Electric cars don't solve every problem with private vehicle ownership but they're certainly a step in the right direction. Most EVs average an equivalent of more than 100mpg versus most ICEs, which are around 30-40. You can also power an EV with renewable resources. This isn't possible with ICEs (yes, I know you can power certain diesels with biofuel, but it's horribly inefficient).
"Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one" is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one
Also, what do you think happens to your car when you replace it with an electric car? Do most people just drive their old cars into the ocean when they upgrade?
"Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one" is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
Yeah, but this still holds a lot of water. More often than not people buy a new car to have a new car or even worse they buy one specificcally because they are misguidedly trying to lessen their carbon footprint.
More often than not people buy a new car […] trying to lessen their carbon footprint.
This seems very hard to believe.
Try looking it up. That might help
Just because I wanted to be sure I am not being mistaken for some reason I just googled a couple different search terms for motivations to buy a new car.
None of the results is even close to confirming your ludicrous quote from above.
So again I am baffled by how confidently wrong you keep on posting here.
huge unsupported assumption with no basis but your anal tugging.
Not sure why you are having trouble finding support or what anal tugging even is, but looking at Americans at least. They get a new car. On average every 6 to 8 years. A decently maintained car will easily last 11-14 years. If you are finding a better explanation that genralizes than what I described to explain this gap I'd love to hear it
Most people buy used cars. So those cars are already 11 to 14 years old. Inform yourself.
After 8 years you're getting to the point where the average person is gong to start running into problems with their car, especially if they bought used. At that point a person may buy a new car for many reasons not "just because". But even in your example, it's a 3 year gap. That could be accounted for by someone commuting more than average or taking long trips and getting more wear and tear.
I can't even. Where are you getting that data? Unless the average person is driving a bmw they don't start running into any kind of serious issues until 11-14years. Anything sooner than that is typically easily fixed and much cheaper than buying a new car. I don't understand why people here don't realize there is a huge push by advertisers and American culture to buy new cars well before they are needed. People want new cars >> than they need new cars. I'm not fabricating that. Even in a recession yes this mentality remains strong. If that's important for you go for it I guess and yes of course buy electric or hybrid if you can. If you really want to make a carbon footprint dent though, hold off on buying a new car for a few years and with decent maintenance and minor repairs you will save yourself money and save the environment. Jesus
People don't run into issues for 11-14 years? You're assuming everyone is buying a brand new car. You're entire stance is destroyed by the simple concept of buying used cars.
I'm assuming nothing now other than this sub must be overrun by car salespeople. You all are insufferable. The average age of a used car being bought is 6years old, not 11-14. Also, no one is taking issue with the carbon footprint of buying used cars. That's not the point of this post. Buying and maintaining a used car is a wonderfully conservative practice. People aren't buying used electric cars (by and large). The point here the OP is making is that it's better from a carbon footprint standpoint to not trade up to an electric (typically new car) than to keep an existing ICE car at least until it nears end of life. That is a factually accurate statement that all of you car sales people apparently are upset about.
But by selling there old car more people can affort to buy a newer cars and fade out old cars wich overall is going to decrease carbon emissions because newer cars are on average more fuel efficent.
But yes Consuming less is still important
People aren't just buying new cars for fun in a recession. The point is people will need to buy a new car at some point. Either because they now need their own car or their old one isn't viable. At that point, choosing an electric car is a step in the right direction. That's why this post is stupid, it's acting like buying an electric car is just a frivolous purchase and not acknowledgeding that when someone needs to buy a car there is a choice to be made.
deleted by creator
This is often repeated and very damaging misinformation. An EV powered purely by coal is significantly better for the environment than an ICE car over its lifetime. This is because coal fired power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines due to economies of scale, even after taking into account transmission losses.
Oh today I learned, TBH my information was probably out of date. But this is good to know. Definitely a step in the right direction even if more diversified public transportation options are better
It's more so outdated parroting than deliberate misinformation. A lot of the times I see people trying to back this one up, it's with Hawkins et al.'s Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles paper. A 2012 study that analyzes emissions based on manufacturing and energy production capabilities of the time doesn't hold up well over a decade later.
You would think that would be obvious, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Most coal has shifted to natural gas in the US.
Lithium mining is incredibly horrible for the environment.
Guess what else is incredibly horrible for the environment? Oil extraction. In fact, oil extraction is arguably worse for the environment.
Let's put this tired talking point to rest, forever. It's more than likely been invented by the special interest groups for oil.
My frustration comes from the fact that hybrids exist and are not used nearly as enough as they should (all cars should have been mandated as hybrids a decade ago) and this would reduce the downsides of electric car production.
I’m not defending ICEs here, I just think the overall environmental credentials of electric cars at this point in time isn’t as good as hybrids.
I fully expect this to change in the future but I’ve got entire fleets of vehicles which are less than 5 years old being replaced by electric and that makes no sense.
Also cars generally are just a terrible solution to mass transport. We already have the most environmentally friendly option known to man. Bicycles and trains.
Edit: for further information on hybrid vs electric see this analysis:
Yes, which is why I'm downvoting you.
I'm huge into going green, going mass transit, and everything else, however, most people cannot fit into one worldview, which is why this is more nuanced than your meme suggests.
As an example The Midwest in the states does not have mass transit, so they have to drive. So trains and bikes are out. Hybrid still uses gas, and for the vast majority of them they will be on the freeway, so a hybrid is basically the same as an ICE car anyway, so yeah, I'll push them into getting EVs if what they're doing is commuting. However than it gets more nuanced to "is this for roadtrips", because then maybe hybrid is better.
Which is why again I say it's a person-to-person basis. For you maybe a hybrid is the only option, but saying EVs are wrong for everyone is a very naive approach.
If you’re aiming for a huge change anyway (buying new EVs for everyone, installing chargers everywhere) why not consider the other one - adding more transit and bike lanes? It’s not an easy shift either way - but one involves various unknowns and unforeseen difficulties. The other has been put to use across the world already.
Because we have people spread out all across a massive landscape in the USA, it's not ever likely to be feasible to build public transport to reach everyone. No, we don't all live in the big cities and we never will.
Personal transportation will always be a necessity for Americans, except for those who choose to live inside large cities that do have public transport. EVs with Sodium ion batteries would vastly improve our emissions and eliminate the problem with sourcing Lithium batteries' minerals.
What do you mean “not ever likely to build public transport”? That is literally how the West was first settled, and the reason many of those towns exist. We already had train networks, and abandoned them only because of car trendiness.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns - even if they exist a long way from cities, they’re still generally walkable (because of the low traffic volume in the area). Any place where each individual home and store has been spread out such that literally every trip for any purpose necessitates private transport is just forcing its own worst-case scenario and would benefit from a redesign either way. As long as there’s any kind of civic center with a few stores, it becomes reasonably practical to at least have a bus route.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns
Haha, I've lived that life for about 80% of 4 decades already in several small towns and out in the woods far from town. Public transport is mostly non-existent, and people live all over the place where there is nothing but a narrow winding road with no sidewalks. It's generally only the city center where the buildings like courthouses and banks are located that are walkable in the average American small town. Basically there's no option but cars for these small towns.
