Climate Challenges and Threats

Despite many claims that EVs have a dirty secret in that they are not really green at all, the real secret is how long it takes for the green payback. The claims are based on two realities: 1) the driving of EVs still results in emissions when EVs are charged from our current dirty electrical grids, and 2) the building of EVs also creates emissions, and sometimes increased emissions over building ICEVs. However real data from critical studies shows that even in the worst case, overall, an high build emission inefficient EVs charged from a dirty grid still result in less emissions than ICEV. Just in that extreme case, only a marginal reducing in emissions! However, already not all grids are "dirty grids" and as vehicles have an average lifespan of over 20 years either dirty grids will improve during that 20 years or we may have bigger problems. Build emissions from EVs largely track EV prices, and Wright's law dictates both EV prices build emissions will soon fall below those for ICEVs. The real conclusion from examining this question, is there is no quick fix green EV transition, but any delay in reducing production of ICE vehicles is creating …

There is a real need to protect the environment, and advocacy for the environment is great, but that advocacy can acquire traits of a religion, which at the extreme can even result in far-right eco-terrorism, and more in the mainstream can result in righteous environmentalism and embracing austerity and sacrifices as "an opium". The "righteous environmentalists" preach this austerity as necessary life of the future to an audience that just see the rich becoming even richer. This blindly serves an alternate agenda and needlessly alienates and disenfranchises much of the population. The result is do-nothing politicians to get re-elected instead of motivating voters for real action on climate change and electing leaders who will act.

At least, not a direct substitute. Solar and Wind have proven to be successful partial cost-effective substitutes for fossil fuels, but fossil fuels are stored energy, and solar and wind are not. Renewables are a disruption, and disruptions are usually not one-for-one substitutions. There are two strategies for replacing fossil fuels in the grid, and they can be used together: 1: Add energy storage for when renewable energy levels fall below a threshold. 2: Base load "solar and wind": Design to provide base load at a low threshold of wind and light. Without such strategies, it is impossible to reach the goal of removing reliance on fossil fuels. With the right strategy, it is possible to realise benefits go far beyond just replacement.

To examine information on climate science, or anything else really, it may not hurt to be sceptic, but you do need to avoid confirmation bias. Genuine sceptics, as opposed to deniers, keep looking for answers, and in the battle to come to a conclusion on climate science there are a number of hurdles to clear. I feel most people just give up and decide to believe whoever they prefer to believe. This is a look from a sceptic's perspective, and with the key information needed to get things to add up. There is a second inconvenient truth behind climate change, and this one seems to be avoided by those advocating climate action. This truth is the one behind why we can't put the carbon from fossil fuels back into the air even though the carbon in CO2 emissions came from CO2 in the air.