GM is pulling back on EVs

[tripleyellowmustang]

Just more childish drivel rather than answering a few simple questions. Pretty clear why you don't want to answer as you would have to admit your original statement was wrong (as demonstrated by the replies you got that you have ignored).

All a bit sad

Poor Gregs, he has become obsessed with questions. What are the questions; have the questions been answered? Or is this simply the ramblings of a delirious old fool? We may never know.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

Gregs would make a good episode of south park.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Gregs may be stuck in a feedback loop of sorts. He so very much wants us to give China a break because China is the leading manufacturer of GREEN equipment and EV stuff.
Thing is part of his mind must occasionally recognize they make these green and EV bits by seriously using up lots of coal and oil which makes China the #1 polluter and emitter of things such as CO2. However, he really wants the manufacturing of EV's and wind generators and batteries and all to be the only thing that matters. He may perhaps be like a parent who has caught his child (China)drowning cats and just cannot process it.

Many of the rest of us understand how dependent we are on fossil fuels to live day to day now and for some time to come very likely. We also understand the "GREEN" and EV replacements available are not ready for prime time and will not be for some time to come. I and perhaps others could be more accepting of the GREEN & EV stuff if it actually could keep the lights on and keep us fed.

Then there is the resentment of these no ICE and fossil fuel mandates have triggered using world destruction fear mongering by climate change.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Gregs may be stuck in a feedback loop of sorts. He so very much wants us to give China a break because China is the leading manufacturer of GREEN equipment and EV stuff.
Thing is part of his mind must occasionally recognize they make these green and EV bits by seriously using up lots of coal and oil which makes China the #1 polluter and emitter of things such as CO2. However, he really wants the manufacturing of EV's and wind generators and batteries and all to be the only thing that matters. He may perhaps be like a parent who has caught his child (China)drowning cats and just cannot process it.

Many of the rest of us understand how dependent we are on fossil fuels to live day to day now and for some time to come very likely. We also understand the "GREEN" and EV replacements available are not ready for prime time and will not be for some time to come. I and perhaps others could be more accepting of the GREEN & EV stuff if it actually could keep the lights on and keep us fed.

Then there is the resentment of these no ICE and fossil fuel mandates have triggered using world destruction fear mongering by climate change.

I don’t think anyone is giving China a free pass. We’ve repeatedly explained to you that their per capita emissions are drastically less than the US, the UK and Australia (as a few examples).

Seriously, why should a group of 1.4 billion people (China) be required to emit the same amount of CO2 as a group of 40,000 people (Lichtenstein)?

I understand that it’s a talking point in conservative media, but that doesn’t make it a valid argument.

We (residents of the UK, the US and Australia) can start pointing the finger at the Chinese once we have our own house in order, not before.
We’d hate to be hypocrites right?

Now, if by chance you lived in Sweden and were in favour of reducing global CO2 emissions, you’d be utterly right to be pointing the finger at almost all of the developed world, given that you’d be responsible for 4.5t annually vs 5.5 in the UK, 15.5 in the US and 17 in Australia (although it’s clearly more nuanced than that because farming/agriculture/mining etc)

It‘s weird.
You (seemingly) don’t want the US to make any progress in this area, on the basis that it will cost money and send the US backward, whilst accusing a nation (whose residents individually emit less than half of what your people do) of not doing enough…. and that’s while they try and bring themselves up to YOUR standard of living and produce most of the renewables that you seem to oppose…… which is part of the reason why their emissions aren’t lower…..

Is that an accurate depiction or am I misrepresenting what you’re saying?

 

[Gregs24]

I don’t think anyone is giving China a free pass. We’ve repeatedly explained to you that their per capita emissions are drastically less than the US, the UK and Australia (as a few examples).

Seriously, why should a group of 1.4 billion people (China) be required to emit the same amount of CO2 as a group of 40,000 people (Lichtenstein)?

I understand that it’s a talking point in conservative media, but that doesn’t make it a valid argument.

We (residents of the UK, the US and Australia) can start pointing the finger at the Chinese once we have our own house in order, not before.
We’d hate to be hypocrites right?

