Study: Electric cars losing value twice as fast as gas vehicles – Survey: Growing portion of US shoppers are rejecting EVs

submitted by [deleted] from (climatedepot.com)

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MagicMike 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

It takes 500,000 pounds of material excavation to make a 1,000 pounds battery. EV is a plan for destruction under the guise of saving the Earth, when it actually destroys the Earth.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

On the other hand pounds of material excavated isn't destroying the earth, but greenhouse emissions are.

[–]brimshae 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Yeah.... I've remember back in the seventies hearing about how we're all going to freeze to death because of car exhaust fumes. It's just science!

I also remember back in the 80s when paper grocery bags were going to cause all the trees to be gone, so we should use plastic bags to save the environment. It's just science!

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

Yeah.... I've remember back in the seventies hearing about how we're all going to freeze to death because of car exhaust fumes. It's just science!

You might have breathed too many of those car exhaust fumes if you thought that car fumes were through to freeze anyone, even in the 70s.

I also remember back in the 80s when paper grocery bags were going to cause all the trees to be gone

That might be damage from the leaded exhaust fumes rather than a memory of genuine argument that paper bags would "cause all the trees to be gone".

CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for a lot longer than that. The first calculation of the effect on temperature of a doubling was in the late 1800s.

Supermarket bags were never a significant proportion of national paper consumption.

[–]Davethe_blank_ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

you need to GTFO with your propaganda. CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. Water vapor does all the heat trapping that CO2 does and more. The temp records show that temp rise precedes CO2 rises, showing that raised temps brought the CO2, not the CO2 causing the temp rise. So you are dead wrong with every word you type.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you need to GTFO with your propaganda.

It's not rocket science, mate. Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect.

CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere.

By volume, yes. 0.042%, and rising.

Or about 0.064% by mass.

Which is about 3.3 trillion tonnes of CO2, or about 6.5kg over every square metre of the planet.

(1.3 pounds per square foot, for those yet to learn metric)

Water vapor does all the heat trapping that CO2 does and more.

Water vapor is an important feedback. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor on average, magnifying the warming.

But it doesn't change the climate of itself. The residency time in the atmosphere is about a week and a half. Stick a whole lot of water vapor in the atmosphere, and you don't melt Greenland. You get rain at some point in the following 10 or so days.

The temp records show that temp rise precedes CO2 rises, showing that raised temps brought the CO2, not the CO2 causing the temp rise.

You're confusing the change from glaciation to interglacial of the glaciation cycles and the current warning. (And you appear to have misunderstood those).

The current warming is CO2 first.

It was already rising by 1750: https://www.climate.gov/media/14596

But temperatures didn't hit a minimum until about 1910: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/global_temp.html

(For the start of the interglacials, the CO2 starts moving slightly first, but the increase in CO2 and temperature is mostly simultaneous).

So you are dead wrong with every word you type.

Oh, the irony.

[–]SoCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Back in the 70's most scientists were worried about a coming ice age. It was a big concern at the time, especially since we were at the tail of a mini-ice age, (which has been largely smoothed from history beginning about 2002 and replaced by that one singular estimate of combined historical temperatures by that one scientist, which replaced all others and now cannot be questioned).

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's a misperception.

Most scientist were concerned about global warming.

A few papers came out arguing that cooling would dominate, but this was a minority compared to ones that warning would dominate, and the warming predictions were more cited as well as more numerous.

See the literature review here:https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm sure there are different takes on what was more or less a concern at any given time, but I'll take a look at this attempt to write the history by the meteorological society. You won't find history about the ice age concerns, other than in jest or saying it is debunked online anymore, though. Heck, you can't even find info about nearly anything scientific online now, it's all just trying to cram some view or another down your throat.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm sure there are different takes on what was more or less a concern at any given time, but I'll take a look at this attempt to write the history by the meteorological society.

Science is documented fairly well by scholarly papers. So you the linked literature review clarifies what most scientists were worried about.

You won't find history about the ice age concerns, other than in jest or saying it is debunked online anymore, though.

You can find newspaper articles. The TV shows are probably archived somewhere.

Heck, you can't even find info about nearly anything scientific online now, it's all just trying to cram some view or another down your throat.

The scholarly literature is indexed by scholar.google.com, and reasonably well ranked. You can't always find more than the abstract, but more often than not you can.

Most scientific journalism went the way of the Bramble Cay melomys, when newspapers lost circulation, but "The Conversation" is articles co-written by a scientists and a journalist, and are usually as good or better than when a science educated journalist wrote science articles. Sometimes it suffers because there's only one scientists involved, and that means that sometimes you get a skewed perspective. But usually they're pretty good.

