Charting The Changes Electric Car Adoption Will Bring

 

This story about the electric car revolution was first published on CleanTechnica

The electric car revolution continues to gain momentum, just as autonomous features are becoming Tesla electric carmainstream. But while potential job losses due to autonomy are a strong focus, the multitude of impacts electrification will have on road transportation aren’t as clearly stated.

Overall, the impact will be very positive economically, but there will be a lot of disruption and many losers too. Universal basic income isn’t just a value proposition for those displaced by weak artificial intelligence.

Let’s assume a reasonable transition period of roughly 40 years to get to the point where electric cars were pretty much the only cars being sold. Internal combustion cars won’t disappear overnight, after all.

Primary impacts:

♦  Wealth will be generated globally. The electric car is increasing in numbers even though there are indications that might be slowing somewhat. Companies that are successful at making and selling electric cars will make a great deal of money, especially as they take market share from ones that don’t.

♦  A lot of legacy car companies won’t make it*. The global epicentres of automobile manufacturing will have shifted substantially. California, China, and India will be winners. Japan, most of Germany, and Detroit will be losers. Areas of advanced manufacturing and related economic value will shift. While individual legacy car companies will survive the transition and grow, many will continue to lag and diminish as a result.

♦  Much less oil will be consumed. Peak oil has arrived in a very odd and unexpected way for many. Hubbert turned out to be right about timing and there being a peak, but not because cheap oil disappeared. There’s more cheap oil now than there used to be due to shale fracking. The USA is on the verge of being a net energy exporter. That will play out over the next 40 years to a substantial decline in oil demand which will keep prices low. Many oil companies won’t make it, and parts of the world with higher-cost oil such as Alberta’s oil sands will be severely impacted.

♦ Much less money in automotive parts. Automotive parts manufacturers will be significantly negatively impacted. Electric cars have thousands of fewer parts than internal combustion vehicles. They are much simpler and following Tesla’s lead will trend to even more minimalism. Just as skeuomorphism is finally going away in digital interfaces, the analog and horse buggy antecedents to car controls and interiors are fading as well. That will have a dampening effect on global supply chains, parts distribution companies, a lot of OEMs, etc.

♦ Carbon-neutral electrical generation companies will flourish. The generation firms which embrace renewables in a big way will see significantly increased demand for their product, a rare piece of sunlight in an ugly utility market. Carbon pricing and further regulation of pollution are inevitable, so only green electrical companies are positioned for rapid growth with increased electrical demand.

♦ Car dealerships may disappear, but at minimum there will be a lot fewer of them. Dealerships make the majority of their profit off of post-sales maintenance. Electric cars require a lot less post-sales maintenance. Dealership business models don’t add up for electric cars, which is a key reason they are currently a significant inhibitor on legacy manufacturer electric car sales. Tesla is leading the way in this, as with so many other necessary transformations, but legacy manufacturers aren’t willing or able to take on their powerful dealer networks. With the decline of legacy manufacturers and the necessary transition from the survivors away from this distribution model, dealerships will be radically impacted.

Secondary impacts:

♦  Muffler shops will disappear. Electric cars don’t have mufflers, so every single muffler repair shop in the world will go away.

♦  Brake shops would virtually disappear. Electric cars use their motors for regenerative braking an awful lot more than brake pads. Less use, less wear, longer life. With a lot fewer brake jobs, there will be a lot fewer shops providing them. Interestingly, brake fluid replacement may be more common, as is seen from Tesla and Nissan maintenance recommendations today, as brakes are used less and moisture buildup occurs more readily.

♦  Oil change franchises would disappear. Electric cars don’t have engine oil, so don’t need it changed.

♦  Gas stations will disappear and be replaced by very different electric car charging stations. Gas stations are badly placed, badly sized and are brownfield sites requiring massive remediation. Electric car charging points can be put up almost anywhere at incredibly low cost. Most people will just charge at home.

♦  Emissions testing facilities will disappear. All of the people and facilities and technology involved in testing tailpipe emissions will be looking for other things to do. No tailpipes, no emissions.

