It’s increasingly obvious that a net-zero future will not happen by 2050 and may not happen ever. I suggest we officially abandon the fantasy.
There are at least three articles discussing the end of net zero, March, August, and October of 2023.
The Week Net Zero Died
On August 3, 2023, UnHerd asked Is this the Week that Net Zero Died?
It has been a tough week for climate activists. First, the new head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Jim Skea, said we should not overstate the 1.5 degrees celsius warning, and that humanity will not end if we miss it. At the same time, wind projects are hitting new obstacles, with Vattenfall cancelling a new offshore project in the North Sea due to high costs, while also having a project in Sweden rejected because Stockholm sees potential “negative effects on the environment” from offshore wind installations.
Elsewhere in the world of renewables, a new report has shown that the production of solar panels is causing more emissions than previously thought, and the once much celebrated solar-powered mini-grids in India are falling apart. But it does not end there: the British Government has decided to cut costs of polluting and approve hundreds of new North Sea oil and gas licenses. This announcement may have upset Just Stop Oil activists, but the reality is that the world is using more oil than ever and Britain needs to be prepared.
Then there is the issue of electric vehicles. Ford is set to lose $4.5 billion on them this year, while Volkswagen has decided to scale back its EV production amid a slowdown in the Chinese market. This begs the question of how promising the EV market really is without coercion (banning the internal combustion engine) or incentives (tax credits and subsidies) by government.
What’s more, insurers around the world are paying attention to the higher risks surrounding the transportation of EVs, something that will push prices up even further (at the time of writing, a cargo ship carrying cars is still burning off the Dutch coast, most likely due to a fire caused by an EV battery, with one sailor killed). It also doesn’t help that Tesla actively suppressed thousands of driving range complaints from becoming public, and this lack of reliability likely also explains why the absolute number of gasoline-powered cars is still growing.
As the energy analyst Anas Alhajji has pointed out, one of the reasons why EV sales are often presented in percentages is because the total number is still incredibly small. For many people a battery-only vehicle is not an option, especially at times of growing electricity prices.
Well, that was a question, not a proclamation. Let’s turn our attention to a specific announcement.
The Month the Net-Zero Dream Died
Real Clear Markets says October 2023: The Month the Net-Zero Dream Died
Industry has begun to recognize that investments in a “net-zero” future are not the path to “doing well by doing good.” The electric-vehicle market has collapsed, and car companies are retrenching. Mercedes-Benz’ CFO predicted a constrained and shrinking market as that company found it impossible to unload stock even at steep discounts. At home, GM had junked a joint venture with Honda to try to make “affordable” EVs, delayed opening of an EV truck plant, abandoned its EV manufacturing targets, and has offered no forecast of when those targets might be met. Ford has stopped sending out EV trucks to dealerships after some refused to accept new shipments, given how many unsellable versions they already had in stock, and will renumber the unsold remainders as 2024 models.
Denmark’s Orsted abandoned two offshore windfarm projects after losing $5.6 billion on them. Profits at China’s chief wind-turbine manufacturer have dropped by 98 percent. Siemens Energy stock has fallen to its lowest-ever level as it turns out that its products, pushed by political schedules rather than technological and economic reality, don’t work properly. Solar-energy companies are facing similar revenue and profit plunges.
A recent study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation reveals that the full costs of powering an EV over 10 years is the equivalent of $17.33/gallon. The figure cited by EV boosters of a gas equivalent of $1.21/gallon fails to take into account all of the various subsidies provided by governments, other electric-grid ratepayers and other auto purchasers – a total of the equivalent of $16.12/gallon over the whole of those 10 years of operation, for a total of nearly $47,000 per car. And the Biden Administration has recently admitted that “renewable” energy receives massively greater subsidies than its reliable-energy counterparts.
The verdict is undeniable to objective observers: the net-zero dream is nothing more than a mirage. An immensely costly and increasingly indefensible mirage.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that there will never be any partial, and profitable, shift away from current technologies and power provision. Of course there will be. The market for hybrid autos is still vibrant (though query where those sales figures would be without their own subsidies). The simple, undeniable truth, though, is that the great public-private push to force adoption of new and unreliable technologies before they have been proven by the free market to be technologically and economically feasible has failed.
