Ah, you're just saying that you're racist. Got it.

And? All Americans are murderers because: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F... ? Where are the demonstrations? Where are the protests?

Mind you, in Russia an anti-war protest right now leads to 15 years behind bars.

Good job, comrade!

So, not a permanent Federal employment with its guarantees? But perfect for bribery and grift. Why this doesn't surprise me?

OK. But what about removing parts that are meant for private cars? I'm willing to subsidize the oil infrastructure for the things I use, after all.

The average large EV fuel economy is 4 _miles_ per kWh, but your math is correct. Except that you're comparing a large-ish SUV (Model Y) and the tiniest, most sluggish Camry. Model 3 RWD short range is 5 miles per kWh. Fuel price is also very volatile, and it's pushed down by the very EVs that benefit from its increase.

More importantly, the vehicle price itself is a big part of the savings. The US does NOT produce cheap EVs, but China does. E.g. Leapmotor A10 CUV is priced at $15k for the base model: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmoparinsiders.com%2Fleap... Sure, it would be more expensive if produced in the US with the stronger safety standards and more expensive labor, but even at $25k it would blow any competition out of the water. The closest ICE car is something like Chevy Trax at $23k that has the 30mpg fuel economy. And EVs will get even cheaper as the battery R&D and capital expenses get paid back, ICE cars will not.

So yep. ICE cars are dead. The US just hasn't realized it yet.

I drive an EV. Why should I subsidize your gas car with oil industry tax incentives?

Also, it's a false dichotomy. Apartment buildings can install metered chargers and pay for them through user fees. At 2 cent per kWh surcharge, they'll pay themselves back in about 7-10 years.

Come on. My brother works in Russia and Kazakhstan on agricultural software, so he knows the industry. Plenty of people working in that area are using drones and are re-importing them through Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. And all the schemes are completely transparent, there's no way European and American companies can't know that there's no legitimate way for Kyrgyzstan companies to suddenly increase the amount of purchased components by 10x-100x.

And this is not the only scheme. For example, German gas turbines are exported to Kazakhstan with transit through Russia. And they just get "lost" along the way. Darndest thing, these Russian roads. It's so easy for trucks to disappear completely. Every time.

Of course, European and American companies can never stop all the smuggling. But we can't pretend that companies are actually even trying to do something.

That hasn't been true for the last 15 years.

"Eliminating that incredible poison, toxic in every stage of its extraction, use, and disposal, to the extent feasible is an obvious priority"

My point, which none of the replies address, is: who is it a priority for? Only for the countries that are doing about 5% of global emissions. Whether we believe there is a climate crisis or not, 95% of the world doesn't, and are acting accordingly.

What people in the English speaking countries need to recognize is that the world is not going to lower emissions. This is not about whether we believe, whether I personally believe, whether there really is a crisis or not.

Its about the simple fact that in 40 years of trying the advocates of the reality of a crisis have failed to persuade the world of their point of view. So any sensible policy has to accept this, and has to accept that global action is not happening and is not going to happen.

This is reality, and its the only sensible starting point for policy discussions. The world in which policy is formulated and implemented will be one in which only supplies of fossil fuel are the limiting factor for global emissions.

Accept this, because its reality. Then figure out whether in such a world your national policies make any sense, what effects if any they will have. The answer will mostly be that they do nothing at all.

For example, the UK is supposedly moving to net zero in power generation, and is also supposedly moving to ban the sale of all except EVs in 2030. The question to ask is: what difference will that make to the world and global emissions in a world in which 95% of the emissions are done by countries who don't care one way or the other and have no intention of reducing their emissions?

The answer is, it will make no difference whatever. Same goes by the way for the US, which has now opted out anyway. No presently proposed policies in the English speaking countries will make the slightest contribution to lowering global emissions. This is the way the world is, whether we like it or not.

Now the question is, why do you still want to do these things? This is the important, hard and inconvenient question. Its analogous to the question about antibiotics. Refusing to treat your child with them will make no difference to global antibiotic resistance. Accept that, because its the truth. Now, why do you still want to refuse?

Time for Slashdot to wake up. Along with the Copernicus Climate Change Service.

Rightly or wrongly the vast majority of the world's nations don't believe in any kind of climate crisis. They don't believe there is any 'accelerating rate of climate change'. They don't believe anything much is going on. This includes the ones whose emissions are greatest and fastest growing. And even within the nations whose political leadership does still claim to believe in it, their populations increasingly do not.

Then you have to look at the measures proposed by those of the activist persuasion. They mostly boil down to electrify every use of energy, and get your electricity from wind and solar. Its not happening, and its not going to happen, at least not on any scale that will make any material difference to emissions. Even if you could convert generation to wind and solar, which you can't because of intermittency, that would only reduce 20% of so of emissions. Trying to electrify everything at the same time is just going to produce blackouts and rising prices, and no non-democratic country is going to try it, because they are terrified of the resulting unrest. And because they think its pointless. As for the democracies, any government trying it will just be voted out of office for a generation when the results become clear.

