VW Emissions Scandal

Agreed I find this is a type of fake discussion. The electtricity also needs pollution to get produced. And I am not sure if it's bottom line better than an efficient Diesel engine.

Truth is in the middle. Moving the pollution away from cities has an immediate health benefit, and even if the electricity is generated from fossil fuels, my understanding is that emission rates will generally be lower overall. Obviously, longer-term, it is better to eliminate it altogether. Electric cars are a part of a strategy that moves away from fossil fuels. Renewables are, for the first time, now becoming a significant part of overall electricity generation systems in many parts of the world.

An essential part of a timely move away from fossil fuels is found in efficiency and conservation gains. The cost and limitations of electric cars can be a benefit in that it perhaps results in less driving. At the current extremely low cost of driving, nobody gives a toss about a decision to jump in their car for completely trivial purposes. I don't get it. I passionately hate having to drive anywhere.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions

Jude posted: The pollution in a city argument is only valuable if you live in a city.  Change consumption in the city that's the real answer or reduce the dependance on cities. A pactical answer for cities is e car hire.

Not sure this is anything other than a pipe dream.  The agrarian revolution all over again ?  Cities represent the modern way of living and, even more so, the future.  There can be no backtracking on that, hence we need to address environmental ways to manage them.  That entails consideration of where pollution is generated, not just how much.....

It's a global atmosphere. If we're talking about GHG, the locations of production and consumption are irrelevant.

Renewable energy actually scales pretty well. Large wind and solar farms are more economically efficient than small ones, but an added benefit of solar is that small-scale actually isn't too bad, either. Small-scale fossil fuel generation is very much less efficient than large power stations. The electricity that small, remote communities and mines (for example) generate from fuel-oil or diesel is very expensive indeed.

Nuclear isn't renewable but is much safer than any other form of electricity generation. It's part of any practical transition plan.

Cities are the ultimate way to increase environmental efficiency. City-dwelling apartment livers have a much smaller environmental foot print than someone living in a free-standing house on a lot or a hobby farmer. If we all moved out of the cities, there would be NO wild places nor natural environment left.

Electric cars should be promoted to REPLACE fossil fuel-driven cars. If they are more expensive, it will incentivise more environmentally efficient lifestyles. If this means people get out of their cars and into the actual world, then that's a real win.

The reduction in local pollution argument is valid because most people DO live in a city. It's a question of the greater good. The health effects of most pollutants reduces rapidly as the concentration decreases. Moving the source further away from (most) people does have a real benefit, even if that is all you do. It is also much more cost-effective to manage pollution from large, concentrated power plants than from millions of mobile engines (Ask VW how that is working out for them).

We all (perhaps) care about protecting the environment but the vast majority of us have a very low threshold of what we would sacrifice to do so.

Jude, the argument about limiting city pollution is not as simple or mean minded as "dumping it on someone else's doorstep".  Ideally it would be as remote from all doorsteps as possible, but at the very least its about spreading it far & wide, thereby reducing concentration, so health risks are minimised. 

Cities are a growing and inescapable reality for most people today, and we are already incurring health and life expectancy risks of epidemic proportions in many sprawling metropolises.

I totally agree that there is a whole "bigger picture" about managing global pollution in totality.  But these goals can run in tandem with each other, and need not be opposed.

So who's driving a toyota pious?

At current and forecast global population levels they're more efficient and sustainable than any other alternative. Cities are in fact essential. Spread the people out across the land and we would have an environmental disaster.

In a way it's a good thing that the VW thing happened as it forces us to think about pollution. 

In Terry Gilliam's recent film he had groups of Renault Twizy driving down the street.  This is a better solution for cities than a Tesla.  The Tesla is more of a transition facilitator.  Make everyone want to own a Tesla by making it desirable in terms of our old conspicuous consumption model. Later introduce the people's car version.

As for cities, I think the popularity of cities as a source of opportunity and being at the centre of things is unlikely to change in the medium term.  Sustainability of cities is problematic as we all aspire to consume.  We don't have a culture where economy is valued.  Stuff is too cheap due to mass production and exploitation.  In Australia we are exploited as our mineral wealth is pretty much given away Thanks to spineless politicians on both sides of politics.  Our mining boom has passed and currently we are relying on suspicious Chinese investment in the construction industry ( though by many to be nothing more than money laundering).

what politician .........would get away ........with offering .......mm the electorate ....a future of blood,....... and sweat .....and toil ........and austerity.  We will fight them .........on the beaches.......

in 2015 we would just vote for the other bloke/lady.  Then again, people are happy as long as they have the latest iPhone to gaze at.  Maybe that is our future version of austerity.  The all in one status symbol That you can fit in your hand.  Who needs a car then.

It just moves the polution to someplace else, theses things should not be allowed to be called "zero emission" they are absolutely not