Our content is community driven, so please feel free to support our project and write some reviews or help us to fill in the missing devices out there! Our goal is to create the most comprehesive non-commercial catalog for electric self-balancing wheels for everyone!
The Kyoto Protocol - a pain in the ass or can eWheels act as low hanging fruits?
The Kyoto protocol and it’s targets
The Kyoto protocol of 1997 with a first commitment period up to 2012 and the second commitment period (Doha / Katar amendment of 2012/ aka Kyoto II) for 2013-2020 has the target to reduce of up to 30% (first intention of 20% was set to a higher value of 30% in the past) CO2 emission compared to the 1990 values. 2020 to 2030 has the target to reduce of up to 40%, 2030 to 2040 by 60% and 2040-2050 by 80% CO2 compared to the 1990 values.
The target addresses all areas like industry, mobility/ transportation and emissions of houses.
Even, if we use the sentence CO2 gases the correct wording would be greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are all flavours of
* Carbon dioxide (CO2)
* Methane (CH4); Nitrous oxide (N2O)
* Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
* Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
* Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
As the sentence CO2 is more popular we use it over here.
Buy Certificates instead pushing to reach the target?
The target defined in the Kyoto protocol is a real challenge and a lot countries signed and ratified the agreement don’t reach the target without CO2 emission trading. Emission trading (CO2 certificates) are a sign of failure and shows that plans was established to late and not enforced with the necessary power.
Even, if a country doesn’t reach the reduction target it can buy „emission certificates“ to compensate the difference in a limited range. In the last years countries spending in certificates reached millions to buy this certificates from European Union Emissions Trading System, (EU ETS). Spendings not needed if projects, programs get ready in time.
CO2 emissions made by humans (anthropogenic) vs. nature
There're different mentions on who is the major CO2 emitter over the last years, decades and way more.
Thesis one: Volcanoes and oceans are part of the CO2 cycle and doesn't grow CO2 concentration in stratosphere
Scientist Cynthia Werner made estimations based on models which was proofed with measurements in the Yellowstone volcano system (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GC000473/full). There’re also measurements for Mt. Etna, Popocatepetl and more. Further programs recording data on other locations helps to proof the estimates made.
Another popular scientist, Terry Gerlach (United States Geological Survey (USGS)), made an interesting sentence (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthro...): „Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.“
It’s stated that volcanoes (terrestrial/ subarea and submarine) are responsible for 1% of the CO2 emissions made by humans.
Thesis two: Volcanoes and oceans are the big emitters transportation are small emitters. Compared to this transportation is negligible.
The opposite states that the estimation/ calculation base is wrong defined. It’s stated that much more volcanoes exist and some more errors in estimations are realized (http://www.principia-scientific.org/volcanic-carbon-dioxide.html)
Conclusion of both thesis: It looks like that a statement from a former politician from Waikato, New Zealand, made the story of the high CO2 emissions compared to anthropogenic. It looks like there was a misunderstanding of comparing a supererruption (witch can happen all 100.000-200.000 years) to the yearly anthropogenic emission.
As programs are enforced to record CO2 emissions of volcanoes we’ll see more trustable values in the future.
Even, if the volcano CO2 emission would be much higher compared to anthropogenic the humans can control/ reduce the CO2 emissions. The next generations will live with our success to reduce greenhouse gases or fail.
ElectroMobility not handled in the right scope
ElectroMobility is often focused on cars only. As the focus is not spread up to other vehicles as well (motor cycles, PLEV,..) there’re no programs supporting them to help to reduce CO2 emissions. Other vehicles than cars are used in urban and inner city helping to reduce CO2 emissions there. These vehicles can be financed by an wider audience to they spread out like electric bicycles and are common sense today.
The penetration of electric cars are not on the level as estimated as they lack on distance reach and high invest costs to be made. In this case we can also help to reach the target. Every urban or inner city ride is done with ElectroMobility helps reducing CO2 emissions.
A proper program must be assisted by CO2 free energy production (Wind mils, photo voltaic, hydro electric power plant,..) to be green/ zero emission and not to move CO2 emissions from the city where cars drive to the power plant where energy is produced. In this case electro mobility can help to reduce CO2 emissions.
Public transport collaboration, supporting commuters
Electro mobility should cooperate with public transportation. In this collaboration the target can be achieved in a good manner.
An electric bicycle can’t be really used to travel with the commuter to support at the end of the public transportation trip. So with new portable electric vehicles (to be put under the seat or in the luggage compartment) commuters can achieve the use case they need. eWheels can do this perfect and among to get the distance reach, the ability to manage slopes and can be driven on urban roads as well.
As 40% of the road transport CO2 emission accounts tourban mobility PLEV can help a lot to significant reduce CO2 emissions. If the distance is short/ in town or an urban trip between towns. Every time an electric powered vehicle is used instead of a fossil powered vehicle we can save CO2 emissions and help reaching the target of the CO2 reduction if eWheels can be used street legal.