Electric vehicles vs Climate Change

[Hillhater]

Come on deniers - where are your "facts" to disprove MikeB?

Where are the FACTS to support the carbon dioxide = doom theory's ??

Here is a fact:
anyone who believes mankind can influence nature or change the climate ..is a fool !

 

[Miles]

Here is a fact:
anyone who believes mankind can influence nature or change the climate ..is a fool !

No, it's a value judgement and so unspecific as to be meaningless....

 

[swb]

Here is a fact:
anyone who believes mankind can influence nature or change the climate ..is a fool !

That has got to be one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. What alternative reality are you living in?

So you think this small list of man-made activities has "no impact on nature"

Ocean acidification,Species extinction, Habitat destruction, Lead poisoning, Intensive farming, Monoculture, Pesticide drift, Land degradation, Desertification, Habitat destruction, ,Nanotoxicology, Nuclear and radiation accidents, Overpopulation, Ozone depletion, Acid rain, Ocean dumping,Oil spills, Algal bloom, Mercury in fish, Particulate matter, Sulphur oxide, Cyanide fishing , Overfishing, Clearcutting, Deforestation, Acid mine drainage, Mountaintop removal mining, Chlorofluorocarbons,DDT, Dioxin,Toxic heavy metals, PCB's. etc...

 

[Hillhater]

So you think this small list of man-made activities has "no impact on nature"

Ocean acidification,Species extinction, Habitat destruction, Lead poisoning, Intensive farming, .... PCB's. etc...

Yes.. whilst they may be big issues to you, In the big picture, they have no significant impact on "nature" on a global scale.

 

[MikeB]

Yes.. whilst they may be big issues to you, In the big picture, they have no significant impact on "nature" on a global scale.

The human impact on the planet's atmosphere is indisputable. It's a well established fact, and no amount of denial will change it. It's not hard to do the math and see that our influence is both significant and global.

Here's a nice diagram of the atmospheric Carbon cycle, showing flux in Gigatonnes (GT) of Carbon Dioxide:

Human activity, primarily (but not exclusively) the burning of fossil fuels, is adding ~29 GT of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere each year (and that number is growing annually). This number isn't that hard to figure out, it's basic chemistry if you know how much oil, coal, and natural gas is burned each year. Natural processes also add and subtract Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere, and the magnitude of each is shown above.

If you look at the top chart and do the math, you'll find that the rate at which Carbon Dioxide is removed from the atmosphere is slightly slower than the rate it's added to the atmosphere, and the difference is about 12GT/year (at least for the year this chart is based on). So roughly half the human-emitted CO2 is getting removed from the atmosphere by natural processes, and half remains. The atmosphere as a whole generally holds about 720GT of CO2. This means that atmospheric concentrations rise by about 2-3ppm per year, which is exactly what we've been seeing for the last century or so. So there's no question that the added human influence has shifted the balance on this equation, nothing else has suddenly changed in the last few thousand years to change the equilibrium point.

It's now at levels that haven't been experienced for a couple million years, and it's rapidly rising towards levels that haven't been seen for tens of millions of years. Pretty soon, on the current path, we'll be at concentrations that haven't existed since the age of the dinosaurs, when Antarctica hosted a tropical forest and the midwest US was a shallow ocean.

These are the facts, and they are not open to significant dispute. The exact consequences of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere merit some range of discussion, but the fact that we're having a significant global influence is simply a fact.

Calling people 'fools' doesn't change those facts.

 

[Hillhater]

Oh dear !, ..i predict a locked thread any time soon.
But if you insist in rolling out all these same old "facts",..then i feel compelled to reply with the same old responses ..
1) ..what is your concern?..Co2 levels, global warming, or some other factor ??
2)..is.. "a couple million".. years a representative time scale for drawing conclusions on a planetary system with a history of life spanning some 4+billion years ?
3) ...where is the evidence of Co2 levels actually being responsible for global temperature changes. ?

 

[swb]

3) ...where is the evidence of Co2 levels actually being responsible for global temperature changes. ?

I am sure you will dispute the science which is presented here (which is easier to digest than the actual IPCC reports and other journals) but note that there are sure to be similar arguments from fellow deniers, which have been answered in the comments sections. If your specific answers are not there, then post them up for response.

