I understand the argument, but I see two big reasons for why it's not valid here. First, e-fuel production and infrastructure needs to be constructed as well. So your calculation needs to consider the entire cost/inefficiency of constructing the entire e-fuel econonomy in the first place.
Second, I can't imagine existing cars outlasting humanities dependency on fossil fuels for electricity. Cars last what, 20-30 years? I bet humanity is not going to replace all fossil fuel electricity production with green one within the next 100 years. Like I said previously, as long as you burn fossils for electricity, producing e-fuels would only increase carbon emissions, not reduce them.
But yes, when it comes to efficient, it's best to keep using existing things (barring exceptions where the original thing was too inefficient/dangerous/whatever). That includes not only cars, but also factories, etc. So technically combustion cars should probably still be built for a few decades, until existing factories are too outdated or have reached the end of their life. The same is true for fuel production though - use existing fuel production and don't invest in e-fuels.
With all of that out of the way, as far as I'm concerned scrapping most of the existing passenger car, regardless of whether it's combustion or electric, is a good thing. They and their infrastructure take up way too much space, energy and material, not to forget the noise, the smell, the danger, ...
Just as preventing waste beats recycling, saving energy beats renewables. "E-fuels" are extremely inefficient and consume four to six times as much electricity as just using a battery would. While Switzerland is producing a lot of electricity from hydropower, they also depend on non-renewable nuclear power sources and its still unsolved dangerous waste problems. As long as countries depend heavily on fossils for electricity, it's better to sell any potential excess clean electricity (not fossils, not nuclear) to them. Using electricity to generate fuels at a >80% efficiency loss instead of sending it to where it's needed increases carbon emissions, instead of decreasing them.
Oh I have definitely played this game before! It's a game with multiple factions and each faction collects different resources. There's something like five resources and each faction needs 3 or so of them. Iirc these salamanders were sort of monk/magic/nature-ish or something along those lines. I think there were also humans (perhaps space marine style?) and some other species as factions.
edit:
Please no image search …
I found the name. Is describing everything I remember about the game to an AI allowed, or does that loosely fall into something like a "no image search" rule?
Trump administration imposed tariffs on EU steel in March 2025
I don't know how old your linked article is, as it's behind a paywall, but according to different sources aluminum US tariffs on aluminum were already implemented or increased in June 2018.
Did China also impose tariffs on EU steel in the meantime? Or, why should chinese companies copy the american companies?
The EU Packaging Waste Regulation laws which demand higher recycling rates were enacted in 2025. So considering the 2018s tariffs, US companies had reasons to import aluminum scrap for 7 more years. The increases in available scrap and on tariffs in 2025 surely strengthened this though.
That's all very interesting, so if the your linked article is older, does that mean Chinese companies are copying US ones on this? Or maybe it's not as simple as that. Either way, to me it sounds like the Indian-owned US subsidiary Novelis has created facilities in Europe and did not account for aluminum scrap getting bought up by other companies.
The TL;DR is misleading. The EU has not "started to recycle aluminum". It had already done so for a long long time. I feel like the TL;DR also singles out China, seeing as it fails to mention that US companies are also increasingly importing scrap.
I suppose whether people leave also depends on a countries quality of life. From what I understand there's the general consensus that people who can afford it and those who can make a living in another country, are the first to leave when there's eg conflict/war/apocalypse. I'm not sure how much this affects billionaires or business owners, but assume it has at least a little effect.
Minesweeper is notorious for having some luck to it.
There's guess-free versions that guarantee solvable games. There's also ones that automatically place a mine on the clicked tile if you take an unnecessary guess. Personally I really like https://davidnhill.github.io/JSMinesweeper with only "Fast mode" (and optionally "No guess") enabled and everything else off.
It doesn't seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don't seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.
I think this thought is a dangerous one. It's a sort of trap that people fall into. It's very alluring and easy to say that. Yet I suggest people stay vigilant and brave and avoid it. Keep in mind it's difficult for people to let go of their opinions, don't resent them for it and try to understand their point of view, maybe there's something in it for you to learn.
Unciv, Shattered Pixel Dungeon, Nonocross, HyperRogue, Freebloks, Frozen Bubble, Vector Pinball
I understand the argument, but I see two big reasons for why it's not valid here. First, e-fuel production and infrastructure needs to be constructed as well. So your calculation needs to consider the entire cost/inefficiency of constructing the entire e-fuel econonomy in the first place.
