Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
How-to-lie with-statistics @BjornLomborg is at it again:
IF you assume EVs emit a lot of CO2 forever (wrong)
AND you assume uptake will be slow (wrong)
THEN they will make little difference
If you want to stay informed on how to deny solutions he's really a great fit!https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1424285512588742662 …
Oh please
Doesn't challenge calculation
53Mt CO₂
from IEA by 2030
Gives temp reduction of ~0.00002°C (~0.002°C over 79yr)
He just wants to hope about uptake after 2030
Doesn't challenge what I wrote about effect in 2030
Follow him, if you'd like hand-waving feel-good
Who is paying you? Are you a climate scientist?
I happen to know a few things about EVs and emissions (see my pinned thread) and about their TCO. Your 'calculation' (copy of an IEA number) holds true only if both assumptions I mentioned are true. As I said they are both wrong which is why I do challenge your calculation.
And riddle me this: why would uptake stay low if EVs become cheaper than ICE? Both in showroom and total cost of ownership. How much would you be willing to pay more for a combustion engine and why?
a) 53 Mton EV-avoidance was the number for 2019 b) EV's CO2 avoidance is 120 Mton in 'stated policies scenario' in 2030 as the IEA stated b) You know the 'stated policies scenario' is outdated, cause the EU does not reduce 40% but 55% (Fit for 55 in 2030), so 410Mton is possible
d) 410 Mton = 1% of world wide emission, not 0,1% in 2030. e) that can easy quadruple in 2050: 4% avoidance of EV in 2050. (nearly current emmission of Russia) 4% reduction is 0,1 degree in 2,4 scenario.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