Tertiary impacts:

♦  Clean air and a related health dividend. Electric cars don’t emit air pollutants of any type during operation, and greening the grid is occurring as well. Millions die annually or have significantly degraded health due to air pollution. Getting rid of internal combustion engines will lead to healthier populaces. Healthier populaces are more productive populaces. That’s worth billions to most countries and trillions globally.

♦  Quieter cities and related health dividends. Electric vehicles don’t make as much noise on city street speeds compared to internal combustion vehicles at speeds of 50 km/h and lower. And a really noisy electric car is nothing compared to a Harley Davidson, a big diesel truck, or an internal combustion sports car. Traffic noise is directly correlated to loss of sleep in urban centres, so eliminating that major source of noise will have health benefits for populations too. That’s worth money as well.

♦  Reduced climate change and related health and economic dividends.Transportation contributes 26% of greenhouse gases in the USA, and that’s all from internal combustion engines. Get rid of the internal combustion engines, replace them with electric engines powered by renewable energy, and that 26% goes away. Climate change is projected to have significant negative health impact, as can be seen with the impacts from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the monsoon flooding in Bangladesh and the region (which has displaced over 40 million people), and the wildfires threatening western North American cities and towns — all just in August and September of 2017.


* To provide context for my opinion on the automotive industry winners and losers, I’ve fleshed out aspects that I think are important, especially for Germany and Japan, two current automotive giants that are likely to diminish substantially in market share. The problems for the two countries are different.

Volkswagen I.D,For Germany, it appears as if Volkswagen Group has turned the corner due to its existential crisis; it hasn’t been wasted. VW is sidelining its diesel division, investing heavily in a pure electric platform, and running for sunlight. The brands within the VW family share more of that, so also might do better on average. VW is also exploring one of the key elements of electric success, a competitive strategy for dealing with the battery supply chain. It is considering building its own gigafactory, forming a pan-European partnership for this, or nailing down strong relationships with foreign battery suppliers. However, VW still hasn’t gotten serious about the long-distance charging infrastructure issue as Tesla has, and still has to deal with its dealer network, which is strongly incented to push ICE cars.

BMW, on the other hand, did a lot of bikeshedding with hybrid cars instead of focusing on pure electrics, leaving two inferior range cars, one of which shares little with BMW heritage. And now it’s backing away from electrics and focusing on autonomy. BMW has committed to electric drivetrain options for all models in the future, but to be clear, that means that there will be a lot of inferior electric cars in the BMW lineup because they still have to accommodate space and engineering for legacy internal combustion engines. As I lay out in this article, you have to reengineer your cars from the ground up to create a compelling electric car, and BMW is committing to the opposite.

Mercedes currently has only one electric car in its lineup, and it wasn’t designed electric from the ground up. It just announced that all cars would have an electric drivetrain option by 2022, which puts is squarely in the same compromised zone as BMW, but perhaps further behind. It’s recent announcements suggest it may fail entirely or at least wither to a husk of its current self.

As far as we’ve seen, neither BMW nor Mercedes is dealing in a major strategic way with the battery supply issue, the long-distance charging concern, or the dealer network problem. I don’t see a single legacy car company that is dealing with all of those challenges, but the dealer network is a huge drag on legacy car companies that they appear most unwilling to face.

Japan has a different problem — hydrogen. While I agree that they led with hybrids (Toyota and Honda) and the LEAF (Nissan), they’ve stalled on that front and have governmental and major corporate commitment to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Part of this is likely due to the Fukushima disaster, which made them realize that their electrical supply was going to be massively constrained for a decade or two, but it’s also a Japanese cultural oddity.

I worked closely with Japanese people on complex deals for major corporations for a couple of years and spent a lot of time analyzing the culture. This hydrogen fixation has the smell of respect for a revered older man who has committed to it and virtually no one is willing to contradict him, a staple feature of much of the conservatism of Japanese culture.

