Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux

[Neven]

Continued from here...

[magnamentis]

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,438.msg199106.html#msg199106

[Shared Humanity]

 

[Sleepy]

There's been "Something In The Air" for a while...

Quoting Neven from the last post in the retired thread.
This thread can continue to be used what it was meant for originally: Whether sustainable transportation is a viable option as a Green BAU solution.

Thank you, let's see how this goes. Hopefully with less mudslinging and labeling.
 
May I start with the most fundamental issue?
Humans can't create energy.

[Sleepy]

Adding a couple of comments I made in the old thread about Norway.

Norway's total emissions are down 3,5% since 1990.
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/nrmiljo/aar

The dent is made by EV's when checking the other numbers there, but far from enough of course.
The link posted above shows reported emissions from Norwegian economic activity, no matter where it happens in the world and includes emissions from Norwegian shipping and air transport firms outside of Norway. I think those are the best official numbers available. And that's a western nation with a fully clean grid, even better than Sweden.

Norways energy consumption is rising, clearly visible in the other set with reported domestic emissions:
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/klimagassn/aar-endelige
This is what's included in that one (unfortunately not available in English):
https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/artikler-og-publikasjoner/hvilke-utslipp-dekkes-av-statistikkene

However accurate those numbers are, they are far away from those 10-15% cuts required (per year). Not much to be fascinated about.

Also adding those images with short quotes from the Brundtland comission in 1987:

[Sleepy]

Hmm, a bit early maybe but if this is a new trend it's good.

A piece by Linus Eriksson, traffic director at Skånetrafiken:
Skåne is entering a new era where the car is no longer the norm. Maybe car shame follows flying shame?
https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2019-05-15/skane-ar-pa-vag-in-i-en-ny-era-dar-bilen-inte-langre-ar-norm-foljer-bilskam-efter-flygskam

In just a few months the travel pattern in Skåne has changed. According to Swedavia, the number of air passengers at Malmö Airport decreased by 11 per cent for the first four months of the year. During the same period, travel by public transport in Skåne increased by 1.8 million trips. The regional bus traffic around Lund and Kristianstad increased by 10 percent, the city traffic in Malmö by just over 7 percent, and the Pågatågen by 4 percent.

I think we are entering a new era. Every day, 420,000 sustainable journeys are made with Skånetrafiken, all of which buses and trains are fossil fuel-free. Regardless of what is claimed in the debate, Skåne has a large range of trains and bus services that reach far above the political level of ambition of ten double trips per weekday for resorts with at least 1 000 inhabitants. In places such as Åhus, Höganäs, Broby, Höllviken, the demand is so great that Skånetrafiken runs a bus between every 5-10 minutes.

[ASILurker]

Relating to my recent post on the Tesla thread:
CORNELL UNIVERSITY Computer Science > Computers and Society
Ethical Implications: The ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code applied to Tesla's "Autopilot" System
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2406.msg199631.html#msg199631

There are other approaches and I think this article is a classic example of when unproven hypothetical hyperbolic academic assumptions morph into being (false) "substantiated facts of reality" impertinently projected onto a future that does not as yet exist, let alone been tested in the real world.

These kinds of summaries are intrinsically dangerous to society at large imho. The basis of this article below is extremely weak and ill considered, at least imho it is. Just because someone provides genuine academic references does not make their text or their conclusions robust or wise.

Programming Ethics in Self-Driving Cars: Ethical Dilemma
Najam Ul Hassan
University of Maryland University College
https://journal.seisense.com/index.php/jom/article/view/42/35

Conclusion
Rapid innovation in self-driving cars presents some tough ethical questions. A cursory look at the issues suggest that the assertion of Bonnefon et al. (2016) where they contend that the passenger should be saved when it comes down to it, is worth pursuing. However, a deeper look begs that the need of the hour is to take a step back and rethink the problem all over again where ‘safety of pedestrians and bikers, the livability of cities, and environmental  sustainability — all center stage’ (JafariNaimi,  2018).

The  rate  of  innovation  in  the  automotive industry indicates  that  self-driving  cars  will  (be) roaming  around  the  roadways  in  the  very  near  future.  With heightened  safety,  increased  productivity  and  diminished  congestion  among  other  scores  of  benefits,  their introduction should not only be allowed, but encouraged and facilitated.

The debate over the ethical decision should be addressed by developing “cars don’t drive into situations where that could happen and [will] drive away from potential situations where those decisions have to be made” (Mike Brown, 2016). These cars will not only positively impact the society, but will also deliver tremendous boost to the development of self-driving busses, trucks and rails.

I posit that the highlighted parts are all presumptuous assumptions as yet unproven and not even even fully understood as yet.

Welcome to the Precautionary Principle website
The mission of this website is to promote the understanding and implementation of the Precautionary Principle for the management of new and emerging risks.

The Precautionary Principle is a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete, such as the risks of nano technology, genetically modified organisms and systemic insecticides.

The Precautionary Principle is defined as follows:
When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is

-    threatening to human life or health, or
-    serious and effectively irreversible, or
-    inequitable to present or future generations, or
-    imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected.

The judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis. Analysis should be ongoing so that chosen actions are subject to review. Uncertainty may apply to, but need not be limited to, causality or the bounds of the possible harm.

Actions are interventions that are undertaken before harm occurs that seek to avoid or diminish the harm. Actions should be chosen that are proportional to the seriousness of the potential harm, with consideration of their positive and negative consequences, and with an assessment of the moral implications of both action and inaction. The choice of action should be the result of a participatory process.