When you go on about how they should all be built up into an urban paradise with sidewalks and buses and trains going everywhere, it overlooks the fact that we already don't keep up the infrastructure that we have well enough. There is no money to just rebuild everything into the version you imagine would be ideal.
That sounds like the most backward design even of a rural area. This is not a dichotomy between cities and towns complete with pedestrian bridges and electric crosswalks, it’s also about planning that amounts past random, long-distance scattering of destinations.
I’m trying to even understand how you claim those towns become unwalkable, since that’s not due to lack of development - it’s a matter of overdevelopment of roads with wide lanes. A small grid of old buildings with dirt between them is perfectly walkable. If someone built those stores 4 miles apart from each other all in different directions, then even for car users that’s a design failure.
If you insist there is no money to develop anything in those towns or re-plan the environment, that’s an unfortunate diagnosis for the area, but that also means EVs won’t work there because of lack of charging infrastructure, and the town will die out since nothing is being maintained. Let’s keep the discussion to just places that at least have enough money to reconsider their 8-lane stroads.
Yeah. America isn’t the world.
Plenty of countries have functioning public transport.
America is not the exception, you can survive without cars.
They say, as I know people in the midwest who commute 1.5 hours each way to the city for their job and then turn around and drive home. I have a friend who lives in a town of no shit, 400 people.
There's no bus that goes there. It's 30 miles from the nearest "city" of 15,000, and he works another 20 miles past that.
You can survive without cars
Sure, they'll just not eat, not work, and not do anything. Dude I'm all for urbanization and adding mass transit, but you're going to be hard pressed to add rail routes or even bus routes to not just that one town of 400, but all the other thousands of tiny towns. Hell even the town of 15,000 doesn't have a rail route. Hell even the state capital is missing a rail route. Let alone commuter options.
I'm not saying America is an exception, I'm saying you're naive for thinking your one opinion will work for everyone, and that the problem is more nuanced then you understand.
That's why I brought up Cali HSR. It's been over a decade of planning and building that, and that's connecting two of the largest cities in the country, and you're just casually saying "Just build it everywhere". Like yes we want that too, but the realities of building that would be centuries of work.
Only the wealthy, tiny almost pointless to consider ones. Poor Countries and large Countries have no such infrastructure.
China has tons of it.
So does Russia.
Japan isn’t “small” (it’s the length of California) and has tons of it.
The EU is pretty big and all interconnects.
Size isn’t the issue. It certainly hasn’t prevented us from paving half our country.
China is unmovable by vehicle at all such that their failure of a mass transit system is trying busses on stilts.
Japan is tiny. I mean very tiny minuscule area of land.
Most of EU has no such thing. You are assuming it EU is Germany, France, and Belgium. PS, all the actual Countries (which EU isn't one) in the EU are tiny.
Size is a factor in cost and that is the real reason most Countries have no such thing as viable mass transit for the majority of their citizens. Paving sold cars and cars made corporations lots of money. Mass transit does the opposite and is thus objected to by same corpos.China has a working HSR system connecting all their major cities. The fact that their population scale is so massive means they also try weird shit to get what they can.
Japan is very narrow but it’s also very long. The actual amount of miles a train much cover from one end to the other is very large.
Yes the EU is not one country (though it is a polity). That should make it harder, not easier to cover it with rail, and yet there’s rail lines connecting all the major cities crossing national borders. Does the “size” counter reset once you cross a line on the map?
It’s not the size, it’s the political organization. You even hint at this when describing how we paved America: the political and economic configuration was aligned to make it happen despite the massive cost. The USA was crisscrossed by passenger rail and street cars, and still is for cargo. We just took a different path later, but it doesn’t actually have to be that way.
Public transit is cheaper and more accessable. It would be quite easy to make it profitable. Private transportation is more expensive both on the production side and infrastructure side. The auto industry did a lot of scummy shit in order to make it profitable. In the US, they bought up and shut down just about every public transport corp in order to force the public to buy cars and force the state to build infrastructure.
My issue with typical hybrids is that they got all the complexity of an ICE powertrain, in addition to all the complexity of an EV powertrain, plus the complexity of merging the two.
Slightly less efficient, but I think I'm more in support of EVs with gas range extenders. Maybe it's just a question of semantics. But more than that (if we're gonna keep cars) we need to invest in charging infrastructure. Idk why it sucks so bad, and why gas stations aren't installing charging stations.
It's a fair assumption that adding extra systems to the car makes it overall less reliable, but it's not necessarily true. Electric motors, compared to IC engines, are extremely simple and reliable. The servicing guidelines for the electric drivetrain in my hybrid is essentially "replace the battery if it stops holding enough charge", there is no schedule for any routine maintenance of those components. Adding the hybrid system also reduces the wear and tear on the conventional drivetrain and brakes. Hybrids can do regenerative braking, which means that (for my vehicle at least) most of the braking down to maybe 10mph is done by regen, which functionally has no wear and tear. The electric motors also assist the ICE at the times where peak wear and stress occur, reducing the load and stress on the motor, and extending it's lifespan. By adding the hybrid system, the overall reliability and lifespan of the vehicle is increased rather than decreased.
My issue isn't with adding electric to a gas car. My issue is adding gas to an electric car.
The ICE drive train adds a TON of complexity to an EV. If you're gonna add ICE to an EV I think that it makes more sense to have a little range-extender generator, which is simple and cheap (because it only needs to run at a single RPM and constant load) which you can just run to add a bit more charge to your battery on long road trips.
But ideally we'd just have better charging infrastructure.
What a weird take. If you add electric to a gas car, then yeah-maybeish.
But adding "hybrid" to an electric car sure will make it need waay more maintenance etc. that's just no discussion there.
Remember kids, if you're not solving climate change entirely in one single step, there's no point in trying.
Seriously, what a brain dead argument lol
Plus, ev's keep the pollution out of the cities and places we tend to live in.
Yeah! It keeps it in India and Madagascar, fuck those guys.
What's the matter with you? Who stole your lunch money?
Didn't realize I needed an /s
TYL
I think it's under the premise of, of you have a functional car. It you got rid of that and bought an electric, you aren't helping anything.
There's a lot wrong with this video as most videos on EVs from 2016. The data is sources for electricity production is actually over a decade old now (Sep 2013) and it rationalizes that the electric cars will break down before the grid ever moves towards greener sources. This is a very silly notion considering solar is straining the grid with too much power at times, times where EVs could charge. They can also charge over night encouraging nuclear power to be more financially feasible as nuclear relies on a base load as they don't like to turn off.
They're not a silver bullet and in some cases like the Hummer EV they are worse than an old car but if you have to drive a lot it is completely less carbon intensive than an ICE for most EVs.