Nissan might be the exception, but its most recent LEAF updates and the like are seriously underwhelming. And Nissan definitely has the dealership problem, which it doesn’t appear to be on track to solving. I don’t see the level of commitment to address those points of differentiation that Tesla has brought in to address market needs and the different distribution required for electric cars.

Most major current car companies are in for a very bumpy decade or two as electrics flood the market from upstarts, desperate secondary brands which figure it out, and possibly a couple of legacy vendors who commit strongly, such as Volkswagen and Nissan.

I hope that helps explain my perspective. I may be wrong, and I’m certainly not counting out any car company except Fiat Chrysler entirely, but I see little reason to believe that many will figure it out in time and a lot of reasons why many of them will cease to exist as they are.





About the Author

is many, many people. We publish a number of guest posts from experts in a large variety of fields. This is our contributor account for those special people. :D
  • Common Sense

    1. How will the big three lure the computer software people that they need to Detroit?
    2. How will the big three get around the dealership network?
    3. How will the big three build quality ICE and electric platforms at the same time?

    • kevin mccune

      My view,
      No.1 – Benefits and wages(maybe sponsored housing or better yet furnished )
      No.2 – The Big Three are in the process of shedding Dealerships( Ford gets a big “Bronx cheer ” for how they accomplished this( look for online dealer sites -First in will have the advantage )
      No.3 – Don’t depend on the big three to do it, competition from abroad will be very stiff.

      • Common Sense

        I am not depending on the big three to do anything. I am just pointing out how hard it will be for them to adapt.

        • kevin mccune

          They will probably adapt ,merge or fade away ,unless the Orange Guy bails them out. Its funny in America how some institutions are too big to fail, other places don’t operate quite the same way .

          • Common Sense

            Personally I think that they will go broke very quickly. When the recession hit the dip in sales wiped them out. This is a much more disruptive change.

  • Common Sense

    Please don’t say that Irma and Harvey are evidence of global warming. That is a very silly thing to say.

    • They become part of the baseline, but then, again, that’s not what the article said: “Climate change is projected to have significant negative health impact, as can be seen with the impacts from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma…”

      Or to put it another way, Harvey and Irma demonstrate the more vigorous types of weather patterns we can expect from climate change… and those patterns are not good, especially as those patterns increase in frequency.

      • Common Sense

        Yeah I can read. Those hurricanes were not caused by global warming. In fact none of what he attributes to global warming is caused by global warming. All of his examples are normal events.

    • Epicurus

      Can we say that the following are evidence of climate change:

      (1) 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have all occurred since 2000

      (2) this is the 38th consecutive year with global temperatures above
      average.

      • Common Sense

        You can say whatever you want. It doesn’t make it a crisis.

        • Epicurus

          The question is whether it will be a crisis in 25 to 50 years when it will too late to do anything.

          • Common Sense

            No it will never be a crisis. It has been thirty years and none of the predictions have been correct. In fact the IPCC has downgraded their projections several times. And they are still wrong.

          • Epicurus

            Liar. You quote sentences out of context as I have shown above.

          • Common Sense

            Like I said the crisis is always ten years away. It is a mirage,

      • Common Sense

        Are you aware of the manipulation of weather data?

        • Epicurus

          No.

          Is it a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists, NASA, NOAA, the CIA, the Pentagon, the National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society and every other national scientific society in the entire world?

          • Common Sense

            So you think it is a crisis. Well it isn’t.

          • Epicurus

            Is the sixth and current mass extinction a crisis, or is that not happening either?

          • Common Sense

            Get a grip on reality. Are you saying that global warming is causing extinctions?

          • Epicurus

            No.

            Trump voter? I just have to ask.

          • Common Sense

            Right you were talking politics the whole time.

          • kevin mccune

            Its playing Hell in Syria and other areas as Trump style economics is destroying ancient carbon sequester areas. Have been told Caterpillar is starting to get a huge backlog of used and new construction equipment as coal mines are slowing or shutting down,( hope some of this stuff is small enough to send to the disaster areas for rebuilding .)

