A post on EVs' role in mitigating global warming.

[Stoaty]

Bottom line is that any mass adoption of electric vehicles is not going to make much difference at all in total CO2 production without a major shift in electric generation to cleaner methods.

Agreed, the two need to happen together. However, since I already can (and do) purchase 100% renewable energy from my utility for a slightly higher price, we don't necessarily have to wait for the utility to make the first move. The utility contracts for renewable energy above the amount required by the renewable portfolio standards, so there shouldn't be any double counting. In many areas of the country solar on the roof is a good economic choice and solar can power both BEV and house.

Conclusion: for many, it is possible today to significantly reduce CO2 emissions with a BEV and renewable power.

 

[Weatherman]

Conclusion: for many, it is possible today to significantly reduce CO2 emissions with a BEV and renewable power.

This is the approach I took, as well. Go from gasoline to electric-powered transportation and put a PV array on the roof.

The two need to go together if the goal is to reduce CO2 production.

 

[AndyH]

If the number one goal is to cut CO2 emissions, one would have a significantly better result if they continued to drive an ICE while making their home more energy efficient and cutting beef from their diet. Buildings are responsible for about 40% of emissions and agriculture a similar number.

 

[Alric]

If the number one goal is to cut CO2 emissions, one would have a significantly better result if they continued to drive an ICE while making their home more energy efficient and cutting beef from their diet. Buildings are responsible for about 40% of emissions and agriculture a similar number.

But this is not an "either or". It is summative. The more of these things you do the better.

 

[donald]

and cutting beef from their diet

Lamb is the worst for GHG.

FWIW, a lamb-meat powered cyclist creates more CO2/km than an EV, taking into account all the GHG generated during lamb rearing.

The optimum for reducing CO2 is to only eat lentils when you are cycling. Nice. Yum yum. :|

 

[Nubo]

and cutting beef from their diet

Lamb is the worst for GHG.

FWIW, a lamb-meat powered cyclist creates more CO2/km than an EV, taking into account all the GHG generated during lamb rearing.

The optimum for reducing CO2 is to only eat lentils when you are cycling. Nice. Yum yum. :|

I love lentils, actually.

But, lamb can be raised without fossil Carbon if one is so inclined.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Lamb is the worst for GHG.

FWIW, a lamb-meat powered cyclist creates more CO2/km than an EV, taking into account all the GHG generated during lamb rearing.

The optimum for reducing CO2 is to only eat lentils when you are cycling. Nice. Yum yum. :|

I know cows are a problem, but this is the first I've heard about lamb being baaaaaad for global warming.

 

[donald]

 

[GRA]

Why is lamb so high in GHGs? It seems counter-intuitive that it takes longer to raise them than cows, or that they consume more food/energy in the process.

 

[Alric]

Seems like driving an EV more than offsets any amount of beef a human being could consume.

What's with the weird advice on growth hormone and GMOs on a GHG chart?!

 

[GRA]

Why is lamb so high in GHGs? It seems counter-intuitive that it takes longer to raise them than cows, or that they consume more food/energy in the process.

Well, here's an answer, albeit somewhat devoid of detail:

"Lamb has the greatest impact, generating 39.3 kg (86.4 lbs) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) for each kilo eaten – about 50 percent more than beef. While beef and lamb generate comparable amounts of methane and require similar quantities of feed, lamb generates more emissions per kilo in part because it produces less edible meat relative to the sheep’s live weight. Since just one percent of the meat consumed by Americans is lamb, however, it contributes very little to overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."

- See more at: http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/#sthash.AJVms9JE.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

What about the wool? Is that kitchy moose sweater you donned when you turned the heat down killing the planet too?

 

[AndyH]

If the number one goal is to cut CO2 emissions, one would have a significantly better result if they continued to drive an ICE while making their home more energy efficient and cutting beef from their diet. Buildings are responsible for about 40% of emissions and agriculture a similar number.

But this is not an "either or". It is summative. The more of these things you do the better.