Source: UNESCO COMEST report The Precautionary Principle
http://www.precautionaryprinciple.eu/

[ASILurker]

Been saving these things up for some time.

THE LEHIGH REVIEW
9AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES: AN ETHICAL THEORY TO GUIDE THEIR FUTURE
Michael Drury, Joseph Lucia, Vincent Caruso

The technology leading to fully autonomous vehicles is increasing exponentially with each passing year. It is both exciting to be living in such an inventive time but also worrying. Current driving practice is relatively dangerous due to the faults of humans. Humans sometimes operate vehicles without being entirely aware of their surroundings. Fully-autonomous cars would theoretically eliminate the error introduced by human capabilities. The main problem that arises in this is the lack of ethics in a computer program.

It is difficult to ascertain how a car should behave in the inevitable event of an accident. The scope of this paper is to develop a dominant governing ethical theory to determine how cars will be programmed, how blame will be administered in the event of accidents, and what laws and regulations should be implemented in the future. Prior to widespread release and acceptance into everyday life, the integration of autonomous cars must be analyzed from an ethical perspective.

https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=cas-lehighreview-vol-25

5 CONCLUSION

Vehicles are becoming ever more independent from the input of human beings. The creation of autonomous vehicles that are capable of operating without any decision-making from passengers results in a multitude of ethical dilemmas. Questions, such as who should be protected by the car, who is at fault for an accident, and should drivers be allowed on the road must all be answered.

These are all ethical dilemmas and the answers to these questions will vary greatly depending on the ethical theory applied to the situation. For this reason, a defined ethical theory must be provided to lawmakers and manufacturers before any regulation or products are introduced to the public. This theory will guide lawmakers in being sure that the laws they pass meet the goals they set for them. It will also allow manufacturers to understand how their product will fit into the world.

5.1 DERIVE AN ETHICAL THEORY TO APPLY

It is for this reason, that individual rights cannot be the solution to all of the issues regarding automated vehicles. Utilitarianism is also not without its faults. What is best for society is often times not what is best for the individual. This means that the individual may not make decisions that are compatible with utilitarianism. At this point, utilitarianism also breaks down. 

[ASILurker]

Ethical Concerns of Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Data Analytics
Harlow, Harold. European Conference on Knowledge Management; Kidmore End : 316-323. Kidmore End: Academic Conferences International Limited. (Sep 2018) 

Research is presented in this paper from current trends and laws that address the ethical problems in Big Data and AI while recommending an ethical knowledge management strategy and direction for these activities.

https://search.proquest.com/openview/56146799514cd6f3c4e92e82079fb128/1

Smarter and more knowledgable than your average Twitter poster, yeah?

[ASILurker]

Artificial Intelligence: The Very Human Dangers of Dysfunctional Design and Autocratic Corporate Governance

Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 314/2019
50 Pages Posted: 6 May 2019
Alan J. Dignam

It concludes that despite the unfortunate deregulatory instincts of the US and UK governments with regard to technology, AI should be treated in a similar manner to pharmaceutical products by introducing public interest regulation through the medium of a state regulatory body, and that changes to the corporate governance regulation of tech companies are necessary.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3382342

[Sleepy]

Old crosspost from last January, about legal issues with autonomous cars, which are still largely unresolved:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,438.msg139079.html#msg139079

Common predictions are pretty useless when it comes to legal matters. We might see an governmental investigation here in Sweden in March. Other than that, this is the only real study on this subject (that I've seen) and it's a year old now.
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1061449&dswid=-2823

    Abstract [en]

    The objective of this report is to analyse the legal prerequisites for liability under criminal law regarding self-driving vehicles. This includes making visible and problematize legal constructions of responsibility in Criminal Law, and its concepts and principles that follow in relation to the knowledge developed within the field of Artificial Intelligence.

    The overall question, which focuses on the Swedish Penal Code, is how criminal liability is constructed in law and if these constructions are compatible with the development of self-driving vehicles technologies. The sub question is what or which elements constitute legal responsibility and accountability under the Road Traffic Offences Act. The project aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the law, the power that Law exercises, and its role and function in society, but also how technology impacts on the content of Law. The theoretical inspiration has been derived mainly from legal theories that give attention to and elucidate the relationship between Law and Society, and in addition, theories and perspectives of Criminal Law. The study uses traditional legal methods developed in jurisprudence; this means applying legal sources such as preparatory works and Jurisprudence literature in the interpretation of legal provisions.

    The analysis shows that self-driving vehicles technologies are challenging Law in many ways inter alia the concept of “legal subject”. Furthermore, it reveals that general provisions as well as concepts and principles in the Swedish Penal Code and the Constitutional Law are not well adapted to the technology in question. The concept “legal subject” is based on an image of a human as an autonomous being. As such, she has the ability of good judgment and is wise and insightful. She is also assumed to be free to make her own decisions without being subordinate to others. In a broader perspective the Law defines what it is like to be a human being. In contrary, robot’s autonomy is determined where a human is situated in the "decision-loop". This study argues that the time is ripe to seriously discuss the concept "legal autonomy" particularly in relation to self-driving vehicles since the technology involved is challenging the very foundation of Law. Furthermore, that the legal concept autonomy should instead be understood as a relational concept since this approach embraces the relationship between the physical driver and the automated system of the self-driving vehicle.