          • Common Sense

            Yeah because Syria wasn’t a desert plagued by droughts before 1950?

          • kevin mccune

            Its worse now , no matter what Rush or Glen says .

          • Common Sense

            I don’t listen to them. It isn’t political for me. For me it is all about the science. I take the science very seriously. Do you know who Richard Lindzen is?

          • Common Sense

            It is great that the world is getting off of coal. Not necessary to scare people with global warming to make the switch. It is now possible to switch to renewables that are in fact cheaper than coal with out the damage to the environment.

          • Epicurus

            “Rothman calculates that human activity will have added about 310
            gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and oceans by 2100. That’s the point at which the world will be on the ‘threshold of catastrophe’ as it transitions into ‘unknown territory.’ The changes that follow may take up to 10,000 years to play out, but that is still one tenth of the amount of time needed for evolutionary changes to keep pace. The result? Mass extinction Number Six.”

            cleantechnica DOT com/2017/09/21/mathematics-mass-extinction-climate-change-threshold-catastrophe/

          • Epicurus

            A lot of bright people think climate change could become a crisis if we don’t start to do something now.

            Have you ever heard of the concept of exercising an abundance of caution?

          • Common Sense

            Of course. Have you ever heard of a cost benefit analysis?

          • Epicurus

            Absolutely. This right-wing argument is based on obsolete data. Obviously you are unaware that renewable energy is now cheaper than energy from fossil fuels and that the total cost of ownership for EVs like the LEAF and the Volt is less than for comparable ICE vehicles.

          • Common Sense

            Unaware. No one is more excited about the switch to renewables and electric cars then me. That is quite different then going after CO2 with various expensive schemes.

          • Epicurus

            What “expensive schemes” are mainstream scientists, or anyone, proposing?

          • Common Sense

            So you don’t follow this topic at all?

          • Epicurus

            I read this site and Cleantechnica every day, and all they ever talk about are renewables, mostly solar and wind, and EVs, all of which are already, or soon will be, cheaper than their fossil fuel counterparts.

            Can you name ONE “expensive scheme?”

            If you can’t, it will be obvious to readers that “expensive schemes” are the real mirage.

          • Epicurus

            Crickets. He can’t name ONE of these “expensive schemes.”

            What a troll.

          • Epicurus

            Crickets. He can’t cite one.

          • Common Sense

            Once again, in case you missed it:
            “”We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models,” said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford and one of the authors of the study. “We haven’t seen that in the observations.””

        • James Rowland

          So, every weather station and every meteorologist working for every weather services organisation across the planet (private and government) are working together (!) to portray one coherent, false picture of the planet’s weather, to serve some dastardly political agenda. Furthermore, the academic institutions are in on it too, with climate scientists busily spinning this data into a false narrative about our climate. Somehow, there have been no major betrayals from within the conspiracy or mistakes that critically exposed it.

          Uh huh. I suppose the moon landings were also faked? I mean, with god-like powers of fakery like that, why not fake all the things?

          Perhaps I should open a long position on Bacofoil; there’s sure to be increased demand when this gets out!

          • Common Sense

            I just don’t have the time to explain it to you. There are many great explanations online if you are interested. You don’t seem like a reasonable person so I won’t bother.

          • I just don’t have the time to explain global warming to you. There are many, many, many, many genuine peer-reviewed scientific explanations available online if you are interested.

            (Or ever decide to stop collecting a paycheck from ExxonMobil.)

          • Common Sense

            Thanks. I have been following global warming since 1988. The models have all turned out to be wrong and the IPCC has downgraded its estimate of climate sensitivity several times. The result is that it is clear that there is no impending crisis from rising CO2 levels.

          • James Rowland

            That’s fine, since you’ve already convinced me you’re not a sane person.

            Are you also a 9-11 truther? That would be perfect.

          • Common Sense

            Look in the mirror. None of the predictions from the eighties have happened. Not one. You are the one that is not sane.

          • James Rowland

            Citations needed.

          • Common Sense

            Only by you.