The Implausibility of a Net Zero Carbon Energy Future is Now Obvious
On March 28, 2023 I wrote The Implausibility of a Net Zero Carbon Energy Future is Now Obvious
I am confident I was not first.
Funding Mirage
Ask people if they support global peace or ending work hunger. Then ask them if they will contribute $100,000 to help make it happen.
It’s the same with net zero. There are lots of grandiose ideas like guaranteed living wage, ending homelessness, and the always popular world peace. Reality sets in when the question arises “How are we going to pay for this?”
If the answer is “other people’s money” the projects have support. The moment people have to pay “their share” support dies.
Net Zero Didn’t Die
I suggest net zero did not die for two reasons. The first is because net zero was never alive to begin with.
Net zero always was nothing but a delusional fantasy that was not going to happen by 2050 in any realistic scenario.
Net zero is a fantasy of delusional people like Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Gates, scores of nannycrats in the EU, and countless numbers at the UN who see it as a way to get free money.
The second reason net zero didn’t die is because the fantasy is still alive. Despite the obvious failures, the fantasy will still remain at least as long as Biden is president, nannycrats rule the EU, and people like AOC and Gretta are idolized.
Message of the Day
Politicians Will Not Solve the Problem
Climate Forecast Headline Predictions
- 1967 Salt Lake Tribune: Dire Famine Forecast by 1975, Already Too Late
- 1969 NYT: “Unless we are extremely lucky, everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years. The situation will get worse unless we change our behavior.“
- 1970 Boston Globe: Scientist Predicts New Ice Age by 21st Century said James P. Lodge, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
- 1971 Washington Post: Disastrous New Ice Age Coming says S.I. Rasool at NASA.
- 1972 Brown University Letter to President Nixon: Warning on Global Cooling
- 1974 The Guardian: Space Satellites Show Ice Age Coming Fast
- 1974 Time Magazine: Another Ice Age “Telling signs everywhere. Since the 1940s mean global temperatures have dropped 2.7 degrees F.”
- 1974 “Ozone Depletion a Great Peril to Life” University of Michigan Scientist
- 1976 NYT The Cooling: University of Wisconsin climatologist Stephen Schneider laments about the “deaf ear his warnings received.”
- 1988 Agence France Press: Maldives will be Completely Under Water in 30 Years.
- 1989 Associated Press: UN Official Says Rising Seas to ‘Obliterate Nations’ by 2000.
- 1989 Salon: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019 said Jim Hansen the scientist who lectured Congress in 1988 about the greenhouse effect.
- 2000 The Independent: “Snowfalls are a thing of the past. Our children will not know what snow is,” says senior climate researcher.
- 2004 The Guardian: The Pentagon Tells Bush Climate Change Will Destroy Us. “Britain will be Siberian in less than 20 years,” the Pentagon told Bush.
- 2008 Associate Press: NASA Scientist says “We’re Toast. In 5-10 years the Arctic will be Ice Free”
- 2008 Al Gore: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013.
- 2009 The Independent: Prince Charles says Just 96 Months to Save the World. “The price of capitalism is too high.”
- 2009 The Independent: Gordon Brown says “We have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe.”
- 2013 The Guardian: The Arctic will be Ice Free in Two Years. “The release of a 50 gigaton of methane pulse” will destabilize the planet.
- 2013 The Guardian: US Navy Predicts Ice Free Arctic by 2016. “The US Navy’s department of Oceanography uses complex modeling to makes its forecast more accurate than others.
- 2014 John Kerry: “We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos” discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.
The above items are thanks to 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.
I discussed the above list in 2021 in 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened
The list is dated but serves a great discussion about how wrong everyone has been.