The paper itself is in Swedish and not easily translated, but here's an interview with Wanna Svedberg from last year which translates well enough:
https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/sa-kan-lagen-for-sjalvkorande-bilar-bli-6851504

Then we might also consider how we humans would treat automated vehicles in traffic. Pedestrians and bikers would probably just let the automated vehicles wait, or can we make ourselves fully autonomous as well? 

[ASILurker]

The Modern Trolley Problem: Ethical and Economically-Sound Liability Schemes for Autonomous Vehicles
9 Case W. Res. J.L. Tech. & Internet 1 (2018)
covering Artificial Intelligence Law, Ethics, Corporate Liability, and Economics. 
(paywalled w abstract intro)
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/caswestres9&div=7&id=&page=&t=1558065653

Moving Forward with Autonomous Systems: Ethical Dilemmas
    Aysen K. Taylor, Sarah Bouazzaoui
First Online: 26 June 2018
Abstract

Automation has improved transportation systems in various domains over the last several decades. Increasing autonomy in these systems has gradually reduced the role of the human operator to that of system monitor with the ultimate goal of eliminating the human from the control system entirely. Commercial aviation has benefited from automation, but it operates with the support of a broad infrastructure of safety when compared to vehicular road traffic.

While not designed to operate in a fully autonomous mode, the computer, sensor, and software technology developed for aircraft are being applied to self-driving cars with the expectation that driving will also see significant improvements in accident rates and efficiency through the elimination of human error and negligence.

A sophisticated combination of hardware sensors and computer software analyzes the environment and controls the speed and direction of the car without input from its human occupants and their opaque interactions increase the complexity of the system. This approach has potential benefits but also potential problems. Autonomous vehicles will present ethical challenges while being developed and after deployment.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the many ethical implications involved with the implementation and oversight of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology. This paper examines primary ethical dilemmas present in the use of autonomous cars including liability and moral agency.
(sorry paywalled)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-94334-3_12

Precautionary Principle
Precautionary principles are the foundations for policy when it has to deal with weakly understood causes of potential catastrophic or irreversible events, and where protective decisions require certain and costly policy interventions that may not solve the problem that they are designed to correct.

From: Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, 2013
(sign-in or paywalled)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/precautionary-principle

Ethics
J. Hanson, in Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene, 2018
Overview of the Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is, at its simplest, a modern restatement of the classical Hippocratic oath, “I will keep them from harm and injustice,” which is often summarized as “first, do no harm.” However, the “precautionary principle” is more than a dictum for individual actions; rather, it is intended to guide the behavior of institutions and nations. And, unlike the Hippocratic oath and its modern equivalents, it applies to both human and environmental health.

Benefits and Limitations of the Precautionary Principle
P.F. Ricci, H. Sheng, in Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, 2013

Abstract
Precautionary principles are the foundations for policy when it has to deal with weakly understood causes of potential catastrophic or irreversible events, and where protective decisions require certain and costly policy interventions that may not solve the problem that they are designed to correct. These principles provide – when developed by statutes that reflect the intent of the principles – a legal justification for acting, even though scientific causation is either incomplete or perhaps unavailable. The dilemma that the those principles create is that the ethical choice underpinning precautionary principles, better safe than sorry, can be costly because an action designed to avoid potential damage can be counterproductive for society by creating other hazards that are incorrectly analyzed.


Ethics, Communities, and Climate Resilience

Kerry W. Bowman, ... Yousef M. Manialawy, in Resilience, 2018
15.3 Ethics, the Precautionary Principle, and the Need for Climate Resilience

In an environmental context, the precautionary principle can be defined as such: when an identified threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or human health exists, a lack of full scientific knowledge about the situation should not be used to delay remedial steps if the balance of potential costs and benefits justifies action (Resnik, 2003). It goes beyond the notion of prevention, which seeks solely to minimize the impact of identified risks. The adoption of the principle in the medical field (Goldstein, 2001) emerged later.

Although it now has far greater resonance in health care, the principle often remains ignored by decision-makers as reason for climate change mitigation or adaptation. This is ironic considering that the precautionary principle was originally created in the mid-1970s as part of Germany’s environmental protection policy (Gignon et al., 2013).

[ASILurker]

I have been saving these things up. I can't recall anyone else who has raised these issues and risks the last 6 mths plus, nor the unknowns involved versus the automatic Assumptions that are generally just accepted without any scepticism or scientific/academic validity at all as to the so-called "obvious benefits" of autonomous vehicles to society overall and long term.

Maybe they are the best things since sliced bread - I have yet to see any credible scientific experiments, nor in depth analysis, nor a valid statistical analysis of a real world situation in which autonomous vehicles are operating together in a geographical area for real - proving such "safety claims" to be the most highly likely case.

Anyway, fwiw, here's another example of raising genuine issues with a reasonable well balanced natural/scientific scepticism that's psychologically healthy. (vs the typical guff found on social media aka Twitterati/Teslaarti pseudo experts, sharemarket shills, trolls and hacks) 

Self-Driving Cars: Ethical Responsibilities of Design Engineers
Author Jason Borenstein ; Joseph Herkert ; Keith Miller
 Published in: IEEE Technology and Society Magazine ( Volume: 36 , Issue: 2 , June 2017 )

Abstract:
In the wake of the exposure of Volkswagen's diesel engine test-rigging, a Bloomberg Business journalist described the company as "driven by engineering-crazed executives" and The New York Times ran a story noting how with today's complex computer systems in automobiles, there are numerous opportunities for misdeeds both by automakers and hackers.