Here's a still pretty old but more nuanced video: https://piped.video/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM
The greenest car is a train car.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/MQLbakWESkw?si=IGV7CRjQslRSI-er
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Every car on the road being converted to electric with magic wouldn't fix climate change. If you didn't also get trucks and SUVs it may not even move the needle Personal car use is not a major cause of climate change. It just doesn't matter compared to industrial and commercial emissions.
Of course it won't fix climate change in one go, but doing so would remove a major fossil fuel dependency for your average Joe and make them much more likely to vote against fossil fuels.
Put another way, how many people driving gas cars would vote in favor of heavy taxes on fossil fuel use?
Now, how many would vote that way if they personally didn't have any dependencies on fossil fuels?
Also, highway vehicles account for 1.5 billion tons of GHGs being emitted each year, that's 11% of the global yearly GHG emissions, so yeah, it definetely would "move the needle". In the US specifically it's as much as 20% of our nations emissions.
And yeah I already know the next argument "bUt YoUr JuSt UsInG fOsSiL fUeLs To ChArGe It" - except you're not necessarily, in my area (part of CA), you can choose to have 100% of your electricity provided by renewable sources for a small monthly premium ($18/month). Additionally in CA, all new homes are being built with solar power, which further increases your ability to charge without fossil fuels.
And in the areas that isn't true, it's at least getting groundwork laid down to make it true. An electric car can be powered by renewable energy, a fossil fuel car must be powered by fossil fuels.
There are a lot of steps to solving climate change beyond "buy an electric car", and you're right that industrial and commercial pollution accounts for the majority, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing on all fronts.
We've already waited way too long to act, we can't afford as a species to say "well, I'm not going to change my car until the industrial polluters get their shit together", we have to push in Every possible direction, all at the same time to make progress, and electric cars overtaking fossil fuel cars is a big part of that.
There's a lot of work to be done globally until electric cars are 100% green, both in terms of power infrastructure and the processes to create them, but there's no way forward with gas cars, so we need to start moving over as a society now, phasing out the production of gas cars with electric
Electric cars are certainly preferable to gas cars, but the whole car industry I'm general that are needed for both gas and electric cars are bad. Roads, parking lots, highways, the lights needed to keep them lit, the process of mining enough materials to make electric cars. The issue in my opinion is that cars in general are awful for the environment and just quality of life, they're better but I hope we can shoot for higher.
This is the exact kind of fucking bullshit that i hate.
Of course it won’t fix climate change in one go
Be honest: It won't fix it at all. It won't significantly impact climate change. It won't insignificantly impact climate change.
so yeah, it definetely would “move the needle”
First of all: emissions are not the target. Climate change is the target. Even if all human related greenhouse gas emissions ceased tomorrow we would still be facing catastrophic climate change and then an effectively indefinite period (on a human scale) before things settled down again. We cannot not-pollute our way out of this mess.
Let me reiterate: We can no longer change the outcome by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and consumer car usage is a small slice of overall carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, we could make it worse. So how much do consumer cars contribute to making it worse?
I don't know if your figure of billions of tons is worldwide or not, the worldwide number i found here is about 3 billion metric tons. (It dropped for 2020! Yay we did it!) In contrast, Wikipedia (who I believe are taking their numbers from the IPCC) lists about 35 billion tons (about 32 billion metric tons) of co2 from fossil fuel burning, with total greenhouse gas emissions of about 50 billion tons (about 45 billion metric).
Then there's also reduction in the Earth's ability to extract co2 due to land use (chopping down forests). This is difficult to model because it's not a direct emission but it is undeniably a result of human activity that unbalances the Earth's climate. That Wikipedia article earlier says that total emissions from 1870 to 2017 were about 1.5 trillion tons from fossil fuels and 660 billion tons from land use change which works out to be about 31% of the total. Note that this is total and cumulative so again: Ceasing all emissions would not change this number. No longer cutting down forests (etc) would not change this number a single gram.
Then there are other factors that are making climate change worse but they're not that important in comparison. I'm going to ignore them because i am not a scientist and i'm not writing a scientific paper here.
I am going to be harsh, however. If you take that 3 billion number and you divide it into the 32 billion number you get about 10%, as you say.
That's not correct if you want to make a difference for climate change.
If you take that 3 billion number and you divide it into the 1.5 trillion tons number you get about 0.2%.
So to answer the question above: how much worse do consumer cars make climate change? Well, they worsen the situation with carbon dioxide by about 0.2% per year, coming from about 10% of our overall emissions, and carbon dioxide is only one of the factors contributing to climate change. So overall? Not much.
And yeah I already know the next argument “bUt YoUr JuSt UsInG fOsSiL fUeLs To ChArGe It”…
That is not my argument.
…except you’re not necessarily, in my area (part of CA), you can choose to have 100% of your electricity provided by renewable sources for a small monthly premium ($18/month).
Oh my god, of course you couldn't help it. The smug liberal (derogatory) virtue signalling had to come out. Jesus fucking Christ.
You understand, right, that if you pay $18 and go from a 50/50 split of fossil fuel and renewable energy (about where CA is) and your neighbor does not what ends up happening is you go 0% fossil fuel and your neighbor goes to 100% fossil fuel and nothing changes, right?
Like, you're paying $18 not to change anything, you're paying $18 so you can go on the internet and complain about how everyone else isn't fixing climate change like you are.
The corporate response to climate change has been to try to convince everyone to take shorter showers, switch to an electric car, and install solar panels. That is, for individual people to do things (that don't matter) and for corporations to continue doing things (that do matter, negatively). You unironically listed two of the three elements of a fucking climate change denial meme.
Also current renewable energy isn't actually that great. I guess this is the right time for my pitch for nuclear power.
If you want to actually have an impact (in the "stop making things worse" direction not the "fix climate change" direction) then let me suggest nuclear power. Nuclear power is great. It's a proven technology. Even nuclear power at its worst is still better than coal, even if you ignore the greenhouse gas emissions difference. I'd argue nuclear power is better than modern renewables too but this post is long enough so i won't.
Right now, coal fired power plants account for 20% of fossil fuel emissions and are the single largest source of emissions. and… well… let me direct quote:
Notably, just 5% of the world's power plants account for almost three-quarters of carbon emissions from electricity generation, based on an inventory of more than 29,000 fossil-fuel power plants across 221 countries.
Putting it a different way, almost 15% of all fossil fuel emissions come from 5% of the world's power plants.
So it's great that California is doing better than average, but if you want to make a difference in emissions you don't try to change every single car on the planet over to electric, which is a tremendous task to undertake. You kill that 5% of power plants and replace them with nuclear. (Or okay if it really makes you feel better i'd be on board with renewables too but nuclear is still the better and more practical solution.)
There are a lot of steps to solving climate change beyond “buy an electric car”, and you’re right that industrial and commercial pollution accounts for the majority, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be pushing on all fronts.
If you want to make a difference right now, probably the best thing you can possibly do is advocate against coal power plants. It's both easier to do than replacing all cars and it would have a bigger impact.
