Going strictly by CO2 emissions, on average you do reduce them by about 27% swapping from *non plug-in hybrid* transportation to electric according to one MIT study:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/life...perts-say.html

Going from ICE to EV cuts CO2 emissions about in half, from ~400 g/mile to ~200 g/mile

IMO we could do more by reducing demand (see more below), but still moving from ICEs will be at least part of the answer to reduce emissions.,
"Light-duty" vehicles (that's us) makes up 57%, "planes trains and ships" make up 12%:
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fa...-gas-emissions

As we move towards electric vehicles? The "electricity generation" percentage will go up but CO2 emissions will be reduced. More so if/as we transition to clean energy.

There are things we could do to reduce CO2 emissions without transitioning to electric, things we should be doing anyway.
1. incentivize 4- and 3-day work weeks
2. incentivize working from home
3. require employers to pay well enough that employees can afford to live a reasonable distance from work
4. invest in public transportation
etc.

The MAJOR portion of "light-duty" vehicle emissions is people commuting a long way to work 5 days a week. You think those people are HAPPY doing that?! I have to do it two days a week and my impression is most are quite the opposite of happy about it.

But reducing the emissions on the 12% will actually have a bigger impact because the "pollution per unit" is significantly higher. For example, there are only about 25,000 commercial and cargo aircraft in service around the globe vs 1.45 Billion registered cars in the world.

So, by unit we are back to planes, trains and ships.

Global warming is the measured increase of average global temperatures. Climate change is the measurable extremes seen due to global warming. For instance, if average ocean temperatures are warmer than hurricanes pick up more heat energy can on average are larger and more destructive. Climate change can lead to an area getting colder or warmer in extremes or extremes in weather anomalies, even if the global averages are higher.

Here is a basic experiment showing CO2 trapping heat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4eOg2LaSY


We aren't eliminating CO2. The world produces CO2 and absorbs it in a balance. Volcanic ash, fires and other natural phenomenon releases CO2 and plants absorb CO2. We just want to get the CO2 back to historically normal levels that don't pose a threat, but more importantly, we want to avoid continuing to dump excess CO2. In 2019 human activity dumped an extra 43 billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere that wouldn't have happened if we didn't exist.

Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, bacteria and anything else I am missing. We will build these power plants. I'm missing what you find confusing about that?

Please elaborate how this will happen. Still a lot of data unclear. The definitions of the terms used, what all the categories encompass, what data points are omitted or include, what sample space, etc.

In addition to increased electricity generation, now you're looking at emissions due to the production of the equipment to hold the electricity. While the claims of using sulphur and sodium are in the nascent stage, we're still dependent on countries like Myanmar and China for raw materials. And nothing has been proved yet with sulphur and sodium.

In fact, the trend from EPA's website doesn't look bad at all. Since around 2005 it has been on a decline.

If we only add nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, bacterial, biofuels, etc then we will be not adding to the coal and methane based CO2 production used with fossil fuel electricity generation, so the amounts will drop. If businesses and residential move to more renewables then that too will reduce those. Percentages only tell the story of what areas contribute the most, but it doesn't tell anyone how much they produce. We could go from 43 billion metric tons per year to 10k metric tons per year, and the percentage could be identical or agriculture could be 99%, but none of that would matter. What matters in the pie chart is that is that all of those sectors contribute significantly, so they all need to improve.

I see that the infra-red radiation emitted by the candle is blocked/diminished by CO2 from the experiment. How does this prove that CO2 traps heat? I don't see the surrounding air turning from blue to anything else. Maybe I didn't understand you correctly, are you saying that the CO2 blocks sun's IR radiation from hitting the earth?

It absorbs the energy and re-radiates it to it's surroundings.

That graph has been compromised by cherry picking the relative dates for misdirection.

https://i2.wp.com/timescavengers.blo...p-01.jpg?ssl=1

It won't have a bigger impact because it is a smaller piece of the pie. It might seem easier to tackle, but it might actually be harder to go green with cargo ships and aviation than with passenger vehicles.

You forgot to calculate a third component in that comparison. Emissions per kilogram of weight carried per kilometer. A bus or plane will have more emissions than a car, but a bus or plane also carries many passenger and carries/ships multiple pieces of luggage. A shipping container cargo ship stacked to the brim might be transporting the equivalent of 120,000 two ton cars. We know buses moving a group of people from point A to B like to the airport without stops is far more efficient than everyone driving individual cars, but it is also true that freight flying is more efficient than freight driving (see below). We obviously want to address all parts of the pie chart, but passenger vehicles should be the main focus.

https://www.businessinsider.com/flyi...driving-2015-4

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...lobal-warming/

What the hell, man, that's some serious pretzel logic...
I mean, yeah, I guess it makes perfect sense to equate the effort required to improve emissions of ONE airliner, to ONE car?!

Also, planes are already reasonably efficient as they can reasonably get as far as CO2 emissions per person-miles traveled. While in the US most people are driving about the LEAST efficient vehicles they can (trucks/SUVs).

To make it simple, US CO2 emissions are ~5 million kilotons/year.
Planes/trains/boats at 12% of that is 0.6 million kilotons/year
Light-duty vehicles at 57% of that is 2.85 million kilotons/year.

If you cut planes/trains/boats CO2 emissions *to zero*, that's a reduction of 0.6 million kilotons/year. You'd get the same reduction if you cut light-duty vehicle emissions by only 21%!

Plenty of studies you can look up yourself, I'm not gonna go through them with you line by line. Personally I studied this myself when I was working for an EV company 10+ years ago, and well-to-wheels our vehicle had ~2/3 the CO2 emissions of a similar ICE vehicle even if all the electricity came from coal, and it was less than half if using average US electricity production. For me, I'm satisfied with the generally accepted 1/2 well-to-wheels CO2 emissions for current electric vehicles in the US vs. current comparable ICE vehicles.

The problem is that CO2 levels continue to dramatically rise, and even if we are emitting less every year, it is *still* adding to CO2 levels far above pre-industrial levels every year.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/defaul...?itok=W57BtpJB
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

We need to do more to further reduce our CO2 emissions, we are already recklessly experimenting with the environment and every year CO2 levels rise we are more and more risking the future.

If we close fossil fuel plants and replace them with renewables and greener forms of power generation like solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, etc then we will overall reduce the CO2. If we create carbon capture plants to make biofuels and oil products then we can also offset production emissions of any renewable plants. In this way, energy production capacity goes up, but net CO2 production goes down.

Sodium sulfur batteries aren't new. The tech to make them viable for car applications is new along with lithium sulfur batteries, and we should see them replacing lithium ion very quickly, as battery manufactures adjust their production lines in years and not decades, so I don't know how much you want to argue on the pitfalls of lithium ion production.

https://energystorage.org/why-energy...nas-batteries/

Musk mentioned building a lithium mine in Nevada, but hasn't moved on it probably because he was riding out the pandemic and the future of the company like most, and because chip shortages may have meant a drop in lithium demand, but lithium demand has only skyrocketed prompting him to revisit mining lithium in Nevada, so that could happen. Again, movements will likely be happening in years and not decades, so I don't see any fault in the long term strategy of moving to BEVs and attaining energy independence, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

https://electrek.co/2022/04/11/tesla...s-price-surge/

The trend is going down, but that is almost entirely from the energy sector moving to renewables, and it is only a twelve year trend, so we need to not be overly optimistic, especially when we are still dumping six billion metric tons of CO2 in the air each year.

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ima..._1990-2020.jpg

IR cameras read IR radiation, not heat. This shows nothing about absorption.