Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
That doesn't mean what you think it means:
"For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the real-world CO2 emissions were on average 3.5 times higher than the laboratory values, which confirms that these vehicles are currently not realising their potential, largely because they are not being charged and driven fully electrically as frequently as assumed."
This is mostly an infrastructure issue. If these cars had readily available charging points, that wouldn't be the case.
This is mostly an infrastructure issue.
The Netherlands used to have loads of plug in hybrids. There were more than enough charging points. Most of those hybrids were owned by people where the company would pay to fill them up.
People were lazy and preferred filling them up with gas, most never used anything other than gas. That resulted in the government charging the tax benefit for hybrids.
The Netherlands has a huge amount of chargers. In e.g. Rotterdam there's at least a charging point every 50 meters.
It isn't an infrastructure issue.
I can't understand that logic: if I can charge for free at work and can charge at home for less than the cost of gas, why on earth would I ever want to use gas?
It's the other way around. Companies in the Netherlands lease cars for their employees here in the Netherlands. Usually for people that travel a lot with for their job or just as a bonus perk that comes with the job instead of salary. And the boss pays for all the gas and maintenance as well.
So either take the effort to charge, or even charge at home and get refunded the electricity costs. Or just fill it up with free gas which only takes a minute. Guess which happens the most?
The only time I saw some of those oversized and really popular Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV use a charge cable was if they wanted to take a good parking spot...
Well, that is both parts awful and makes sense.
One thing though that is often mentioned against charging points infrastructure is that today can only be used by upper-middle class families, while everyone else can't benefit from it.
So adding an additional line of buses and closing car lanes (at rush hour) to dedicate to them can be cheaper (considering impact per person), lower emissions and be accessible to everyone, but it needs to be treated not as welfare but as a competitive service. (IMO)
If I can vote for someone who will actively attempt to improve the working class why would I vote for a party whose only idea in 40 years is culture war?
I'm confused, was this for me?
I have a plug in Pacifica I use a tank of gas maybe once a month and drive around 1000 miles a month so more than half my driving is full electric. Only time I'm using gas is for heat on really cold days and long trips. All driving around the city is electric.
Ok, but if charging port infrastructure is the issue, then if you solve that, you don't need hybrids at all, just electric vehicles. So hyrids are still not the answer and need to be phased out. So it's still a hybrid issue.
It's not though. Plug in hybrids address two issues that plague electric vehicles: range anxiety and limited supply of lithium for batteries.
You can make 7 plugin hybrids for 1 fully electric vehicle. Solve for charging infrastructure, and this is still a problem to be solved.
"range anxiety". You're literally adding "well Joe schmo might not be able to drive 300+ miles and that makes him nervous" as a reason not to fight emissions lmfao.
The average driver doesn't need a hybrid. They want one because they are lazy and will mostly still fill them with gas, as this article showed.
When the average car price is greater than $48,000 in the US now, one doesn't have the luxury of choosing something for eco aspirations. Many US states are huge sprawling affairs, and many people have to drive large distances with frequency for work, life, errands.
Example: I can't even make it to my state's border in the longest-range currently-available electric car, and would end up in the middle of nowhere with no services, no charging stations, no infrastructure. In winter, it would be half that distance or less.
I am also probably the perfect demographic for a plug-in hybrid, and could utilize the plug-in aspect for shorter trips frequently. However, there's no reason to replace a perfectly functional vehicle in good mechanical shape with an expensive fiscal debt as well as the carbon debt that new vehicle would also create.
If one does not understand the scale and size of places, one can't comprehend how range anxiety (more like range reality) truly fits in.
However, if America was truly forward-thinking, they'd nationalize the railroads and put a focus on rebuilding the old rail infrastructure that existed over a century ago to entirely eliminate the necessity of long-distance personal vehicles.
Bro, I love in the middle of nowhere. My boss drives 2 hours a day to get to our work. So do a handful of other people with all electric vehicles.
It's an emotional response, not a logical one.
Try figuring out to drive 120 miles vs 700. Try an 8 hour drive-day. Try being in a situation when your family has a problem and you have 1,700 miles to drive. Do you spend almost fifty grand on an electric car and plotting charge points that may or may not exist, or a vehicle that can let you cross multiple states without stopping? I hate gas. I would love a Toyota Mirai. Leaving home to get one US state over is a larger distance than the entire width of Germany. It's a reality response, not emotional.
No? The main reason I would consider taking a car over bike or bus is if I am going long travel with family or have multiple passengers. Either way if a car can't be of use when I need it the most then it's pointless to me. Might change if the tech and infra improves here but for another few years it is not even an option for me.
So you need a gas car for that one time you might drive 300+ miles. The multiple people part is bullshit since we're comparing hybrids to full EVs, not hybrids to a bicycle.
So, the one time you might need to drive really far, instead of taking a train, you want to own an hybrid 24/7.
Perfectly proving my point that it's not a logical argument, it's an emotional one.
Yeah?? Don't assume things about others. My mom and grandma has serious motion sickness and we have to stop multiple times and take rest when they are with us. If a car that I paid a heavy price for doesn't satisfy my need then I don't buy it.
It means exactly what I think it means. The reported emissions are way off those that are actually achieved in real life.
If we assume your assertion is actually correct (the study says nothing about the availability of charging infrastructure), how much do we need to build? And are we sure that once it is built, people will actually use it? Would it not be better to instead invest in infrastructure for other modes of transport that don't involve 2 tons of vehicle to transport one person?
Better car:
Completely off-topic - was scrolling past on Kbin and the image for the thumbnail reminded me of this stupid meme from years back
