Do climbers consider climate change when buying a vehicle?

If you rework their numbers based on the average fuel efficiency of european cars (more comparable in size/type to the average electric car, and which get around 5L/100km i.e. 47mpg)

Why are your using European car standards to judge against American EV vehicles when the argument is American car standards against American EV

 is less than the typical EV in about 1/3 of US states (Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, etc).  Source: energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fa…;

So, in US states that rely primarily on fossil fuels (-edited from "coal"-) for electricity production (about 1/3 of states), an EV is no better in terms of global warming potential than an EQUIVALENT gas-powered vehicle you could buy.  Apples to apples.

And what about the other 2/3rds of the states?

The environmental friendliness of an electric car is wholly dependent upon where you live,
Washington state- nearly 100 percent hydroelectric.
georgia- nearly 80 percent coal, some nuclear.
unless you have sufficient solar panels on your roof then It’s obviously different

Ryan Brown wrote:

Buying diesel won't help bruv

It was a joke, my friend. 

The overall point to this is that nobody is doing anything to curb others in lowering their standard of living for the sake of the children. Moreover, who are we to tell them to?

Eric and Lucie wrote:

They'd better.  Having kids is the worst thing you could do to the planet in terms of climate change (and resource overuse, and water, etc, etc)

people like to use this excuse when the don't like/want children

just admit that you don't want kids, but don't try to turn it into some self righteous "i'm doing it to save the planet" crap

Old lady H wrote
Frank (yes, Frank, she got named for you) and I just made my first big trip,
Best, Helen

Is Frank a dog or a cat? Photo, please.

Joe Ko wrote:

The incorrect point you made was that electric cars run "primarily off of coal." Natural gas is the primary source of electricity in the US (EIA, 2018). 

Your link states:    Fossil fuels 63.5%.  So I should have said fossil fuels instead of coal to be more accurate.  But, this is an average.  Some states still have coal as the majority, and as I stated, it varies from state to state.  Fossil fuels still are the majority source of electricity in the US.

Eric and Lucie had a much more detailed response to you anyway.

Ryan Brown wrote:

Woah we have to lower our standard of living now?!? Frickin' Scandanavians ya hear

Actually, yes, if what you propose is to happen here.

I don't live in Sweden, but I can guarantee you that I drive much further distances everyday than little Greta's parents. So too over-the-road truckers that bring your precious merchandise to your city. Railroad, shipping, and a plethora of our other services would need to be competitive in distance and power. Solar panels aren't fitting on my Ram 1500, and need replacing after a time to recoup power loss. Windmills would cause problems as well - they don't fit under overpasses too good. Our battery technology sucks! Getting better, but still can't compete with gas powered vehicles.

Got any ideas as to how I can remedy this and not lose my standard of living? Once again, there is nothing off-the-shelf and worthy of prime time just yet. Get me something that works as good as petroleum and at a competitive cost... then you can crusade.

Brad G wrote: Im a climber and I mostly consider price when buying a vehicle.

Thats cause Alex took your paychecks

The most efficient choice for many is likely the 2019 Toyota Rav4 Hybrid,  as Ezra said,   40 MPG combined EPA, fast, roomy, 8.6" ground clearance, AWD  (the electric drives the rear).
The 2020 honda CRV might be close when it comes out.

curt86iroc wrote:

people like to use this excuse when the don't like/want children

just admit that you don't want kids, but don't try to turn it into some self righteous "i'm doing it to save the planet" crap

triggered

Bill Kirby wrote:

triggered

can't help it. anti-natalists drive me nuts...

A more relevant question is how much of the workforce thinks about climate change when considering a vehicle to get to work or to perform work with?  Simple fact is that that electric vehicles are a luxury that most can not afford.   I would love to have an electric tool truck to go with my electric sprinter but will most likely never be able to afford either... 

Prius. If u are short it's perfect for climbing trips!

