As much as I hate cars, removing them is only possible inside cities. North America has a very large rural area(and population) that needs to be converted away from fossil fuels.
Maybe yes, but a large part of society at least in America and Europe live in cities or suburbs, where cars are just bs
I completely agree with you on that one. Unfortunately I'm one of those rural people.
I'm banking on autonomous busing in hopes that we can eventually drop to one vehicle, we already have bus service but it's only 1/hour to the nearest little town, and only 3/day to the nearest city(commuting busses @ $20 round trip per day)
We did buy an EV though for cost and environmental reasons (I live somewhere with a 99% clean grid)
North America has a large suburban population. The rural population is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels for the near future because of infrastructure scarcity and the energy density of fossil fuels.
That's a pretty shit argument. Humans are not ecologically viable for life to continue on planet earth at our current population, even if we remove all cars.
Yes it is. We hunted multiple animals to extinction and poisoned vast stretches of land long before the industrial revolution, we didn't need cars to be assholes to nature.
True, but we could sustain a lot more people and also not bring animals to extinction and destroy the environment with the right policies. Blaming overpopulation is just facist propaganda.
Yea no what? We are already setting population targets via immigration right now, the question is about what the target should be (and why) not whether or not to do it.
To do what? Limit immigration so that poor ppl from countries we immiserated, exploited, and put in danger of climate collapse from our overconsumption can die? Sounds like nazi shit to me
You are right, but many people use electric cars as an excuse to delay or cancel car-related regulations in cities To the sound of "Why should the city be car-free when electric cars are quiet and don't emit fumes?!", and that's something we have to fight, because in the city there should be no (private) cars needed
Sigh...I own an EV and I will tell you that my reasons for buying it are less environmental and more practical. Not having to go to a gas station (charge at home) or how I literally have way more power than I need or that it's just fun to drive. You can shit on EVs, but in all reality they are a superior car if you don't get hung up on the fuel. I want to be better about the environment, but honestly, my EV is hands down my all time favorite car (and it's not a Tesla). So before you mock em, go test drive a few.
Yeah, try living anywhere in the US outside NY, Boston, and a few other places. Most city planning outside Europe and Asia assumes a car. Unlike parts of Copenhagen, where you can literally get everything you need, unless you live in NYC (and cities like it) you have to have a car.
So yes, I would love to be able to go anywhere via public transit and I would love to not own a cat. But for most of the world it just is a pipe dream.
IMO, we need to focus on harm reduction. Cars are bad. But EVs are slightly better when public transit is non-existent. Taking an all or non position is one from privilege or life style or environment. Cars are a tool. And while expensive and an obsene waste of resources, the infrastructure and housing to have the mass of society in cities does not exist. If I lived where cars could be an option I would totally not have one.
My point is that EVS are better than ICE. They certainly have their environmental problems but on whole, they are better and safer than ICE. An all or non position is nonsense and denies the reality we live in.
I personally have nothing against the concept of a 'car'. They're the ultimate freedom¹ vehicle that appeal to the anarchist in me; in the sense that you have this mobile device that takes you pretty much anywhere at incredible speed and luxury (radio, heating, cooling, reclinable bed) that is a pinnacle of over a hundred years of engineering.
I do have an axe to grind with cities built around cars. Cities are where people come together to converse, play, trade, and live. They greatly appeal to the communist in me, where people build sustainable democratic communities that thrive on the fruits of everyone's labours. Cars compromise the safety and tranquility of this ideal, and I wish cars were just used outside of cities to get from one town or village to another. Then you go park them outside the city, and walk/cycle/tram to where you want to go in the city.
1: No I'm not a flag waving nut, nor am I american
They are better than a gas car in almost every sense. Except those giant SUV or pickup truck options. Those cars still don't have a real place in a city. But reasonably-sized electric cars are absolutely perfect for commuters that have no real option but driving.
What about electric buses or trolley buses? Are there also only to save the car industry?
It's not the best solution, but it's better than the internal combustion engine. Obviously bicycles and walking is the ideal solution to transportation short range, while electric or other clean energy options are the way to go for long haul trips of large groups of people and goods.
I disagree, twitter won't embed on the timeline, meaning you have to click the link to actually see the content, instead of just being able to expand the image. Images are much faster and easier.
Your argument is basically "fuck blind people" and "I don't care about citing my sources".
If you don't want to link to Twitter, link to another twitter front-end, like nitter.net
You can include an image of the content in the body of the post as well as link to the source, but you discredit yourself if you just post an image without a source. And you exclude people who can't see images.
I actually like the laziness of just images. Links for extra context and source are always appreciated though
Oh shut up, ecars cause less environmental damage than normal cars by far. Yes they require lithium. The lithium required doesn't get close to the damage of 300k miles worth of gas.
"but power plants burn coal for that electricity"
Not mine. I live in portland and have signed up for 100% renewable power. That's a your-city problem. You should work on that.
There are many studies that show that replacing all gas cars with electric cars won't come close to reduction of carbon emissions needed on transportaion fields.
Morever they have all the problems that cars have:
- weight inefficent: 1 or 2 tons to move 1 80 kg person
- space inefficent: to move one person you need one parking spot at home, one at the job, one at the grocery store...
- dangerous: car crashes are the main cause of death among younger ages. Electric cars are heavier, so they are more dangerous.
- huge infrastructure needed: to move cars you need highways, which are many times less efficient from a area point if view that any other mide of transportation.
- expensive infrastructure to build and mantain. Riad manteunance drll the worst kind of holes in public funding. Electric cars weight more, making this issue worse
- Car oriented development is ugly and inefficent. You can't have both a nice neighborhood and enough car parking space,
- Cars are terribly expensive to buy and mantain
Forse sure I'm forgetting quite a lot of things
I'm commenting on your first sentence, not the bullet points.
Electric cars are better for the environment, no doubt about that, even if the electricity is produced by fossil fuel, because the production is done in a controlled environment instead of happening in thousands of cars, which can only utilise a fraction of the energy and outputs the exhaustion directly in the air.
I'm not saying EVs solve the car dependency problems at all, but they are better for the environment than combustion engine cars.
Well but my first sentence does not contradict yours. I know that, from a carbon emissions point of view EV are better than ICE vehicles, by far. What I stated is that even if they are better, replacing all ICE cars with EV is not sufficient to have a reduction in carbon emision as needed for the environment. And there are studies that say so
No, obviously not. I've never heard anyone seriously claim that electric cars alone could save the environment.
Transport as a whole only accounts for something like 20% of carbon emissions and only 40% of that is from cars, making it 8% total.
Not to mention that the only reason electric cars seem somewhat sustainable, is that at the moment only the most wealthy people (globally) can afford to own a car. Just imagine what it would look like if the global middle class also got access to cars, electric or otherwise.
I think you're arguing points that weren't made.
Individually owned automobiles and the systems required to support them are wasteful and polluting no matter how you power them.
Electric cars are better, yes. But their popularity is in a large part because they allow us to mostly maintain the status quo.
Do you think they are a sustainable long-term solution? Should we be planning our future around paved roads made almost exclusively for personally owned mostly single-occupant vehicles?
Electric cars help pollution like filtered cigarettes help smoker health. It's a tangible improvement, but on the grand scale of things it's not a significant improvement.
You're strawmanning here, nobody said electric cars aren't better. They just aren't the solution.