism, communism, Islam, Scientology or new thing we cannot imagine today.”

          Pagan may mean lack of religion or polytheism (believing in many different things).

          The underlying idea that a population without strong existing religious convictions have more potential for latching on to new convictions seems reasonable. A population that believes many different (and often contradictory) things certainly could accept new beliefs easily as well. Will it be Islam? That probably depends more on immigration than the lack of existing convictions. However, I could see the lack of a strong set of existing convictions to oppose an invasive ideology (such as Islam) as contributing to its spread.

          But go back to the actual quote–the new “religion” is first suggested to be extremist socioeconomic systems. Then Islam is mentioned just before Scientology. Clearly the point is to communicate how extreme & unpredictable the possibilities might be, not to suggest it will be Islam.

          • 0 avatar

            Exactly my point. Real life example it happening in History are Romans, Greeks, Persian, Germans, Russian and list goes on and on. I do not see how Europeans are different from Germans, Russians and others in this list.

  • avatar

    Personal cars account for only 15% of greenhouse emissions in the US. They’d do better to encourage people to reduce meat consumption, which accounts for more. Reducing energy consumed for heating and cooling of buildings is an easier, cheaper fix (although a battery breakthrough could change that, but I’m not holding my breath), and reducing consumption 80% by 2050 will be hard indeed, considering the US’ continuing population explosion due to mass immigration. (The Pew Center projects an additional 100 million over the next 50 years (5 New York State population equivalents), 88 million of which will be due to mass immigration.

    A carbon tax would be a far more efficient way to reduce GHG emissions. And while there are good reasons to invest in public transit, reducing greenhouse emissions is not one of them. Here’s more:

    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/117-a296/

    • 0 avatar
      jthorner

      US annual population growth rate has been in constant decline for over a decade now and is most recently at 0.73% per year including the effect of immigration and the children born to immigrants. Cut immigration to zero and the US would have a declining population. Check out what is going on in Japan to get a glimpse of the consequences of a rapidly aging, dying and declining population.

      Thanks to the magic of compound interest, even a sub 1% per year growth rate has big effects over a 50 year period of time.

      Characterizing the slowest population growth rate of modern times as a “population explosion” due to “mass immigration” is hyperbolic and misleading.

      That said, your point about our food supply and built environments being the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions is correct.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        And right you are. That’s why the US has such lax immigration policies. We need the people to do the work AND pay taxes to sustain the promises made by politicians decades ago.

        Without illegal immigration and visa-squatters we would not enjoy many of the foods we eat and hi-tech gadgets we toy with.

        There are plenty of Americans who are unemployed and living off welfare in America, but many are too proud to work or too stupid to qualify for hi-tech jobs.

      • 0 avatar

        Wrong. We would be growing even without any immigration, albeit slowly. And while we have had low growth since the big recession, the Pew Center is widely considered to be an accurate source. But we’ve still added close to 20 million immigrants since the millennium. And that additional 100 million over the next 50 years is nearly 33% growth in that time. To put it another way, that’s one New York State population equivalent per decade. So, no, that’s not hyperbolic or misleading.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          No, it’s still hyperbolic because we’re only adding 1/3rd to the population over that 50 years.

          In perspective:

          1900-1950 – 99% increase

          1950-2000 – 86% increase

          So a 33% increase is actually a decline over the previous century.

          • 0 avatar
            kosmo

            The historical data you provide in no way makes his claim that a 33% population increase in 50 years will be significant in many ways.

  • avatar
    jmo

    Given the plunging price of batteries, the vastly simpler nature of an electric motor, the fact that an electric vehicle can use a single speed transmission, etc. I wonder how much cheaper electrics will be than an equivalent ICE vehicle? Would a 2050 electric Accord be $18k vs. $23k for an ICE Accord in todays’s dollars?

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      This. I dont think average person realizes how close we are to the battery electric tipping point. I closely follow the ev industry and the innovative nature of current battery development and especially the lower costs that are coming allow me to confidently say its less than 10 years away. By 2050, internal combustion will be for enthusiasts, niche applications and trucks. The majority will be happy to drive superior evs by then.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Most people focus on initial purchase price. But if you look at total lifecycle cost, EVs are already competitive. Fueling on electrons can save $10k over the life of the vehicle.

      I don’t think EVs’ initial purchase price has to be as low as an ICE’s to hit the tipping point. If it becomes similar in price as an engine upgrade, that may be enough.

  • avatar
    bertvl

    I’m not worried. If you look at how good electric cars are now (Tesla et al), imagine how good they’ll be in 2050. With the progress being made, no-one will even want a gas-powered vehicle in 2050.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a27567/two-thirds-of-early-tesla-model-s/

      Look at how good they really are!

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        But there is always range-anxiety and the lost time waiting for the battery to be recharged. You can’t beat good ol’ fossil fuels for BTU’s and rapid refueling.

        There’s a place for battery-powered vehicles but battery-fuel cell makes much more sens to me, especially if utilizing natural gas.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        Thats bs. Its not failure. It is a whine noise that developed due to the incredibly tight gear lash tolerances. Tesla replaced the drive unit because its faster and easier for the customer to do a complete swap. Tesla then shipped the units back to the factory for analysis and already fixed the issue. Good luck with any other manufacturer doing a complete drivetrain swap for a whine noise.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Tesla took two thirds of their drivetrains that have reached 60K miles back for analysis of an insignificant issue they understand and have already fixed? Sometimes an easy way to tell when someone is lying is when they say too much.

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      Could it be that our electric car future is finally just 35 years in our future?

      I hope our future electrics are so simple to operate – no expert chauffeur needed – can be run by any member of the family, any day of the year. I hope they run quiet, too, and can be used equally well over rough pavements or smooth park roads.

      Finally, I hope they build them in South Bend, Indiana.

    • 0 avatar
      wumpus

      If gas cars are the future, why do retro cars (typically from well over 35 years ago) sell so well? Looks like the public thinks cars are not only over, they’ve been over for decades.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    I pledge to light the world with dried unicorn poop by 2077.

    In the meantime, I will, like every person on earth, burn all the fossil fuels I can afford to purchase, because I do not want to be poor and cold.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    You should see my awesome pledges for 3025.

  • avatar
    White Shadow

    35 years is too aggressive…. at least for the U.S.
    I bet gas cars will be around for another hundred years or so.

    But I guess Europe may be another story.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I would like to see CNG-powered cars. It’s do-able. They already exists and natgas is cheap and plentiful. Many electrical generating stations are switching over to natgas because it burns much cleaner than coal, peat and wood.

      • 0 avatar
        wumpus

        Cleaner than coal, peat, and wood doesn’t say much vs. oil (but presumably beats diesel). The hard part is that it is hard to make and engine that can switch back to gas when the Saudis decide that the market needs to be punished.

        I wonder how many trucks have to decide to switch back or tough it out, competing with trucks running on diesel. Damnmit. I thought that hybrids would bring small turbines. I guess the laws of physics say otherwise. I also thought two motors in a hybrid was ridiculous. Toyota (if few others) showed me.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      A common flaw is the assumption that all cars will be either X or Y. That basically was true with gasoline, but I doubt it will be going forward.