Second, I can't imagine existing cars outlasting humanities dependency on fossil fuels for electricity. Cars last what, 20-30 years? I bet humanity is not going to replace all fossil fuel electricity production with green one within the next 100 years. Like I said previously, as long as you burn fossils for electricity, producing e-fuels would only increase carbon emissions, not reduce them.
But yes, when it comes to efficient, it's best to keep using existing things (barring exceptions where the original thing was too inefficient/dangerous/whatever). That includes not only cars, but also factories, etc. So technically combustion cars should probably still be built for a few decades, until existing factories are too outdated or have reached the end of their life. The same is true for fuel production though - use existing fuel production and don't invest in e-fuels.
With all of that out of the way, as far as I'm concerned scrapping most of the existing passenger car, regardless of whether it's combustion or electric, is a good thing. They and their infrastructure take up way too much space, energy and material, not to forget the noise, the smell, the danger, ...
Just as preventing waste beats recycling, saving energy beats renewables. "E-fuels" are extremely inefficient and consume four to six times as much electricity as just using a battery would. While Switzerland is producing a lot of electricity from hydropower, they also depend on non-renewable nuclear power sources and its still unsolved dangerous waste problems. As long as countries depend heavily on fossils for electricity, it's better to sell any potential excess clean electricity (not fossils, not nuclear) to them. Using electricity to generate fuels at a >80% efficiency loss instead of sending it to where it's needed increases carbon emissions, instead of decreasing them.
Oh I have definitely played this game before! It's a game with multiple factions and each faction collects different resources. There's something like five resources and each faction needs 3 or so of them. Iirc these salamanders were sort of monk/magic/nature-ish or something along those lines. I think there were also humans (perhaps space marine style?) and some other species as factions.
edit:
I found the name. Is describing everything I remember about the game to an AI allowed, or does that loosely fall into something like a "no image search" rule?
That doesn't negate the fact that he already introduced tariffs on aluminum in 2018.
I don't know how old your linked article is, as it's behind a paywall, but according to different sources aluminum US tariffs on aluminum were already implemented or increased in June 2018.
The EU Packaging Waste Regulation laws which demand higher recycling rates were enacted in 2025. So considering the 2018s tariffs, US companies had reasons to import aluminum scrap for 7 more years. The increases in available scrap and on tariffs in 2025 surely strengthened this though.
That's all very interesting, so if the your linked article is older, does that mean Chinese companies are copying US ones on this? Or maybe it's not as simple as that. Either way, to me it sounds like the Indian-owned US subsidiary Novelis has created facilities in Europe and did not account for aluminum scrap getting bought up by other companies.
The TL;DR is misleading. The EU has not "started to recycle aluminum". It had already done so for a long long time. I feel like the TL;DR also singles out China, seeing as it fails to mention that US companies are also increasingly importing scrap.
I suppose whether people leave also depends on a countries quality of life. From what I understand there's the general consensus that people who can afford it and those who can make a living in another country, are the first to leave when there's eg conflict/war/apocalypse. I'm not sure how much this affects billionaires or business owners, but assume it has at least a little effect.
Good thing children over the age of 50 had already been released.
It seems the meat lobby is way too strong. 🙄
I was expecting the third panel to consist of pulling out cards, dice or game boards and the likes.
Why is only every other dead human silent? What about the other half?
You can simply take the break and socialize without the smoking part.
There's guess-free versions that guarantee solvable games. There's also ones that automatically place a mine on the clicked tile if you take an unnecessary guess. Personally I really like https://davidnhill.github.io/JSMinesweeper with only "Fast mode" (and optionally "No guess") enabled and everything else off.
FYI, you can see that in the source, which is linked in the description.
I agree. They very likely mean "You could / must / must not peel a banana"
Interesting to note: Brits still have a severe sewage problem (Wikipedia: Sewage discharge in the United Kingdom). Even to this day they're often releasing untreated sewage into nature.
It doesn't seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don't seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.
I think this thought is a dangerous one. It's a sort of trap that people fall into. It's very alluring and easy to say that. Yet I suggest people stay vigilant and brave and avoid it. Keep in mind it's difficult for people to let go of their opinions, don't resent them for it and try to understand their point of view, maybe there's something in it for you to learn.