Ryan Brown wrote:

Damn, bold of you to assume Greta's parents drive. Also, your driving sounds like a personal problem sooooooooo...... Sounds like you need to empty some kegs from the back. Good thing solar panels have a usable lifetime of 25-30 years. Also, a good thing windmills can come apart. You know what else can't compete with gas-powered vehicles... lifeless earth from climate change caused by gas-powered vehicles

You are sounding ridiculous now, and I'm guessing this is troll bs, for you can't be as unaware of the meaning of my comments as you display with the above quote. I'll humor you and respond nonetheless. 

Do people not drive in Scandinavian countries? I wonder what the differences in distance and infrastructure they have compared to us?

Yes, my driving is a personal choice. Good thing I have that choice because... Merica, f#$k yeah! It is nice to have freedom and choices - brings down prices on goods and services.

25-30 years, you say? Please, enlighten me on how many I need to stick on my truck to lug around those kegs. Keep in mind, I drink a lot of beer, and that stuff is heavy... gonna need quite a bit of power. If you can take that variable into your equation for an estimate it would be much appreciated. 

If I disassemble and then reassemble the windmill at every overpass I'm worried people would become violent, seeing as I'm holding up traffic. Anyway around this?

You know what is even worse than the bs climate change theory being caused by us industrialized humans? Actual pollution by plastics causing our ocean environment serious problems. This is something provable and solvable. Go screech to China and India about that, would ya.

Have any of the nay-sayers on electric cars here ever noticed that many studies say that a plug-in electric on coal is still cleaner than a gas burner...
And there are studies that say that gas engines are better, considering the grid.  And many of those seem to forget that the petroleum does not extract itself from the ground, pipe or ship it's way to a refinery, or deliver itself to a gas pump... Yet they start the carbon footprint from the engine, not from the ground.
I'm jus' sayin':
If I do the "study" just right I can come up with whatever conclusion I wanted to in the first place.

Ryan Brown wrote:

There are way too many factors between geologic history and contemporary human development to deny climate change. Change of Civilizations from practically running on solar, hydro, and wind energies to running on fossil fuels, the moving of tectonic plates, expansion of organized agriculture, plastics vs natural materials....

Your argument suggests that everything has stayed the same and all energy systems work the same throughout millennia.  

I completely missed this one. Excuse me for not addressing sooner.

The disconnect here happens all the time with you consensuals. Us deniers aren't denying that the climate isn't changing, just that humans aren't the cause. There is a clear distinction between how you view and characterize us and how things really are. Twist and construe. Good tactic to use when you want to try and shame and embarrass those you can't refute.

Did you even really read what Mr. Wood wrote? In his post which you conveniently omitted most of, did he not give instances that there were massive changes that took place in the past?

Never mind, I now understand the disconnect. Comprehension!

Nivel Egres wrote:

LOL. Do you have an advanced degree in meteorology, ecology or geology? Or at the very least a physics PhD from a reputable university? I am going to guess the answer and say that maybe before "denying" anything, you should have a deep enough understanding of the topic.  For starters, it helps to read at least some of the original papers as opposed to Scientific American or Breitbart. 

So, are you saying that you have to have an advanced degree to understand a topic?

Someone should have informed Thomas Edison, Charles Goodyear, James Prescott Joule, Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, and a host of others this insightful information.

What if I told you I hold two advanced degrees (mechanical & electrical), and a Piled higher and Deeper? Is that sufficient enough, or should I write another book with the foreword addressed to you personally?

- I don't like the destruction of wilderness for tar sand oil
- I don't like wilderness with an oil pipeline
- I don't like leaking pipelines
- I don't like occasional sinking tankers ruining my seafood
- I don't like filthy air
- I don't like supporting most oil financed regimes, directly or indirectly
- I am really not sure what the hell people carry to warrant giant vehicles.
- I seem to park my little hatch next to big 4x4's and sprinters on trailheads without issues. Summer or winter.
- I am cheap and I actually get 45mpg. I prefer to spend my money on actually doing things and not on stuff.

So I drive a small little eco shitbox hatchback. 

TDI's are cheap right now because of the VW dieselgate scandal, they get over 40 MPG, and have less emissions than a Tesla

I bought a 3rd gen 4runner and leave it at the Red.  I drive a Honda Civic for commuting.