The nice thing is, it does move the pollution, but mainly, it reduces it to 1/5 of the volume, due do increased efficiency of the whole chain
What? You think the energy efficiency of remote generation, long distance electrical transmission, then battery charge and discharge losses in a vehicle, plus the energy overheads of EV and battery manufacture, is higher than the system of IC engine vehicles, their manufacture and the production and transport of hydrocarbon fuels?
Not to mention the utility of IC engine vehicles, that can be rugged, high carrying capacity, long range, and work with bulk-storable long-lasting fuel.
Also, what exactly are you saying gets "reduced to 1/5 the volume" in the former case, compared to the latter?
CO2? Actual pollution like particulates, CO, SO2, etc? Please define.
By the way, the
actual biggest problem with our industrial society, is not CO2 emissions, but
planned obsolescence. That results in physical products with very limited use lifetimes, thus the huge material and energy wastage required for the continual replacement of everything we use. You don't see many (any?) Green advocates calling for an end to planned obsolescence do you? This factor alone should convince you the entire 'Green' energy push has goals quite different to what it pretends.
and growing renewables share.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of investments in energy sources that are distributed, locally or privately owned, have less harmful (or non-harmful) environmental footprints, and are capable of aiding the support of a high-tech civilization. Which of course must include having a sufficiently positive EROEI to be energy-worthwhile, as opposed to simply wasting our precious and irreplaceable fossil fuel energy resources on stupid ideologically motivated feel-good schemes that don't ultimately work.
The problem is, the only 'renewable' energy source I know of that meets those requirements, is hydroelectric power. ALL the others have serious issues with EROEI, operating lifetime, energy-payback time, energy availability and long term dependability. So bad they are actually not practical & worthwhile as major energy sources for industrial society overall.
Local and individual use of solar panel & battery installations for residential energy independence, especially in remote locations, is great. But it does require a fossil-fueled industrial base to enable manufacture of the panels (glass, aluminium, silicon cells, wiring) and electronics.
It's also unfortunate governments and power generation authorities dislike and generally discourage true energy independence, since they lose both their money cut, and the political control aspect.
For the rest, you're right, we have an unacceptable footprint,
Perhaps. It depends what you define as objectives. It would be nice to reduce our environmental impact, true. But taking it to zero? OK YOU kill yourself first as a praiseworthy example to the rest of us.
and it's inacceptable to cope with the ressource waste of moving 80kg of meat with a very wasteful1500kg vehicle, no matter the fuel.
Speak for yourself. I find it 'inacceptable' (sic) for someone else to tell me what kind of vehicle I need to carry out whatever activities I consider worthwhile. Maybe I need a 3 ton truck as well as a light runaround? Who are you to say no?
That weight should be limited to a much smaller value on the long term, especially in 10 years, when automation make car crashes extremely unlikely.
Oh I see. You are one of those who believe in fairy tales, and want to impose fairy-tale-based restrictions on everyone else.
The kind of mindset that results in quotes like these:
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation (One of my favorites.)
"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University (A close second.)
"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
( More at
http://everist.org/archives/links/__Global_Cull_links.txt )
As an update, here are a few recent read-worthy articles.
20190130
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/30/climate-change-gets-a-new-language-again/Just in case you thought the Warmists don't strategize adaptations of the propaganda terminology they use.
20190213
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/australias-new-hottest-day-just-discovered-not-albany-or-oodnadatta-but-carnarvon-51-degrees-in-1953/Australia’s new hottest day just “discovered”, not Albany or Oodnadatta, but Carnarvon (51 degrees in 1953!)
THE BOM LIST grows — Scandal after scandal (A list of uncovered data frauds from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.)
The BOM seem to be doing their historical revisionism nearly every year. From Sept 2017:
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/too-late-bureau-of-met-buys-time-with-another-major-revision-of-data-that-was-best-quality-five-years-ago/20190216
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.phpGlobal Warming Petition Project
http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.phphttp://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html#.XGb33e4JetU.emailOver 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax
A staggering 30,000+ scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money.
20190219
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/climate-change-religion-and-related-cover-ups-what-hell-nasa-hidingNASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases
Also
https://www.iceagenow.info/ always worth reading daily, for their collection of 'gosh it really is an Ice Age starting' current global cold-weather records.