For your specific question about CO being responsible, look here

There are 158 skeptical arguments addressed - as rationally as possible.

 

[LegendLength]

I am sure you will dispute the science which is presented here (which is easier to digest than the actual IPCC reports and other journals) but note that there are sure to be similar arguments from fellow deniers, which have been answered in the comments sections. If your specific answers are not there, then post them up for response.

For your specific question about CO being responsible, look here

There are 158 skeptical arguments addressed - as rationally as possible.

That's a nice site swb. It should be read by anyone interested in this. And we all should be because a massive amount of money will be spent on it whether you are for or against it.

My main conern is this question (from the site):

Q. "Models are unreliable"

A. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

I've yet to see a model that includes the effect of technology. In particular solar collection (via capitalism with cheaper cells) and electric vehicles. And that seems very dishonest because both of those technologies are set to take off over the next few decades. While solar may not be a certainty, electric vehicles are because of their pure economic benifits (basically cheaper fuel).

I admit those things are hard to model. But they aren't even mentioned. With a debate that is so political, and pure 100% BS propoganda such as An Inconvenient Truth (happy to point it out for anyone concerned), it's difficult to accept many of the claims from the left. And lets face it, there's been plenty of exaggeration by both sides over the years for their pet projects (iraq, terrorism, prisoners, immigrants, bank regulation, executive profits ...).

Most claims come down to the modelling. i.e. The world will be is such-and-such state by year X . The models are the most important thing in my mind.

 

[MikeB]

Oh dear !, ..i predict a locked thread any time soon.
But if you insist in rolling out all these same old "facts",..then i feel compelled to reply with the same old responses ..
1) ..what is your concern?..Co2 levels, global warming, or some other factor ??
2)..is.. "a couple million".. years a representative time scale for drawing conclusions on a planetary system with a history of life spanning some 4+billion years ?
3) ...where is the evidence of Co2 levels actually being responsible for global temperature changes. ?

There's no reason to lock the thread, as long as we continue to focus on facts, which is my intent. And there's nothing wrong with old facts, facts don't get moldy and soft with age.

Let's start at the bottom, and work up. The simple answer is that there's no possible way that increased CO2 levels don't result in a warmer planet, the laws of physics demand it. It all boils down to thermodynamics and physical chemistry, and both are very well understood. A failure of the planet to warm in the face of increased greenhouse effect is utterly impossible.

Look, the average temperature of the planet is essentially set by two flows of energy: a hot sun radiating heat onto a warm Earth, and a warm Earth radiating heat into cold space. There's a great deal of thermal inertia, mostly within the oceans, and a small amount of heat coming from the core, but we can neglect these initially. As long as the rate at which heat arrives on the Earth is matched by the rate at which it departs, the temperature remains more or less constant. If either rate is changed, the Earth's temperature will change, which will alter the rate at which heat is radiated into space, and a new equilibrium will be reached. This is, in fact, an old fact, and was originally described in 1827. More specifically, if you slow down the rate at which heat escapes into space, the planet's heat content, and thus it's temperature, rises. And the transfer of heat through a vacuum is done via light, via photons. And when the object radiating this heat is roughly the temperature of the Earth, the majority of that heat transfer is done via infrared light. So anything that blocks the flow of infrared light, anything that reduces the amount of infrared radiating from the surface into space, is absolutely guaranteed to cause the planet to get warmer.

So what exactly is a greenhouse gas? In general, the Earth's atmosphere is transparent to light, photons pass through with minimal interference. But a greenhouse gas is less transparent at specific frequencies, specifically in the infrared range. The infrared radiation is absorbed and re-emitted, but re-emitted in all directions, causing the light to be scattered. This is basic physical chemistry, it's trivial to prove in the lab. In fact, all you need is a box with a particular atmospheric mix. Shine a light into the front of the box, and measure the intensity of the light at the back of the box. You can probably perform this experiment in your kitchen, if you're clever. If you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the box, by adding water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, or any of a large family of gasses, you'll see the intensity of the light at the back of the box is reduced. And observing from the front of the box, you'll see the light is scattered backwards, much like a flashlight shining on frosted glass. The rate of transfer of infrared energy is slowed. And if the rate of transfer of heat away from the Earth is slowed, then the Earth gets hotter, no possible exceptions.

Does this affect exist outside the lab? Yes, and it's very clearly demonstrated on a planetary scale. We can send up a satellite to observe the earth in infrared light, and measure the amount of heat being radiated at different frequencies. Even more specifically, we sent up a satellite in 1970 to make these measurements, and another one in 1996 to make similar measurements. But in the 25 years between the two, we can clearly measure that concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, have changed. And when we compare the satellite measurements, the difference in observation is exactly what we predict based on the increase in greenhouse gasses. Additionally, from the ground, we can point our cameras up towards the sky, and observe the infrared radiation being scattered back down towards the planet. Again, the scattered light matches exactly what we predict based on the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Both of these experiments have been done, and the evidence is perfectly clear: increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses slow the transfer of heat away from the planet, and the planet gets warmer.

 

[MikeB]

1) ..what is your concern?..Co2 levels, global warming, or some other factor ??
2)..is.. "a couple million".. years a representative time scale for drawing conclusions on a planetary system with a history of life spanning some 4+billion years ?

Let's continue:
So we have both theoretical and empirical confirmation that greenhouse gasses warm the planet, and there is no possible escape clause. As long as the laws of thermodynamics apply to our planet, we know that the greenhouse effect will apply. And in fact, we absolutely require the greenhouse effect in order to live. The Earth, at the beginning of the industrial revolution, had around 30 degrees of greenhouse effect in place, keeping the planet from being a frozen iceball. Without it, our planet would be as cold as the Moon, the oceans all turned to solid ice, and probably no life more complex than bacteria.

The fear, of course, is that 30 degrees of greenhouse effect is healthy, but 35 degrees causes problems. Not for the planet, of course, it's just rock. And probably not for life in general, since bacteria can survive an amazingly wide range of hostile environments. Rapidly changing planetary temperatures cause ecological disruptions, and if the change happens too fast, ecological collapse and mass extinctions. But life would continue to exist, even if most of the species we know today go missing.

The problem is that while life is robust, human civilization is far more fragile. Our civilization has only existed for a short time, a few thousand years, and during that time the climate has been virtually rock solid. But certain types of disruptions can cause havoc with our civilizations, with our economy, with our lives. Climate change probably won't end civilization entirely, but it will almost certainly make things a good bit more miserable for a large number of people. And if it doesn't make life miserable for you personally, it'll almost certainly make it more expensive.

Lots of people like to discuss the rising oceans as an obvious consequence of a warming planet, but it's rarely put into context. So think about the 2008 'great recession', and it's cause. The primary financial collapse, the majority of the financial damage, was triggered by the bursting of a housing bubble, causing the loss of literally trillions of dollars of wealth that had been captured in the form of real estate. That loss in real estate value hits certain homeowners directly, but also hurts the entire economy indirectly. But think about how much valuable real estate is sitting within a few feet of sea level. Rising oceans are likely to cause a similar loss of wealth, a destruction of real estate, along every coastline on the planet. Trillions of dollars of wealth could literally be underwater, causing economic damage that continues year after year, decade after decade. As a benchmark, Miami-Dade county has approximately 200 billion dollars in property value, and the entire county is just a few feet above sea level.

But rising oceans is probably the least of our problems. My biggest fear is ecological disruptions turning into agricultural disruptions. The population of humans on this planet will probably pass 7 billion by the end of this year, and 8 and then 9 billion are going to arrive pretty shortly after that. And we currently have problems feeding all of them. But a warming climate means the frequency of heat waves goes up, the frequency of flooding goes up, the frequency of drought goes up. Our agricultural system is at the mercy of the weather, it always has been. And virtually every prediction of the direct consequences of planetary warming has the potential to reduce crop yields on a global basis. It only takes a few degrees of additional warming before the breadbasket of the United States, the massive farm fields of the mid western states, suffer drastic yield reductions, and eventually become almost entirely unable to grow the basic crops of wheat, corn, and soybeans. What type of economic turmoil would happen if the United States became a net importer of food, rather than a net exporter?

In fact, it's a pretty easy argument that global warming has already brought down a government. The reason that the Egyptian government fell this year, as opposed to last year or the year before, is mostly because of high food prices. The people of Egypt are poor, and nothing motivates people towards revolution more than not being able to afford to eat. But why are world food prices so high? Well, we had a massive heat wave in Russia, destroying nearly half their grain crop and causing them to halt all exports. We also have massive crop losses in China, again due to extreme weather. And more crop failures in South America and Australia. And while there's always a risk that one region or another will have a failure in any given year, there's no question that a warming planet has increased that risk globally, making multiple failures in multiple regions far more likely.

 

[MikeB]

I've yet to see a model that includes the effect of technology. In particular solar collection (via capitalism with cheaper cells) and electric vehicles. And that seems very dishonest because both of those technologies are set to take off over the next few decades. While solar may not be a certainty, electric vehicles are because of their pure economic benifits (basically cheaper fuel).

I think you've been looking right at the models you want, and just not seeing them. The physical models are all generally computed in the form of: if greenhouse gasses rise at rate X, we'll see warming at rate Y. Since we know exactly what rate X was for the previous century, we can verify that the models are correct if they produce warming for rate Y over the previous century. But for projections into the coming century, they usually pick 3 or 4 possible rates for X, or model scenarios. The 'baseline' scenario is generally the 'business as usual' scenario, where greenhouse gas rates essentially continue to grow at the same rate as present, which is about 2-3ppm/year. But then there's a 'gradual reduction' scenario, where we see a modest growth in technology like electric vehicles. And that scenario is generally computed twice, once for faster rates of economic growth and one for slower rates. And then there's a 'faster reduction' scenario where there are strong efforts made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Again, multiple economic growth rates are generally calculated. And sometimes there's even more scenarios, like 'drastic reduction' or even 'instant halt to industrial civilization' paths.

I'd guess that your optimism about electric vehicles and your pessimism about solar puts your personal model choice to be just a tiny bit better than the 'baseline' model, but probably not nearly good enough to be considered the 'gradual reduction' case.

 

[gogo]

What I don't know if why its the older age group who cant believe the science

You're onto something with that. Could it be that the older age group is wise to the difference between the science and the interpretations of said science? And then flavor that with a prevalent world-view that humans are evil and deserve to suffer (see original sin). I could go on, but I've learned not to waste my time that way. I'll leave you with this: reconcile all the available information and don't forget to include everything you know about humans' motivations.

 

[LegendLength]

... then there's a 'gradual reduction' scenario, where we see a modest growth in technology like electric vehicles. And that scenario is generally computed twice, once for faster rates of economic growth and one for slower rates.

Thanks mike. I assume by PPM you mean carbon ppm? Or is it a different thing being measured?

I wonder how'd you convert carbon output in tonnes per year to a carbon ppm figure.

 

[MikeB]

Thanks mike. I assume by PPM you mean carbon ppm? Or is it a different thing being measured?

I wonder how'd you convert carbon output in tonnes per year to a carbon ppm figure.

Yea, ppm is parts per million, referring to carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. And you actually have to be careful when talking about tonnes, since sometimes people are referring to just carbon, and sometimes they are referring to carbon dioxide (which is heavier due to the weight of the oxygen). The conversion from tonnes to ppm is very simple, all you need to know is the total tonnage of the atmosphere (which is well established, but I don't have that figure in my head). But, as I mentioned above, only about half of our total emissions stay within the atmosphere, the rest is being captured by natural processes, so there's some wiggle room with that number as well.

And reality is always slightly more complicated, since there are other gasses that have a greenhouse effect, like methane. These gasses may have a much stronger greenhouse effect per molecule than carbon dioxide, but trying to keep track of dozens of them at once in your model makes the math far more complicated. A very useful simplifying assumption is to convert all these other gasses into the same units, generally Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP of carbon dioxide is set to 1.0, and methane comes in around 20. But that means that 1 tonne of carbon and 1 tonne of methane have significantly different net impacts.

 

[LegendLength]

Good info. It will help me crunch some numbers and get a temperature amount for electric vehicle usage rather than just a carbon output figure.

Also i'm sure the ratio of carbon to temperature is not linear so a small reduction in carbon output may have a large effect on temperature.

 

[MikeB]

Good info. It will help me crunch some numbers and get a temperature amount for electric vehicle usage rather than just a carbon output figure.

Also i'm sure the ratio of carbon to temperature is not linear so a small reduction in carbon output may have a large effect on temperature.

I'm glad this info is helping somebody, lots of people don't seem interested in understanding the science very much.

But now you've opened a whole new barrel of monkeys. While the core science I've described so far is essentially indisputable, the calculation of warming created by a given amount of carbon is where much of the uncertainty remains. First, the term to look for is 'Climate Sensitivity', which is defined as the amount of warming we'll experience given a doubling of CO2 concentrations.

At the beginning of the industrial age, concentrations were around 275ppm, so a doubling would be 550ppm. We're now at 380 or so, and growing by ~3ppm per year, so 550 could be hit before the end of this century, assuming existing growth rates. And the best estimates for the climate sensitivity number is around 3 degrees C. However, there's a pretty wide range of plausible values, anything from about 2.5 up to 5 or 6C is possible. And historically, climate scientists have always underestimated the risk, so I'd bet on a higher number rather than a lower one.

But that number is based on 'fast' feedbacks, and ignores slow ones. What do I mean? Ok, water vapor is a fast feedback, in that a small increase in planetary temperature almost immediately results in higher levels of water vapor, which creates more warming. That 3C number includes the amplification of CO2 from water vapor. However, there are lots of additional feedback mechanisms, and they take much longer to respond to an initial warming. Recent research indicates that climate sensitivity should be doubled or even tripled if you want to account for slow feedbacks. So, if CO2 concentrations are halted this century at 550ppm, we'll probably see 3C of total warming (of which 0.8C has already happened). But that's just the temp at the end of this century. If you wait another century, there's another 3C of warming waiting to happen. And possibly yet another 3C in the century after that. We may see only 5' of ocean levels rising by the end of this century, but the slow melting of Greenland and Antarctica could end up being as much as 200' in the long term, assuming we stabilize at these higher temperatures.

So what are the slow feedbacks to be worried about? Off the top of my head, the scariest two are methane from melting permafrost and undersea deposits, as well as reduced albedo from melting ice.

In the northern part of North America, Europe, and Asia, there are vast forests and tundra on top of thick layers of permafrost. The ground is permanently frozen, year round. That means that dead organic matter, such as fallen leaves and branches, don't rot. Instead, they are frozen and accumulate year after year, century after century. This effectively traps their carbon content in the ground, keeping it from reaching the atmosphere. However, as the arctic region warms, the permafrost starts to thaw. The organic matter then decays and rots, releasing either carbon dioxide or methane into the atmosphere. But adding carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere increases planetary temperatures, and forces the permafrost to thaw faster. That causes additional rotting, and additional CO2 and methane. Lather, rinse, repeat. And this is not a small problem, there's more carbon trapped in the permafrost right now than there is in the entire atmosphere, a full thawing would easily take 550ppm well past 1000ppm.

On a related trend, there's vast amounts of methane trapped under the ocean, in a form of ice called methane clathrate. I think this mostly happens along the continental shelves. But as the oceans absorb heat from above, the clathrate melts, releasing the methane as a gas into the water. That then bubbles up into the atmosphere, and causes additional warming. More warming causes more clathrate to melt, forcing yet more methane into the air. Lather, rinse, repeat. Again, this isn't a small problem, between the volume of methane trapped, and the higher GWP of methane to start with, this also could end up doubling the amount of warming we'll observe.

Greenhouse gasses aren't the only way in which rising temperatures create more rising temperatures. Another important factor is the reflective nature of ice and snow. The white surface reflects sunlight far more effectively than dark ground or ocean, providing a cooling effect. But as the ice melts under higher temperatures, less heat is reflected, and more is absorbed by the ground and ocean. And once the ocean warms up, it's far harder for sea ice to form on the surface, so you get another cycle of less ice and more heating. We're already seeing rapid reductions in the amount of sea ice in the Arctic, indicating that this feedback is just becoming strongly active.

In fact, all 3 of these feedbacks are already happening, at least to a limited extent. We're definitely seeing melting permafrost in the arctic regions, there are even lakes in Siberia that have started bubbling out low levels of methane. More methane has been observed bubbling out of the oceans, released by thawing clathrates. And arctic ice is clearly starting to decline. But these feedbacks also suggest that there's absolutely no way to halt greenhouse gasses above a certain limit. If we pass 450ppm CO2, for example, then stopping at 550 might become utterly impossible, the feedbacks will guarantee that we go all the way to 1000. And even if we stop at 450ppm, if we stay there for long enough, the feedbacks will still kick in and bring us to 1000. There's a very strong argument that the highest safe concentration is around 350ppm, and we're at 380ppm today.

 

[MikeFairbanks]

Global warming (or the new term "climate change") is merely a symptom of the real problem:

Population.

There's no way to reverse the amount of pollution on this planet if the population continues growing. It's like walking up the down escalator.

If each person reduces carbon output by a certain percent, but that percent is offset by more people, what's the end result?

More pollution, warming, problems, limited resources, etc.


The fact of the matter is that overpopulation is our problem, and all that other stuff is just a collection of symptoms.


Twelve Monkeys.

 

[tomnewmann]

Hi to everyone - interesting post. I believe the lack of knowledge also leads to the little demand we're currently observing.
I found a survey carried out by the Siemens Electromobility department.
They published the following results:

It found that, for 4-door sedan and 5-door compact cars, the cost was at the high end of the range of costs of measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transport sector: between @500 and €700 per tonne of CO2 avoided. That is a lot. The Energy Collective

The whole survey can be found here: Electric Vehicles Revisited – International Transport Forum

 

[arkmundi]

Thanks for the thread. Lot of great posts. Just to chime in on the topic, I'm a James Lovelock fanboy, author of the best of the science based popular books on the topic of climage change. There are others - Bill McKibben, etc. - but Lovelock got it exactly right in my mind. You'd have to had read his last book The Vanishing Face of Gaia to understand, but in brief:

In his most recent book, "The Vanishing Face of Gaia",[22] he rejects scientific modelling that disagrees with the scientific findings that sea levels are rising faster, and Arctic ice is melting faster, than the models predict and he suggests that we may already be beyond the tipping point of terrestrial climate into a permanently hot state. Given these conditions, Lovelock expects human civilization will be hard pressed to survive. He expects the change to be similar to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum when atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 450 ppm. At that point the Arctic Ocean was 23 °C and had crocodiles in it,[23][24] with the rest of the world mostly scrub and desert.

So, there is just no way at this point that ANYTHING, no matter how right-on and noble, like light electric vehicles and the content here at ES, there's nothing that will at this time make enough of a difference to stop the train wreck of modern industrial civilization against the constraints of nature. That said, my own sanity requires I do everything possible, hence my commitment to my own LEV.

 

[deronmoped]

Sorry to end all the fun guys,

but GW or CC or whatever you want to call it ended 16 years ago. Got to keep up with the times.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

[Grey beard]

I'm one of the "old guys". When I went to school we had science books that talked about the Ice ages, and taught about their cycles. They've been pretty consistent. So, I believe in climate change, that it's always been there. An ice age and then the warming between them. It's the ice age that will be much worse on mankind than the warming. During the warming periods land that was otherwise too cold for the growing of crops becomes useable. However, as I see it, the ice caps during the next ice age will cover most of the worlds breadbasket, make most of North America, Europe, and Asia uninhabitable. Billions of people will STARVE to death. I don't know if the little bit of warming that mankind contributes will delay, speed up, or alter in any measurable way this happening, but happen it will. So, I chill out and enjoy the warmth.

 

[arkmundi]

Can the world economy survive without fossil fuels? by Larry Elliott, 8 April 2015, at The Guardian
Nice summary of the moment and why its difficult to tackle our carbon emissions, subtext: The past three centuries of progress have been powered by coal, oil and gas. Burning much of what’s left will lead to environmental and economic catastrophe. Here’s how to save the earth without giving up on growth.

There was a political adage during the Clinton years (the dude) something like: Its the economy, stupid! In other words, continued growth no matter what and jobs, jobs, jobs, because the voter wont' remember anything else when heading back to the polls. But its China and India where all that continued growth is happening:

Globalisation means that people in the developing world know how we live in the west and they want some of what we have. In addition to higher consumer spending, that also means higher demand for energy, the bulk of which comes from fossil fuels. China currently builds a new coal-fired power station every two weeks. Burning fossil fuels puts carbon into the atmosphere, and the overwhelming view of scientists is that this leads to a buildup of greenhouse gases that results in global warming.

The clincher question:

Can we imagine a future that is cleaner, greener and sustainable – one that avoids climate armageddon – without abandoning the idea of growth and, thus, forcing living standards into decline? The answer is that it will be hellishly difficult, but it is just about feasible if we make the right choices – and start making them now.

By we, he means all of us, on the demand side, because: If we really want the fossil fuels to be left in the ground, it is about us.. And leaving what remains in the ground there, rather than follow the mantra of burn, baby, burn, is what its going to take. His argument is both growth and a transition to a low-carbon economy. Indeed, that growth is the only path forward, because:

Most growth is the result of innovation – the development of new products, new techniques and new ways of doing things that are an improvement on what went before....
... The possibilities opened up by this new wave of technology, he believes, provide hope that growth can be decarbonised over the decades to come. “To say that we have to stop growing – that we have to go backwards – I think is factually wrong, and also politically unlikely to be successful.”

So to get the politics right, it will take unfettered innovation and the growth of a "new economy" driven by that. If anything describes the Endless-Sphere, its that. And a consequent revolution in transportation toward electric vehicles.

 

[neptronix]

So hey... who really cares about global warming in relation to electric vehicles anyway?

Why own an EV? well, it's cheaper to operate, doesn't stink, doesn't require oil changes, doesn't vibrate, has all the torque you want on demand, etc etc.

A well built electric vehicle is superior to anything built with a stinkbox in literally every way but range.

I like EVs primarily because they're awesome. Not because i think i'm saving the planet.

 

[arkmundi]

I like EVs primarily because they're awesome. Not because i think i'm saving the planet.

To each their own. Lot's of reasons to ride an eBike as primary transportation and I won't nix ANY of them. There are downsides, of course, like the on-the-road safety issue of 3 tons of metal versus mostly unprotected human flesh. But if the upside is greater than the downside, then a person can start the transition, of adapting their lives to light electric. And in today's highly informed connected world, the desire to substantially reduce a carbon footprint will be the starting point for many. As it was for me. Maybe a generational thing for us oldies, to want to save the planet from ourselves. For the young athlete like yourself, however, I can get the cool factor and not wanting to smell like sh*t. That malodorous stench wafting around is carbon in the air, and it should be treated as worse than body odour, snot dribbling down the chin or skid marks.

 

[Nehmo]

[youtube]OWXoRSIxyIU[/youtube]
We are undergoing three transformations regarding transportation. E-cars will replace ICE-cars. Autonomous cars will replace human driven cars. And the number of powered vehicles will rapidly increase in the next few decades because China and India are modernizing.
I speculate autonomously driven cars will contribute more than most people estimate in terms of reducing the CO2 output of an average passenger kilometer. Routing will be more efficient, and autonomous navigation will eliminate some trips altogether. It would be hard to gauge these effects, but the benefits would be felt.
E-motors, to some degree, move the CO2 manufacturing from the local vehicle to a energy plant some distance away, but is also is simply more efficient in terms of converting watt-hours into passenger kilometers. Moreover, the grid is gradually (too gradually, unfortunately) converting to "renewable" sources. At least by using electricity, there's an opportunity to get the power from CO2-benign energy-production sources, like hydroelectric, wind, solar, or nuclear.
The China/India expansion will be very influential. China has five times more people as the US, and India will surpass China in population soon.
{BTW, About 90% of the over 20 million electric bikes sold worldwide are in China.}

[youtube]jxVIBO0IfLU[/youtube]
To address OP's general question, sure, the E-transformation will slow (shall we say) human-caused climate change, but in sum, considering there is an inevitable increase in CO2 production, it won't be enough to forestall major problems.