      I expect to see specialization for each niche. Diesel will likely continue to be king for cross-country shipping. Commuter & city cars will go electric. Medium trucks like shipping vans & garbage trucks may be natural gas. Perhaps hydrogen would be good for airplanes.

      Arguments against EVs often revolve around how not every vehicle can be electric. That’s a lot like arguing sports cars aren’t viable because a Corvette doesn’t suit enough people’s needs. To be viable, enough people’s needs have to be satisfied that enough are sold to make them profitable. I have no doubt that will happen well before 2050. Can *all* vehicles be ZEV by then? That’s an entirely different issue.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    I’ve been a car nut since picking up a Motor Trend magazine in a hospital waiting room in the 1960s when my dad was in for back trouble. That said, there are many, many good reasons why the era of the dominance of crude oil fueled automobiles is coming to a close.

    There are still steam engine enthusiasts out there, but we are fortunate that technology moved on from stuffing boilers full of coal or wood to make steam with which to augment human, horse and ox power.

    The future will be different from the past, just as has always been the case since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Enjoy the ride of progress instead of screaming against the dawning of a new day.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      As long as people are willing to pay for their dreams from their own pockets and not someone else’s, I am good with it.

      • 0 avatar
        jthorner

        Who pays for the impact on shared resources? The steam train operators paid zero for the massive quantities of pollution their smokestacks used to dump on everyone and everything. The people of Beijing today suffer horribly from the fetid air they are breathing, but the people polluting that air (mostly government run) are making money.

        Money is not the only valid lens to look through.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Neither is exaggerated environmental fear. America’s post industrial revolution water and air have never been so clean. The environmental bogeyman is trotted out whenever someone wants to engage in another money transfer. It is not 1890.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Beijing’s air is bad because they traded starvation poverty for relative prosperity. Hydrocarbons have fueled the transformation. Nothing else would. Once they have enough money, they can afford to clean it up.

          It is not the “lens” of money that makes hydrocarbons the first choice. It is money, which makes a decent life possible. Money (economics) is why these pledges are rightly mocked. You can’t change the impracticality and expense of non-hydrocarbon sources to make them more than a niche.

          Only when hydrocarbons truly become scarce will the price go high enough to make nuclear and other sources of energy dominant. We have many decades left of abundant hydrocarbons. No reason to commit economic suicide, although empty pledges are totally allowed before you drive to the airport in a ICE limo and fly off in a private plane.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            It is my understanding that the cities of China were built around the factories as the need for labor for those factories caused people to move out of the countryside and settle around those factories.

            During WWII the same happened to Los Angeles and other great cities in America where war production ramped up the exiting factories to crank out war materiel and people migrated to fill those jobs.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        George W. And Darth Cheney threw away a lot of my tax money on the failed Iraq war, so I won’t really feel too bad when I collect the rebate on my Volt.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      You inadvertently made a good point. Nobody had to legislate the demise of steam power, or oxen, or equine transportation. Better technologies made them obsolete. Only an imbecile believes in legislating technology. It is the opposite of all that is true and virtuous.

      • 0 avatar
        carguy67

        Took the words right out of my keyboard.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          What about the interet? GPS? ‘space age’ materials? many of the breakthroughs that enable modern computers? All government funded.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Yep…all Government funded, but not because they wanted to make people’s lives better, the technologies you reference were all developed to kill more bad guys.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            This isn’t about the government creating or promoting technology. The issue here is about the government seeking to ban technology. Technological advancements can make things obsolete. Bans are only needed when existing technology is superior to what is being forced on the subjects. Love your cages.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        “This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly, regulated by the US Department of Energy.

        I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.

        After that, I turned the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture-inspected food, which had been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

        At the appropriate time as kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I got into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved car and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve bank.

        On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

        After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down thanks to to the state and local building codes and the fire marshal’s inspection, and it has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

        I then log onto the Internet, which was developed by the US Department of Defense, and post on the free public access website TTAC about how legislation is bad because the government can’t do anything right.”

        I didn’t write this, I just copied it from elsewhere. And obviously some of the stuff is wrong (esp. the house not burning down or being plundered thanks to who now?), but I think as a whole it’s still valid.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          The obvious question to ask would be, would all of those things cease to exist or never existed in the first place without government intervention? Just because the government took it upon itself to put its fingers in doesn’t mean it should be credited.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            Danio3834:
            My econ class suggested a rule of thumb for determining if something could exist without the government.

            Its called the theory of public goods:
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

            There are probably more theories, but this one is a convenient starting point.

            The classic old school example of a public good is a lighthouse. Practically speaking, you can’t keep anyone from using it once you build it, and the benefits are spread across the seafaring community in a way that means nobody is likely to build it in their own. But, once it’s in operation, everyone is less likely to sink their boats and everyone wins.

            There are a lot of arguments to be had about whether government should be involved in specific things. It’s clear in the case of lighthouses, but its less clear in terms of, say, electric power generation.

            I feel that there should be a healthy tension between the political parties about the reach of government — but we’ve got to make the demogagues irrelevant, and bring in some grownups before that debate can resume.

  • avatar

    I’m just gonna sit back and watch these environmentalists, liberals and other assorted morons get TAXED RIGHT OUT OF THEIR CARS while I’m passing bustops in a supercharged HEMI.

    And driving through bike paths.

    And parking in parking spaces meant for low-emission-vehicles.

    If there is ever a remake of Captain Planet I want to be cast as Hoggish Greedly. The Republican-voting, HELLCAT driving, real-estate developer who is on trial for murdering several endangered species with co-conspirator Volkswagon and Exxon.

  • avatar
    Tosh

    Biodiesel? I’m sure the GreenWashers mean “biodiesel” or more accurately, B10. So 90% petroleum.

    • 0 avatar

      When will these people realize that fossil fuels CAN’T be eliminated?

      They are the basis of the energy pyramid on Earth. Fossil fuels gained their energy from NATURAL production involving plants and animal matter – which gained their energy from photosynthesis.

      But let me humor the idiots for one moment.

      Let’s say we stopped using coal, oil and natural gas RIGHT NOW and all we used was solar and nuclear.

      WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE FOSSIL FUELS?

      Last time I checked, subduction zones and plate tectonics caused these resources to simply BURN and be released as gas from the Earth ANYWAY.

      Trapped Carbon is released by land volcanism, underwater volcanism, hotspots, trenches…

      OR DID THESE PEOPLE NOT TAKE GEOLOGY 101?

      • 0 avatar
        NickS

        In geology 101 there is at least one lecture about how slowly geological processes take place.

        For the earth to recycle all the cartons and crust takes a few bazillion years.

        It’s a bit like claiming that a lifetime’s worth of alcohol all consumed in 24 hrs will have no ill effect.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Don’t bother trying to correct BTSR. He has valid opinions regarding certain car models and segments, but everything else isn’t even worth reading.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            BTSR,
            You really do owe it to the public to remind us of the name of the institution of higher learning from which you gained your knowledge of environmental science.