With the advent of so-called autonomous or self-driving cars, such issues may become even more pervasive and problematic. From a legal perspective, a key focal point is who would be at fault if and when an accident occurs. Much also has been written about the ethical complexities posed by self-driving cars.

In accordance with Moore's Law, "[a]s technological revolutions increase their social impact, ethical problems increase". Yet relatively little has been said about the ethical responsibilities of the designers of self-driving cars.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7947308

[Sleepy]

Apart from legal and ethical issues, a more imminent unsustainable issue with EV's and even more so in an eventual autonomous future, is that the distance travelled will most likely increase. Maybe even double with self-driving cars. Resource use will probably increase unless we buy fewer EV's.

At least we have statistics from Norway on distance travelled by cars.

[BeeKnees]

Apart from legal and ethical issues, a more imminent unsustainable issue with EV's and even more so in an eventual autonomous future, is that the distance travelled will most likely increase. Maybe even double with self-driving cars. Resource use will probably increase unless we buy fewer EV's.

At least we have statistics from Norway on distance travelled by cars.

Not sure this tells us very much about an autonomous future tbh as there are no autonomous cars in the chart.

The chart is also slightly misleading in portraying EV as the cause for increased travel when it is the combined use of all vehicles that is to blame.   It doesnt tell us the cause, which could just as easily be improved roads or a population increase (8% in the last 7 years) leading to more drivers rather than the energy source of the vehicle.   

[ASILurker]

snipped

(edit) Nah, changed my mind, I'm not interested in this kind of stuff.

[BeeKnees]

And where exactly does it show: "The chart is also slightly misleading in portraying EV as the cause for increased travel" ?

It's a simple point that can be shown simply by swapping the order of the different entries in the chart.  If hybrids were placed top then they would appear to be the driver for increased use.

The OP appeared to be suggesting that EV is the driver for increased mileage, this isnt supported by the chart when other factors are considered.

[ASILurker]

Related - as NeilT and others keep saying Tesla is a Technology Company

US tech industry regulations are ‘no longer subject to democratic checks & balances’ – Macron
Published time: 16 May, 2019

 France’s President Emmanuel Macron has taken a jab at Washington by saying that its policies relating to the tech industry are at the hands of corporations. A quite surprising statement for one of America’s closest allies.

The French leader said that US policies, in fact, fall short of being a paragon of democracy – at least when it comes to regulating the field of modern technology – as big business has seemingly too much of a say in formulating Washington’s approaches in this sphere.

“The United States is a formidable continent but they have a model which is completely steered by big private sector players and which is no longer subject to democratic checks and balances,” Macron said at a question and answer session at a technology forum in Paris, where he championed the idea of protecting European companies from being devoured by foreign, and particularly US, corporate giants.

The French president did not stop at that and added that such a laissez-faire approach has led to a situation, in which America does not in fact have a government that is capable of guaranteeing its citizens’ privacy rights at the face of corporate privacy intrusion

https://www.rt.com/news/459534-macron-us-regulation-no-democratic/

[Sleepy]

Sigh, here we go:
The source for the posted graph (reply #13), also clearly visible in it, is Robbie Andrew;
http://folk.uio.no/roberan/RobbieAndrew.shtml
and SSB in Norway:
https://www.ssb.no/en/

The source for increased travel by autonomous vehicles is Anna Pernestål:
https://www.kth.se/profile/annapern
https://www.kth.se/en/itm/nyheter/anna-pernestal-mer-trafik-med-sjalvkorande-bilar-1.888420

Almost all simulations point to a high risk of increased traffic with the arrival of autonomous vehicles, says Anna Pernestål in an interview about the research being conducted at ITRL.

The above people and organizations may be accused of beeing overly positive but neither are well known for deliberately misleading.

[BeeKnees]

Sigh, here we go:
The source for the posted graph (reply #13), also clearly visible in it, is Robbie Andrew;
http://folk.uio.no/roberan/RobbieAndrew.shtml
and SSB in Norway:
https://www.ssb.no/en/

The source for increased travel by autonomous vehicles is Anna Pernestål:
https://www.kth.se/profile/annapern
https://www.kth.se/en/itm/nyheter/anna-pernestal-mer-trafik-med-sjalvkorande-bilar-1.888420

Almost all simulations point to a high risk of increased traffic with the arrival of autonomous vehicles, says Anna Pernestål in an interview about the research being conducted at ITRL.

The above people and organizations may be accused of beeing overly positive but neither are well known for deliberately misleading.

I haven't accused anyone of being deliberately misleading. 

The chart however has no relevance to whether autonomous vehicles will or will not lead to increased traffic \ more miles travelled.  I would argue that the most likely cause for the current increased miles travelled in Norway is driven by population and therefore an increase in the number of drivers on the road.

[Sleepy]

Only the chart made by Robbie Andrew. Spot the red and the green parts, I really tried to make myself understandable even though I'm not a native English speaker.

Apart from legal and ethical issues, a more imminent unsustainable issue with EV's and even more so in an eventual autonomous future, is that the distance travelled will most likely increase. Maybe even double with self-driving cars. Resource use will probably increase unless we buy fewer EV's.

At least we have statistics from Norway on distance travelled by cars.