In 2035, 12 years from now, Europe plans to mandate all new cars to be electric. Europe is not responsible for the majority of passenger vehicle emissions. Most countries do not have plans that are anywhere near as ambitious. The US is only aiming at 50%, and that 50% of vehicles that get switched over won't be the ones emitting the most greenhouse gases. (Hybrids being switched to full electrics have little impact when Ford F150s are the most popular vehicle in America.)
Meanwhile, that 5% of power plants is still out there. Industrial and agricultural emissions are still out there. Land use changes are still out there. The vast majority of everything that brought us to this point is still out there, untouched. And when will you get your 100% electric cars worldwide? In 2045? 2060? How deep underwater will Miami and New York City be by the time that happens? How many people will die in the meantime? How much further will the ecosystems of the world be destabilized?
This isn't about "pushing on all fronts". This is about moralizing at individual people about their personal decisions, which did not cause this problem and cannot fix it. Paying $18 to California power companies isn't about improving the world it's about making you, personally, feel better. Like you've "done your part". Meanwhile, the planet is burning. In the coming years, it will burn more and more.
Capitalism wants to pretend that everyone acting individually can solve problems but capitalism created this problem and it cannot and will not solve it.
So what do you suggest that can actually be done, besides removed about it on Lemmy?
You talk a lot about moralizing without actually making a difference, but that's exactly what you're doing in your comment.
So hit us with it - what should we be doing instead? Other than removed about it on Lemmy, I mean?
So what do you suggest that can actually be done, besides removed about it on Lemmy?
I somehow fucking knew this was coming, Everyone has the same response regardless of what you say.
I suggested targeting the most heavily polluting power plants for conversion to clean energy. This suggestion is:
- Practical from a cost standpoint
- Could be accomplished with current technology
- Easier to implement politically than "make all cars electric"
- Would have a bigger impact on the environment than "make all cars electric".
You: "Well if you don't have any ideas…"
I know my comment was long but you aren't really arguing with me, you're arguing with the shadows that live inside your head. This was true of your previous post, too. See:
And yeah I already know the next argument “bUt YoUr JuSt UsInG fOsSiL fUeLs To ChArGe It”…
(Which is still not and never has been my argument.)
For the record it's my belief that we could currently not only halt but fully reverse climate change (though it would take maybe 100 years) at our current technological level. I believe it's possible. However, i do not know of any way to do it that does not require major change to the political and economic systems of the West (the ones that brought us to this point, in other words: Capitalism). Back in the '70s it would have been way easier to address this but now we're on hard mode.
You talk a lot about moralizing without actually making a difference, but that’s exactly what you’re doing in your comment.
I'm critiquing a moralizing argument, it's somewhat inevitable that my critique will also adopt the form of a moral argument. Unless you want me to argue that all morals, all ideas of "good" and "bad", are phantasms that are propagated by the powerful as a form of social control or something. Which i also could do, but it seems a little abstract given the current conversation.
Even granting you that point there's still a difference:
My arguments are concerned about outcomes, about material conditions in people's lives, they include the concept of collective and corporate action.
Your arguments are superficial, concerned about appearances, do not acknowledge the context or history of how we came to where we are, and are primarily concerned with individual actions that wealthy Westerners can take without regard to the practicality of implementation across the rest of the world.
I'm going to throw out one more thing:
Even if cars were the biggest source of carbon dioxide, going to all electric cars is not the best solution. Building electric cars still has a significant environmental impact, including greenhouse gas emissions. Better still would be mass transit. Trains and buses are more environmentally friendly still and would allow us to make other changes to society that would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, that option is not favored by our capitalist overlords…
There's this concept under socialism called "development" where you make small steps towards your desired outcome. Naturally, capitalists hate this which is why they spend so much money pushing for all-or-nothing "solutions" and encouraging people to quit when it doesn't work. Whatever it takes to make sure that people don't fundamentally challenge their illegitimate rule as they burn the planet for profit.
Socialism: development? Yeah, I created that.
Right after it invented planning.
We will never consumer our way of of a problem capitalism created. And public transit is nearly always a better solution to spending on car infrastructure.
… but… If you're gonna buy a new car anyway, they have the potential to cause less climate impact (although they're still environmentally devastating in other ways). As power generation becomes cleaner, so too do the cars. ICE cars are already about as environmentally friendly as they're gonna get, but EVs still have a lot of potential improvement (both in emissions and in things like material mining).
Although the tire microplastics is gonna get worse.
They already do cause less of an impact than ICE powered cars. Anyone can Google the information that shows that even though battery production is unclean, fossil fuel production over the life of a car is worse.
If the EV last for more than about 5 years, it was worth it.
5 Years… This is part of the problem… What happens to this car after 5 years, it gets "recycled". The metal does and the rest goes into a landfill to gas off. Micro plastics are just part of it, the gasses are a major polluter too. The reason you can own and keep your old car is that they were built to last, our current disposable society is the problem. Electric cars are dirty! Let go dig massive hole in the desert, lets separate the wanted materials out with lovely chemicals, then we can throw it all away. So clean… Right to repair, build to last, and strong public transport is the way to go.
No one is recycling still-working cars after only 5 years. Unless you're talking about insurance deciding to salvage a vehicle after a wreck, which is a different story. Even those don't always get destroyed, some are parted out and some are probably shipped overseas to get a second life.
New cars are cheaply made, with parts that sold in modules (parts attached to other parts) and are by far more expensive then their older counterparts. They also have been engineered to be a pain for mechanics to work on, they are no longer built to last or be repair friendly. Many parts are engineered with fasteners that break when you remove them, not making them friendly to being parted out. As for EV's they are a dirty bandaid to a dirty problem, the batteries alone are, made with rare earth metals lithium, manganese and cobalt. These are all pulled out of the earth using chemicals to separate the materials, these mining areas may never fully recover the impact is huge. We still do not have the technology to recycle them, they just like plastics are not fully recyclable. We could build an affordable, repair friendly car that would be a great trade in for Dads old beater, but that wouldn't get you into a New Ford Crapbox Deluxe.
Phew! My electric car made it five years, right to the theoretical break even point with a gas car. What will I do now? Keep driving it? No, I have a better idea. Drive it off of a cliff and go buy a new one. Yep, I love throwing money away for no reason.
That is not what I said, but good job taking care of you toy car.
You need help with reading comprehension and deductive reasoning
So cars are not cheaply made, nor are they unfriendly to repair. The experiences that my family members and I, who have worked on repairing cars is a mass delusion. Not to mention those delusional mechanics that have shared their stories. Everything is recyclable, mines are clean and beautiful. Is that better. Lets be happy!
…except not, how rich are you that buying a new car every 5yr is viable?! I need longer than "about 5yr!"
I know that's not what you meant but it made me chuckle.
I don't understand it either, but still, there is a very active used car market these days. It's not like those 5 year old cars are getting thrown in the dump.
But like you said, it's not what the original poster meant. That's just the cutoff for when it is less environmentally harmful than an ICE car.