Now, if by chance you lived in Sweden and were in favour of reducing global CO2 emissions, you’d be utterly right to be pointing the finger at almost all of the developed world, given that you’d be responsible for 4.5t annually vs 5.5 in the UK, 15.5 in the US and 17 in Australia (although it’s clearly more nuanced than that because farming/agriculture/mining etc)

It‘s weird.
You (seemingly) don’t want the US to make any progress in this area, on the basis that it will cost money and send the US backward, whilst accusing a nation (whose residents individually emit less than half of what your people do) of not doing enough…. and that’s while they try and bring themselves up to YOUR standard of living and produce most of the renewables that you seem to oppose…… which is part of the reason why their emissions aren’t lower…..

Is that an accurate depiction or am I misrepresenting what you’re saying?

Good luck getting an answer!

 

[Gregs24]

I don’t think anyone is giving China a free pass. We’ve repeatedly explained to you that their per capita emissions are drastically less than the US, the UK and Australia (as a few examples).

Seriously, why should a group of 1.4 billion people (China) be required to emit the same amount of CO2 as a group of 40,000 people (Lichtenstein)?

I understand that it’s a talking point in conservative media, but that doesn’t make it a valid argument.

We (residents of the UK, the US and Australia) can start pointing the finger at the Chinese once we have our own house in order, not before.
We’d hate to be hypocrites right?

Now, if by chance you lived in Sweden and were in favour of reducing global CO2 emissions, you’d be utterly right to be pointing the finger at almost all of the developed world, given that you’d be responsible for 4.5t annually vs 5.5 in the UK, 15.5 in the US and 17 in Australia (although it’s clearly more nuanced than that because farming/agriculture/mining etc)

It‘s weird.
You (seemingly) don’t want the US to make any progress in this area, on the basis that it will cost money and send the US backward, whilst accusing a nation (whose residents individually emit less than half of what your people do) of not doing enough…. and that’s while they try and bring themselves up to YOUR standard of living and produce most of the renewables that you seem to oppose…… which is part of the reason why their emissions aren’t lower…..

Is that an accurate depiction or am I misrepresenting what you’re saying?

I'm afraid you have gone way above the troll's comprehension there. You have to keep it simple, black and white:

Chiiiina = BAD
Russia = GOOD, Oh no that is BAD now
Anything other than oil and coal = BAD
EV's = burst into flames and force many many people into slavery

When in reality in a more nuanced (they will have to look that one up) world where incremental gains are what actually make progress, simplistic drivel as above just makes them look silly. Of course they will never get that.

 

[sk47]

I don’t think anyone is giving China a free pass. We’ve repeatedly explained to you that their per capita emissions are drastically less than the US, the UK and Australia (as a few examples).

Seriously, why should a group of 1.4 billion people (China) be required to emit the same amount of CO2 as a group of 40,000 people (Lichtenstein)?

Hello; Boils down to how you want to use the data. Two ways to look at pollution/emissions. Either in total or per capita. Using total emissions has China well above any single country currently. A valid take on pollution/emissions is that the total amounts actually matter. Pollution/emissions do not stop at artificial political boundaries.

Using per-capita has serious flaws. Using rough numbers it seems China has around four times as much population as the USA. The per-capita method of counting emissions will allow China to increase something near three times their current levels and still be less than the USA by that measure. To me that adds up to a potential huge increase in the absolute tonnage for the planet overall and they would still be slightly under USA per-capita numbers.

I get per-capita makes a handy fancy talking point and also a way to excuse the ever increasing "climate sins" of China while at the same time making the USA seem the bigger villain. Thing is the USA has made lots of progress in real numbers over time in reducing emissions. China on the other hand is building and putting into operation two or more new coal fired power plants per month with no end in sight. Seems to me overall emissions count a lot,

Another way to use the per-capita ploy is that the USA could cut emissions in real numbers by two thirds and the numbers would still favor China. That perhaps is a tell for why some folks in places with smaller populations balk at being forced into new "green +EV" restrictions while the biggest single world polluter gets a pass for the next several decades.

Last point. All the new wind turbine, EV batteries and EV's needed for the "green" revolution will have to be made somewhere. Since "green" energy is not yet up to the task, it follows old fossil fuels will have to be used to make all the bits and pieces. Were these parts being made in the USA I figure with our smokestack regulations and especially the use of natural gas in power plants the total amount of emissions would be less than in China. But you are determined to bash the USA and also to give China a free pass.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Boils down to how you want to use the data. Two ways to look at pollution/emissions. Either in total or per capita. Using total emissions has China well above any single country currently. A valid take on pollution/emissions is that the total amounts actually matter. Pollution/emissions do not stop at artificial political boundaries.