For a case history of how this will play out everywhere its tried, look at the UK.

What do you do about the UN if you are one of the biggest and fastest growing emitters? You send delegations to the climate conferences with a simple set of instructions: to prevent any significant and binding agreements on emission reduction. In which they have succeeded ever since Paris, and they aren't going to stop now.

My suggestion to Slashdot editors is that its time to wake up. First, there is no crisis. But second, even if there were one, there is no program to do anything about it, and there is not going to be. This last is just a fact about the way the world is. You may not like it, but there is no sense denying the undeniable. Its similar to proposing to cut teenage pregnancies by promoting celibacy while leaving current social mores unchanged. Its not going to happen. You may not like it, but if you really want to cut teenage pregnancies, you have to start from the way the world is, not from how you may wish it was.

If you really want to safeguard your population against the supposed climate crisis, do something that is achievable and effective if achieved. Moving your country to wind and solar is not going to work, and if it did would make little or no difference. And stop endlessly lamenting how we are all doomed from emissions with the implication that if we save a few million tons it will make a difference. It won't. Instead figure out what the real danger to our population is, and what is cost effective to do about it.

Meanwhile, studies that were quoted by grifters in the first true post-truth trial of Monsanto causing cancer were all ghostwritten by greenie hippies.

It's also not like it's the _only_ study of glyphosate safety. There have been 13 reliable mouse studies since 1984 ( https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fa... ), that found no effect on mice in any reasonable concentration. But now the anti-glyphosate grifters are going to glomp onto this study and pretend that nothing else exists.

Surfactants. And you can buy pure glyphosate, actually. It's just not very convenient because it's an oily liquid that doesn't mix well with water.

No, it's not. The exported BYD cars do not get any unusual subsidies. Their initial R&D was subsidized, but not the production.

Global Net Zero is dead. You can tell this by looking at COP and at the policies of the largest and fastest growing emitters. None have any intention of reducing emissions, in fact their universal policy is simple, and consists of two elements:

1) Grow your economy as fast as possible and let emissions go where they may.

2) Attend COP and make sure it never agrees anything binding to do with reducing emissions or fossil fuel use.

Anyone who doubts this just has to look at the record, both of their conduct at COP and at what they are building themselves.

This means that what the English speaking countries do about energy is a matter of energy policy. Its not a matter of climate policy. You cannot have a climate policy when you collectively do about 20% and falling of global emissions, when the 80% are as a matter of policy growing as fast as unrestrained economic growth leads to. Nothing you do in the name of climate has any effect on it. This will greatly upset many people here. But just look up the numbers. What is China, what is India, building in coal fired power plants? How large are their plans in relation to the total power generation from fossil fuels in the English speaking countries? There is your answer. You may not like it, but its a fact.

So you have to look at Australia's situation (and that of the UK, Canada, US) in a different way and ask a different question. That is, are their Net Zero plans a feasible and sensible energy policy in the world as it is? The answer is becoming clear, and its pretty obviously negative. The UK is probably the canary in the coal mine on this. All it has managed to do, at great expense, is try to convert its electricity generation to wind and solar. Leaving untouched all the other sources of emissions. And the result of this has been to raise electricity prices and lower security of supply. Meanwhile it has also tried to close down domestic (North Sea) oil and gas production, and the result of this has not been to reduce demand but has been to increase dependence on imports.

The reason for this is just physics: its intermittency. The problem is the same everywhere in the world, but its most clearly documented on a daily basis for the UK, here:

www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind

There is no way to use such an unreliable supply to power a modern industrial society and economy. You have to get through periods of a week or more, in the coldest part of winter, where peak demand is around 45GW and actual wind output from 30GW installed plant is under 5GW for the whole period and under 1GW for several days within that period. There is no way of managing this.

This of course will not stop the current UK energy minister, Ed Miliband, from keeping on trying it, but the result will be blackouts. It will not stop New York State from keeping on trying it, but its not going to happen. The recent court case in New York shows the same thing - people in charge of policy having committed themselves in law to the impossible can see where its going, namely blackouts, and are frantically looking for the exit.

The best thing that could happen to Australia would be if it too would admit both the impossibility and the futility of Net Zero, make a realistic assessment of what risks global warming really poses to its citizens and society, and take measures to allieviate the worst effects. Which will not include reducing emissions.

At the moment the Western countries who remain committed to Net Zero because climate are like someone who refuses antibiotics for their child on the grounds that there is a global problem with antibiotic resistance. There may be. But you are not going to affect that one way or the other by depriving your child of life saving medication today.