That's the break even point for the environmental benefits to overtake production negatives for evs…what the fuck are you talking about? Of course they last longer then that that's my fucking point you dipshit
If the EV last for more than about 5 years, it was worth it.
This is the crux of the joke, the joke being that I am too poor to afford a car every five years, which subverts the expectation of "what you were actually talking about."
I even said "I know that isn't what you meant but it made me chuckle." You really didn't get the joke?
That says more about you being a dipshit than it does me, frankly, considering I literally told you it was a joke.
Also you're rude.
Some people are also forced by their job to lease a new car every 4 years.
It so bad that I cant even lease a 400km old car from 2022 … No I had to have a new one and if I dont want a car I need to find i different job.
Shit's fucking dumb.
Jeez, buncha moneybags around here that don't like a joke, huh?
What job forces people to lease new cars? Sounds like the job should be providing them if it's gonna be like that, like they do with cell phones they require you to use as "work phones."
It is like that, it isnt so much a personal issue as I can run the car as much as I want.
Its more of a "we want to be good for the environment… But everyone needs a new car. And its mandatory"
A well worded nuanced take on Lemmy? Where am I?
Yeah but by the time some of that potential is realised, your brand new EV is now a few years old and almost worthless cos the batteries are next to useless.
Modern EV batteries last for over a decade and still retain most of their original capacity even after a few hundred thousand miles.
As an example: My vehicles electric battery is warrantied for 10 years or 150,000 mi. Even with that being said, I have seen models of my car used well into the 300-400,000 mi range.
And while I'm not an expert on the matter, it is my understanding that there are recycling plants for electric vehicle batteries. Which I would imagine would reduce the environmental cost of electric vehicles.
Not to mention the research being done on different battery chemistries that are less environmentally hazardous, last longer, are more energy dense, and so on.
This post is fucking idiotic. Without electric cars climate change CANNOT be addressed.
Nothing is ever as simple as a single solution. Mouth breathing OPs need to get that through their thick stupid skulls
Without electric VEHICLES* climate change cannot be addressed. Expensive new electric cars are not the solution. Electric public transport, retrofitting old vehicles, making current vehicles last, and people adopting two wheeled electric solutions will be the solution. Cars like Teslas are awful and buying one shouldn't be considered making a difference.
The things you mentioned should absolutely happen in the areas that have the population density to make these solutions practical. Let's also remember that this is not 100% of the planet.
This is 100% of the planet. What about living rurally stops you from maintaining or retrofitting current vehicles, or going two wheels?
What about living rurally stops you from
maintaining or retrofitting current vehicles
Cost, accessibility, and vehicles don't last forever.
or going two wheels?
If you're talking about motorcycles, they are basically death traps and many people aren't comfortable on them. If you're talking about bicycles, they are basically death traps and people don't always want to exercise to get where they're going and rural areas are by definition sparsely populated, bikes would take forever Neither of those offers options for families or bad weather.
Like it or not personal vehicles are a necessity in most of America.
Bikes are ok outside streets, but pretty dangerous on streets.
Motorcycles are way faster bikes that are mainly for streets. Truly death traps
So if rural people aren't maintaining their vehicles, what are they doing? Obviously they are and you're being silly. There are cars that when correctly maintained, have kept running for the entire history that cars have existed.
Great to see you have such an informed take on two wheeled vehicles. The issue with two wheels isn't engineering, it's public perception, fuelled by dumb takes like yours. Obviously we have to change what people perceive as viable personal transport.
The solution of two wheels in the EV space is quickly obvious. Most car journeys are a single person. You don't need a 2 ton box to carry one person places.
When solving for the limiting factors of electric drive systems, you need to minimize resistances. Two wheels is less rolling resistance, less weight, and adding an enclosure, less air resistance. Put the rider in a recumbent riding position and place the batteries underneath, you have an incredibly stable, low friction, light, personal EV that maximizes your effective range while being simple, cheap, accessible. The enclosed nature makes the rider as safe as they would be in a car in case of an accident, and you're as weather resistant too. Obviously families, workmen etc still need 4 wheels but as I said most car journeys are for a single person. These could be made for two people also.
So if rural people aren't maintaining their vehicles, what are they doing? Obviously they are and you're being silly.
So what the fuck are you talking about then? Either you're implying that existing vehicle lifespans should be extended beyond what normal care allows through "maintenance" or it's irrelevant to the conversation.
I won't bother quoting the rest of your comment but the same question applies. What are you even talking about? Nobody said anything about engineering hurdles or the difficulties of an electric two wheeled vehicle.
You got so caught up in being "right" you forgot what the discussion was even about. I'll break it down.
Two. Wheeled. Solutions. Are. Not. Universally. Practical. Quit trying to assume you know what's best for everyone.
Jesus, I'm not saying they're universally practical, that's why I have given a range of options. You're missing the point that people buy new cars while their old car is perfectly good.
Most cars will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with standard maintenance, which people neglect to do. Retrofitting electric solutions to existing cars would further extend their life, as the low work-life components are all in the drivetrain.
I outlined what a two wheeled electric solution should be because you dismissed the entire sector as death traps, which is wrong and counter productive. A perception we need to overcome when the only economic option for a lot of people's personal transport will be motorcycles of some description.
If there was a 25% adoption of motorcycles to commute with, traffic congestion could effectively disappear.
I do know what's best for everyone. Its stopping climate change, removing our reliance of fossil fuels and switching to more economical forms of transport. Rural people do not need to ferry themselves around in a 2 tonne Ford F-150 doing 10 mpg with a v8 to run basic errands. Because you obviously missed it; OBVIOUSLY FAMILIES AND WORKMEN NEED MORE CARRYING CAPACITY. For those situations an electric van or low cc petrol engine could be used. However 60%+ car journeys are single occupancy errands and commuting. There is no excuse for not being on two wheels in that case.
I went two wheels! My moto gets excellent fuel economy without the use of exotic metals like a hybrid or EV does. It was also way cheaper to buy than a car. Sometimes my parking is less of an impact, too because I can park in the landscaping islands in some parking lots if it's busy and I'm sneaky about it. One must be a very diligent and defensive rider and wear protective gear when riding. Having a different perspective about traffic flow helps with safety as well. Going slow for a bit after a stop while everyone else rushes ahead is a great way to keep traffic away from oneself. Also, having all the lights has helped everyone see me. No more cars pulling in front anymore. Don't be an arse, be extremely vigilant, and respect the machine. These rules have helped me so far. Many motorcyclists don't do that and have really skewed statistics and perception, I think.
2 things here.
First, motorcycles have a better fuel economy than cars, but they also produce more harmful emissions than a car because their smaller engines burn fuel less completely/efficiently, and there are fewer (if any) laws mandating tailpipe emissions standards for motorcycles.
Second, with all the entitled morons on the road who consider a few seconds of inconvenience more important than your life, who can't put down their fucking cell phone, check their mirrors or use their turn signals, I consider it only a matter of time until a car accident happens. Motorcyclists lose every time they tangle with cars, and car drivers are a lot less aware of motorcycles, and more likely to get in an accident with them than other cars. Good luck.
