Electric cars.

[Vinylwasp]

Thanks for the links, I'll dive in later. Mine was a Masters too, but marriage, moving from NZ to London, and paying the rent got in the way so I converted to P.G.Dip once I started work in IT. B.Sc. in Geology preceded.

I think I've found the updated 2021 report and only looked at the tables so far though the final analysis moved by about 5% in favor of the C40 Recharge over XC40 Recharge which improved it against the XC40 ICE too, but not by a huge margin. Volvo-c40-recharge-lca-report.pdf

What I think is important in this discussion is realizing that the environment doesn't care where the Co2 comes from, so if people really care about reducing their Co2 footprint they have to look at the big picture and take into account the greater upfront day zero impact of mfg an EV vs their own particular use case. This starts with basing any comparison with the car the drive now or a smaller Co2/km ICE car that they could drive in the future, the mileage they drive it for, and on the EV side of the equation, the size of the battery (do they really need >70 kwh), where they're going to source electricity from, etc, etc. It's simply not a one size fits all equation as the EV marketing teams would have everyone believe.

I know several people who do large commutes or drive within their jobs like you do and for them a full EV makes a lot of sense, on the other hand I know people who have them who do very few miles and for whom solar panels and other lifestyle measures may have been more effective in reducing their Co2 foot print if that is really what they want to achieve.

Here I'm talking about air-flown fruit and vegetables from South America, MENA, etc, as well as water imported from Italy, France, short haul flights to Europe, using public transport or cycling more, changing job to commute less, holiday at home, the whole enchilada.

And not thinking about the big picture is where the moral risk side of this issue comes in. Like cyclists who take greater risks because they're wearing a helmet, it doesn't help the environment if people are morally justifying additional air-miles because they drove to the airport in an EV.

The correct EX30 LCA Report

tl:dr - the biggest benefits come from choosing the variant with the smaller 51kwh LFP battery.

 

[dad_of_jon]

Thanks for the links, I'll dive in later. Mine was a Masters too, but marriage, moving from NZ to London, and paying the rent got in the way so I converted to P.G.Dip once I started work in IT. B.Sc. in Geology preceded.

I think I've found the updated 2021 report and only looked at the tables so far though the final analysis moved by about 5% in favor of the C40 Recharge over XC40 Recharge which improved it against the XC40 ICE too, but not by a huge margin. Volvo-c40-recharge-lca-report.pdf

What I think is important in this discussion is realizing that the environment doesn't care where the Co2 comes from, so if people really care about reducing their Co2 footprint they have to look at the big picture and take into account the greater upfront day zero impact of mfg an EV vs their own particular use case. This starts with basing any comparison with the car the drive now or a smaller Co2/km ICE car that they could drive in the future, the mileage they drive it for, and on the EV side of the equation, the size of the battery (do they really need >70 kwh), where they're going to source electricity from, etc, etc. It's simply not a one size fits all equation as the EV marketing teams would have everyone believe.

I know several people who do large commutes or drive within their jobs like you do and for them a full EV makes a lot of sense, on the other hand I know people who have them who do very few miles and for whom solar panels and other lifestyle measures may have been more effective in reducing their Co2 foot print if that is really what they want to achieve.

Here I'm talking about air-flown fruit and vegetables from South America, MENA, etc, as well as water imported from Italy, France, short haul flights to Europe, using public transport or cycling more, changing job to commute less, holiday at home, the whole enchilada.

And not thinking about the big picture is where the moral risk side of this issue comes in. Like cyclists who take greater risks because they're wearing a helmet, it doesn't help the environment if people are morally justifying additional air-miles because they drove to the airport in an EV.

The big picture may not be visible to all as you need to zoom out a lot to see it.



An economic model based on growth is going to fail if the above happens, plus it usually leads to more consumption of precious resources.

If we do de-populate will we end up consuming more per person because we feel we have more leeway as there are less of us.

 

[Stu]

Here I'm talking about air-flown fruit and vegetables from South America, MENA, etc, as well as water imported from Italy, France, short haul flights to Europe, using public transport or cycling more, changing job to commute less, holiday at home, the whole enchilada.

Oh this we're definitely on the same page.
In fact, my wife applied for a PhD at one point where the output would be "In food terms, could Wales sustain itself"
She didn't get it, but it's always made us both wonder IF we got cut off from the world (and it's not beyond reason), could the UK actually sustain itself? - I mean, it would involve eating seasonal food and so on.

I don't think we could. When we see Class A farming land in East Anglia being used for solar farms. I mean, I love the idea of solar farms, but over planting real food?

 

[Stu]

The big picture may not be visible to all as you need to zoom out a lot to see it.



An economic model based on growth is going to fail if the above happens, plus it usually leads to more consumption of precious resources.

If we do de-populate will we end up consuming more per person because we feel we have more leeway as there are less of us.

Apologies, but you'll have to accept that I don't watch YouTube videos. They're generally shouty people that don't quote their sources. They're certainly not peer reviewed.

 

[dad_of_jon]

Apologies, but you'll have to accept that I don't watch YouTube videos. They're generally shouty people that don't quote their sources. They're certainly not peer reviewed.

To discount a potential good quality source of information because of the mass of mediocre content is your choice. sources are quoted in the video I mentioned. two bit davinci I don't find shouty. it doesn't take long to google "population collapse" and find similar conclusions to the YT video. People have busy lives and don't want to search though a pile of Turds to find a diamond. I get that and especially when even if true won't affect most people in their lifetime.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-collapse-isn-t-sci-fi-anymore-niall-ferguson

https://www.healthdata.org/news-eve...declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform

It's partly why I believe a focus on co2 is clouding a far greater issue.