            People should be warned.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        No, you’re the idiot. The energy in fossil fuels came from the sun. Ever get a sunburn? Why aren’t you riding a horse? Now, please go away as the adults are trying to have a conversation.

      • 0 avatar
        jthorner

        Release rates matter. New biological storage is happening all the time, at a slow rate. Natural processes will release carbon over time as you have said …. but slowly.

        How much scientific training do you actually have?

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          BTSR is a financial planner in the NYC metro area, or something like that.

          BTSR’s no geologist, even if he might have taken a class once. BTSR’s geology does not agree with anything my brother says. (My brother is a professor of geology, with a specialization in geohydrology, who’s been teaching future petroleum geologists.)

          Don’t take BTSR’s comments on geology too seriously.

          His main expertise seems to be on Mopar vehicles, particularly the SRT variety.

          I just can’t get as excited about straight line acceleration as he does. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            BTSR is interesting but in a clinical way. Denial under certain circumstances is an appropriate response to stimuli. This isn’t one of those certain circumstances.

            He does not understand homeostasis. The planet has a way of self-regulating to find balance. We’ve upset that balance. For the planet to regain balance at its current trajectory our climate will become inhospitable to human life. Removing the cause of the imbalance will eventually ensure a balanced system.

            More simply put, we F^cked it up and it will return the favour.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Lou

            Given all of the stuff that’s been going on ’round the world, I am wondering if the same conclusion was reached by our social betters and if a culling is coming down the line.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            28-Cars-Later – If a culling of the herd is to occur one way to do it would be to push the “denial” side of global warming. That would also entail ignoring/turning a blind eye to Da’esh, Somalia, Darfur and any part of the world experiencing natural disaster.

            China would definitely cull it’s population if it chose not to be a signatory to this accord. China has no choice but to intervene. Their middle class is larger than the population of the USA and is growing rapidly. A well educated affluent group this large will not tolerate the health effects of rampant pollution. China’s participation is a way for the Communist party to keep its populace happy and therefore remain in power. I doubt that they want to save seal pups and glaciers.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I find it interesting you referenced Darfur or Somalia. I can’t honestly recall if I have heard of either in MSM since at least 2011ish. We obviously hear about Daesh and about how difficult it is for how many of the planet’s armed forces to defeat them? The whole thing over there is a sick joke at best, and then this takes the cake:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-save-Islamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html

            China is an interesting situation indeed. Han Chinese have already expanded all over Asia and there are effectively Chinese colonies in East Africa (Did you know Mandarin is the second most used language in most of Asia?). Chinese investment is increasing in South America and the US/Canada.

            http://www.ibtimes.com/china-africas-new-colonial-overlord-says-famed-primate-researcher-jane-goodall-1556312

            I suspect the gov’t in China will do whatever it takes to maintain control under the guise of “stability” (no matter the body count), and one of those things will be to encourage some excess population to emigrate as time goes on. I do however think even if we were to see another revolution of sorts in China, it won’t be a true revolution as in Mao’s 1949 victory and subsequent transformation into the PRC. Why? Interesting fact I recently learned. In China it is customary to address complete strangers of your parents generation as āyí (aunt) or jiùjiu (uncle). I found this detail very interesting, when I asked my teacher why she replied: “because in China we one big family” (not knocking her English, but this was her reply). I clarified by asking if this has been the case since Mao or if this has always been the case in their language, she replied its always been that way. This is how they view themselves, apparently. Despite the millions of deaths under Mao, I believe most of the ordinary Chinese will still do what *they* believe is in the best interest of the “family” because of their culture. Interesting eh?

  • avatar
    RHD

    Eliminating fossil-fueled engines will not be the end of the ICE
    Alcohol is an alternative, and its production produces lots of oxygen. I would imagine ’65 Mustangs will still be seen driving around in 50 years, just like they are now, at least where I live.

  • avatar
    mikey

    So. Quebec is another country now ? Good to know. We can send our newly elected Prime Minister back.

  • avatar
    mikey

    Our once beautiful ,and prosperous country has been taken over by the Loony left. Academics , and the limousine Liberals , all duly elected ,are calling the shots.

    I know squat about climate change, or global warming . I do know that the idiots running our country, are more concerned with the “redistribution of wealth” ( as long as thier pockets are lined) than they are about any environmental concerns, perceived ,or not,

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Amen Mikey. Every word.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Mikey, the same happened to America. But that’s what the majority wanted. That’s what the majority voted for. So Canada, like America, is getting exactly what it deserves because the people voted for it.

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      Mikey, I feel for you – your government hates you and wants to eradicate the Canadian. I wish Canada had freedoms again, like freedom of speech.

      Since freedom and cars are synonymous, and you guys have that one really nice road: “I see no brakes, just open road and lots of gasoline.”

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Mikey, you can learn more about climate change in an afternoon than what the average politician actually knows. Here are the basics. 1) We have pretty solid measurements that show the the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. 2) Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should cause some moderate increase in the global average temperature of the earth due to radiative forcing. 3) Climate models which include positive feedback to multiply the impact of increased carbon dioxide predict temperatures warm enough to cause problems. 4) Satellite data doesn’t show the warming predicted by the climate models. 5) Earth station temperature data does show warming toward the lower end of predicted warming, but the data itself was subject to adjustment by scientists who expect to see warming. Some earth stations are also measuring local temperature increases due to changes in local construction and the urban heat island effect.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        George B……Thanks , I had to read it a couple of times,. So refreshing to read actual facts , rather. than rhetoric ..

      • 0 avatar
        azulR

        Actually, George, you’ve got some of the basics tight but some of what you list is just mistaken.

        For point 3), it’s not just climate models that predict problems. Paleoclimate data also points to, roughly, a 3 degrees Celsius warming per doubling of CO2. There’s a great lecture from Richard Alley at the AGU a few years back called “The biggest control knob: CO2 in Earth’s climate history”.

        For point 4), harking on satellite data seems the new line pushed by the forces of denial. That’s somewhat amusing as I remember maybe ten years ago the “skeptic” editor of Reason magazine being converting after having been caught in an earlier version of this trope. The occasion then was a bunch of scientists finding errors in the satellite data of the time, bringing them into far better alignment with surface measurements. Since then, the satellite data have continued to have some problems. I saw an epic and nerdly take down a week or so back which was so good that I’ll quote it separately in full.

        As for 5), again this is misleading. Adjustments have been made as and when seems appropriate. The most famous example is for sea surface temperatures, and trying to cope with the change from throwing a bucket over the side to having a thermometer in an intake pipe. The whole question of bias has been so easy to throw as an accusation and so difficult to refute without going down into fine detail that it has been a favorite tactic of the denialists. There was a point a few years ago when a fairly famous physicist got a group together to do an independent assessment, and many of the denialst camp waited expectantly for their doubts to be confirmed. Instead Richard Muller pointed out in the WSJ:

        “When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.”