          • Epicurus

            No, by every other reader. You are alone, just like the Republican Party is the only political party IN THE WORLD which denies anthropogenic climate change.

          • Common Sense

            No they deny that it represents a crisis. Huge difference.

          • James Rowland

            No, by anyone who cares whether claims are actually true.

            Checking sources is a basic part of fact checking. You should try it some time.

          • Common Sense

            Oh I have. I have been following this scare since 1988. We are always ten years away from disaster.

          • James Rowland

            Citations still needed.

          • Common Sense

            Do your own work. Most people reading this know that what I am saying is true. You are in denial. You are heavily emotionally invested in a theory that you don’t even know the history of.

          • James Rowland

            “Most people”? Such as?

            Yet more from your backside.

          • Common Sense

            Look at a poll on global warming.

          • James Rowland

            “Most people reading this know that what I am saying is true.”

            Someone’s polled the readers of this forum on that topic?

            Uh huh. Tell me, when and how? The scope of your insanity and/or stupidity is fascinating.

            In any case, opinion polls of laypeople have little relevance to what’s actually true – especially in matters requiring expertise to analyse – so why even suggest looking at one? I assume you’re not deliberately trying to demonstrate another fallacy.

          • Common Sense

            Here you go:
            “”We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models,” said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford and one of the authors of the study. “We haven’t seen that in the observations.””

          • James Rowland

            Anyone who has read that excerpt in context knows it doesn’t support your position.

            Quote mining at its best. You’ve proven to be quite a shameless liar.

          • Common Sense

            Right. Sure.

          • Epicurus

            I will bet a dime to a dollar that he is a birther. Remember when Trump said of his detective work in Hawaii: “[My researchers] cannot believe what they’re finding.”

            Of course they found nothing to support the birther conspiracy, and Trump
            later refused to reveal what they found or didn’t find. Pure, unadulterated craziness.

          • Common Sense

            Wrong. When asked to rank priorities, global warming always ranks dead last. Most people understand that it is not a crisis.

          • Epicurus

            Are you old and white?

          • Common Sense

            Are you young and racist?

          • Epicurus

            Asking you if you are white is a racist question? Oh, white people are the true victims of discrimination, right?

          • Common Sense

            yawn.

    • James Rowland

      Good thing the article didn’t say that, then.

      The evidence for a warming planet comes from the mostly (though somehow not entirely) uncontroversial method of measuring it. Whatever you think is the cause, warming is happening.

      While individual events often can’t be attributed to a specific cause in systems as complex and chaotic as the weather, an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is one of the expected effects of warmer temperatures.

      • Common Sense

        These hurricanes were neither more extreme or more frequent.

        • James Rowland

          Accumulated cyclone energy is a well-defined index of hurricane strength, which can be summed over a season. There is a categorisation system based on the historical median value over a reference period of 1980 to 2010, which happens to work out at around 93 for the Atlantic.

          In the last 50 years, there have been nine Atlantic hurricane seasons classified as “hyperactive” (accumulated cyclone energy over 153.) Eight of those nine happened in the last 22 years.

          2017 is already at 145, with two and a half months left of the season; it will likely be the tenth classed as hyperactive in that period.

          In the last twenty years, only three seasons were below normal intensity. Eleven were above normal or hyperactive.

          In contrast, 10 of the 20 seasons before that were below normal and 8 were near normal.

          So yes, there is an obvious trend towards more energetic weather in the Atlantic; we know this, because we’ve measured it.

          You are of course free to carry on denying these facts and posting falsehoods, but nobody who bothers to fact check your claims is going to believe them.

          • Common Sense

            Here is a fact for you. Before airplanes and satellites hurricanes were not measured much at all.

          • 5tevesharp

            If you bother to read what James said he talked about the reference period from 1980 to 2010. He also talks about the last fifty years.. For your info Aeroplanes were invented well before that time..

            Please go an learn something about a subject and come back with referenced data to back up your arguments. That way you can exercise some common sense

          • Common Sense

            For your information hurricanes are the same as they ever were and the wright brothers weren’t flying into hurricanes twice a day to collect data on them. Any trend from 1980-2010 is meaningless because it is not a long enough time period. So believe whatever you want.

