Not really. At all. Like they’re barely even a bandaid.
The issue is a car weighs a couple of tons and it’s being used to move a person who weighs around 100kg.
It’s massively inefficient use of energy.
Even in some fantasy world where the energy used to charge the batteries is all renewable - not even close to reality but let’s pretend - all that lithium and other precious earths are still an environmental disaster.
The answer is mass transit and lower mass vehicles. A lifestyle change is actually required and the thing is it wouldn’t even make people less happy, just that change is so fucking scary for some reason.
Walkable cities are a dream lifestyle and an electric scooter in a walkable city is outstanding. Fuck urban sprawl.
EVs are not limited to personal vehicles though. I absolutely agree on developing mass transit, be it rail or other, and preventing urban sprawl.
But cars (personal vehicles) and other vehicles will always exist (at least for the foreseeable future) and people will still need to haul stuff (garbage collection, artisans, deliveries, movers etc..).
I'd take an electric garbage collection truck over a ICE one for instance. It's anecdotal but there are roadworks in my neighborhood, and most of the machinery is electric which is very nice. Electric mopeds/motorcycles are also much quieter than ICE ones. You could also electrify buses, airport equipment, port equipment, trains (the diesel ones), mining equipment, etc.
So no, EVs are not the solution but a solution, and their development is a good thing if we want to move away from fossil fuels.
Edit: corrected thermic with ICE
Yeah ok that’s fair, even in a transformed world there is still a need for some cars you’re right.
My point was more that a world in which we simply exchange fords for Tesla’s is still a fucked world but you make a fair counter point.
I find it helpful to remember "Perfection is the enemy of Progress."
Investing trillions of dollars into dead ends is, however, the enemy of progress. The ressources we're throwing at replacing existing cars with EV cars would be enough to implement better solutions.
No technology is a dead end, you can't run trains 30 miles out of town for 6 families already over 500 acres. Just because a technology doesn't benefit urbanization doesn't make it worthless.
I'm not opposing the research, I'm opposing the implementation. Spending trillions of dollars because >1% of the population would be inconvenienced as you showed by having to use less developed or more expensive alternative is stupid.
Fuck urban rents, how about that?
People who give this message like everyone is just choosing to screw the environment for fun make a crapton of assumptions about the forces people face in finding a place to live.
Fuck urban rents, how about that?
Boy I wonder where we might be able to find lots and lots of space within a city for new construction to densify it.
The fun part is that many societies have had and currently have dirt cheap urban rents, accurately reflecting the efficiency and lower cost of supplying services to people in urban areas. This isn't even a capitalism/socialism thing, since plenty of capitalist societies have figured out how to make it work via subsidies, public housing, price controls, etc.
I was just talking about urban rents. The fact of the matter is that climate change will not be addressed without significantly reducing the number of cars on the road, EVs or no, and you can't do that without overhauling urban sprawl.
I live in GA outside of Atlanta and rent is already tough. I've been to cities with not exactly amazing but serviceable public transportation (various parts of greater NYC and Chicago) and loved them. I've tried to use busses elsewhere, though it often meant 3 hours wasted to go to work, with similar time wasted after (hourly buss schedules and multiple transfers).
I have an electric car now, work from home, and try to avoid having to drive much, but there isn't much more I can afford to do atm. An bike would be nice but even that'll take money I'm still recovering, and some places I go to even just a couple times a month has no public transportation. I'd love if it did, but I have to use EV for now.
The problem is people got the idea that they need a 3 ton truck to do grocery shopping
My supermarket does this: if you go shopping with public transport, then you can ask the cashier to have someone deliver the just purchased groceries to your house for 5 euro
some of these problems are actually worse with electric cars, namely tire and brake dust, since EVs are heavier than similar size/performance ICE cars
On the other hand, EVs typically have regenerative breaking, reducing the wear on brake pads.
Still shit, but partially canceled out.