        • 0 avatar
          azulR

          And on the subject of satellite data, in particular the UAH series from Spencer and Christy, quoting from a letter to the recent Congressional hearings:

          The MSU series of instruments and the later AMSU measure microwave intensity from orbit, that is, from the top of the atmosphere. Theoretical work has been developed to support the claim that these measurements for each channel of the instrument correspond to a “bulk” temperature profile thru the atmosphere. When Spencer and Christy presented their first effort in 1990 (1), they worked with data from channel 2, which they still produce, (now labeled TMT for Temperature, Middle Troposphere).

          However, in 1992 (2), they presented results which showed that the channel 2 data is distorted by emissions from the stratosphere, which has exhibited a well known cooling trend. For this reason, they proposed a modification of the channel 2 data, (now labeled TLT for Temperature, Lower Troposphere) which they claimed removed the distortion from the stratosphere in the MSU data.
          The TLT computation begins with the 11 scan positions which the MSU produces for each swath across the ground track below. There are 11 positions, labeled 1 thru 11, with #6 being straight down (nadir). There are also 2 more positions at the ends of each swath, one viewing deep space and the other viewing a heated target which is monitored for temperature with two accurate resistance thermometers. The TLT algorithm actually includes only 4 of the 11 positions, throwing out 5, 6, and 7 and using 1, 2, 10 and 11 as a correction for the data from 3, 4, 8 and 9. Thus, the resulting TLT data can not be said to “ provide “complete global coverage”. Also, the data can only be provided between 82.5N and 82.5S, due to the inclination of the orbit. Spencer and Christy calculate a gridded data product including higher latitudes, which they calculate by interpolation, artificially extending beyond the range of available data.

          The TLT algorithm is based on theoretical calculations, using a model of the microwave emission and adsorption at each pressure altitude added together from the surface to satellite altitude. Spencer and Christy have never publicly revealed the method they used to create their algorithm, which is rather curious, as the assumptions used may be critical. Some of the microwave energy in channel 2 comes from the Earth’s surface and the TLT computation adds more surface effects, thus the TLT is not a pure measure of temperature. As the MSU instruments are retired, newer AMSU instruments are replacing them and Spencer and Christy have created a different algorithm in order to include the AMSU data into the TLT. They claim that they are simulating the TLT from the MSU, again without specifying the method used to do so. They have continued this lack of transparency with the latest TLT (version 6), which Spencer briefly described on his blog, but which has not been published after peer review.

          The important point to remember from all of this is that the TMT is not useful for measuring climate change and the TLT is highly theoretical. In spite of being aware of these limits, Spencer and Christy have presented the TMT in testimony to Congress, showing a comparison between the TMT and the results of computer simulations, both globally and over the tropics. What they don’t mention is that to produce their graphic, they have simulated the orbital altitude TMT measurements from the GCM results (3), using CMIP5 data from the KNMI Climate Explorer website (4). The model results from KNMI are monthly averages and include only temperatures at 3 pressure levels, the surface, 500mb and 200mb pressure height, as I understand it. The method to translate those monthly values into simulated TMT results remains an unpublished mystery.

          Spencer and Christy’s claim (which you repeated ) that the satellite data does not exhibit as much warming as that from the surface is not surprising. The 13 satellites’ orbits take the instruments across each latitude at the same time of day with each orbit, the equator crossing times being nearly constant. The surface temperature record is usually an average of the temperature at a location, computed as an average of the daily low and high temperatures. This average will not be the same as the temperature measured at a fixed times of the day, say 10AM and 10PM, which the satellite might see over mid-latitudes. And, at the highest latitudes, each pass provides measurements half way between the equatorial crossing times, 3AM at one pole and 3PM at the opposite pole. At polar latitudes, the orbits overlap, giving multiple measurements during the day, which are summed into a grid box, while in mid latitudes, there are missed areas between the ground swaths, which exacerbates the lack of coverage in the TLT.
          ..
          In conclusion, I think these facts provide very good reasons to discount the “satellite temperature” data when assessing the climate change resulting from mankind’s activities adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I’m always amazed by all this fear of wealth redistribution.

      It is safe to say that none of us on this board are in the 0.1% with all the money and there may be the odd one in the 1%.

      With that being said, how is shifting some wealth down from the 0.1% to the low end of the middle class and poor inherently a bad thing? and how is it going to hurt the rest of us?

      The Conservatives and Harper lost more due to divisive and myopic doctrinarian attempts to shift the country to the right and its failed attempts to keep the left fighting itself.

      They won in the first place because the Canadian left was divided between the NDP and Liberals. Add the Bloc to that mix and the Conservative party won with their usually 30-40% of the vote. The Conservative party once again has been consigned to being the voice of the rural areas. That is no different than the electoral patterns seen in the USA.

      I’m not an expert on global warming but where I live in BC we had our first “permanent” snowfall last week. I don’t remember the last time I had a winter with -45C for weeks at a time. Mountain Pine beetle is wiping out massive tracts of forest because it hasn’t been cold enough early enough to kill them off. I see moose dying of tick infestations again because it isn’t cold enough to kill the pests.

      So please tell me again how this is a left wing conspiracy to redistribute wealth?

      • 0 avatar
        dash riprock

        And the Chretien Liberals won to a large extent because the right was split.

        The split in Canada that has been developing for the past few decades is between those who depend on the Government for their income(employees, benefit recipients, grant recipients etc, and those who work in private industries and contribute tax dollars.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          dash riprock – as we have seen here, the debate about global warming and its effects turns into a debate of left versus right politics. That unfortunately obfuscates any sound discussion upon the core topic.

          Is a ban on ICE vehicles the appropriate way to curb climate change?
          I’ll confine my comments to British Columbia. There are many in the lower mainland especially metro Vancouver that see motor-vehicles as a curse. The myopic knee jerk response by “them” is to ban ICE vehicles. Motor-vehicles are highly inefficient means of moving people around in dense urban areas. The hope is to funnel the semi-sentient Iphone clutching lemmings into mass transit and PEV Google pods.

          Motor-vehicles on average create 4.7 metric tonnes of CO2 per vehicle per year. It is pretty easy for politicians to single out vehicles as a target. Cars are convenient low hanging fruit.It isn’t as easy to go after heavy industry which pays the provinces bills.

          If we look at the Forest Industry roughly 10% of the province’s landmass is classified “NSR” Not Satisfactorily Restocked”. That is a quaint term for “not replanted’. Depending on who’s formulas you use each hectare of forested land sequesters 24 tonnes a hectare per year. 9.1 million hectares means 218.4 million tonnes of CO2 removed per year. Reforestation has a huge benefit to CO2 but also means the Forest Resource Sector has a better chance of sustainability.

          “Greens” want to save “old growth” wet coastal areas more on emotional reasons but the reality is that we should be logging those areas along with practicing intensive silviculture. We don’t build farms in deserts or swamps, we build on fertile ground. Forestry should be no different with the focus upon sustainable yield.

          Logic should be used not political screed. The left and right have valid ways of doing things and blending the best of both is a better way forward than what we currently do.

  • avatar
    Old_WRX

    Shouldn’t that be ZEVV? Zero Emission at the Vehicle Vehicles?

    The power is generated somewhere. The vehicles are manufactured somewhere…

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Yawn, yes.