Using per-capita has serious flaws. Using rough numbers it seems China has around four times as much population as the USA. The per-capita method of counting emissions will allow China to increase something near three times their current levels and still be less than the USA by that measure. To me that adds up to a potential huge increase in the absolute tonnage for the planet overall and they would still be slightly under USA per-capita numbers.

I get per-capita makes a handy fancy talking point and also a way to excuse the ever increasing "climate sins" of China while at the same time making the USA seem the bigger villain. Thing is the USA has made lots of progress in real numbers over time in reducing emissions. China on the other hand is building and putting into operation two or more new coal fired power plants per month with no end in sight. Seems to me overall emissions count a lot,

Another way to use the per-capita ploy is that the USA could cut emissions in real numbers by two thirds and the numbers would still favor China. That perhaps is a tell for why some folks in places with smaller populations balk at being forced into new "green +EV" restrictions while the biggest single world polluter gets a pass for the next several decades.

Last point. All the new wind turbine, EV batteries and EV's needed for the "green" revolution will have to be made somewhere. Since "green" energy is not yet up to the task, it follows old fossil fuels will have to be used to make all the bits and pieces. Were these parts being made in the USA I figure with our smokestack regulations and especially the use of natural gas in power plants the total amount of emissions would be less than in China. But you are determined to bash the USA and also to give China a free pass.

Hello; A follow up comment. Lets pretend for a moment that China continues to increase the use of fossil fuels at it's current rate and so remains the leading polluter overall. Also, that the USA continues to drop overall pollution levels. How much less will the USA need to pollute in order to match your favored per-capita status?
I contend that using a per-capita calculation is not a proper standard. If China is allowed to increase pollution levels to the point of being equal per-capita the result will be massive overall increases in pollution. This is an interpretation of the facts and not just an opinion.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Boils down to how you want to use the data. Two ways to look at pollution/emissions. Either in total or per capita. Using total emissions has China well above any single country currently. A valid take on pollution/emissions is that the total amounts actually matter. Pollution/emissions do not stop at artificial political boundaries.

Using per-capita has serious flaws. Using rough numbers it seems China has around four times as much population as the USA. The per-capita method of counting emissions will allow China to increase something near three times their current levels and still be less than the USA by that measure. To me that adds up to a potential huge increase in the absolute tonnage for the planet overall and they would still be slightly under USA per-capita numbers.

I get per-capita makes a handy fancy talking point and also a way to excuse the ever increasing "climate sins" of China while at the same time making the USA seem the bigger villain. Thing is the USA has made lots of progress in real numbers over time in reducing emissions. China on the other hand is building and putting into operation two or more new coal fired power plants per month with no end in sight. Seems to me overall emissions count a lot,

Another way to use the per-capita ploy is that the USA could cut emissions in real numbers by two thirds and the numbers would still favor China. That perhaps is a tell for why some folks in places with smaller populations balk at being forced into new "green +EV" restrictions while the biggest single world polluter gets a pass for the next several decades.

Last point. All the new wind turbine, EV batteries and EV's needed for the "green" revolution will have to be made somewhere. Since "green" energy is not yet up to the task, it follows old fossil fuels will have to be used to make all the bits and pieces. Were these parts being made in the USA I figure with our smokestack regulations and especially the use of natural gas in power plants the total amount of emissions would be less than in China. But you are determined to bash the USA and also to give China a free pass.

You’re missing the point entirely. Whether deliberately or as a result of deep-rooted programming, I can’t tell.

Your position means that you seem to believe that a persons region of residence is the determining factor as to how much CO2 they can emit.

I have to ask why you‘d apply the “per nation“ method when it comes to China but fail to apply the same method when comparing the US to Lichtenstein? Do you honestly think that a population of 330 million should be forced to try and compete with a nation of 40,000?

Your method also means that the US needs to reduce emissions by more than 1000% in order to keep us Aussies happy, even though we emit more per person.
Congratulations, you just gave Australia (and any nation with a population less than yours) a competitive advantage over the US.

On the bright side, you’ll no longer have a problem with people illegally entering the country, they’ll be too busy fleeing to Mexico, where they can emit more than twice as much CO2 under your model. Bravo.