The Guardian still does science reporting, for the moment.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Guardian doesn't do anything except propaganda and hasn't for nearly a decade.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Really?

What aspect of this article is propaganda?

Astronomers capture largest cosmic explosion ever witnessed

[–]brimshae 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You might have breathed too many of those car exhaust fumes if you thought that car fumes were through to freeze anyone, even in the 70s.

CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for a lot longer than that.

I'm just repeating what all The Experts (tm) told us what was going to happen to the planet back then. Don't shoot the messenger. Back in the days before you were alive particulate matter from pollution was going to cause so much of sunlight the Earth receives to be deflected back in to space that were were all going to freeze to death by now.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/225798861/Newsweek-s-Global-Cooling-Article-From-April-28-1975

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-ago-scientists-puzzled-over-slight-global-cooling

It even goes back as far as the 50s. https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

Let's not forget that global warming can cause global cooling: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/01/the-great-climate-flip-flop/308313/

Let's not forget "The Coming Ice Age" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0

That might be damage from the leaded exhaust fumes rather than a memory of genuine argument that paper bags would "cause all the trees to be gone".

Once again: I'm just repeating what all The Experts (tm) told us what was going to happen to the planet back then.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/plastic-bags-pollution-paper-cotton-tote-bags-environment-a9159731.html

"Plastic bags were invented to save the planet, according to the son of Swedish engineer Sten Gustaf Thulin who created them in 1959. .... The bags were developed as an alternative to paper bags, which were considered bad for the environment because they resulted in forests being chopped down."

https://www.quora.com/In-the-90s-we-were-taught-to-use-plastic-instead-of-paper-to-save-the-rainforest-from-deforestation-Now-were-taught-to-use-paper-instead-of-plastic-to-save-the-ocean-from-pollution-Why

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm just repeating what all The Experts (tm) told us what was going to happen to the planet back then.

No you're not.

You're repeating a minor line of investigation that was reported in the press, but was never mainstream science.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

[–]brimshae 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, yes I am, zoomer. Welcome to revisionist history. Go complain about it on TikTok.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I linked to a scholarly paper that is a review of the scientific literature over the 70s. Even then the plurality of papers identified warning as the risk, and those that did identify cooling as a risk attracted less expert attention.

Don't believe everything you read on those old-timey printed out newspapers.

[–]jamesK_3rd 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Doesn't matter what they want. They're banning internal combustion vehicles using economics. It doesn't matter what the people like, the people they put into office made the decision for them

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We will make new cars. The will be a massive black market.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Doesn't matter what they want. They're banning internal combustion vehicles using economics.

It certainly seems like a good time to look at a second hand EV, economically.

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I bought a used Nissan Leaf that was 3 years old, back in 2016. This year I replaced the battery in it with a larger one - going from 24 kWh to 62 kWh. Great car. Really cheap to drive, holds 4 people and a little trunk space, and it's spunky.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My parents are on their second second hand leaf.

The range of the newer model is much better. Fantastic little cars.

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And they all have touch screens.

[–]Davethe_blank_ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the Tesla and EV graveyard is coming, rest assured. There are going to be a lot of people scoff at the price of replacing those batteries, and they won't be about it after those years of waiting for that motherfucker to charge.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The automobile industry is such an environment destroying scam and the unrealistic push to mass EV use was just a handout to them.

The environmental impact of buying a new vehicle is more than the benefit of switching to EV, even if they weren't over-priced garbage.

The automobile industry manipulates the vehicle market supply by keeping hundred of thousands of new cars on car dealership lots. When doing so, they also, regularly shuffle those cars around, from lot-to-lot.

This scam system of forcing consumers to buy vehicles at high pressure dealerships, not only hurts the consumer with its deceptions, inflated prices, and marketing ploys, but it inflates the price through hiding the car supply's true, dangerously massive, size, creating artificial market scarcity, but in doing so, vehicles are needlessly transported across the country, then back and forth, shuffling around endlessly.

It also slows/prevents/inhibits vehicle innovations as any significant design improvements would legacy and devalue a half million new cars sitting on car lots.

Not to mention that car lots do that one thing that raises Earth's surface temperature more than anything else, they covers it with heat absorbing concrete. Go one step further and certify you a USGS surface temperature weather station right in the center of the lot, so the radiating heat gives inflated temperatures. Don't worry, they no longer care if the official stations are out of spec by being too close to buildings or concrete. They were called out on that a decade ago and simply added more sensors...along with an algorithm that override them to be more like the 80%+ of out-of-spec previous ones.