      This one is in the green car FAQ. We thought of it.

      Turns out that, in a region with a coal heavy electric generation mix (say, Houston), the powerplant emissions for an EV are comparable to a Prius. In a region with a more favorable electric generation mix (say, the Pacific Northwest), the emissions are far better.

      The proportion of coal in the US electric generation mix (and hence emissons) have been falling steadily over the last few years, due to cheap natural gas.

      One important fact about EVs is that they’re agnostic about their fuel source – you can plug them into nuclear power one day and solar the next, without having to perform an engine swap. That’s important if you think there will be “economic restructuring” over the next decade or three.

      If you want an idea of what energy usage in the US looks like, you can see a chart here:
      https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

      This stuff is well known to anyone who’s actually studied the issues related to green transportation and green energy. Of course, some proponents of green energy are as poorly informed as some critics — which is why I bothered to explain what I meant, instead of just posting a snarky comment.

  • avatar
    NickS

    “may not have the legal authority”

    Mark, can you explain why not? Is it because they are all parts of a federation where that type of regulation is enacted?

    For California at least if they cannot outright ban ICE cars, what is there to prevent them from setting the emissions standards to some unattainable levels?

    Overall, my sense is that there will be even more changes coming down the pike. Eventually, even EVs will be reconciled against how much of their recharge is done during times when electricity is produced by coal and the like, or even on a percentage basis (while waiting for the smart grid to become reality).

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      NickS, the Clean Air Act specifically allows California to set different pollution standards for California. They probably have the authority to regulate vehicles registered in California, but I doubt that they could prohibit ICE cars legally registered in other states from driving on California roads. California also has the legal authority to set higher state excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. However, California voters have considerable power to accept or reject restrictions on ICE cars.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “For California at least if they cannot outright ban ICE cars, what is there to prevent them from setting the emissions standards to some unattainable levels?”

      Nothing can prevent them except reality. I recall a high bar set by CARB several years ago for ZEV sales which was eventually repealed because it wasn’t going to be met. Consumer behavior plays an important role.

      Just imagine what would happen if ICEs were banned in California while the rest of the country was paying $2.19 for gasoline.

  • avatar
    George B

    Might as well pledge to support flying cars powered by nuclear power. The ICE car still exists after 100 years because of gradual continuous improvement. Electric cars have always been chasing a moving target. When gasoline becomes significantly more expensive and batteries become cheaper, hybrids may become the dominant vehicle choice. However, the politicians of 2015 will have approximately zero effect on the type of drivetrain consumers in the interior of America choose in 2050.

    • 0 avatar
      jimbob457

      No one can resonably expect to anticipate the outcomes of closely competing technologies 35 years into the future. Mandating the existence of an as yet non-existent competing electric car is meant to make some people feel good. Nothing else.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        We can anticipate geology, though. 2040 is the conventional date predicated for global peak oil.

        If we don’t keep finding lots of new (and “recoverable”) oil, this change will happen without the politicians doing anything.

        In that light, this goal doesn’t look very ambitious at all, especially since they can just forget the whole think if nothing changes. The question is if a bunch of politicians have the forethought to set up an “I told you so” 35 years in advance…

        • 0 avatar
          jimbob457

          You make my point. Hubbert Curve analysis is bad enough since it assumes constant (or at least predictable) technology. Fracking, which already exists, makes mockery of the old Hubbert Curve approach.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            But the fact remains that there’s only so much oil.

            Every gallon that has been burned makes the remaining oil more scarce (because the stuff really is useful).

            Cracking has kicked the can down the road, but how far? 2040-2050 is as good a guess as any, I suppose.

            This seems a case of politicians setting up an “I told you so” moment, just in case.

          • 0 avatar
            jimbob457

            OMG. Luke42 is a real geology professor. Maybe he ought to study a little petroleum geology. He is not the first ‘geology professor’ to state that the world is running out of oil.

            As far as refuting my critique of the Hubbert Curve analysis is concerned, stick to what you think you know. Don’t consider the potential of fracking.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Putting aside the whole “peak oil” thing, which is really not something we need to get into, nonrenewable resources are by their definition running out. Gone in my lifetime? No. Gone in 100 years? Almost certainly not. But I wasn’t aware one had to be a professor to express the belief that we should lower the rate at which we deplete nonrenewable resources.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @jimbob457:

            How exactly does fracking make more hydrocarbons?

            It just makes a lot more of what’s already there recoverable. But it doesn’t make the issue of resource depletion go away. We will use it all, eventually.

            Fracking does kick the can down the road far enough that some of the older people on this board can safely dismis it in their lifetime, and I expect to be retired by vy the time this becomes a serious issue. But that doesn’t mean that the issue goes away. Its not like were making massive amounts of new oil.

            Plus, oil-driven technology is boring — its a solved problem with a finite future. New ways of doing things are much more interesting.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Peak oil crap is just that, crap.
          I would always hear the petroleum engineers at school mocking the idea of peak oil, it’s not a legitimate concern. The earth replenishes oil at a rate that is beyond what we use. Oil still bubbles out of the ground in places, and we are far from even finding all of the oil, let alone running out of what we do have. Government meddling, buying up land tracts that exist over large expanses of cheap to pump oil is a much bigger concern.

          I saw this post yesterday and thought it was a joke, I was sure that propaganda had died out after the last several peak oil dates passed by.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            > The earth replenishes oil at a rate that is beyond what we use.

            Not that I automatically disbelievey you, but I’d always heard the opposite, being that petroleum is historically classified as “nonrenewable.” So what source is this from?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            After getting my BS in ME at NCSU, I went to A&M for petro, so my schooling would be my source, though I suppose I could go into the shop and look through my textbooks for a hard source.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            OK, thanks.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            It still is non-renewable in the sense that I can’t just go anywhere and get it, and that no act of man can make a well refill any quicker, they will slowly refill but it’s not worth leaving equipment on site and pumping at the reduced rate when another site can run full open. There’s other technical reasons why it is non-renewable but honestly my job sent me back to school to get the petro degree and once I had it I continued using my mechanical, I haven’t really done any petro specific work. It’s great for negotiating salary however…

          • 0 avatar
            jimbob457

            The whole peak oil issue is pretty much B.S because it ignores technological progress in the mining industry. Fracking is a simple counter example.

            The production experience of the Ghawar oil dield is another. It produced about 4-5 million bbl/day for 50 years. Estimated reoverable reserves (given technological advances) are about the same as 40 years ago.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      “The ICE car still exists after 100 years because of gradual continuous improvement”

      The ICE car is relevant because our entire country has grown around its capabilities, range and (relatively) low operating costs.

      EV’s have a tough time competing with ICE’s, which is why their adoption will need incentives (at first) to convince “fence-sitters” to move to them.

      But, EV’s won’t be a panacea; but part of an overall mindset aimed at efficiency in all things.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    The people pushing this will be voted out of office soon.

  • avatar
    raph

    Score! I should be able to bank nicely on my gross polluting Shelby! A well heeled and completely drunk guy at Barrett-Jackson should compensate me nicely.