Not sure this tells us very much about an autonomous future tbh as there are no autonomous cars in the chart.

The chart is also slightly misleading<snip>

There were never meant to be any autonomous cars in the graph since it's statistics from SSB in Norway and we only have one (operator required) 'autonomous' truck on a public road in the World, in Jönköping (that's Sweden...).

[BeeKnees]

It's fine,

Only the chart made by Robbie Andrew. Spot the red and the green parts, I really tried to make myself understandable even though I'm not a native English speaker.

a more imminent unsustainable issue with EV's and even more so in an eventual autonomous future, is that the distance travelled will most likely increase.

I took this to mean that you believe EVs are already causing an increase in miles travelled and that the chart was supporting this.


I'm unsure on the autonomous side, the evidence is very mixed and even your link says they have insufficient information to be sure.

But she also points out that the data being used to run the simulations is still scarce.
– It is difficult to provide accurate data since autonomous vehicles are not very common yet, she says.

 


 

[Sleepy]

BeeKnees, the graph states what it depicts, an increase in distance travelled by cars with the EV's on top. What's really important here is that this is the most successful western mitigation nation on planet Earth, with a 100% clean grid and lot's of EV's.

Unfortunately the EV's are not helping Norway much, more statistics available in reply #4 above.
Now, if one of Swedens experts on this (albeit very positive, which is a very common feature among Swedes) writes that almost all simulations point to a high risk of increased traffic with the arrival of autonomous vehicles, I certainly listen to that. Even though we don't have statistics over autonomous vehicles yet. But we can model and anticipate. A short quote from the article:

One question is who is responsible, for example in the case of accidents. The number of accidents is expected to decrease significantly compared to manually driven cars, but accidents will occur, not least when the vehicles share space and roads with people. The legislation must be developed here. Another challenge is the increasing traffic that many research studies show. With increased traffic, cities and communities would be even more dominated by motorized vehicles than today.

More miles driven also means that more energy is needed for transport. Although the cars are converted to electric power, it is a development that goes against the sustainability goals.

With the potential and the challenges that exist with self-driving vehicles, it is important that society, while the technology is still evolving, tries to understand both the consequences and possibilities of the technology, so that we use it in a smart way.

To understand the effects of self-driving vehicles, we use different simulation models on ITRL . Entering the model will feed those who drive with the self-driving vehicles, where the passengers go on and off, what it costs and how fast they drive. The model can then be used to test different scenarios. Giving the right input to the models is difficult because self-driving vehicles are not yet available. In order to deal with this, we in my research team have chosen to use the values ​​and estimates made by many different experts and researchers, and weigh these together. By combining results from 26 simulation studies that have been done in different parts of the world, we have created an overall picture of how self-driving vehicles will affect us and our societies.

@Lurk, thank you.

[BeeKnees]

The subsequent text in the article is telling.

However, the uncertainty is great.

The studies show that the only thing that can counteract an increase in traffic is car sharing. In these scenarios, fewer people own their own car and instead share taxis with others who are about to travel at the same time and have the same route. The journey takes a little longer for the traveler, but in return there will be less traffic on the roads. Shared taxis can also feed passengers to and from trains and express buses, and then traffic decreases even more.

The simulation studies also show that there may be fewer cars, if self-driving taxis can replace private cars. A self-driving taxi can replace about 10 passenger cars, and a shared self-driving taxi can replace 14 passenger cars. Then fewer parking spaces are needed, but space will be needed to pick up and drop passengers.

It's a big question that cannot yet be answered.  If the switch to autonomous leads to a switch in car ownership and blurs the line to public transport then it has the potential to change the whole dynamic.

[Sleepy]

Thanks, I've already read it. Luckily Norways statistics are available to us all, so you don't have to argue with your personal if's and but's about the present.

This thread is more like (and always was supposed to be since 2013);
EV's or not, we still must change our way of life and our footprint. This is still where we all are.

EV's will save us from changing our present lifestyle, is more like the other new thread.

[Shared Humanity]

The idea that autonomous cars will somehow help us reach the 40% reduction in CO2 by 2030 is laughable. This is not to say that EV's and autonomous vehicles are not worthwhile pursuits but these efforts are a distraction from what is truly necessary.

Fossil fuels were the means used to shrink the planet, making far distant places easily and quickly accessible. This allowed for the globalization of our economic efforts and an explosion of pleasure travel. To get where we need to go, we must recognize that this easy accessibility to distant places is a luxury we cannot afford. To be carbon neutral by 2050, localization is crucial.

To understand the far ranging impact of such a transition, it is necessary to consider examples of what must change.

Example: If China is still manufacturing and shipping globally 60% of the socks everyone on the planet wears, we are screwed.

[Sleepy]

Yes it's an enormous task SH. It would be better if we started thinking in terms of energy, instead of just whining about fossil fuels. Like these bullet points by Nate Hagens.

[Shared Humanity]

There are 1.2 billion light duty vehicles on the planet. Only a tiny fraction are EV's.

We will be adding another 100 million vehicles each year. Only a small proportion will be EV's.

The average age of a light duty vehicle in the U.S. is 11.7 years.

https://wolfstreet.com/2018/08/21/average-age-of-cars-trucks-vehicles-by-household-income-vehicle-type/

Transportation accounts for 28% of U.S. GHG emissions.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Do the math. EV's should be aggressively pursued but will simply not have the impact needed to avoid catastrophe.

