I hate the quote but it applies to the newest column of statistician and merchant of doubt @BjornLomborg.
Here he is again with misdirection against climate change action. This time against electric vehicles in the @australian.
Let me untangle the trail of misdirection and cherry picking.
The implication: not serious.
Different fact: if growth continues (47% per year, more on that later) all cars sold are electric by 2030.
Pretty serious no?
bloomberg.com/amp/news/artic…)
Lomborg has become an expert at framing in a way that is not outright lying but makes a point that he knows to be invalid.
I have no idea why Lomborg (that I used to admire hugely after his first book) is now so opposed to green innovation.
Apart from the fact that the @IEA is sometimes convervative ( ) this still means that an EV is much better.
That's not 'barely' better for the environment.
And this is just the beginning. In 2050 EVs will emit
~10x less greenhouse gasses.
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Here Lomborg tries to persuade you to think linearly and to concentrate on cumulative growth that looks slower.
And this tells us the average growth was 48% per year.
Wat does this mean for the "breathtaking ask" of the @IEA?
This is classic misdirection. Because of course it's true. Electric cars are only one tool in the toolbox.
"If you think you can save the climate WITHOUT electric cars, you're completely wrong."
Unless you find a way to convince everybody to take the bike or (electrified) public transit there is no way we'll make it without EVs.
I've been intimately involved in this discussion (explaining the numbers and even discussing it with parliamentarians on twitter). Here we go.
That was partly bc. they assumed that without subsidies, people would have bought an equally expensive non-EV.
Of course subsidy for mature products (like insulation) is cheaper per ton CO2 now but it won't help to stimulate innovation. Which is where we are heading now.
Riddle me this: if in 2030 a sporty EV with 500 km of range will be cheaper to buy and 50% cheaper to use (without subsidies) why would 91% of people avoid them?
In 2050 most electricity will be clean. EVs will be produced by and driving on low carbon sources.
But EVs are a LOT better than the combustion cars Lomborg is defending!