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.
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.
It’s more so outdated parroting than deliberate misinformation.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)_/¯
Oh today I learned, TBH my information was probably out of date.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
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
Huh? This is just flat out wrong.
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.
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.
In countries that generate almost all of their electricity from renewables, they are better tbh. Although more environmentally damaging to produce.
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.
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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
Recently my parents got a car for emergency situations (like dropping my sister to school when busses are cancelled and she can’t bike because of rain). And when I did the research for a car with them, I realised just how good cars with sub 1L engines are (3-4l per 100km in the city). Sure, they are not gonna be fast, but they are still faster than the speed limit of 120km/h on our highways here. I am personally hoping to buy a rx8 or a na miata soon for enthusiast reasons. Modern transport should be 100% public.
Edit: grammar and spelling
if public transport is a valid alternative (cheaper, less crowded, more comfortable) i will use it. but currenly it is not. so i will drive my 1st gen yaris 1.0. besides 70€ of gas a month, there ate no other operation costs.
Yeah but they’re way more fun to drive
If they’re made instead of making fossil fuel vehicles, they do (addressing the cartoon, not the barely related added title) . Cars will still be made as many become no longer repairable. Which kind to build? Yes, better to make more electric buses and trains, but cars wont simply vanish in any scenario.
What about convert the old cars to electric?
No, buy new fossil fuel cars.
There’s a heavy CO2 cost to making batteries so even if you convert an ICE vehicle to electric, you’ll have to drive it quite far to break even on the CO2 emissions from the factory.