[Shared Humanity]

Yes it's an enormous task SH. It would be better if we started thinking in terms of energy, instead of just whining about fossil fuels. Like these bullet points by Nate Hagens.

I like this. Goes to the heart of what we need to be discussing. What does a world that consumes far less energy look like? Equally important, where should we be expending this smaller energy budget?

My vote is for..

1. food production, transport and processing
2. Water processing

What else?

[Shared Humanity]

All production needs to be located as close as possible to consumption.

[zizek]

It's important to consider the implications of (autonomous) ride-sharing companies attempting to monopolize transportation. On a personal level, Why would you take an autonomous car to the train, when you can just take the car to your destination? It would only make sense if the train was significantly cheaper/free compared to a direct trip with a car. But it's highly unlikely public transport will become cheaper when it's hemorrhaging ridership to rideshare companies:

Uber and Lyft are siphoning riders from public transit, study finds
Researchers say ride-hailing hurts bus and rail ridership, increases traffic congestion
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/01/23/uber-lyft-public-transit-study/


Now, what do companies like Uber or Lyft or Tesla want? Do they want hybrid transportation infrastructure? No, of course not. They want you to use their product. They don't want to lose fares to subsidized transport. Is this already happening? Yes, of course....

Texas town ditches its bus service for ride-sharing app Via
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/12/17109708/via-arlington-texas-rideshare-app-replaces-bus

How one Ontario town used Uber to solve its public transit crisis

Like every other public transit system, Innisfil Transit has a fancy logo, flat-rate fares and plenty of folks who use it to get around town. What it doesn’t have, however, are buses or trains, unionized drivers, transit stops, fixed schedules or any of the other expensive and complicated burdens of conventional transit systems.

https://www.macleans.ca/society/how-one-ontario-town-used-uber-to-solve-its-public-transit-crisis/





It should be common sense that autonomous cars will not decrease emissions, but rather increase them substantially (using a robust public transportation system as the base case). Putting a single person into a huge hunk of metal that drives them autonomously to Applebees will not solve climate change.
The transition towards full autonomous car transportation would require public transportation to be dismantled in tandem. Not only that, it would be the greatest endorsement of suburban sprawl, as every McMansion would have their own personal computerized chauffeur. Anecdotally, the biggest obstacle people have living in the suburbs is the commuting nightmare.  And autonomous cars eliminates that nightmare, even if it increases congestion and commute times. The luxury of being taken to work while watching netflix by yourself is profound in our perverted society..

If autonomous cars becomes the evolution of car transportation, it will be one of the fatal flaws that leads to climate change catastrophe.

[Sciguy]

Peak ICE is here.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Peak-Gasoline-Vehicles-Is-Already-Here.html

However, as Liam Denning points out for Bloomberg Opinion, even as it will take time for EV sales to surpass their fossil fuel counterparts, the more important metric may be when EVs capture more of the growth in sales. If EVs begin to seize all or most of the growth going forward, the position of major automakers – and the oil market – will quickly run into trouble. It only takes change at the margins to create significant disruption.

That may already be underway. Last year, EVs took home all of the growth in the auto market, a trend that is likely to continue, even if some short-term fluctuation is possible. In other words, the peak of the internal combustion engine may already be here. Independent researcher and journalist Gregor Macdonald has been beating this drum for quite a while, noting that gasoline and diesel vehicle sales in China have already hit a peak as well.

As the internal combustion engine sees sales plateau at a time when EV sales are soaring, automakers and Big Finance will turn to the growth opportunity.

This story may apply more broadly to the energy transition, not just to transportation. Fossil fuels dominate, and clean energy is still relatively small. But the lumbering giant is beginning to crumble. The 170 companies in the Russell 3000 Energy Index are down 12 percent since the start of 2017, according to Matthew Winkler of Bloomberg News. The decline comes even as broader equity markets have climbed substantially. The Russell 3000 gained 27 percent over the same period.

More importantly, clean energy stocks have done even better. The 89 publicly-traded companies that earn at least 10 percent of their revenues from clean energy, as identified by BloombergNEF, have seen their stocks rise by 50 percent since the beginning of 2017, Winkler points out.

In other words, if you invested in an oil or gas company in 2017, you likely have seen negative returns since then. If, instead, you chose to put your money in a clean energy company, you are likely pleased with that decision today.

[magnamentis]

The idea that autonomous cars will somehow help us reach the 40% reduction in CO2 by 2030 is laughable. This is not to say that EV's and autonomous vehicles are not worthwhile pursuits but these efforts are a distraction from what is truly necessary.

Fossil fuels were the means used to shrink the planet, making far distant places easily and quickly accessible. This allowed for the globalization of our economic efforts and an explosion of pleasure travel. To get where we need to go, we must recognize that this easy accessibility to distant places is a luxury we cannot afford. To be carbon neutral by 2050, localization is crucial.

To understand the far ranging impact of such a transition, it is necessary to consider examples of what must change.

Example: If China is still manufacturing and shipping globally 60% of the socks everyone on the planet wears, we are screwed.

one starting point would be to prohibit any marine traffic on a motor if the winds are blowing at or above 2 beaufort.

marine travel is one of the only way of travel that's possible at 90% with wind-power and nowadays we can not only use sails but wind turbines (vertical ones) to produce electricity, charge batteries and even bridge parts of the remaining 10%.

further i doubt that smaller sail-vessels with less capacity, given the savings on fuel (money) would be that much less profitable and even if so, that would be a small price for a huge contribution into a good direction.

what we can feed from renewables nowadays is land-travel and marine-travel and with a reasonable marine-travel infrastructure and taking away some need for speed and further in the age of the internet and sat-com, we could get rid of 80% of air-travel if we only wanted (or had to)

[ASILurker]

.... but these efforts are a distraction from what is truly necessary.