Related Posts
- Biden Struggles to Convince People to Buy EVs, Only 12 Percent Seriously Considering
- Despite Huge Incentives, Supply of EVs on Dealer Lots Soars to 92
- Clean Energy Exploitations and the Death Spiral of an Auto Industry
- An Epic Battle: Ford to Use China’s Battery Technology, GM Wants it Blocked
The Shocking Truth About Biden’s Proposed Energy Fuel Standards
In case you missed it, please consider The Shocking Truth About Biden’s Proposed Energy Fuel Standards
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA did an impact assessment of 4 fuel standard proposals and compared them to the cost of doing nothing. Guess what.
The NHTSA conclude: “Net benefits [of stricter mile standards] for passenger cars remain negative across alternatives” vs doing nothing at all.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded Biden’s mileage standards have “Net benefits for passenger cars remain negative across alternatives” vs doing nothing at all.
And to top it EVs don’t do a damn thing for the environment. See Biden’s Solar Push Is Destroying the Desert and Releasing Stored Carbon
Also consider Electric Vehicles for Everyone? If the Dream Was Met, Would it Help the Environment?
EVs are coming and for some people they even make sense. But for most, the infrastructure is not in place, and questions abound on the minerals needed and the cost of insurance.
Importantly, EVs will not do a damn thing for the environment. Nonetheless, the fantasy is still alive.
I think NetZero was only a British legality or not even that. I don’t know if it is incorporated in the Paris Agreement or EU law. It was always poppycock, which is why it cannot be dead or declared dead.
Besides loving the McLean analogy, when you look back at it now, did it ever truly have a chance? It has been mostly all hype, by falsehoods and propaganda, and price support via rebates, tax breaks, and credits.
I don’t recall Net0 or EV’s for that matter, ever standing on simply their own merits. Not by a long shot. Of course windmills and solar panels, also fall into the same ideological stupidity. Not to say someday they may all be viable alternatives for energy and the like, but not even close today or the near future for that matter.
It will take several decades at best, to get all the infrastructure in place for everything to work smooth and efficiently. Just cost alone will take a couple decades to gather up, all as they go along, like the CA. Train to nowhere that is still being build and way, way over budget, and decades away from completion. Put a more realistic way, it will no longer be needed by the time it’s near completion, and surely by design, simply due to technological advances… Duh!!!
Future ideas, utilized by our Government and the MSM (aka. brown shirts) to propagandize for profit long before it’s ready. Give away some $ as you go along to keep up the progress scam, but it will all boil to the surface soon enough. In fact it just popped up about windmills a couple days ago, so they are on there way out already by the looks of it… Just pathetically sad!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/14/wind-developer-orsted-bosses-exit-us
Most of the planet does not have flushing toilets but somehow they are going to leapfrog toilets and have an EV in the driveway, solar panels on their hut roof and a charging station in the hut garage…meh.
I do have a flushing toilets but I have no use for an EV or solar panels. I don’t want it. I have an ICE truck with low miles and solar panels are officious looking on a nice home. Plenty of oil still in the ground, at least 200 years worth. I’m fine with EV and solar tech but the breakneck speed of trying to jam this down our throats has got to stop and will stop. The free market doesn’t want it and doesn’t want to pay for it like Mish stated. If you want it then YOU pay for it.
You are a useful human being
Much of the world doesn’t even have a private toilet, relying on communal holes in the ground or the local river. Let alone any connected electricity. What they generally do have is cheap nylon clothes and plastic furniture made from fossil fuels in a far away country.
The market will decide… the cost of fuel and resources will make high powered vehicles more expensive, reducing the demand (i.e.: the affordability to consumers).
Cheaper, simpler vehicles are often found in the developing world, and the market will keep low powered low resource consuming vehicles cheaper. It’s that simple.
All that government intervention does is misallocate resources, causing waste, and shortages, until those governments fall. That has happened regularly in history.
Live by the market then die by the market. It really is that simple!