Yeah the key is for people to understand that incremental improvements are the way.
I'm in no way saying we should run out and buy shit. I'm saying that shitting on electric cars is counterproductive
Fun fact: In the UK there is no ability (DVSA/DVLA[requirement to legally taxing/insuring a car]) for legally driving a converted ICE to Electric car. This is due to the MOT test having a test for CO2 and if the test returns null or "out of bounds" the car fails it's MOT and therefore is illegal to drive.
Such a wonderful country.
Yep, it's a general theme with governments and companies not enabling the repairability and freedom we need for EVs. Just one look at the repairability of a Tesla should show people it's not the answer, yet. There is still hope on the continent with companies like Transition One in France forging ahead with conversion kits. Hopefully the UK follows suit once these are viable products being sold. I would recommend a letter to your MP if you haven't already I suppose.
FWIW; this is not a practical problem, it’s a political one. Conversion kits don’t get a pass/by from the law, they are subject to the same laws just like home brew conversions.
Afraid you're wasting your breath. OP appears to be a member of fuckcars, which feels like it's coming from a good place but is mostly just short-sighted and infantile. I live in DFW and not having a vehicle is not an option, but these folk would classify me alongside the devil because I dare to use a combustion engine. If I could realistically use an electric vehicle I would.
I'm sure that in OPs mind everyone should just abandon their cars tomorrow and that will immediately solve all of the climate change as if private vehicle owners are the ones actually causing the problem in the first place.
Fuckcars is made up of people with little life experience who think they have all the answers, and people who fetishize city living and think it's normal or healthy for humans to live at a density like NYC (and fuck you if you disagree). They're oversimplifying to the point of meaninglessness, and handwaving away the problems.
I've lived in places far less dense than NYC with robust public transit far better than NYC. Owning a car would've just been a burden 99% of the time. And it was certainly healthier than living in car-centric suburbs, both physically and mentally. Not everywhere is America where we can't fathom anything but cars and McMansions
What's far less dense with better public transit than NYC? The most popular example of no-car city design I see is Amsterdam, which is 1/2 the density of NYC, but still 15x the density of where I'm from (not even close to a rural area). I think robust public transit at 1/15th the density of Amsterdam and 1/30th the density of NYC is a pipe dream.
In these lower density places, maybe you luck out and you're walking or biking distance to work. If you change jobs do you have to move instead of hopping in the car and commuting a bit further? In circumstances like these, transit can't possibly serve every origin and destination efficiently, and personal vehicles can offer efficient point to point.
I lived in Heidelberg, with a population density of 1500/km², so about 4x the density of your place. There was a robust bus system, tram system, commuter train system, and then of course Germany's regional and intercity train systems. There were also plenty of public rental bikes and bike lanes. I could go anywhere in or around the city quite easily and quickly, as well as any other city in Germany (or the EU, for that matter). Trams had a frequency of about 10-15 minutes, rapid buses about the same, the bus stops by my house had a frequency of 20 minutes. There were suburbs up the river which also had phenomenal bus and commuter train access directly to the city and elsewhere.
The American town I live in now has a density of 900/km² and about ⅓ the population of Heidelberg. We just got our first bus last year and it runs in a loop once per hour. The train station was demolished decades ago.
I also lived in Sejong, with a population density of about 750/km², so about 2x your place. In addition to dedicated bike lanes on every major road and very large sidewalks, there was a extensive bus system and a very efficient rapid bus loop system as well. The rapid buses had a frequency of about 10 minutes and could take me to the other side of the city in about 15 minutes. The smaller buses also had a high frequency of about 15-20 minutes, depending on the bus. The train station in sejong is still under construction but it was a ~30 min rapid bus line ride to either of two train stations in neighboring cities to take me anywhere in South Korea.
Some of the other Korean cities with densities somewhat higher than Sejong, like Daejon which is about 2700/km², have really incredible subway/metro systems too.
In Germany, the nearby cities of Stuttgart (3000/km²) and Frankfurt (3100/km²) also had great subway systems, in addition to the buses, trams, bike lanes, and commuter trains.
The commuter and regional trains serve also the purpose of connecting much smaller towns and villages, which are far less dense but still served by good bus systems and such.
I do agree that America has sprawled so much as to make the transition more difficult. But great density-appropriate public transit is possible at low density.
You should keep an eye on Edison Motors, they're developing practical hybrid heavy vocational trucks & have a side project for a pickup retrofit kit that I'm waiting for.
This post is fucking idiotic. Without electric cars climate change CANNOT be addressed
I mean, that's not true at all… America would just have to build actual public transportation. We just attach a feeling of personal freedom to cars that's so prevalent that Americans cannot fathom the idea of expanding public transportation.
And yes, of course public transportation isn't going to reach everyone in rural America. However, if a significant portion of the urban/suburban population switched to electric rail, it would curb climate change faster than everyone slowly replacing their personal vehicles.
I'm just being realistic. I actually hate cars but I'm under no illusion they'll go away any time soon. We have to make progress in many forms and car reduction is one of them
Crawl -> Walk -> Run.
We're in the crawl phase. Let's leverage less-harmful technology to reduce our impact on the environment while simultaneously investing in ideal solutions like public transportion and walkable/bikeable cities. It will be a slow transition and we need to embrace every step in the process.
Which is what I'm saying.
Yes, I was agreeing with you. That was the point of my reply.
I'm just being realistic. I actually hate cars but I'm under no illusion they'll go away any time soon.
I honestly don't know which idea is honestly more "realistic". I think either halting climate change in time is probably a long shot, but which is actually feasible…
The largest problem with electric cars is that we more than likely aren't going to be able to force people to stop driving with gas. Which means we will still be reliant on a fossil fuel industry, and when there is demand, there will be supply. Unless we quickly curb demand to a significant degree, fossil fuel companies will do anything they can to keep those cars on the road.
The second largest problem with EVs is that they have a much larger production carbon footprint than traditional vehicles. This gap in the carbon footprint is closed within a year or two of driving, which normally would be fine… but with the time constraints of climate change, that initial production carbon is a pretty big hurdle.
And I agree that we have to make progress in several forms, but some of those forms are just going to be a fossil fuel company's attempt to preserve their profit model disguised with a green sashe.
This is questionably accurate.
It's not just a matter of building the rail, it's also redesigning the urban sprawl. That's a LOT of new construction of buildings needed, too. That comes with new utilities, etc. And cement is a huge carbon source.
There is a time scale over which that's more carbon efficient than replacing all personal vehicles and their replacement lifecycles, but it's very unclear if that's actually faster with regards to climate change timelines.
Honestly, cars are polluters, but they're not our big polluters.
There are way more effective ways to address climate change.
Cars are probably one of the more effective things that are accessible to single users.
Oh I’m reasonably confident if we got rid of cars that’d be a good thing for the climate.
If there was plentiful mass transit the need for electric cars is reduced greatly.