  • avatar
    mikey

    Raph…….I had that same plan with a 2SS Camaro … Then I figured I would be about 90 before it paid off .

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Now I know where not to move to.

    Check out this list. The states mentioned above have the lowest per-capita energy consumption in the US, ranking 39-50th:

    http://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/

  • avatar
    "scarey"

    Just a reminder that politicians would be better off dead…er I mean WE would be better off with them dead.
    And the way they are going, they will be the first victims of the civil war that they are practically begging for.

  • avatar
    Joss

    Remember those old vinyl roofs? If only similar or car paint could be made to work like a solar cell capturing the suns rays…

    I still think Gattaca holds some clues a kind of 3d nostalgia print on a standard eclectric platform.

  • avatar
    PentastarPride

    There ought to be a law. If you as a lawmaker are involved in outlawing in any way, shape or form, internal combustion engines, you have one chance to rescind your involvement. If you choose to persist and wish to retain your seat as a lawmaker, your penalties are as follows: you shall not legally operate any motor vehicle nor be a passenger of one. This includes planes, trains, electric vehicles, watercraft, even ambulances. You must only walk or bike.

    Then, you shall notify your gas and electric utilities to disconnect your service. Dispose of any appliance or electronics, this includes your phone and laptop. Cut your credit and debit cards, modern commerce requires fossil fuels. Turn your house over to the bank, it required fossil fuels and natural resources to build. When you go to work, work outside. Government buidings are the epitome of waste. Oh, pick up on the art of hunting and subsistence. You cannot obtain your food like a normal, functional individual can: buying it in a supermarket. You have to get it the natural way.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    2050?

    I’m supposed to be concerned about what kind of motor/engine thingies are in cars after I’m dead?

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      You have kids and grandkids?

      Their problem.

      Also my problem — I’ll be in my 60s.

      • 0 avatar
        RideHeight

        “You have kids and grandkids?”

        I was born just late enough in Western history that I could enjoy a robust hetero lifestyle (see how I worked “bust” into that?) and never cause a birth!

        I am fervently grateful for birth control. Too bad so many others have squandered this most significant of social equalizers.

        So, no.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    I love the ‘YOU’LL TAKE ICE FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!’ talk. Hey, old screws, by 2050 most of you will be pushing 70-80, you’ll be lucky to be a functional driver. Hell, by 2050, I’ll be 66. That’s a surprisingly long time from now and given our efficiency and probability that self-driving will be dominant it won’t even be noticed.

    As for your ‘facts’ let me lay some skin on you…

    No, Fossil fuels aren’t a necessity for human survival. Between solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear we could stop using fossil fuels tomorrow. In fact, as it stands, coal is dying a slow death everywhere but China and that’s a problem it is pretty well established that there is no requirement for us to use them.

    Politicians set goals longer than their terms of service because they have to. That’s how society works, if we set goals only till the next election we wouldn’t get much done. Never mind you’re confusing a vast majority of the bureaucracy with individual politicians. The bureaucracy will be there to keep plugging away promoting and changing, the faces change, the program remains the same.

    ICE has been an awesome tool, it’s also seeing the end of its practical use. By 2050 it will most likely be largely phased out simply because batteries are improving at a fast enough rate and the concept of ‘quick swapping’ building that we’ll likely see a developed system when the time comes, especially if self-driving cars get approval.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      We don’t have enough electricity as it is, without electric cars. The real problem is a general lack of new power plants that local monopolies refused to invest in because that would cut down on their profits too much. If the politicians want electric vehicles to take over, they have to do something about that first.

      Also, good luck making a battery powered aircraft.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        You probably don’t live on a college campus, which is totally messing with your sense of reality.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Funny, we have adaquate electric power generation where I live.

        I live in a blue state, but not California.

        Batteries don’t seem to be a great match for aircraft just yet. There are several LSA-sized prototypes flying, though. Here’s an example:
        https://youtu.be/WiADDbeFanU
        They’re marketing it as a landing trainer, but the airframe was initially designed for a Rotax engine so there may be a lot more they can do with a dedicated design.

        I’d rather run drive to the airport on smooth electric power and save the gasoline and the NVH for flying. (I’m a private pilot.)

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          So you personally pollute more than average Americans, but you want to force your sense of what is right for everyone else upon them. Self awareness would be the end of you.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Funny how that works.

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

            http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            How much a person pollutes can always be independent of their desire to pollute less, as well as their belief that humanity in general should pollute less.

            I burn non-recyclable, non-reusable and non-compostable waste, but that doesn’t mean my support for better waste management is in any way hypocritical.

            You’re swerving dangerously into ad hominem territory.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Generally speaking, if someone desires to pollute less than maybe their hobbies or lifestyle should reflect it. Not knocking any one person here in particular, but the so called greens like Gore have been exposed as hypocrites in the past. Someone wants to believe in something they need to own it no matter who they are or what their stripe may be. I think some of the “green” tech is cool but I’m not about to alter my lifestyle to accommodate it.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            That’s perfectly fair and reasonable. I’m just always sick of people who point to the do-as-I-say,-not-as-I-do nature of politics as a reason to deny anything needs to be done, or even that anything is happening in terms of climatic shifts.

            (Also, I wasn’t necessarily replying to your links, but ended up doing so anyway. The reply buttons here are always so confusing.)

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            28: “Someone wants to believe in something they need to own it no matter who they are or what their stripe may be”.

            So, politicians that promote invading a country with US troops should offer up themselves (or their children or grandchildren) for military service?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @DrZ

            Ah. I’m glad we found common ground in reason. If folks like Gore actually started living what they preached, at the very least I would respect their convictions.

            @shaker

            Correct, but its not as if anyone holds politicriminals accountable for anything.

            Incidentally on the subject of offering up troops:

            http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/10/56179/millennials-want-to-send-troops-to-fight-isis-but/

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Wow, drew some pretty ludicrous ire….

            So, lets start:

            1.) We’re easily making our power demands, in fact in Texas the value of energy dipped negative for a time because so much wind power has come on line. It’s not perfect and I agree that we need to expand our plants but don’t pretend there isn’t plenty of electric power on line in the US.

            2.) What does it matter about electric aircraft? Ideally we would use a a mixture of high-speed bullet trains to cut down on air traffic & use petrol for extended flights which would make a huge impact on pollution.

            3.) CJ, who cares? Seriously, ad hominems make no impact on my existence and I simply laugh at your anti-intellectualism.

            4.) 28, just because Gore explains that we need to consume less and he’s not consuming sufficiently less is an ad hominem. It doesn’t dilute his position, it doesn’t even make him hypocritical since people with similar lifestyles pollute significantly more.

            The point is that it has to be regulated for all not for individuals to make these moral arguments. It’s a clear and logical position to sacrifice some comfort to create a better tomorrow…or a tomorrow at all.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            People with similar lifestyles to Al Gore pollute more than he does is your argument and you call me anti-intellectual. Thank you for a very good laugh.

            Al’s lifestyle will be hindered by what exactly? More expensive engines for his jet? Granny will freeze to death in the winter. We all need to make sacrifices!