The following presentation by Princeton physicist William Haper is worth a watch for those wanting a simple scientific explanation of why the entire CO2 thing is a hoax. Basically the the warming effect saturates around 400 ppm CO2. At about the 19 minute mark on the video, he present a blackbody radiation curve of the earth with no atmosphere. This represents the amount of power radiated from the earth as a function of electromagnetic frequency. Two other curves are also superimposed on the same plot. One shows the radiation of the earth with the atmosphere containing 400 ppm CO2. The area between this curve and the blackbody curve is the amount of energy retained that heats the planet. The other curve is the radiation from the earth with a an atmosphere containing 800 ppm CO2. One can hardly see any difference with the 400 ppm and 800 pm curve. Thus, there is no extra heating effect ( but plants love the extra CO2 and the planet becomes greener soaking up more CO2).
https://youtu.be/v2nhssPW77I?si=rORTKd52gR_jjUy0
I should add, the entire presentation is excellent. It explores a number of avenues, such as: the greening effects of CO2 and the political aspect. It’s an extremely devastating critique of the entire climate change hoax.
It is not a hoax but if you are young enough you will find that out unless the world wars get you first
I bet you would like the millions he is getting for this after selling his soul to the devil!
But somehow all the climate scientist who peddle the government line and get huge government grants are angles. Sorry, the above video is for people who can think logically and have some understanding of science. You and Greta can keep on believing your fairy tales.
You mean people capable of critical thinking of which only 20% of the population qualify
Although I agree that the whole global warming thing is a sham (the world was coming out of a mini ice age and CO2 increases contributed little to it), there is a more important issue. Fossil fuels are limited. So how will the future be powered?
I’d recommend the 8 part series by ex hedge fund manager Erik Townshend ( no relation to Pete). He has a weekly podcast called Macro Voices which some may be familiar with. Although he does believe in the climate change narrative, his series is pretty good. The main thesis is that the infrastructure and technology is not in place to have the energy transition required and the green energy projects aren’t going to get us there. He explores some different alternatives like geothermal and small modular nuclear reactors. Here is the link to the first in the series.
https://youtu.be/75c-kHKv0O4?si=fKHIi3sBj37FOH2Q
most people will have less power as they do now. there will be uneven and unequal distribution, as detested by the marxists, but that’s reality. some countries, cultures, and localities have advantages over many others, and history beats that out.
Don’t worry your little head about such things
Will conclude an existential threat day I see Gore or Kerry flying coach.
Great article Mish . Siemens looking for bailout and the companies who
jumped on the climate crap paying dearly for doing so . Just shows you how distructive government can be. Can you imagine if these trilions of dollars
would have been invested in productive things for the good of people what we could have like nuclear power and so on .
The people don’t matter. Haven’t you learned anything? People are fodder for governments and Corporations
Eventually and sooner than you think, electricity generation will be done in orbit and beamed down to the Earth solving the problem of no electricity at night or when there is no wind. It lessens the need for batteries as well. You may think it is science fiction and it is but tests by China, the US and Japan have already used solar panels to successfully beam energy from orbit to Earth. They do it because it is the obvious solution. No new physics has to be found. It is just engineering, and we know how to do that.
At what scale though? Obviously it can be done engineering wise but scale is what matters.
Right now fields of solar panels on earth cover many acres (ie not square miles). To put that kind of equivalent mass in space is probably out of the question given we can barely put up a space station.
More importantly, the larger the area, the higher the chance of collisions with objects in space (micro meteors and our own space junk) which would damage and destroy the panels.
It is not something you put up in a year and it will take time to get up to the need surface. The mass is less than you think because in weightlessness you need much less reinforcement and structure and the panels will not be like ones on Earth but will be paper thin. Space junk will cause holes here and there of course but that is not a big problem. The Starship can put 150+ tons in orbit and other countries will develop reusable rockets also so the race is on and the economics are compelling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_system_of_the_International_Space_Station
Solar arrays on the space station weight 2400 lbs each (roughly 1 ton) and the 8 arrays generate 240 kilowatts in direct sunlight or roughly 30 Kilowatts each.
That means you need ~33 panels to generate 1 megawatt or 33000 to generate 1 gigawatt (that’s roughly 900K homes for a year). At 1 ton each that means 33,000 tons needs to be shipped into space for one such array.
Most importantly, they have a life expectancy of only 15 years.