This is why people hate liberals, and why liberals often migrate over to conservatism: no matter how right you are, there's always someone happy to crap on you for not being right enough.
Don't shit on EVs for merely being one of many solutions that all need to be engaged with. It's not like without EVs, so many people would be rushing to areas of greater density and riding public transit, so your message is not helpful in achieving what you want, and actively angers your allies.
The thing is you're just not right. EVs serve to save the car, not the world.
It's not like without EVs, so many people would be rushing to areas of greater density and riding public transit, so your message
Correct! Which is why you should fight cars in general, cause then that happens
Don't take it so personally. sure EVs have a role to play but if we're to be serious about tackling climate change and environmental sustainability it's going to require massive infrastructure redevelopment projects, not asking everyone to please swap to rechargeable batteries. It's not about being "right enough" it's about recognizing a non-solution and also on a policy level a blatant scam. All these EV subsides the liberal Biden administration is throwing out are an obvious hand out to the failing American auto industry to try to keep them competitive and desperate ploy to their quickly dwindling supporters for them to look like they're doing anything worthwhile on climate change at all.
Having every American buy a new electric car is just going to make a few auto executives rich as hell and not even reduce overall global emissions because those cheaper ICE cars that can't be sold in America are just going to go to other parts of the world that don't have EV infrastructure but have plenty of already existing gas stations. And there's all the emissions of actually building the damn things. No, they need to put their money where their mouth is and build some fucking trains.
I'm not taking it personally: hyper-progressive policies that require achievements in infrastructure change orders of magnitude more costly and complicated than any other event in human history described as "just something folks have to do" as if it's that easy, as if they're not just happening because of half a dozen car company CEOs... they just make me queasy that you're an ally of mine in our desire to fight global warming.
Lmao you are not an ally in fighting global warming if you don’t support major changes in infrastructure. You are taking this way too personally, you’re in a fuck_cars community crying about how we shouldn’t be mean about cars.
You can agree that EV’s are a non-solution while still accepting that you live in a place that’s so fucked up that it doesn’t provide you with an alternative.
No, I'm saying that removed about EVs does what, exactly? The infrastructure change you're glib about happens how? You haven't even thought of that. You have a goal, but no map from here to there. You're still stuck at the fuck cars stage it seems.
Try to actually solve the problem instead of removed about incremental solutions that don't do enough for your taste.
do you not realize that the existing car infrastructure requires constant maintenance
Infrastructure change at the scale you're speaking about is not unheard of. The Netherlands did it twice. First because Europe got the shit bombed out of it and building car centric cities was trendy, then second because they realized what a shit idea that was and reversed it.
Sure, the Netherlands was never sparse in the first place, but nobody's asking for trains to farmer John's house in Nebraska. If the Netherlands can rework their cities to at least chillax on cars, so can American cities.
I know using the Netherlands as an example is trite, but urban planners literally know the solutions.
We do have a map to our goal, it's called Marxism-Leninism.
EVs aren't a solution to anything except as a way to trick people into thinking purchasing a car is saving the environment or helping fix society.
If liberals are so shallow that they adopt racism because someone was mean to them online, then I'm glad they're being more honest. The message is that cars, all cars, are something worth fighting against. Electric cars are not a step in the right direction, they're not even a bandaid. They're just something liberals can purchase to make them feel like they're helping something. They're toys.
Honestly I would rather if most liberals outright come out as conservative, because it sounds like they're on the line already. It would be more honest of them.
Adopting EVs is an important step imo. The primary achievement of going EV is reducing oil/gas use. Moving away from cars as a society is a separate goal that can happen alongside this. We can never make gas green, at best net zero. EVs on the other hand can be better, with electricity from renewable sources, to batteries made with better materials. Both things which are happening and actively being researched.
So we can make EVs much better environmentally, and reduce gas demand significantly alongside reducing car use. Because we won't just stop needing gas magically, so replacing that is important for any transition away from it in the grand scheme.
