Oil demand in China has slowed markedly this year amid the countrys shift to electric vehicles and natural gas, Goldman Sachs analysts said
    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.worldEnglish
      03·
      18 days ago

      I wouldn’t take it too strongly yet.

      Actually fueling a car is only something like 60 - 80% of the total carbon cost. Rest is manufacturing and disposal. Evs hold considerable costs (carbon, waste, human suffering) in terms of manufacturing and disposal, and only really pay off if their power is created in sustainable ways - otherwise you’re just pushing the problems out of sight.

      • ArachnidMania@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        18 days ago

        Now I’m going to go off on some non sourced reporting here because it was given to me in a car-radio news, but the pollution caused by the construction is about equal if not a little more, but different; in terms of EV’s than ICE. However the expected lifetime use of a EV is expected to make up for that and more to a end result of less than half at a minimum before needing disposal. By your own argument you are aware the vast amount of emissions are from the ICE use itself.

        Speculation: with new battery technology increasing over time, that lifetime gap may even increase.

        This is all of course if you’re arguing in good faith and are willing to also recognize the difference between generalized ‘pollutants’ and environmental impacts and carbon impacts.

        • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.worldEnglish
          04·
          18 days ago

          That’s a very weird comment - first part is really hard to read and you’ve accused me of not arguing in good faith without anything to suggest as much. If im reading this correctly

          • Evs are comparable in manufacturing carbon. I don’t have the numbers but believe Evs are much higher due to rare earth mining, and that is before considering the environmental damage due to mining, social costs involved and considering the lack of standards where they are mined. Make no mistake, fossil fuel mining isn’t much better in this regard but it is a well known beast.

          You then have the whole argument on how that power is actually generated. Mass power generation is much more efficient than small ICE, but it does still add up if its not using renewable sources.

          Regarding battery efficiency- yes I agree they will get better the same way ICE did.

          The other point is that the EV swap delays other advances - walkable cities, car centric infrastructure, mass transportation. If we cut carbon by 50% but it delays 0% by decades did we actually achieve anything?

      • pearable@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        18 days ago

        China’s energy grid is about 80% fossil fuels. Assuming their energy mixture remains unchanged (a bad assumption as their coal usage is on the decline) it would take about 65,000 miles for an EV’s carbon output to break even with an equivalent ICE vehicle.

        The waste and suffering involved in carbon intensive fuels is ongoing instead of being single event. One benefit of renewable tech is the recyclability of it’s components. Once we’re made the battery it can be recycled and died not require ongoing extractive mining forever.

        EVs have a place in a just future and can do some good at this time. Alternatives to cars are still a far more important and uncomplicated solution to our climate problems

        • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.worldEnglish
          02·
          18 days ago

          To start with I fully agree with your last paragraph- no arguement here.

          You’re right on recyclability, the problem is that they aren’t because the infrastructure isn’t in place or profitable. There is also the fact the earth doesn’t actually contain enough of the rare earth minerals to give everyone an EV (This is off memory, cant place the source).

        • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.worldEnglish
          02·
          18 days ago

          Yes, if you are only considering the individual’s carbon cost and power is generated via 100% renewable means.

          Something like 80% of China power is fossil fuels. Admittedly large scale power generation is more fuel efficient, and I don’t have the full numbers of carbon cost of manufacturing, but its important to keep in mind that carbon costs didn’t just disappear overnight.

          Another consideration is that Evs still drove car centric culture. If each EV saved 50% of a vehicles lifetime carbon, but it doubled the time for mass transport to be more widely adopted, lengthened the time for cities to prioritize other means of transport and city design, and means we as a society made 50% more vehicles did we actually save anything?

          • Subdivide6857@midwest.socialEnglish
            1·
            18 days ago

            You’re forgetting the amount of energy required to extract, transport, and refine the oil. Refining the oil is especially energy intense. It’s not even up for debate at this point unless you’re a naive boomer taking in the Faux News.

            • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              18 days ago

              If we go down that path you’re also forgetting the energy costs of manufacturing, distribution, installation and maintenance of the renewable producers. Definitely haven’t forgotten the need for a snarky comment though.

              You can say “this is better, forget everything else” or you can look at the wider systematic concerns and solutions and actually succeed.

  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    3·
    19 days ago

    They sort of bury the lede by only mentioning it once in the tagline. Their consumption is also down because there is a massive widespread shift to using CNG/LNG in industrial vehicles/transport trucks instead of diesel, which is a majority driver of oil consumption in China’s production-based economy.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        18 days ago

        It also burns ridiculously cleaner as it does not have the typical long hydrocarbons and sulfur/metal contaminants that otherwise turn into air pollution. It’s a smart choice in the short term.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
    2·
    19 days ago

    I need a car because I live in a semi-rural area outside city limits the nearest public transportation would be a 2-mile walk including crossing a four-lane highway. I’m under no illusions that driving an EV will solve climate change, but boy would I like to never have to fill my car up in the middle of an Indiana February again.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      18 days ago

      I had coworkers that had all electric EVs (both had nissan leafs) 5 years ago and they both said it was like 7 dollars a month as a daily 60 mile per day commuter.

      Aside from Teslas (which are afaik impossible to repair) the estimate is that due to fewer moving parts the lifetime maintenance costs are 2/3 the cost of gas vehicles AND the vehicles are expected to last longer in general (no giant gas engine that needs to be rebuilt every 200,000 miles)

      This is one place where like gas car companies see this and keep trying to kick the can down the road

    • Poplar?@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      18 days ago

      Thats a strange thing to say. Even if the changes havent been dramatic where you live, it certainly will with time if we dont limit the damage done.

      • Emmie@lemmings.worldEnglish
        0·
        18 days ago

        Well I care but I don’t act so it means I don’t care. Writing on it on Lemmy isn’t ’caring about it’. It’s just virtue signalling.

        It’s better to be honest to yourself that if you don’t do anything about it it means that you don’t care

        • zbyte64@awful.systemsEnglish
          1·
          18 days ago

          Writing on it on Lemmy isn’t ’caring about it’. It’s just virtue signalling.

          It certainly isn’t virtue signaling when you post 4 times to a single post talking about how you do actually care but it isn’t misplaced like other people here. You’re actually here changing hearts and minds one conversation at a time.

          • Emmie@lemmings.worldEnglish
            0·
            18 days ago

            I am worsening my own image not bettering it. I am actually taking hit to my points or whatever or so called reputation on the site as I speak. It’s the opposite actually. I don’t really care about climate as I said earlier. I only pretend to if there is something to gain.

            This is like the polar opposite of virtue. It gives me a different perspective

            • zbyte64@awful.systemsEnglish
              0·
              18 days ago

              Well the important thing here is you found a way to be humble about it all. Kudos on finding a way to live your truth in a way that allows you to ignore everyone else’s. I suppose that really is the opposite of virtue.

              Edit: but on a serious note, I think you’re already hard on yourself and maybe we should let up. I think in a way you’re instigating this to get attention, which I am not bothered by, I just want to point out that there’s a need here that has to be fulfilled.

              • Emmie@lemmings.worldEnglish
                1·
                18 days ago

                Okay lol, how am I hard on myself? Projecting…

                I am not really built like most people. I don’t have some kind of self image that can be harmed or damaged. The only common denominator is lack of care so to say which is interesting and I only got to fully see it through psychedelics. It’s rather entertaining to delve into your psyche and dissect it, it’s fun. And fun is my number one interest and it’s really not easy to fuel my fun meter constantly.

                • zbyte64@awful.systemsEnglish
                  1·
                  18 days ago

                  I mean at this point the most unbearable thing I can do to you is show empathy. And yeah I am too hard on myself, so maybe I recognize it when I see it.