If 100% of the cars on the planet were EV's it would make no difference to the climate even if we pretend the emissions to create and run the EV's was 0.
your are 0/2 in this thread. Keep trying kid.
based on what? the dem's want to spend 1 trillion to reduce co2 and makes virtually no difference (not to mention volcano's, India & China cranking out co2)
VW started this crazy to cheat emissions. They got caught out. It is more taxing on the starter and battery...yea anti EV people, ICE cars use batteries too!
I have 4 cars and my 2024 VW is the only car that doesn’t have the start/stop function. Although mine has a manual transmission and the auto version does have it.
My other 3 cars all have it. My other manual car allows me to turn it off and it doesn’t reset when I turn the car off, so the stop/start is always disengaged. My wife’s car turns off with Sport mode
The last car has a button but resets each time the car is turned off. The starter went a few months ago @50K miles (2018 model).
I wouldn’t call it woke, but it is a highly annoying feature. I suppose it’s the optics that manufacturers are adding tech to reduce emissions. It won’t make a dent in the problem.
Everything else being equal, it saves about 1.5 mils per gallon on CRV. I had the previous generation of CRV which didn't have the green starter. Got the new CRV with the stop and go starter. This is with heavy NYC driving. It probably won't even add up to that much in less dense areas.
VW started this crazy to cheat emissions. They got caught out. It is more taxing on the starter and battery...yea anti EV people, ICE cars use batteries too!
I have 4 cars and my 2024 VW is the only car that doesn’t have the start/stop function. Although mine has a manual transmission and the auto version does have it.
My other 3 cars all have it. My other manual car allows me to turn it off and it doesn’t reset when I turn the car off, so the stop/start is always disengaged. My wife’s car turns off with Sport mode
The last car has a button but resets each time the car is turned off. The starter went a few months ago @50K miles (2018 model).
I wouldn’t call it woke, but it is a highly annoying feature. I suppose it’s the optics that manufacturers are adding tech to reduce emissions. It won’t make a dent in the problem.
Manual cars have this? Or is it some millennial manual with no clutch?
Manual cars have this? Or is it some millennial manual with no clutch?
It’s a proper 3 pedal car, 2020 model year. The default is the engine turns off when at a complete stop in neutral with the clutch out. Once you put the clutch in, the car turns back on. Luckily there’s a button to disengage the stop/start feature.
My 2000 Honda Insight had this feature, predating woke by roughly two decades.
Nobody here has distinguished between hybrids and non hybrids regarding this feature. It makes a huge difference technically, and hybrids are non-woke, if you can believe that.
Woke is a term started by black people to remind themselves that the struggle for civil rights has not ended and to be aware of certain people that persist in trying to keep them down.
It has been appropriated by white conservatives who use it as an insult for any act or thought they consider liberal.
Woke is a term started by black people to remind themselves that the struggle for civil rights has not ended and to be aware of certain people that persist in trying to keep them down.
It has been appropriated by white conservatives who use it as an insult for any act or thought they consider liberal.
White leftists proudly used the term "woke" for years until it because too embarrassing and now they have to pretend like it never happened and they don't know what it means.
There's 6 myths listed there and not one of them has anything to do with what I said.
You clearly didn't even read the article.
What percentage of the warming is attributable to human emissions?
What percentage of human emissions come from cars?
Check Myth #1 and #2, both of which dispute your assertion.
"Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of power plant emissions. FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging."
"Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing. FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing."
Try harder.
I didn't claim they were "worse" for the climate I said they wouldn't make a difference.
You're not trying at all you're just thinking what you're told.
What percentage of the warming is attributable to human emissions?
What percentage of human emissions come from cars?
Check Myth #1 and #2, both of which dispute your assertion.
"Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of power plant emissions. FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging."
"Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing. FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing."
Try harder.
I didn't claim they were "worse" for the climate I said they wouldn't make a difference.