The math seems awfully daunting unless there is orders of magnitude better panels (life expectancy and physical weight to kilowatt generation).
The new tech for the solar panels in space are much different from the Space Station’s. Here is article from Caltech describing what they are working on:
Caltech researchers are bringing space-based solar power from sci-fi to reality | http://www.caltech.edu
If you do some research you see that everyone is working on this seriously. SpaceX’s Starship is a reality and changes the economics of putting massive objects in orbit incredibly cheaper and that opens doors. Much has changed in the last five years and if you hadn’t followed the sector, it is easy to miss.
Oh, we might not have the time before the extinction event
It’s a race against time.
it’s not “just engineering”, it’s finance and training… something “we” are a bit shit at.
If the markets can “finance” useless cryptos to the tune of a trillion dollars then I don’t think money is the big handicap for the project. As for training you develop it as you go along as you have to do in any new industry. We got the engineering and the money and are getting the training. We are good at it.
That would be great!
“Eventually and sooner than you think, electricity generation will be done in orbit and beamed down to the Earth solving the problem of no electricity at night or when there is no wind.”
Amen! The Tooth Fairy will see to that! Or, in Newspeak:”She will Inveeeest in it!!!!!”
I believe Net Zero died day 1, for those with thinking minds. 🔦✝️
In the 60s and 70s (at least in Europe) cars were much less powerful than today. Significant progress has been made by manufacturers, which has led to very significant reductions in gasoline or diesel consumption. Unfortunately these reductions were almost entirely canceled out by the increase in vehicle power. So, before turning massively to EV, wouldn’t it have been smarter to start by going back, lowering engine power to the level of the 60s and 70s, which would probably divide emissions at least by 2?
There is way too much hyperbole and exaggeration on this topic.
Economic growth and improved living standards are a basic goal of virtually every country and government on earth. The world cannot achieve either goal without using more energy.
Currently the vast majority of all energy used is from fossil fuels. After spending 5 trillion on renewables, the world has reduced fossil fuel use from 82% to 81% of all energy used over the last two decades. Though because we are using more energy every year, that means more fossil fuels in absolute terms.
2050 is an impossible target date for net zero. Net zero is probably a century or more away.
Which means greenhouse gas levels will continue to increase and global warming will continue to get worse. Which is going to cost us all a lot.
Predictions from actual scientific papers have been pretty accurate to date, and if anything, have been a little too conservative. Predictions from politicians and the press are always over sensationalist.
I cannot stop global warming or the hyperbole surrounding it. However, I can profit from it.
Got oul?
You sound like an trading guru. I’m a scaredy cat hanging out in short term treasuries. I can easily see a melt up or a melt down depending on which way the lemmings are stampeded. But in this interest rate environment where the government is spinning out trillions of new bonds that need funded, I’m betting the long term rate will see another spike and a recession is around the corner. Can the incompetent Biden team hold things together through the election with more irresponsible spending? We shall see.
I am both an investor and a trader. Not a “guru”. I come here to gather useful info to help build my wealth. I am also willing to share my investing opinions, which leaves me open to a lot of criticism. I doubt that many here will be willing to invest like me. As you said, you are a scaredy cat, hanging out in short term treasuries. That is your comfort level. I can understand that.
I have been heavily invested (just over 50% of my portfolio), for the last 3 years in oil and gas stocks and have done very well. I expect to remain heavily invested in oils for several more years, based on the conditions that exist. If I come to the conclusion that those conditions will change, then I will exit this sector and look to invest elsewhere. But I see no sign of that yet.
Incidentally, regarding your other posts in this thread. Personally, I do not consider the current Global Warming as a sham, scam, or hoax. It is a very real result of man’s influence on the planet; and in particular our use of fossil fuels for the last few hundred years. Fossil fuels which have helped cause a boom in economic activity and improved living standards. However, there are downsides to our use of fossil fuels; and global warming is one of them.