Yep. In a nutshell.

[Sleepy]

<snip>
Norways energy consumption is rising, clearly visible in the other set with reported domestic emissions:
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/klimagassn/aar-endelige
<snip>

If someone had a look at the link above and was joyful over Norways 9.5% drop in road traffic emissions between 2016-2017, I forgot to add that 46% of biofuels was palm oil...

[BeeKnees]

<snip>
Norways energy consumption is rising, clearly visible in the other set with reported domestic emissions:
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/klimagassn/aar-endelige
<snip>

If someone had a look at the link above and was joyful over Norways 9.5% drop in road traffic emissions between 2016-2017, I forgot to add that 46% of biofuels was palm oil...

Good job 2017/18 it reduced by 70% and that the Norwegian government have banned it's purchase from 2020.

https://www.regnskog.no/en/news/palmoil-in-biodiesel-sees-massive-drop-in-norway

but it's still only a start and a long way short of what is needed globally. 

[BeeKnees]

The transition towards full autonomous car transportation would require public transportation to be dismantled in tandem. Not only that, it would be the greatest endorsement of suburban sprawl, as every McMansion would have their own personal computerized chauffeur. Anecdotally, the biggest obstacle people have living in the suburbs is the commuting nightmare.  And autonomous cars eliminates that nightmare, even if it increases congestion and commute times. The luxury of being taken to work while watching netflix by yourself is profound in our perverted society..

I agree with this, public transportation systems as we know them are probably on their way out.  Big, heavy buses carrying half a dozen people for significant parts of their journey to locations the public have to travel to is probably not the way forward.  One reason why a bus is so big is to maximise the number of passengers a single driver can move from a-b. 

Remove the need for a driver and the transition in town suggests that smaller and more personalised transport in cities is the most likely way forwards.  A  half a dozen autonomous vehicles tracing routes around cities may have no bigger footprint on the road than the bus and you can claim they have traveled 6 times more distance, but whether these smaller more staggered vehicles cause more congestion really depends on how the road infrastructure evolves.   

I see it as all to play for and I hope the pod systems currently being developed have a place in our future and it's not just private companies using autonomous cars.

[Sleepy]

<snip>
Norways energy consumption is rising, clearly visible in the other set with reported domestic emissions:
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/klimagassn/aar-endelige
<snip>

If someone had a look at the link above and was joyful over Norways 9.5% drop in road traffic emissions between 2016-2017, I forgot to add that 46% of biofuels was palm oil...

Good job 2017/18 it reduced by 70% and that the Norwegian government have banned it's purchase from 2020.

https://www.regnskog.no/en/news/palmoil-in-biodiesel-sees-massive-drop-in-norway

but it's still only a start and a long way short of what is needed globally.

Yes, but the use of palm oil tripled during 2017 even though Stortinget ran over the government back then...
https://www.nrk.no/norge/stortinget-overkjorer-regjeringen-om-palmeolje-pa-biltanken-1.13543188
https://www.nrk.no/norge/mer-palmeolje-i-norsk-biodiesel-enn-noensinne-1.14035882

And yes, since then we've had huge discussions in Scandinavia about palm oil, Norway obviously used more rape seed in 2018 and biofuels are as sustainable as any car, which leads back to the main point of my post about Norways total emissions which hardly dropped at all.

Edit; adding fuel sales. Behold the mitigation...

[rboyd]

Norway is like one of those plutocrats that gives some of their fortune to good causes (EV's)  - offsetting only a little of the damage that they do continuing to amassing their fortune (selling lots of oil and gas).

[Sleepy]

Norway and Sweden are similar. Norway with a 100% clean grid will be interesting to follow in this thread because they are still failing in reducing their total emissions.
Unfortunately, statistics by SSB (and SCB in Sweden) will always lag future promises and dreams.

[Sigmetnow]

The German auto industry is imploding.  So for sure that means it’s party time on this “Death to Cars” thread, amiright?  And any kind of government help should be verboten, of course!

ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1)
5/22/19, 6:33 AM
"The German automotive association expects the industry to make a substantial request for aid by the end of May"
finans.dk/indsigt/ECE113…

https://twitter.com/valueanalyst1/status/1131145978881433600

Tysk bilindustri bønfalder Berlin: »Giv os statsstøtte« - Indsigt - Forside
https://finans.dk/indsigt/ECE11350923/tysk-bilindustri-boenfalder-berlin-giv-os-statsstoette/?ctxref=ext

Via Google translate:

The automotive industry in Germany is under pressure almost unprecedented.

The pressure is so great that by the end of May, the automotive association Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA) expects the automotive industry to make a substantial request for state aid.

Without cash assistance from the state, the consequence can be job losses, and since the automotive industry is the largest private employer in Europe's largest economy, the message should be expected to be taken seriously in Berlin.

[gerontocrat]

The German auto industry is imploding.  So for sure that means it’s party time on this “Death to Cars” thread, amiright?  And any kind of government help should be verboten, of course!