Yes it’s absurd, but the absurdity needed to be highlighted.

 

[K4fxd]

I think his point is total Co2 emitted. If China, or Timbuktu, can increase emissions other Countries will have to reduce by the same amount.

The way it is set up currently is a punishment to western Countries, this includes Aus.

If you believe Co2 to be the main cause of warming the total addition should matter, not where it is coming from.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

Hello; Another likely ploy is to go with a per capita come back. With so many people China may produce less per person than the USA.

I don’t think anyone is giving China a free pass. We’ve repeatedly explained to you that their per capita emissions are drastically less than the US, the UK and Australia (as a few examples).

Seriously, why should a group of 1.4 billion people (China) be required to emit the same amount of CO2 as a group of 40,000 people (Lichtenstein)?

I understand that it’s a talking point in conservative media, but that doesn’t make it a valid argument.

We (residents of the UK, the US and Australia) can start pointing the finger at the Chinese once we have our own house in order, not before.
We’d hate to be hypocrites right?

Now, if by chance you lived in Sweden and were in favour of reducing global CO2 emissions, you’d be utterly right to be pointing the finger at almost all of the developed world, given that you’d be responsible for 4.5t annually vs 5.5 in the UK, 15.5 in the US and 17 in Australia (although it’s clearly more nuanced than that because farming/agriculture/mining etc)

It‘s weird.
You (seemingly) don’t want the US to make any progress in this area, on the basis that it will cost money and send the US backward, whilst accusing a nation (whose residents individually emit less than half of what your people do) of not doing enough…. and that’s while they try and bring themselves up to YOUR standard of living and produce most of the renewables that you seem to oppose…… which is part of the reason why their emissions aren’t lower…..

Is that an accurate depiction or am I misrepresenting what you’re saying?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpal...missions-and-energy-solutions-for-mitigation/

"The data in Table 1 was extracted from Our World in Data. Main results are:

· China produces about twice the GHG emissions that US does.

· China releases only about half the GHG emissions per capita.

· This is because the GDP per capita is four times higher in the US than in China.

From the GDP numbers, the industrialization surge in China (Figure 1) has not encompassed the entire population.

While in the US an average family has two cars and two TVs, this is not so in China. The US average family own lawnmowers, weed-eaters, hairdryers and electric shavers, In China they do not. The US uses microwaves and blenders and dish washers in the average kitchen, and think nothing of it. But in many households in China, such amenities are out of reach.'

The disparity has been addressed by Blair King:

'Climate change, while an important priority, is not the only priority for world governments. Climate change has the potential to kill millions in the future, but energy poverty is killing millions today. We live in a world where 1.1 billion people live in energy poverty and each year 4.3 million people die from preventable indoor air pollution directly resulting from that energy poverty. Governments in developing nations are going to prioritize the health of today’s people over those of tomorrow. . . . China and India still have deep poverty and hardship to fight.'"

"First, if China chooses to catch up in their GDP by persisting to burn fossil fuels, their GHG emissions will continue to soar. China has to push back from coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels."

"China has over 1,000 coal-burning power plants operating. But, according to a recent report, 600 of these would need to be closed down to meet the climate pledges it has made."

"A paralyzing fact remains: China’s GHG will continue to rise until 2030 (dashed line in Figure 1). One wonders if the date of 2030 was calculated from a desired boost in GDP per capita (Table 1.)

The total GHG emissions from China, India, Africa, and Middle East might top out at 5 billion tonnes of GHG per annum higher than it is now – and such an increment would be about 14% of the world’s total GHG now."

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

Note the disparity in population between China and the U.S. As China's population becomes more affluent the gni per capita will increase. As the gni per capita increase so will the per capita CO2 emissions.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gni-per-capita

GNI per capita (formerly GNP per capita) is the gross national income, converted to U.S. dollars using the World Bank Atlas method, divided by the midyear population. GNI is the sum of value added by all resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income) from abroad. GNI, calculated in national currency, is usually converted to U.S. dollars at official exchange rates for comparisons across economies, although an alternative rate is used when the official exchange rate is judged to diverge by an exceptionally large margin from the rate actually applied in international transactions. To smooth fluctuations in prices and exchange rates, a special Atlas method of conversion is used by the World Bank. This applies a conversion factor that averages the exchange rate for a given year and the two preceding years, adjusted for differences in rates of inflation between the country, and through 2000, the G-5 countries (France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). From 2001, these countries include the Euro area, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

• China gni per capita for 2021 was $11,880, a 12.93% increase from 2020.
• China gni per capita for 2020 was $10,520, a 2.04% increase from 2019.
• China gni per capita for 2019 was $10,310, a 8.07% increase from 2018.
• China gni per capita for 2018 was $9,540, a 10.03% increase from 2017.