We are all addicted to our present way of life, and to the energy needed to provide it. Without that energy we are back to subsistence living, like 500 years ago. And no one wants to go back to that. Our inability to find a viable alternative to fossil fuels (renewables have failed to slow our use of fossil fuels so far), means the global warming problem will continue to worsen. I accept that. I am not here to argue with others over that reality. I am here to figure out how to profit from it. And the best way to profit, in my opinion, is by investing in some oil and gas stocks that are gushing cash flow.
Well, markets are about to open. Back to making more money.
Bye for now.
Great PapaDave. Someone who thinks critically and with logic unlike many of the others posting on here. As far as global warming is concerned, there will come a time when it will be impossible for humans to correct the problem. I don’t know when that will be but I am getting nervous. Nobody has come up with the Physics to state that the warming we are measuring today will not continue. That was the point of 1.5C. We need to keep at 1.5C on average. Humans have failed. For the many who applaud the failure, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!” If you care for your families you would act a lot more responsibly than you do.
Hi Martin. Global warming is going to get a lot worse. It is almost impossible to know who and what will be impacted the most in the future. Currently it is impacting those who are least able to deal with it (the poorest countries and people in the world). But no one will be exempt as the future unfolds.
As things get progressively worse, one wonders what the world’s response will be? An enlightened world that cooperates in order to solve the problem; or a divided world that adopts a survival of the fittest mentality, resulting in escalating conflicts and wars.
Based on much of human history,
I am not optimistic. Fortunately,
I will probably be long gone when things get really bad. But I do feel bad about my grandchildren and what they will experience.
In the meantime, I will continue to find ways to profit from a situation that I have no control over.
More energy because more people… once things start running out, things get warry…
We know it is all a scam, but cui bono? If it were a thing here and there, that would be one thing, but its a global scam all happening at the same time. So it is not an accident, but a plan. And in order to understand what is going on, we should first come to grips with who it is that benefits from these lies and scams.
They are not lies and scams. Only people with a maladjusted brain think that.
The ev innovators cannibalized themselves. Tesla 2 might cannibalize Tesla.
Ford and GM were fully committed to ev. They might sell low end ev, as an option,
to compete with Tesla 2. They will import them from China. On the cusp of recession
Ilan is fully committed to Tesla 2.
#8 is the only one on that list that was actually true. Thanks to readily available substitutes we were able to do something about it. Otherwise I suspect it too would still be a problem.
A physicist dissects net zero for your amusement.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2bJTOymi3eo&pp=ygUPTmV0IHplcm8gc2FiaW5l
Now if we only can convince the goofy governor to not tear out the hydroelectric dams he needs to charge the EVs he’s convinced we need to buy.
There is a good book out there by Vaclav Smil. “How the world really works” should be mandatory reading in our public schools. Any sudden changes causing interruptions to the key inputs and outputs of our civilization, eg energy, steel, cement, fertilizer …. would be devastating . That being said technology will continue marching forward and EV’s will replace ICE cars but at a measured pace as and in places it makes sense
It won’t be “EVs”. It will be hybrid fuel cells. Ships now run on methanol and ammonia. Hydrogen is much more of a holy grail than the dead end of hauling a giant battery around. In the far and semi-imaginary future, portable nuclear fusion perhaps.
Yes! Exactly! “Any sudden changes…………..” Absolutely true. That is exactly what global warming is. It will be devastating and everything on the earth today will no longer work! No banks, no Wall Street, no Fed, and so on
The future is coming, like it or not. Why fight it? Do you actually think your way of thinking will be the future?
No, it isn’t already and it will not be into the future!
The whole netzero cultish thing has the strong stench of Maoism about it.
Oh please, you should hear yourself!
Net zero existed four hundred years ago. Net zero died when people began using fossil fuels to develop our prosperous industrial civilization. The net zero life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Net zero supported one sixteenth the population we have today.
You make that read as though it has been a good thing! What it has done and what it is doing is destroying the earth.
Oh what a bad take BIG Oil FUD as usual.
Did you argue against Smartphones and want to keep your Nokia and Blackberry?!?
Because it didn’t work.
Simply put…
There will be about 15 MILLION EVs sold Globally this year in 2023.
That’s basically equal to the ENTIRE number of ALL passenger vehicles sold in the USA.