Cars are terrible forms of mass transport and societies need to deprioritise them in city planning.
The idea that we can just keep doing what we’re doing and replace all ICEs with BEVs and it’ll solve climate change is not really the full story.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’ll go back to my mouth breathing.
Yeah I want cars to die honestly but if I were stupid enough to think it's going to happen, then … I'd be a moron.
Look into going vegan, it's an even more impactful step that someone can personally make.
Look into going vegan, it’s an even more impactful step
going vegan has no impact at all
Do you have any sources for that? Literally have no idea how you come to that conclusion
can you tell me what year you went vegan? feel free to point to it on this chart.
I'm not sure what you think that proves. World population has grown and people eat more animal products than ever, which is part of my argument that we should be cutting back on animal products and eat more humane and more efficient food sources.
Thanks for linking to proof of my point.
whatever your excuse is, being vegan hasn't helped any animals
This is a terrible arguement. It has the premise that all ice are going to be scrapped at once and we will just make a bazillion electric cars. It's a phase out thing.
Also quieter cars and no tailpipe emissions are fantastic.
Well. Bought my new electric car. What am I going to do with my old gas one? Trade it in and get money? Nah. Pay to get it scrapped? I'm such a genius.
Guys, cars don't last forever, but when you own a car that doesn't burn dead organisms, get ready to almost never change your oil because it doesn't collect soot and for engines and cars to last much longer because they don't generate grimy grease and heat and exhaust, all of which are terrible for mechanical parts.
Pre-emptive caveat: I am fully in favor of electric cars, and will happily switch if I can ever afford to do so.
Yes, most of the parts that are going to wear out on IC cars are motor and transmission parts, and those are complicated and time consuming to fix. In many cases it's not practical for the end-user to do so anymore. Electric cars OTOH are more likely to have electronics issues, and the batteries are ridiculously expensive to replace when the capacity is reduced below a useful level.So you're still going to end up with similar maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vehicle, but they're more likely to be concentrated at one or two irregular points in time rather than small bits of preventive maintenance done at regular intervals.
Small anecdote: I bought a new Cheverolet Bolt about two years ago.
A couple of months after I bought it there was a recall on the batteries, they had to replace all of them in the car.
They were out of stock for quite a while (I assume because of supply chain issues)
They finally replaced them a couple of months ago.
I choose to see that as a 2 years extension on my bettery life,lucky me!
Part it out and scrap it for cash.
Huh? This is just flat out wrong.
It's not entirely wrong, public transit is better
Not for people with mobility issues, ableist.
You haven't seen good public transit then, are you being satirical or are you really that dimwitted?
uhh how's public transport bad at that?
most buses have spots and lifty thingys needed for wheelchair usersMy man, all the buses around here have systems that allow them to go down to street level to allow wheel chairs and all the metros have elevators. If your public transportation isn't helping the differently abled then your local government is to blame.
Also not for people who don't live in big cities and/or work shifts and overtimes. If I didn't have a car, I wouldn't be able to get to my job site in reasonable time and at times I couldn't get there at all. And no, I'm not going to spend 2+ hours with public transport after working my ass off for 8 hours every day when I can do it in under 1 hour (both ways together) with my crappy old Dacia.
like if you already have a car, buying a new one is a pretty bad idea for the environment even if it's "greener"
Nobody does this. You are parroting billionaire anti-climate talking points.
You are parroting billionaire anti-climate talking points
Where does one go to get these billionaire anti-climate talking points? Is there a service I can sign up for?
Well you sell the car so it's net the same…
it doesn't matter, buying 1 car= manufactoring 1 car. net +1 car.
laughs in bicycle
The bicycle is one of humans greatest achievements.
Certified best transport in the world!! Combining it with public bikes and busses/trams/trains allows me to go anywhere I want to.
Hell yeah! Ride to the tram, park and then come back and ride home. Awesome.
Except when it rains or snows
Rain is no problem for me. It feels kind of liberating.
Snow… I've never ridden in snow. I propose dog sledding as a substitute.
Bikes work just fine in rain or snow, you just need to be prepared for the weather.
Haha you can keep that for yourself, I will pass on that.
I have rain gear to wear on my motorcycle too. It is capable of driving in the rain and snow, but I always prefer not to since I have a car.
Double overly reductionist takes with no positive contribution. Congrats! This is crap.
Guess I'll keep pouring lead additive into my '65 Galaxie, then. Woo! 10 miles per gallon!
If you can, use public transport and ride a bike.
If you can’t, using the same private vehicle for a long time, while not ideal, is acceptable.
Buying a brand new electric car to replace a relatively new ICE is not a great solution.
Buying a brand new electric car to replace a relatively new ICE is not a great solution.
That is absolutely sound.
However and if the cartoon said that, it would be fine
Reality is very few People can afford to replace their car every few Years.
That would require OP being capable of nuance.
Indeed.
I stand by what I said.
We should have less private transport regardless of if it’s electric or ICE.
Arguably action on climate change warrants a significant reduction in car use generally to stop our extinction.
I'm in London. I cycle to work and use the tube network and bus network whenever I can. I also have a private car which I use for trips where public transport or my bike is impractical. It's a 2016 model, I expect that it may need replacing in 5 years time. If I took the cartoon at face value, I might think it makes no difference from a climate chang perspective whether I choose petrol or electric - and this is clearly wrong.
If I took the cartoon at face value, I might think it makes no difference from a climate chang perspective whether I choose petrol or electric - and this is clearly wrong.
That's ok, OP will just block you for making a valid point that doesn't align with whatever is written on the inside of his colon.
It really depends on the new model of car you choose to replace your outgoing one.
This was the website that I have been thinking of:
https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore
You can see some electric cars are far worse than a hybrid as an example.
you can also see that there are only a few hybrid vehicles a bit better than bev, and bev are overall 'better' in this diagram?
in fact - if you filter by vehicle class you see that bev are always 'better' in their respective class than hybrid or ice. you can't compare a bev suv with a midsize hybrid.
Do you also see the amount of carbon to the left? That isnt total. Its per mile. You cannot even read the diagram and then you claim switching to evs is bad…
The problem for us country fuckers is that cars take a beating. Then you run into a lack of parts to keep a good car that's just old going in good trim. My car is a 2007, and I'm already running into trouble with some parts. Well, that and the fact that I let my dad drive it, and he seems to attract idiot drivers that want to hit him, so even new parts won't always fit, which is double frustrating.
And it isn't like we have reliable public transport as an alternative. We do have a bus line, if you don't mind taking two hours just to get to a grocery store, standing around in southern humidity and heat, and then walking a quarter mile from the stop to the store. Which, if you're also disabled, good luck on that last part along a crappy road with a nasty ditch. Don't even try that in a wheelchair lol. My buddy, spider, had to get his scooter hauled out of that ditch when he tried to save gas money by using the bus.
But, yeah, the whole idea of cars as disposable to a degree has gotta stop. They're tools, not ego extensions.