          • James Rowland

            No, the aforementioned 30 years is not the span of a trend measurement, it’s a reference period. The median value for that interval is used as a reference when classifying seasons.

            I did make this perfectly clear above, but you apparently fail at basic reading comprehension. This is one reason why you’re not a credible source; if your brain can scramble that, it can scramble anything.

          • Common Sense

            You sound like one of those idiots that would charter a ship to document the retreating ice only to get stuck in ice that wasn’t supposed to be there. Grow up. There is no crisis. The predictions have not come to pass. Arguing about minute changes in 50 years of hurricane data is not proof of anything.

          • James Rowland

            67 years actually, and that’s all the comprehensive data that exists (since that’s when coordinated remote observations started.)

            So, you assert – without evidence or reason – that all the best data that exists isn’t enough.

            You also assert – again without evidence and against all reason – that there’s a conspiracy to pervert scientific enquiry being perpetrated upon us by meteorologists.

            You then tell me I should “grow up” – meaning I should credulously accept your assertions in the absence of any good reason to.

            You’re hilarious. Enjoy wearing your tinfoil crown, you glorious muppet.

          • Common Sense

            Get back to me when the ice melts you tool.

          • James Rowland

            Melting polar ice is a different (though indirectly related) topic. Why even mention this in a discussion about hurricanes? I guess anything can make sense when you’re a lunatic.

            Since you have though, I’ll point out that it’s already melting; we know this because – surprise, surprise – we’re measuring it.

          • Common Sense

            Surprise you started measuring it at the peak of a cycle. If you go back to 1975 thesummer Arctic sea ice extent was lower then today.

          • James Rowland

            I started measuring at the peak of a cycle?

            No, I did not. Thus far, the only person here to mention a specific date for polar ice extent is you.

            So, yet again, it’s all coming out your backside.

          • Common Sense

            right. You don’t even understand the Arctic sea ice record.

          • Epicurus

            I will bet a dime to a dollar that he is a birther.

            Birthers don’t need evidence. They just know.

            Remember when Trump said of his detective work in Hawaii: “[My researchers] cannot believe what they’re finding.”

            Of course they found nothing to support the birther conspiracy, and Trump
            later refused to reveal what they found or didn’t find.

            Pure, unadulterated craziness.

          • James Rowland

            Here’s a fact for you: The Atlantic hurricane season has been measured in great detail since around 1950. The data directly refutes your claim that this season is not part of a trend of increasing strength.

          • Common Sense

            Huge hurricanes wiped out Galveston and the Keys one hundred years ago. Get a clue.

          • James Rowland

            While it would be very easy for you to argue against the position that property damage from hurricanes is a brand new phenomenon, unfortunately there’s nobody here that holds that position, or any that depends on it. Bad luck, chump.

          • Common Sense

            What?

          • James Rowland

            Do I have to spell it out?

            Fine. You write that there were strong hurricanes on record a century ago. That’s true, and not in dispute; nobody here has claimed the frequency of those events was zero.

            It does not follow from this that the frequency isn’t increasing; pointing out those events – which we already know about – is no kind of rebuttal.

            That you offer this up as though it were a rebuttal only illustrates your own imbecility at basic reasoning.

          • Common Sense

            Call your opposition names is not a convincing argument. There is plenty of data showing that hurricanes are the same as they ever were. Which is probably why virtually no one is claiming otherwise.

          • James Rowland

            Pointing out the obvious fallacy in an opposing statement – you presented a total non-sequitur – is not “name calling.”

            To repeat, “hurricanes existed a century ago, therefore they’re not becoming more common” – which is essentially what you implied above – is not a valid argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

            Establishing whether a trend exists requires statistical analysis of actual data. Unsurprisingly, this has already been done by people competent to do the work (i.e. not you.)