That’s a massive increase in EV Sales this year by over 4 MILLION more EVs sold in 2023 than last year.
Nearly all of those 15 million EVs sold will be sold in place of an ICE vehicle.
Neither Blackberry nor Nokia was able to stop Smartphones from spreading around the world in a decade.
Neither GM nor Ford will be able to stop the spread of EVs around the world…or in the US.
EVs are INCREASING in Sales both Globally AND in the US. Not by a little…by a LOT.
Globally, EVs will hit close to 18% of ALL New Vehicles Sold this year. Which is over 30% growth Globally.
In the meantime, ICE Vehicle Sales will CONTINUE to fall.
The fact that GM and Ford (and Toyota and VW, etc.) will continue to lose Millions of ICE sales every year, from here on out is due to THEIR Incompetence and THEIR lack of Advanced Planning.
Even EXXON just announced their first drilling for Lithium Brine in Arkansas. As Red(neck) of a State as there is.
It doesn’t matter whether you cry about it or not. Tesla is growing 40% per year and will continue taking market share from ICE Vehicles made in the US, EU and China. The ONLY three markets that matter in Automotive.
BYD and some other EV manufacturers are doing the same.
GM and Ford are going the way of Nokia and Blackberries. Too slow to change, can’t get profitable for normal priced vehicles, now they’re going to have to join Tesla’s Charging Network in the US, which opens up to them next year.
Every Major Automotive Market is INCREASING the number of EVs sold…it’s not the legacy automakers who are going to make the transition. That’s why they are slowing down growth…they can’t handle the changes.
None of what you say is true. You need to look at ALL the data, not just the bits that fit your narrative. Parroting anti-ICE FUD that you get from anti-scientific, anti-capitalist, bigoted, uneducated extremist woke websites does not make anything you say bear scrutiny.
I think I will believe DavidC
Ding-Ding net-zero is dead,🎶🎶
Great website called Extinctionclock.org that outlines a ton of dire predictions and which ones have occurred and/or time left to occur. Shows you how much mass hysteria is needed to convince people of a particular argument.
Isn’t that true!
The problem of course is that NetZero == Murder. Or humanicide. Or a kind of universal genocide.
It is guaranteed to impoverish people, starting with those least able to afford it
It does not seem the fantasy is dead yet. People like Jeremy Grantham and most of the Billionaire Donor and Oligarch class still act as if NetZero is a given. Even Raoul Pal is enraptured by it as he sees it as a technological movement that ultimately drops the price of energy. Not sure how he gets there.
still act
The way that you approach this is frightening for humanity. No net zero and everything carries on as usual. NetZero and it is really, really bad. You will come to realize when you see it for yourself that global warming will get us whatever we do or don’t do!
Not to get in an argument or anything but do you know the basic facts?
Like how much sea levels have already risen since the end of the last widespread glaciation? When Polar Bears evolved as a species? What the temperature in Northern Greenland was 2.4 Million Years Ago just before the onset of the last glaciation?
Here read my piece patterned on Galileo’s book of the same name and learn something.
While warming and mans changes to the composition of the atmosphere and ocean chemistry is something to be monitored and studied carefully, the risk of truly catastrophic changes due to mans use of hydrocarbons seems relatively low
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systemshttps://bangpath.substack.com/p/dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief
Fortunately, climate scientists have been monitoring and carefully studying those things as well as many more in this field. And they have published over 88000 peer reviewed papers with their results. Have you ever read any of them?
Agree: Net Zero is murder if you stop the use of fossil fuels without adequate replacements.
However, Net Zero is a worthwhile goal if you can adequately replace fossil fuels with renewables and nuclear.
Particularly if renewables become much cheaper than fossil fuels through technological advances.
Lots of positives. Less pollution. A decline in GHG concentrations to levels that have encouraged the lifeforms on earth for the last 10k years. Imagine every country being self-sufficient in energy supply. Think of the benefits that would result from that; economically and politically.
Unfortunately, the time frame to accomplish this is very long. And we are doing a terrible job of it so far.