"The German automotive association expects the industry to make a substantial request for aid by the end of May"

If the World's car-makers, including Germany can't make a buck on sales of 86 million vehicles it is by pure mismanagement.

https://www.best-selling-cars.com/global/2018-full-year-international-worldwide-car-sales-and-global-market-analysis/

2018 (Full Year) International: Worldwide Car Sales and Global Market Analysis
February 23, 2019 by Henk Bekker in Global, International

In 2018, around 86 million cars were sold in the top 54 world markets. SUVs were popular worldwide and electric car sales grew by 75%.

SUVs accounted for more than a third of all new cars sold worldwide in 2018
Global car and light commercial vehicle sales in 2018 contracted by 0.5% to 86 million vehicles. The Volkswagen Group, Toyota and Renault-Nissan were the largest carmakers and manufacturing groups in the world in 2018.

According to Jato, 2018 marked a somewhat challenging year for the global car market, as sales fell for the first time since 2009. However, worldwide car sales remained near record levels.

[Sigmetnow]

Michael McDonough (@M_McDonough) 5/22/19, 8:22 AM
Global vehicle sales are declining at the fastest pace since the Financial Crisis:

https://twitter.com/m_mcdonough/status/1131173590949351424

Michael McDonough (@M_McDonough) 5/22/19, 12:30 PM
Global vehicle sales growth (broken down by region):

https://twitter.com/m_mcdonough/status/1131236021172154371

Graphs below.

[Sigmetnow]

ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1)5/22/19, 10:26 AM
Jan07: "GM's global sales declined by less than 1% in 2006 as strong growth in Asia largely offset a slump in the U.S. auto market"

Two years after this article, $GM was bankrupt.

   GM US sales sank 7% in Q1, & inventories are near record.

ICE Death Watch ...

https://twitter.com/valueanalyst1/status/1131204689087860737

——

ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1) 5/22/19, 6:42 AM
IMO, the German automakers chose not to “trim the fat” and instead kept hundreds of thousands of employees EVEN AS THEY KNEW THIS DAY WOULD COME, so that they can use the workforce as leverage for government aid.

In other words, the executives used employees for ransom: profits. ...

https://twitter.com/valueanalyst1/status/1131148214063775746

——-

ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1) 5/22/19, 9:34 AM
ICE 2019 = BlackBerry 2012

https://twitter.com/valueanalyst1/status/1131191579623022592
Graph of Sales (Not stock price) below.

[Neven]

So for sure that means it’s party time on this “Death to Cars” thread, amiright?  And any kind of government help should be verboten, of course!

But it won't be, and guess who's paying to bail out concentrated wealth?

[Sleepy]

https://twitter.com/wenstephenson/status/1130800573849231360
Idle thought: Is it possible, just maybe, that one reason our democracy is in crisis (and we’ve failed to respond) is that too many people think tweeting = activism (or one’s take on a tv show = political engagement)? We’re tweeting while democracy & the planet burn (he tweets).

[Sleepy]

This will fit the topic of this thread as well:

Slideshare by Glen Peters.
https://www.slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CICERO/were-so-fucking-late
Adding four selected images below.

[Sleepy]

Norways Ministry of Finance don't believe in zero emissions.
https://www.statsbudsjettet.no/Statsbudsjettet-2019/Dokumenter1/Budsjettdokumenter/Nasjonalbudsjettet-2019/Meld-St-1-/3-Den-okonomiske-politikken-/37-Klimapolitikken-/

[Sigmetnow]

According to Jato, 2018 marked a somewhat challenging year for the global car market, as sales fell for the first time since 2009. However, worldwide car sales remained near record levels.

Growth in sales of EVs made up for much of the bigger drop in ICE vehicle sales.

[Sleepy]

Which won't help total emissions much.

In Sweden we have a climate barometer for total road traffic emissions, updated monthly:
https://www.trafikverket.se/for-dig-i-branschen/miljo---for-dig-i-branschen/energi-och-klimat/Klimatbarometer/

The climate barometer shows how much carbon dioxide is emitted from road traffic - from all Sweden's cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles and work machines. The barometer is updated monthly.

The climate barometer indicates the sum of all carbon dioxide emissions for all fuels - gasoline and diesel, but also ethanol, biodiesel (FAME and HVO), natural gas and biogas. The calculation covers all emissions, both from the manufacture and distribution of a fuel and from the combustion of it in an engine. The barometer gives a more complete picture and allows for a closer follow-up than has been possible before. Data on fuel deliveries receives the Swedish Transport Administration from Statistics Sweden every month. In addition to road traffic, work machines, work tools and leisure boats are also covered.

The index now stands at 98, ie two per cent lower than the 1990 emissions. During the last 12 months, emissions have increased by 1.9 per cent. This can be compared with the necessary reduction rate of about 8 per cent per year to reach the climate target for the transport sector in 2030.

Edit; forgot to add this article which explains why emissions went up last year and what they think we should do (~90% 'clean' grid here):
https://www.trafikverket.se/om-oss/nyheter/Nationellt/2019-02/okad-lastbilstrafik-orsakade-utslappsokning/

- We need to increase the pace if we are to meet the climate target. In addition to stricter policy instruments for more energy-efficient vehicles and an increased share of renewable energy, this is about more public transport, walking and cycling in densely built-up areas. On the freight side, it is about longer, heavier and, in the long run, fewer trucks and more goods by rail and shipping, ”says Marie Hagberg, department manager for transport quality at the Swedish Transport Administration.