Bikes count as private transport. You wanna take those away too?
No I don’t.
In that context private transport meant cars.
Public transport takes 3.5 hours for my daily commute each way. Personal vehicle is 45 minutes.
A bike is going to get you killed in numerous parts of the Country. Here the massive pick ups that have never hauled more than a sack of groceries take sharing the road with bicycles as a very personal insult.
Depends upon the old one, (huge difference between 12-18 MPG and an EV), and what is done with the it after doesn't it?
I suspect you swallowed a lot of Corpo propaganda to believe the issue is the common individual's actions.
https://theconversation.com/the-carbon-footprint-was-co-opted-by-fossil-fuel-companies-to-shift-climate-blame-heres-how-it-can-serve-us-again-183566
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-mobils-messaging-shifted-blame-for-warming-to-consumers/
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-people-are-blamed-for-climate-change
just a few to get your deprogramming started.No doubt your logic is based on the carbon footprint of two cars - the old ice and the new BEV.
Where that logic falls down is the old ICE becomes a more affordable efficient used car that can replace an older ICE that it blowing blue smoke. Further, new BEV become used BEV in a few years. Used BEV are becoming quite affordable and cost effective. They are also far outlasting their projected battery life.
Finally, demand for BEV increases R&D on more efficient storage technologies that are cheaper and have a smaller environmental footprint.
Yes, more and better public transport should be a thing. But the US is just too big - and in many cases too empty - for ubiquitous public transport to be cost or environmentally efficient.
I disagree strongly about the US not being suitable for public transport.
There are large cities that could introduce effective metro services and that would be a vast improvement.
Rural areas can remain ICE/BEV.
Show me one State, just a single one, where the majority of Cities have functional mass transit across the entire City which does not take five or six times what a personal vehicle going straight there takes. I'll wait.
The fact that the implementation of public transport is poor is not a criticism of public transport.
No it is an explanation of why the suggestion that it was an option is untenable. Which of course is why at no point did I criticize it.
After the pandemic you want me to share a big box with a load of strangers? Nope.
In the US everything is rural. Did you ever see a map of it?
deleted by creator
If you can’t, using the same private vehicle for a long time, while not ideal, is acceptable.
The typical breakeven point for an ev (when carbon emissions saved overtake emissions produced by its production) is around 30k kilometers. That's excluding potential downstream emissions saved by the old ice being sold second hand. I don't think even very wealthy people are getting rid of their cars so soon.
My brother in christ are you dense? No. Parking the 65 Galaxy and buying a new ev is most definitely better than driving it. 10 miles to the gallon is horrendous.
In countries that generate almost all of their electricity from renewables, they are better tbh. Although more environmentally damaging to produce.
The problem is more like that cars that use fossil fuels have a very much lower efficiency rate than electric cars. So theoretical if you use the same amount of FF for the energy production and use that for electric cars it would be more efficient. But that shouldnt be the solution.
Its always more costly and less efficient to produce new things in smaller quantity than large numbers. So electric car manufacturers at this point in time costs more to produce from an environment perspective. As the number of electric cars go up, my understanding is that this will compare to fossil fuel car production.
Imo you cannot compare these two as its impossible to be as efficient as a large scale manufacturer until you become one yourself.
It has nothing to do with quantity.
Electric cars have batteries that need cobalt and other stuff that is hard to get which a normal gas car would never need.
At the moment they do with the Lithium batteries but better and cheaper batteries are already on the market that have solved that rare minerals problem. Sodium ion batteries have most of the capacity by weight of Lithium type batteries, but they do not require any of the rare minerals, in fact they can be made with minerals that are cheap and abundant in the USA. They are also non-flammable, much safer than lithium.
Fossil fuel cars do use cobalt though, significantly less though. But they also need fossil fuels which are hard to come by (in an environmentally friendly way.
Yeah economies of scale are absolutely a thing, but what the average person is coming around to is the idea that the personal vehicle is environmentally unfeasible. Tyre wear alone has a significant environmental impact and electric vehicles are only going to make that problem work. That's just one factor of countless factors. Transportation is a necessity, personal transportation isn't (not entirely true, some places have such terrible transportation infrastructure that a personal vehicle is a necessity). Electric car manufacturers are never going to tell you not to buy their car regardless of the fact that their products significantly contribute to climate change.
Well it's a two start program.
- All of the citizens buy an electric vehicle
- The government produces clean energy
So it shifts the responsibility onto the government.
where are you from that your government produces your electricity?
I mean I lot of countries have national owned power generation, it's certainly upto the government what gets built where.
It isn't.
But staying on fossil fuels is even worse. And by a lot.
My electric car was manufactured ONCE. It's powered by 99% green power (hydroelectric). It burns no gas/diesel, requires no oil changes. I intend on keeping it for 15+ years (my last vehicle got to 16 years before the electrical system fried).
It is better by literally every measure short of walking everywhere.
Hey how about bike man
How do i bike 30 miles each way? Even ignoring infrastructure needs and how bad most road surfaces are and how biking is death on a highway…
Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.
I feel like this point is missing the big picture: people create the demand, and companies supply what the market demands. Like or hate "the free market", this is essentially what it is. If there were magically 1/10th the number of humans on the planet, we would expect those companies to have 90% less emissions. It's not that some of these companies aren't bad actors, and have actions that are at times immoral, it's that they are amoral actors in a market economy that is only responsive to consumer demand.
The example I like to give is that companies' race to the bottom on quality. They're responding to human behavior, where if an item on Amazon is $6, and another very similar item is 10 cents cheaper, the cheaper item will sell 100x more. This is a brutal, cutthroat example of human behavior and market forces. It leads to shitty products because consumers are more responsive to price and find it hard to distinguish quality, so the market supplies superficially-passable junk at the lowest possible price and (with robust competition) the lowest possible profit margin.
I feel like YOU are missing the point. Even tho you say exactly why this matters the most.
Yes market respond to demand. Compa oes DGAF whether they pollute, only that people buy. That's why the ONLY solution is that all these companies are regulated to pollute less. If everyone has to, then they are still equal and people won't buy a cheaper alternative that happens to be more polluting.
Hell, I'd go as far as to say that it only matters if the top 5-10 countries do it. If China, USA, and India don't do this, the entire world is fucked and there is nothing to be done by anyone else.
I see you have made a systematic analysis, ha! Unfortunately you failed to consider one small thing: [reverb bass boosted] individual choices
* 100 companies providing fossil fuels to 99% of the human race.
Source?
Well, the carbon footprint calculator I used may not be accurate, but for the same mileage on my car vs an electric car is about 1/2 the carbon… and I assume the electric car's footprint decreases even more over time…
Certainly, electric cars aren't solving all the problems, but reducing my carbon footprint by 1/2 over a 10 year period sounds like a pretty good start.
No one ever addresses the national security aspect either. OPEC can’t fuck with the economy as easily with electronic cars and trucks.
Yup, as we've recently seen, the federal petroleum reserve really isn't as plentiful as we'd like.
