You don't need an EV to cut your carbon emissions from oil

This article is about petroleum-derived products, and cutting your carbon footprint by choosing alternatives.<p>One thing I can&#x27;t shake about the EV &quot;revolution&quot; is that it&#x27;s going to require a massive expansion of our renewable energy capacity, like solar and wind, but we also need that renewable energy for other things, like household energy usage. If we were rational and serious about making the biggest impact, we would reduce car dependency so the green electricity we generate can go to less wasteful means. It seems incredibly wasteful to massively build out green energy to continue to prop up a system where we all drive several-ton hunks of metal one mile to grab a coffee at a drive-thru.<p>I see stock pictures of traffic jams [0] and just think that EVs are a green &quot;band-aid&quot; to cover up a wasteful lifestyle.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;media.istockphoto.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;traffic-jam-in-los-angeles-picture-id140452002" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;media.istockphoto.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;traffic-jam-in-los-ange...</a>

No, just drive 10 mph slower than usual.<p>Power scales as velocity cubed. So:<p>80 mph vs 70 mph [1] is a 10&#x2F;70 increase in speed or 1.14<p>1.14 ^ 3 = 1.5 or 50% more power required to drive 80 mph vs 70 mph.<p>There are some nuances. ICE efficiency goes up a lot with load. Perhaps you’re not exactly in a v^3 regime. There are fixed power costs.<p>All these and others lessen the impact of doing 80. But the point remains. Slow down.<p>[1] if you dont like my numbers do (vhigh&#x2F;vlow)^3. The formula doesn&#x27;t work for very low speeds though (driving 20 in our cars is much more efficient that 10 mph).

Anyone notice the shift from CO2 emissions to plastic waste?<p>&quot;<i>A single plastic particle can absorb up to 1,000,000 times more toxic chemicals than the water around it.</i>&quot;<p>Really, 5Gyres? Really? That is a content-free sentence.<p>&quot;<i>That said, we cannot deny the positive uses of some of the products based on petroleum. A few have saved lives!</i>&quot;<p>A few. Yes, a few.<p>Sigh.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.<p>People concentrate too much on the last one and not nearly enough on the other two. I presume because they require a change in lifestyle people are not willing to do.

Gigacore, the article isn&#x27;t really about CO2 emissions. Microfibers from t-shirts aren&#x27;t going to contribute to atmospheric carbon any time soon.

Why is the list of single-use plastics shown always bags and straws? These items use minuscule amounts of plastic, are potentially more environmentally friendly than the alternatives, and have potential second uses (I re-use plastic bags as waste-basket liners, toiletry bag, etc, etc).<p>On the other hand, I never see COSMETICS packaging mentioned (although at least this article mentions microbeads). Toothpaste tubes, shampoo and showergel bottles, lipstick caddies, face-cream pots, etc, etc. These must be a far larger source of waste plastic.

I thought steel and concrete were the biggest contributors. Or is it transport and plastic?<p>Why can&#x27;t we just make digging oil way more expensive and let the rest of the detail work itself out?

Sorry to change the topic but why is his web site constantly moving around so much? Sheesh

No, you don&#x27;t, but my Mustang Mach E is really fun to drive. That&#x27;s one of the great sort-of secrets of EV&#x27;s