The real life impact of Global warming on the lives of most people is (currently) negligible. Therefore they are very unlikely to invest in, nor purchase, more expensive alternative technologies. This is the underlying reason for government intervention in the development of alternatives. Currently, cars, electricity generation and recycling are massively subsidised by governments spending the money of their citizens, on their behalf. The real question we need to ask is whether governments are capable of selecting the correct "solutions". If not, we'll need to hope that if global warming delivers a real difference to our everyday lives, then capitalism will be allowed to create better "solutions".
Excellent article! I do think Asia is catching up quite quickly, and perhaps another factor as to why they were so slow to innovate is because they wanted to see the world's reaction and gage consumer demand first. No point innovating a product that no one will buy! Since China announced their net-zero target it has sent a very clear message that they're now on board, so it will be exciting to see what technologies China and the rest of Asia will develop in the near future.
I think another reason there's a slower adoption to EV vehicles in the US vs EU is that the population density of EU cities is much greater than in the US. It just doesn't work to have an EV in a place like LA or Houston ... NYC yes.
Yes and no. LA is a Traffic mess, yet California has the highest density of electric cars in the US. I agree that distances are larger which make the adoption of EV harder, but fighting climate change is not just about EV ;-)
Dear Mr. Klement, I stumbled upon your blog and ever since I count myself lucky. Your topics are eclectic and your treatment of them is very interesting. I recommend your blog and I hope you will keep it up.
Outstanding. I wonder if that could be a moat?
The real life impact of Global warming on the lives of most people is (currently) negligible. Therefore they are very unlikely to invest in, nor purchase, more expensive alternative technologies. This is the underlying reason for government intervention in the development of alternatives. Currently, cars, electricity generation and recycling are massively subsidised by governments spending the money of their citizens, on their behalf. The real question we need to ask is whether governments are capable of selecting the correct "solutions". If not, we'll need to hope that if global warming delivers a real difference to our everyday lives, then capitalism will be allowed to create better "solutions".
Excellent article! I do think Asia is catching up quite quickly, and perhaps another factor as to why they were so slow to innovate is because they wanted to see the world's reaction and gage consumer demand first. No point innovating a product that no one will buy! Since China announced their net-zero target it has sent a very clear message that they're now on board, so it will be exciting to see what technologies China and the rest of Asia will develop in the near future.
I think another reason there's a slower adoption to EV vehicles in the US vs EU is that the population density of EU cities is much greater than in the US. It just doesn't work to have an EV in a place like LA or Houston ... NYC yes.
Yes and no. LA is a Traffic mess, yet California has the highest density of electric cars in the US. I agree that distances are larger which make the adoption of EV harder, but fighting climate change is not just about EV ;-)
Dear Mr. Klement, I stumbled upon your blog and ever since I count myself lucky. Your topics are eclectic and your treatment of them is very interesting. I recommend your blog and I hope you will keep it up.
Thanks for the good work.
Laurent from Canada