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            It’s “anti-intellectual” because you’re attacking Al Gore the person, not the argument that Al Gore is making. Do you have a valid complaint against the science?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “It doesn’t dilute his position, it doesn’t even make him hypocritical since people with similar lifestyles pollute significantly more”

            Ah, but it does. I realize he wants to live the life of a retired vice president and elder statesman, but living like the 0.1% while advocating us to all use less is a bit “do as I say and not as I do”. If you really want to convince people of your position, you have to lead by example. He knows this, he just doesn’t care.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/06/29/is-al-gore-a-fossil-fuel-industry-mole/

            Here’s an old article on Gore’s home in TN:

            “The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.”

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gore-defeds-mansions-power-consumption/

            In 2006, Gore’s mansion used more electricity per month than the avg TN home did in a year.

            191000kw / 12 = 15916kw per mo.

            I realize he has a wife, staff, and servants but that’s quite a bit of consumption at the time. Does he buy his own press, does he figure well its for the greater good, or again he just doesn’t care? I’m going with number three. Manbearpig can only be tamed by what the masses do not what *I* do. Even if he is completely right, I won’t subscribe to a hypocrite.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Exactly. I feel like Al Gore is one of the worst ambassadors/the worst thing that happened to the moderate environmental movement because his lifestyle leads people to deny the science.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Does Al Gore really pollute less than people with similar lifestyles? He has at least four large estates across the country and his lifestyle isn’t in line with what he preaches. His arguments may be valid, but his behaviors certainly show that he doesn’t care about what his personal actions do to the environment. Dude gets royalties from a Zinc mine on one of his properties that has been cited multiple times for polluting a nearby river. He’s Dick Cheney wrapped in a green blanket.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @bball

            I read in an Al Gore piece the mine was sold in 2003, but otherwise yes.

            @DrZ

            I’m trying to post something and it keeps not accepting it. I will try again.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @DrZ

            I think its a good idea to get people to think strategically about their electrical “fleet” and about their consumption in general. People really need to start thinking TCO with both lifespan and usage. The heavily consumerist culture we live in which intentionally produces many throwaway electronic items truly upsets me, and I am in no way a “greenie”. My goal is either long life use or reuse of discarded items at a low price point. My examples in this case are my 1997 US assembled 27in Magnavox CRT TV and my DIY surround sound system at home:

            I purchased the TV used in 2003 for $100 and until 2010 it served as my primary television. In 2010 I purchased a flat panel Sharp and added it to the bedroom, which is now where I watch most television. The Magnavox sat mostly disused for about three years until I ran composite cables to it from my PS2/3 setup where I use it to occasionally stream Netflix and watch live on air broadcasting (football) via an antenna (until recently had cable but dropped it).

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            He still owns the property, but yes, you are right, the mine was closed in 2003, reopened, and then closed again.

            And I think that I am more cautious about my energy usage than Al Gore. My 1940s bungalow isn’t LEED certified, but LEED can kiss my a$$. My energy bills are super low (in many ways do to improvements I have made), I only go through 1-2 bags of garbage a week, recycle as much as possible, and drive a hybrid. I do own two other homes and have jet skis and a power boat. Jet Skis are awesome though…

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            See how this argument goes though? You’ve all spent several comments discussing Gore the man. I could care less if he personally rolls coal like a douche. His message is accurate and deserves a response. I mean we can hold up Ed Begely Jr. if you prefer. If your best argument is ‘well they don’t do it!’ it’s a lost cause. You basically want to say because they don’t follow their own orders that we shouldn’t either?

            So you’re basic argument is you want to cut your nose off to spite your face. Because that proves what? Never mind that with the major advances in solar, wind, and nuclear power we could change our lifestyles to get off carbon emissions with MINIMAL impact to our actual lifestyle. Remember how people hoarded incandescent light bulbs like nut jobs? The world kept spinning on its axis.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Let’s build more nuclear, wind, and solar power plants. I’m all for that. If I were elected president, one of the first things I would do is demand 50-100 brand new nuclear power plants be built.

            When it comes to Al Gore, or any other high profile person advocating something, I think it’s important to look at their behaviors. You can call it an ad hominem attack if you want, but I don’t care what side of the aisle someone is on. If a GOP Senator’s daughter has an unplanned pregnancy the summer before she attends college, what are they going to do? My Democratic Senator that loves public school teachers so much doesn’t send his kids to public school. Would Ted Cruz want his son to join the Army? We can all talk, but what happens when it’s our money or family?

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            I think presuming that politicians are average people is a patently false ideal. I’m not saying you can’t feel offended by it, but it’s like getting upset at water for being wet. You need money, connections, and an ideal to get into any office of relevancy. So liking Public Schools but sending your kids to an elite prep school is less about saying ‘Public Schools are awful’ but rather about how this elite prep school is about building relationships.

            So on and so forth….But it is an ad hominem attack to completely disregard their argument simply because they don’t necessarily follow it. I’m pro-choice person and I have no real decision since I’m a man. Thus I’m not necessarily going to ever make that decision but I can offer a full slew of reasons WHY I support the pro-choice position.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I kinda forgot about this thread but to quote a Homer…

            “You basically want to say because they don’t follow their own orders that we shouldn’t either?”

            MARGE: Homer, did you tell the mafia they could eliminate my competitors with savage beatings and attempted murder?
            HOMER: In those words? . . . Yes.

            Should we look at some cool new energy tech and try not to shat on nature?

            You bet.

            Should we invest some energy and money into it?

            Sure.

            Should we turn AGW into a near religion as has
            been done?

            Nope

            Should we take everything which is said with a reasonable dose of skepticism?

            You betcha.

            Should we hold people to the same principles they espouse?

            Gimme a Y and an E and a big S

            Pauper or president nobody is above the law and no man is above his own principles.

            Peace

  • avatar
    50merc

    [We’re] headed for a land that’s far away
    Beside the crystal fountains
    So come with [us], we’ll go and see
    The Big Rock Candy Mountains.

    In the Big Rock Candy Mountains,
    There’s a land that’s fair and bright,
    Where the handouts grow on bushes
    And you sleep out every night.

    The farmers’ trees are full of fruit
    And the barns are full of hay
    Oh I’m bound to go
    Where there ain’t no snow
    Where the rain don’t fall
    The winds don’t blow
    In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

  • avatar
    zip89105

    Good luck with your farms & ranches EU.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    Meh, 30 years ago they predicted I’d have a fusion powered flying time machine. 30 years is a long time.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    This is utterly, utterly stupid. Infrastructure, not the vehicles themselves is the biggest issue. Unless electricity stations are as ubiquitous as gas stations, NOTHING will happen. Also what happens if an electric car dies? With a gas car, you can walk to a gas station and bring back a few gallons.

    Secondly, the cars themselves are flawed. Inherently in terms of cold weather and rough terrain operation, and technologically in that it takes HOURS to refuel where gassing up takes 10 MINUTES. Not to mention the range issue, although that one may be solved.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      You have electrical service in your house, right?

      Electricity stations are already ubiquitous.