          • Common Sense

            yawn

          • Common Sense

            This just in:
            “”We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models,” said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford and one of the authors of the study. “We haven’t seen that in the observations.””

          • Epicurus

            More from the same interview which gives what you quoted the full context. Bottom line: catastrophe still looms but there is still time to avert it if we act now.

            “Computer modeling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global
            average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a
            study has found.

            “The Earth warmed more slowly than the models forecast, meaning the
            planet has a slightly better chance
            of meeting the goals set out in the
            Paris climate agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5C above
            pre-industrial levels.

            The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience,
            does not play down the threat which climate change has to the
            environment, and maintains that major reductions in emissions must be
            attained
            .

            The original forecasts were based on twelve separate computer models
            made by universities and government institutes around the world, and
            were put together ten years ago, “so it’s not that surprising that it’s
            starting to divert a little bit from observations”, Professor Allen
            added.

            The previous scenario allowed for the planet to emit a total of 70
            billion tonnes of Carbon after 2015, in order to keep temperature rises
            to just 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

            But the reassessment allows for a “carbon budget” of another 240bn tonnes of emissions before catastrophic damage is done.

            “That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said.

            It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

          • Common Sense

            It is okay if you want to cling to this scare. Most people now see it for what it is.

          • Epicurus

            Putz

    • kevin mccune

      A funny thing happened when the surface temperatures of the oceans went up( despite a steady small decrease in the Sun’s output)- what do you know, maybe Gaia has a hotline to the “heating plant” of the solar system. Believe what you will , this debate will probably not be resolved in our lifetimes regardless of the Data and effects

      • Common Sense

        It won’t be solved in our lifetimes? Wait. I thought that certain doom was only ten years away? If it won’t be solved in our lifetimes then we are in agreement that there is no crisis.

        • kevin mccune

          I expect I am a bit older then you, so it probably will not happen in my lifetime, a query to you.Is the air as bad in Los Angeles as it was 50 years ago ? Regardless of the time scale , someone will face it sooner or later.( but the debate will go on-Just Like “Baghdad Bob” saying the Republican guard had everything under control when the Abrams were rolling past the city limits of Baghdad)

          • Common Sense

            Face what? Nothing meaningful happening?

          • kevin mccune

            If nothing else the protracted hot summers and the effects of rising sea levels and of course the economic effects of the destruction of coastal areas due to the monster Hurricanes tearing things up( we have had two already , may have some more,)sorry the warm water has nothing to do with mans bungling right ? Am sure Rush ,Gordon and Glen have already said so,I used to listen to those guys till I realized their real message.My area is in a drought now and the Falls have been getting drier a lot of the deciduous trees are dying due to the shock of lack of rain.The weather has affected outdoor recreation in this area and the frosts are even coming later . .

          • Common Sense

            All normal weather. Get a grip.

          • kevin mccune

            Don’t think category five storms are the norm, a couple already this year with a couple months to go.

          • Common Sense

            Actually they are very normal. They never used to be able to measure these storms daily until the 1950’s so we don’t know how strong they were at sea.

          • kevin mccune

            That is true the” old Salts” knew the weather signs and watched the barometer closely a storm was to be avoided if possible.

          • Common Sense

            Here is the latest study:
            “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models,” said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford and one of the authors of the study. “We haven’t seen that in the observations.””

          • Epicurus

            You are quoting two sentences of the interview out of context in order to mislead readers.

            The full context reveals that we have a few more years to avert catastrophe than previously thought.

            www DOT independent DOT co DOT uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html

          • Common Sense

            BTW do you understand the difference between air pollution and CO2 levels?

          • kevin mccune

            Oh yes , everytime a living creature exhales , CO2 is emitted( plants also emit CO2 during certain phases.CO2 results from the complete oxidation of carbon,by whatever means.
            Air pollution results when your inconsiderate downwind neighbor lights a smoldering ass trash fire and dumps used oil on it and smothers you all night with it( took Him to task for it also) for example.CO2 while not that much concern in of its self can smother you if the concentration gets high enough and the oxygen is consumed.