I completely agree that owning an EV doesn't preclude making more significant changes, but I think it's important to keep the overall picture in mind in the off chance that "Prius smug" crosses the ICE-lithium barrier and negatively affects EVers.

edit...stumbled on this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/04/climate-change-impact-vegetarian?CMP=ema_565

Raising animals to eat produces more greenhouse gasses (via methane and nitrous oxide) than all of the carbon dioxide excreted by automobiles, boats, planes and trains in the world combined. Over a 20-year period, methane has 86 times more climate change potential than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide has 268 times more climate change potential, according to the 2006 UN report. Radically reducing the amount of methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere can produce discernable changes in the greenhouse gas effect within decades, while the same reductions in carbon dioxide take nearly a century.

Yes, quitting meat can reduce your carbon footprint significantly more than quitting driving.

 

[donald]

or 'nitrogen cloud-print' in the case of nitrous oxide

 

[Nubo]

edit...stumbled on this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/04/climate-change-impact-vegetarian?CMP=ema_565

Raising animals to eat produces more greenhouse gasses (via methane and nitrous oxide) than all of the carbon dioxide excreted by automobiles, boats, planes and trains in the world combined. Over a 20-year period, methane has 86 times more climate change potential than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide has 268 times more climate change potential, according to the 2006 UN report. Radically reducing the amount of methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere can produce discernable changes in the greenhouse gas effect within decades, while the same reductions in carbon dioxide take nearly a century.

Yes, quitting meat can reduce your carbon footprint significantly more than quitting driving.

Then I suppose climate change would be even worse if we hadn't killed off so many animals the last couple hundred years. Or, do wild animals not fart? :lol:

 

[donald]

The clean air measures have put the temperature increase back on the trajectory it was following during 20th C. The gases used in place of CFCs has had an unintended consequence as they are very potent GHGs. The cleaning of particulate matter has resulted in the reduction of cloud cover.

The natural path that temperature increases were following, pre 1950s, were suppressed for a few decades while the rate of emissions tending to cool increased, before air quality was improved, including nitrous and sulphurous components (acid rain). This has suppressed the rise after the 1950s and has resulted in an apparent sudden increase in temp, 1980-2000.

 

[abasile]

Then I suppose climate change would be even worse if we hadn't killed off so many animals the last couple hundred years. Or, do wild animals not fart? :lol:

My understanding is that a large portion of the carbon footprint associated with eating meat arises from the fossil fuels used to grow and transport animal feed. There would be a lower carbon footprint associated with animals that derive all of their nutrition from the natural environment in a sustainable manner, notably wild animals. Obviously, the planet isn't large enough for all of our meat to come from "free range" sources, but there is room for improvement in farming.

Unfortunately, as most of us know, methane emissions from cattle are quite large. Cattle have in the past been excellent work animals in agrarian societies, but using them as a primary source of meat seems be a perversion of our world's design. As an alternative, ostrich meat is tasty, sort of similar to beef but healthier, and makes good burgers!

 

[AndyH]

Then I suppose climate change would be even worse if we hadn't killed off so many animals the last couple hundred years. Or, do wild animals not fart? :lol:

The methane emissions from cows and their ilk come from their burps, not farts, as it's bacterial fermentation in their stomachs making the gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_fermentation
http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 80-110 kgs of methane, but with about 100 million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.

As abasile covered, there are significant additional emissions from the 'western Ag' feed production process on top of this.

 

[AndyH]

Assaf, great articles. I think the most important section of the three is the 2nd where you shined the light on climate change and summarized the science. I think the single most important message in the series is your observation that you don't 'believe' in global warming - making it clear that the facts are not about belief.

Thank you!

 

[Nubo]

Then I suppose climate change would be even worse if we hadn't killed off so many animals the last couple hundred years. Or, do wild animals not fart? :lol:

The methane emissions from cows and their ilk come from their burps, not farts, as it's bacterial fermentation in their stomachs making the gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_fermentation
http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 80-110 kgs of methane, but with about 100 million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.

As abasile covered, there are significant additional emissions from the 'western Ag' feed production process on top of this.

In particular I was thinking about American Bison (ruminants), which once numbered upwards of 60 million before they were nearly hunted to extinction.