      EVs charge faster off of a bigger plug, and you can have one installed at your house for a fee.

      That covers an awful lot of commuter driving. Save the gas for road trips, and for people who don’t own their own homes.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Gas Stations convert into supercharging stations/battery swapping stations.

      We’ll modify our lifestyle to simply learn to plug in every time we stop rather than walking away from our car. It’s all fairly simple to adjust, hell if you’re that annoyed there could be a 5K option to get a .5L motor for extended services to maintain energy…

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “This is utterly, utterly stupid. Infrastructure, not the vehicles themselves, is the biggest issue. Unless gas stations are as ubiquitous as stables, NOTHING will happen. Also what happens if a motorcar runs out of gas? With a horse, you can stop at the side of the road for a while and let it graze.

      Secondly, the motorcars themselves are flawed. Inherently in terms of cold weather and rough terrain operation, and technologically in that it takes HOURS to refuel and maintain where switching to a fresh horse takes 5 MINUTES. Not to mention the range issue, although that one may be solved.”

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        Hey, don’t knock horses. Upon first arriving in Afghanistan in the early 2000s, US Special Forces used them to go places and do things motor vehicles simply couldn’t.

        The people who worship at the alter of Tesla forget that most of us are not liberal beta-male drones neutered by their tight pants who live in overpriced but tiny places and whose only function in life to to commute to work in silicon valley.

        To me, a car is freedom. I like to take ski trips, cross-country trips, drive on rough roads, etc all the spur of the moment. I don’t want to worry about having to plug in a car for HOURS.

        Now, if electric cars progress to the point where they have overcome all of the points I outlined. Say they charge up in 10 min, have ubiquitous charging stations, have at least 300mi of range, have off road ability and are immune to the cold, then I suppose I wouldn’t have anything against them, but until that point they are simply toys and novelties and I have no desire to be a first adopter.

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      OMG does this mean you might actually have to recharge your EV overnight, and give up your inalienable right to drive down to Quik-E-Mart at 3am and get Doritos and Twinkies?! The horror!

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        No. It gives up my right to drive 40 minutes to my parents house, or a hospital near their house, at 11 pm because my mom fell or my dad had a heart attack. Not everything is about being a fat American 24/7.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    I think its inevitable economically speaking.

    Tesla do a 200 mile car now? For $85k?

    Whos’ to say that by 2050 there wont be a 400 mile car for $40k?

    I think the majors ie. Ford GM the Germans, Japanese will be dragged kicking and screaming into a PHEV future.

    There will be limited amounts of commerical vehciles with diesel or whatever but I see a 99% PHEV future for us.

    I dont even think they need to ban anything… commerical reality will make it so.

    I love to see the Americans here who are so in the thrall of big oil that they cant see this.

    God knows I love V8s, I love high performance cars but I reckon people like me will be the marginalised in the future.

    I am reminded by the comic strip that has these people state “why should we make a better world for our kids for nothing?”.

    Our kids deserve the same level of air pollution, greenhouse gases, smog and obedience to the Arab countries as we do. Eternal war for generations, thats what our kids need.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      If you like V8s, you won’t be disappointed by an EV. Loads of wonderful, smooth, and silent torque. Faster charging is on the way and I’ve seen batteries moving into a pilot production phase that the manufacturer claims 5 times current density. The battery degradation issues are improving with some manufacturers as well. I’ve put 24k miles on a battery that so far is showing no degradation despite a quick charge count in the triple digits. I think we’ll probably see a 500 mile range car for $35k by 2025.

      BTW, if you want to see the latest battery price drop first hand, go to Walmart. Check out the latest prices on lithium backup/powerbank batteries. Huge price drops.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    So far unquestioned in this thread (I think) is whether the US will have a road & bridges infrastructure by 2050 to support even today’s volume and ubiquity of vehicular traffic regardless of the propulsion methods employed.

    The US has been steered into creating and supporting an ever growing underclass. That’s pretty prohibitive of maintaining anything else except prisons and police forces.

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    Enjoy this time, “Before the Motor Law”.

  • avatar
    turf3

    How come I have been listening to the “climate change” debate for years now, and I have never yet heard the obvious:

    There are too many people on the planet.

    7 billion and still growing; no one on the entire planet seems to have the political will to address it (unlike in the 1960s); people faced with the choice between deforesting the remaining forests or starving, will cut the trees. People faced with the choice between burning coal for cooking and heat, or starving or freezing, will burn coal.

    When will anyone in public life ever address the obvious?

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    “It will be actual policy in a decade.”

    Then I must take umbrage!

    I’ll see if my Target pharmacy has some.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    The grandiose claims of triumph in Paris represent the self-interest of a political elite that wants more control over the private economy in the U.S. and around the world. These are the last people who will save the planet.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-climate-of-conformity-1450048095?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Meanwhile, outside of the faculty lounge:

    India is opening a mine a month as it races to double coal output by 2020, putting the world’s third-largest polluter at the forefront of a pan-Asian dash to burn more of the dirty fossil fuel that environmentalists fear will upend international efforts to contain global warming.

    Close to 200 nations are set to meet at a United Nations summit from Nov. 30-Dec. 11 to hammer out a deal to slow man-made climate change by weaning countries off fossil fuels.

    China has promised to restrict public funding for coal and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is trumpeting investment in renewable energy, but in Asia’s biggest economies the reality is that coal is still regarded as the easiest source of energy.

    “Environment is non-negotiable but we can’t live without coal. You can’t wish away coal,” said Anil Swarup, the top official in India’s coal ministry, who is leading the push to open new mines like Magadh, in poor but resource-rich Jharkhand state.

    “There is a temporary drop in demand, but no question of reducing coal output. We are well short of coal required in the country.”

    ASIA KEEPS DIGGING

    China, India and Indonesia now burn 71 percent of the world’s newly mined coal according to the World Coal Association, with new European and North American consumption negligible as their countries turn to cleaner energy.

    Other Asian nations are increasingly looking to coal to power their economies too, with Pakistan, the Philippines and Vietnam opening new plants, pushing the Asia/Pacific region to 80 percent of new coal plants.

    “Coal is still the most cost competitive power generation fuel, and in the end that’s what matters most for emerging markets,” said Frederic Neumann, Co-Head Of Asian Economic Research at HSBC in Hong Kong.

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs/metals-mining/india-aims-to-start-asias-biggest-coal-mine-in-five-years/articleshow/49235473.cms

  • avatar
    thelaine

    No amount of blsht will change the reality of unrestricted hydrocarbon use, global warming or not. There are too many poor people in the world.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: I was shocked to see an SSR in the wild the other day. The Hummer EV will do better, but I wouldn’t...
  • SCE to AUX: Yeah, I’ll bet the engineers didn’t think of that. Have you seen the armor plate under the...
  • CaddyDaddy: Ya, but when Dalton got to Missouri and the Roadhouse, the Riv was the one to go with for the Dirty Work.
  • Corey Lewis: You do British condescension so well!
  • Old_WRX: If they don’t offer that interior in magenta crushed velour fabric it would be such a shame.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber