And this is where I wonder what industry y’all work in. To stop oil demand going up, you would have to produce not a single new ice car, not a single new gas furnace, not a single new gas water heater, not a single new gas stove, not a single new industrial gas furnace/processer/whatever machinery. Not a single one. To do that alone is a monumental task that takes unbelievable effort and time. Too many people think it can be done like you update code or something, y’all have no idea how big industry is. That’s just to stop it going up, not to actually reduce use. But don’t worry protest voters, we can start again in 4 years. And again don’t get me wrong, I want environmental policy. I just know what it takes.
We were talking about oil production. But yes, you can lay the framework to stop all of that in four years. Because we have alternatives to all of that that are cheaper too make, cheaper to own, cheaper to run, and cheaper to maintain, save for a few specific industrial use cases and the aviation industry.
You can just update code, and switch subsidies to non fossil fuels alternatives. And stop fucking blocking Chinese imports.
We can do it. We know we can because other countries are, and are showing how ridiculously easy it is. Shockingly easy. Frustratingly easy.
But you need to want to do it, and that requires putting the environment above personal investments and greed, and no Democrat is capable of that.
Fair enough we can limit this to oil if you want (but I look at the whole issue). Limiting to oil means no new ICE cars. Not a single one! And we’re back to what freaking industry do you guys work in. For every car company to retool every single plant. New assembly lines, new machinery. New parts suppliers, entirely new supply chain. Can’t forget you have to engineer and test new cars before that. For mining to pick up to produce all the chemicals. More new manufacturing expansion to manufacture batteries. Don’t forget all the assembly lines and machinery for that. Electrical companies, new power plants and new power lines. Hey cities and states, get that planning and permits going. Construction is notoriously fast /s.
You guys seem to have no idea the difficulty in working with physical products at scale.
And more inb4 Lemmy’s famous misreading, yes we should do it. What I’m saying is it takes more planning, effort, and time than you can imagine.
Oh you make a thinly veiled personal attack. Why do I bother. Ciao.
… No, it doesn’t. Xiaomi went from zero cars produced to 500,000 cars produced in under 5 years. All EVs. All without subsidization.
We can do this way faster than you oil loving freaks(since you’re already claiming I did a personal attack) would like to admit. It’s fucking easy. There’s a real reason why Americans hate China, because it’s shown the inherent lies and propaganda tied to every single belief that corporate dogs like you espouse.
You claim to want to help the environment. Stop repeating fossil fuel company lies and propaganda then. Maybe someone would take you seriously.
I don’t want to sound like I’m being another hater, you’ve copped a lot of unwarranted downvotes and vitriol. People not willing to discuss things is part of the problem- attacks and trying to silence people through downvotes does not contribute to discussion.
If you’re willing to keep presenting your viewpoint, I’d appreciate some clarity. I urge anyone replying to your comment to engage with thought and maturity. We all learn from opinions that aren’t aligned with ours.
My main question is around your claim that we would have to stop producing any new infrastructure that relies on oil, to prevent consumption going up. I’m not sure I agree- To use a simple example, if some industrial plant uses a diesel engine, and replaces it with a diesel engine that uses less diesel to achieve the same outcome, does that not reduce the overall consumption? Of course, this is a very simple example.
if some industrial plant uses a diesel engine, and replaces it with a diesel engine that uses less diesel to achieve the same outcome, does that not reduce the overall consumption?
strictly speaking, generally, yes it would. However for the sake of the argument, including this kind of detail is.
I think we’re at pretty marginal improvements for efficiency, and it’s overshadowed by the move to SUVs anway. I think it doesn’t amount to much for this 10,000 ft view kind of discussion.
Hybrids can do it, but I’m ‘ehhh’ on the whole concept.
Let’s say there are 250 million ice cars on the street. Ice sales stop. The next day how many ice cars are on the street? 250 million. Gas consumption is the same. You then have to wait (what everyone hates in our now now now world) for ice cars to wear out and inventory to turn over to see any decline in gas.
Good point, and well made. However, ICE cars are already wearing out. 250 million ICE cars on the road. ICE sales stop. The next day, some of those 250 million cars wear out. Gas consumption goes down.
Yeah but it’s the scale and timeframe. People talk like they expect gas consumption to go down now. It’s all over the place. They talk as if a few EVs will cause gas consumption to go down, and it’s so easy why aren’t we doing it already. The reality is it needs to be 100% EV sales for that to happen.
And it’s also policy. We’re not going to get 100% EV sales any time soon. So gas consumption will go up. Pretty much anything short of 100% ev sales means our gas consumption goes up. Combined with growing population, yeah more consumption.
Not when we go to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. This is not static like everyone talks about. To make any real dent you pretty much need 100% EV sales.
Again it’s the scale timeframe and policy. Scale: we’re talking the entire country, not singular cars. That means you have to account for what I listed above: movement to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. Timeframe: people demand decrease now. Not 20 years from now. That means you can’t wait out mixed EV and Ice sales for 20 years. Policy: People talk as if Biden failed because has consumption is up. Ok last explanation. He implements the impossible policy of 100% EV sales in 4 years. The result? Gas consumption is the same. See 250 million cars explanation. And people yell that he failed and it’s so easy. Reality is he succeeded and people don’t understand the metrics.
And this is where I wonder what industry y’all work in. To stop oil demand going up, you would have to produce not a single new ice car, not a single new gas furnace, not a single new gas water heater, not a single new gas stove, not a single new industrial gas furnace/processer/whatever machinery. Not a single one. To do that alone is a monumental task that takes unbelievable effort and time. Too many people think it can be done like you update code or something, y’all have no idea how big industry is. That’s just to stop it going up, not to actually reduce use. But don’t worry protest voters, we can start again in 4 years. And again don’t get me wrong, I want environmental policy. I just know what it takes.
We were talking about oil production. But yes, you can lay the framework to stop all of that in four years. Because we have alternatives to all of that that are cheaper too make, cheaper to own, cheaper to run, and cheaper to maintain, save for a few specific industrial use cases and the aviation industry.
You can just update code, and switch subsidies to non fossil fuels alternatives. And stop fucking blocking Chinese imports.
We can do it. We know we can because other countries are, and are showing how ridiculously easy it is. Shockingly easy. Frustratingly easy.
But you need to want to do it, and that requires putting the environment above personal investments and greed, and no Democrat is capable of that.
Stop excusing monsters, less you become one.
Fair enough we can limit this to oil if you want (but I look at the whole issue). Limiting to oil means no new ICE cars. Not a single one! And we’re back to what freaking industry do you guys work in. For every car company to retool every single plant. New assembly lines, new machinery. New parts suppliers, entirely new supply chain. Can’t forget you have to engineer and test new cars before that. For mining to pick up to produce all the chemicals. More new manufacturing expansion to manufacture batteries. Don’t forget all the assembly lines and machinery for that. Electrical companies, new power plants and new power lines. Hey cities and states, get that planning and permits going. Construction is notoriously fast /s.
You guys seem to have no idea the difficulty in working with physical products at scale.
And more inb4 Lemmy’s famous misreading, yes we should do it. What I’m saying is it takes more planning, effort, and time than you can imagine.
Oh you make a thinly veiled personal attack. Why do I bother. Ciao.
… No, it doesn’t. Xiaomi went from zero cars produced to 500,000 cars produced in under 5 years. All EVs. All without subsidization.
We can do this way faster than you oil loving freaks(since you’re already claiming I did a personal attack) would like to admit. It’s fucking easy. There’s a real reason why Americans hate China, because it’s shown the inherent lies and propaganda tied to every single belief that corporate dogs like you espouse.
You claim to want to help the environment. Stop repeating fossil fuel company lies and propaganda then. Maybe someone would take you seriously.
I don’t want to sound like I’m being another hater, you’ve copped a lot of unwarranted downvotes and vitriol. People not willing to discuss things is part of the problem- attacks and trying to silence people through downvotes does not contribute to discussion.
If you’re willing to keep presenting your viewpoint, I’d appreciate some clarity. I urge anyone replying to your comment to engage with thought and maturity. We all learn from opinions that aren’t aligned with ours.
My main question is around your claim that we would have to stop producing any new infrastructure that relies on oil, to prevent consumption going up. I’m not sure I agree- To use a simple example, if some industrial plant uses a diesel engine, and replaces it with a diesel engine that uses less diesel to achieve the same outcome, does that not reduce the overall consumption? Of course, this is a very simple example.
When the opening goes out of its way to divert the conversation into political blame slinging, the vitriol is very much warranted.
we’re blaming people for things now???
strictly speaking, generally, yes it would. However for the sake of the argument, including this kind of detail is.
Not important.
I think we’re at pretty marginal improvements for efficiency, and it’s overshadowed by the move to SUVs anway. I think it doesn’t amount to much for this 10,000 ft view kind of discussion.
Hybrids can do it, but I’m ‘ehhh’ on the whole concept.
I’m still trying to understand what you’re saying about needing to stop producing any ice cars if we are to reduce consumption.
Let’s say there are 250 million ice cars on the street. Ice sales stop. The next day how many ice cars are on the street? 250 million. Gas consumption is the same. You then have to wait (what everyone hates in our now now now world) for ice cars to wear out and inventory to turn over to see any decline in gas.
Good point, and well made. However, ICE cars are already wearing out. 250 million ICE cars on the road. ICE sales stop. The next day, some of those 250 million cars wear out. Gas consumption goes down.
Yeah but it’s the scale and timeframe. People talk like they expect gas consumption to go down now. It’s all over the place. They talk as if a few EVs will cause gas consumption to go down, and it’s so easy why aren’t we doing it already. The reality is it needs to be 100% EV sales for that to happen.
And it’s also policy. We’re not going to get 100% EV sales any time soon. So gas consumption will go up. Pretty much anything short of 100% ev sales means our gas consumption goes up. Combined with growing population, yeah more consumption.
It’s fairly straightforward- if a new car is an EV, consumption will be less than if that car was ICE.
Not when we go to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. This is not static like everyone talks about. To make any real dent you pretty much need 100% EV sales.
Again it’s the scale timeframe and policy. Scale: we’re talking the entire country, not singular cars. That means you have to account for what I listed above: movement to SUVs, growing population, and growing car ownership per capita. Timeframe: people demand decrease now. Not 20 years from now. That means you can’t wait out mixed EV and Ice sales for 20 years. Policy: People talk as if Biden failed because has consumption is up. Ok last explanation. He implements the impossible policy of 100% EV sales in 4 years. The result? Gas consumption is the same. See 250 million cars explanation. And people yell that he failed and it’s so easy. Reality is he succeeded and people don’t understand the metrics.