It's a drop in the bucket. Not enough. Also, oddly enough, the market of gasoline internal combustion engines is not predicted to decline, it is actually predicted to grow - by about 10% I believe. That might be kind of conservative when you think about places like China, and these recent predictions were on a global scale.
With the recent VW scandal, Diesel for passenger vehicles is predicted to stay steady, or decline. In reality that doesn't really matter - it's still fossil fuel and still a contributor to GHG.
Hybrids are predicted to grow slightly and electric vehicles to stay fairly constant, but in reality, those don't necessarily solve the problem. If the energy they use comes from fossil fuels, they still contribute a significant amount of GHG. Apparently there are proposals to sequester GHG from power plants, but I've yet to really hear about anything that will put into legislation or into full swing. Electric power generation is still our #1 contributor. Electric cars don't solve the problem if we don't stop using FF for electric generation.
So, in short, the limp-wristed attempts of our government(s) to reduce GHG emissions continue, but not anywhere on the scale we need. In fact, I would bet based on industrialization that we'll wind up on a net increase in GHG emissions despite our efforts to minimize them i.e. be more efficient - but a larger energy demand, even at higher efficiency does not solve the issues.
And automotive suppliers will work very hard for the next 9 years to meet these goals, knowing very well its just a giant waste in terms of the actual goals that need to be met to reduce the earth's warming. And so will the power plants. But we'll burn it all. Every last drop.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/fu ... ate=101016
It's what everyone thinks, but they are too afraid to say. That's sad.
Have you seen this? It gives me some hope:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... ate-change
I'm almost of the mind now it would/will take a catastrophic event i.e. war, plague, famine, large scale natural disaster to change our current course. Consumers expect a certain product, the entire world wants to have the things we do, and there simply isn't enough resource or know-how to make that happen on a sustainable basis.
The two, grim, real-world solutions that I suspect that will need to happen to make a major change are:
reduction in population on a large scale
reduction in per capita energy usage of a reduced population
And that then ties back in with catastrophic events. To reduce either of those things is seen by the majority as a step backward.
I'm a gross offender of those two things which I think every person needs to seriously consider. I now have 3 children and I use far too much energy on a number of relatively meaningless things. The biggest offender is probably me working - driving to and from and the industry I work in.
In the past our populations had always been regulated by the kind of things I mentioned above. Technology and medicine allowed our population to reach the levels it has today and increase the life expectancy. Areas that are grossly overpopulated and life expectancy are low and famine is high are not, to me, any way to live. But surely not everyone can live at the rate first world countries consume and maintain those levels of population.
I see it as all a great balancing act. Our drive is to live as long as possible and preserve our species; it's ingrained in our biology, in every living thing's biology, but that many be our biggest downfall because we've progressed to a point where major things need to happen, by our own hand or fate's, to control our population. In my mind there is no escaping that.
Population decline is seen as a major bummer for modern economies. We need to figure out how to gear our economies towards something other than constant growth if we want to achieve neutral/negative population growth. Any ideas?
I know I'm basing some of my insight off the movie Zeitgeist, but they do make one fact abundantly clear. There is never enough money in circulation to pay off the debt, because the money that was borrowed from banks, as is all money in circulation, is only the principle. Therefore more consumers, with more debt are needed to pay off the old debt.
Our current consumer cycle is a vicious one that really cannot be broken without bankruptcy.
It is a brilliant plan to enslave people and other countries, because as I said earlier, one can never pay off their debt without more debt.
- XCD KNIGHT
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
- Location: New Hampshire
- Ski style: Bumps, trees, and steeps and long woodsy XC tours
- Favorite Skis: DH: Voile Objective and V6, Altai KOMs, Atomic Vantage 85, XC: Gamme 54, Classy Woodies
- Favorite boots: T4, Alaska
- Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch
This was an interesting read when it was not a book, about 10 years ago. It's been a while, I don't remember all the details. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914 There may be some answers for you there if you really want to go deeper.connyro wrote: Population decline is seen as a major bummer for modern economies. We need to figure out how to gear our economies towards something other than constant growth if we want to achieve neutral/negative population growth. Any ideas?
The growth-based economic system (take raw materials out of the ground for free, refine/make into plastic toys, sell, discard, repeat previous cycle and then some) we have seems unstoppable with little palatable options for the powers that be or the rest of humanity.