You're not trying at all you're just thinking what you're told.
What percentage of the warming is attributable to human emissions?
What percentage of human emissions come from cars?
I'll just help you because you're too lazy and ignorant to think anything through or research the topic.
We have absolutely no idea how much of the warming is attributable to human activity.
All of transport accounts for just 24% of human emissions. This includes cars, trucks, trains, planes, ships.... Of that 24% less than half is cars, buses, motorcycles, and taxis..
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Woke is a term started by black people to remind themselves that the struggle for civil rights has not ended and to be aware of certain people that persist in trying to keep them down.
It has been appropriated by white conservatives who use it as an insult for any act or thought they consider liberal.
Everyone is aware of its etymology (although you didn't correctly state the modern usage and meaning). We did a great job of appropriating it and turning it into a criticism (and we aren't all "white conservatives" either).
But some are now over-using it in that endeavor and rendering it meaningless. This stupid thread, for example, has weakened the punch of the word by applying it where it has no meaningful application. Opinions on hybrid car engines, energy, conservation, climate, etc., have jack sh!t to do with woke. It's no longer an insult when applied in those areas, and becomes just a lazy buzzword used by perpetual complainers with poor, unimaginative writing skills.
The same is true for the acronym MAG@, by the way. That was effectively turned into an insult (note that we can't even type the actual acronym here because its insulting and offensive to some Trumpers), and it is seldom ever used by the originators now because of its negative impact. But it risks overuse as an insult as well, in my opinion.
I didn't claim they were "worse" for the climate I said they wouldn't make a difference.
You're not trying at all you're just thinking what you're told.
What percentage of the warming is attributable to human emissions?
What percentage of human emissions come from cars?
We have absolutely no idea how much of the warming is attributable to human activity.
That's baloney and you know it. More than enough accumulated data to make informed opinions and theories on human impact on climate. In the sphere of large, global scientific investigations, that is not one of the tough ones. Doesn't even rank close to investigations going on in virology, evolution, IQ, quantum physics, etc.
We have absolutely no idea how much of the warming is attributable to human activity.
That's baloney and you know it. More than enough accumulated data to make informed opinions and theories on human impact on climate. In the sphere of large, global scientific investigations, that is not one of the tough ones. Doesn't even rank close to investigations going on in virology, evolution, IQ, quantum physics, etc.
If it was baloney we'd know the answer to the question. We do not.
Though some would persist in insisting that climate change is not primarily due to human causes, the vast vast majority of the scientific community disagrees.
Some excerpts from UN paper on Climate Action, link below:
"FACT: Climate change is caused by human activity"
"FACT: Clean energy technologies produce far less carbon pollution than fossil fuels"
"FACT: We can still limit climate change, if we act now!"
But as may be expected, there are those with vested interests, like the extensive oil industry interests, who have incentives to deny it even when faced with mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Though some would persist in insisting that climate change is not primarily due to human causes, the vast vast majority of the scientific community disagrees.
Some excerpts from UN paper on Climate Action, link below:
"FACT: Climate change is caused by human activity"
"FACT: Clean energy technologies produce far less carbon pollution than fossil fuels"
"FACT: We can still limit climate change, if we act now!"
But as may be expected, there are those with vested interests, like the extensive oil industry interests, who have incentives to deny it even when faced with mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Politicians asserting things don't mean anything. The IPCC is a political group not a scientific group.
You admit it's not 100% of the emissions.
We know for a fact that less than like 8% of the emissions are even attributable to cars.
Your own "myth busting" article you didn't read points out that EV's do not reduce the emissions from cars to 0 but only reduces it by around 60%.
The evidence all suggests that spending trillions to lower emissions by a small fraction while have absolutely no idea what impact that small fraction will have on the temperature is idiotic.
That was true… 30 years ago when it was a true ignition start. Now you use significantly more gas idling and emit more CO2, which is bad for the environment and technically toxic to humans.