U.S. GNI Per Capita 1962-2023 | MacroTrends

• U.S. gni per capita for 2021 was $70,930, a 9.71% increase from 2020.
• U.S. gni per capita for 2020 was $64,650, a 2.24% decline from 2019.
• U.S. gni per capita for 2019 was $66,130, a 4.21% increase from 2018.
• U.S. gni per capita for 2018 was $63,460, a 7.16% increase from 2017

Note the disparity of per capita gni between China, $11,880 and the U.S, 70,930.

Note the increase in CO2 emissions of China in the last twenty years.

Note the amount of China's CO2 emission from electricity and heat, manufacturing and construction and industry, as compared to transport.

Note China's CO2 emissions from coal increasing.

In your post, you state the obvious. Of course, wealthy industrialized countries are going to emit more CO2 per capita than much poorer countries with extreme poverty. Individuals in wealthier countries purchase and consume more goods/products. Would you expect a country such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Liberia to produce a higher CO2 per capita then the U.S. As has been pointed out in other posts, while China is increasing its use of renewable/green energy it still heavily relies on coal, it's still the largest CO2 polluter in the world. You can try to trivialize China’s CO2 emissions as much as you want, but you are simply using the per capita CO2 emissions as a strawman argument. You are only trying to deflect from the fact that China is by far the largest contributor of CO2 emissions, and its emission will only get worse as its population becomes more affluent.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/stand-fossil-ky-lawmakers-tell-212621906.html

I love KY. Our State Gov won't let the utility close coal plants until a proven replacement is in place.


“Have we not learned anything from the experience of Texas last winter and Europe today? Coal is reliable, plentiful, can be stockpiled for later use, and it is cheap,”

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

Good luck getting an answer!

Wrong again Mr. Grumpy.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/board-games-arent-great-environment-003000001.html

The next climate boogie man, board games.

You can't make this crap up.

 

[sk47]

Your position means that you seem to believe that a persons region of residence is the determining factor as to how much CO2 they can emit.

Hello; Interesting as to how over a few posts the China & emissions question has been spun and twisted. This sidetrack discussion began with a contention from Gregs I think. He seemed to focus on the idea that because China manufactures "green" equipment and EV's they are above being reproached about their overall emissions.
Within a limited context of discussion of emissions of only greehouse gases, my take is overall emissions ought to count. My guess is the average private citizen in China is not behind the decisions to build and put into use every 10 to 15 days a new coal fired power plant. Those sorts of decisions are more part of the ruling crew of the nation.
Not clear how the average joe in most countries is directly on the hook for the emissions of a nation state. I do get that individuals in China and most places want a better life and also that often the definition of a better life tends to be a life more like a western/USA lifestyle.

Back in the 1980's, 90's and early 2000's I used a statistic to illustrate a concept in my classes. That for the entire world to have the lifestyle of an average Joe westerner we would need the resources of five planets the size of the earth. Not necessarily a dead bang on number, but illustrative. Guess the point turns out to be there is not enough to go around for everyone to have multiple cars, a McMansion, four kids in college, nice vacation cruises and the like.

Do all the people in China, India & elsewhere who have not had a chance for a "western lifestyle" need a grace period of allowance of extra emissions so as to be allowed to catch up. The idea and concept of everyone doing better is appealing, however a big question arises. By the standards of you, Gregs and a few others for so many years of posts the planet absolutely needs very much less GHG emissions or we will have catastrophic global climate change. We all who have read the many posts know you favor the EV and Green energy future. Guys like me are told to get use to the idea EV's, windmills and no coal or oil. You say that is how the planet can be saved.
Yet here in the last few pages you have been telling me to look at Chinas emissions from a PER-CAPITA point of view. That gives China a pass on its ongoing current and ever-increasing emissions, while at the same time condemns the USA which is doing some better.

(NOTE- I did not have to resort to a putdown to make a point. )

Sponsored