Yeah I just don't see it. If we want to reduce oil/gas use then the goal would be eliminating private car use altogether and providing alternatives. EVs are still a huge machine designed to transport a single person. They're still a waste, not to mention how much the global south is getting exploited for their lithium.
Cars just aren't going to save anything. Here, I'll compromise. Electric bicycles.
For city use I agree with you but if you live in a small town you need a car. You are too far from almost everything you need. And you don't have public transport.
Yeah I believe even that should change. Everything should change to incorporate fewer or no cars, including small towns.
If you live in a little town in the middle of nowhere you won't have public transport. It's too expensive. Private transport it's the only way to go anywhere from there. It's a shame but...
Yeah I know that. It's a shame which is why we have to change it. We're out here building a better future.
You are.... not as thoughtful about issues you care about as you think you are.
Yeah, I'm an angry ball of rage because I live in a white supremacist hellscape where everyone is too smug or too tired to care. I don't have any thoughts remaining other than the word fuck. The pretense of being thoughtful is a facade. My true self wants to roll in mud and scream obscenities at anyone I think looks too wealthy.
-
Do you realize what comm you're in?
-
If pointing out that EVs aren't a real solution is enough to alienate those "allies" they weren't really allies at all. It's also less about individual choice to move to areas with better transit, and more about pressuring the government to install better transit everywhere instead of just funneling endless money to car manufacturers.
-
Fuck cars?
I hate ignorant conservatives, but you mostly can't do much about them because they listen to no one. But progressive ignorance is something I feel compelled to correct: progressives pretend to care about things other than their own assholes.
Meaningless meme. Because people see problems with your simplistic stance doesn't make them Trump. There should be a plan to get there from here, and right now, you guys are removed about EVs, which are part of the plan for getting there from here.
Diesel trains are much more environmentally friendly than EVs. Diesel emissions become less of a problem when one engine carries hundreds of people. And diesel doesn't even pretend to be good for the environment.
I want my damn trolleys back. No, making a new bus out of an old trolley chassis doesn't count.
I live in Vancouver and our transit agency is seriously considering ripping the trolleybus lines out. Just like how they ripped the streetcars out before the trolleybuses came and then shamelessly told us that it's too expensive to reinstall the tracks so we're just never getting it back. In both cases it was because "it's getting too expensive to maintain" after they deferred maintenance for ages so everything is falling apart and the small problems got compounded into showstoppers from neglect.
The typical conservative tactic of creating a problem to justify not funding a public service. Can we directly call them out on it?
In Case of Electric-Car Fire, Half of Fire Departments Are Unprepared
the car fires for EV are very much a different thing.
I really think we're too far in the hole here.
I think fear grips people at every angle and none of us are brave enough to accept bold action for positive change in our society. It seems like most people are just retracting instead.
I vaguely remember that "Ye" (formerly Kanye West) once said something like he formed a think tank to build a city but the thing stopping his team was that "Ye" didn't understand any of the concepts and he ran it into the ground.
I want public transportation, I think everyone wants it at this point but no no one understands why we need it. They all just want to escape.
(This message was brought to you by the new 2024 Ford Escape: just hit the road and escape to paradise)
Well, would be nice if we would have automatic Taxis. Less of the issues like Parking lots but still a lot of issues present.
Yes! And you know what, at that point, given the size of a minimum viable car, we could use some kind of algorithm to match people that are going similar places, and put them together to be more efficient. And I bet we'd find that a lot of the large scale transit patterns are common large parts of the population, so we could even use some kind of segregated, higher speed, more frequent vehicle for that.
While we're at it, we might as well just warehouse some of these vehicles around places where the common cores end and start, and then we would only have to match one end of the trip.
Oh wait, we already have those in operation in China: https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=wvNOTZZeYVs
I think that the solution is automated rail transit. Being in a dedicated place with lower likelihood of encountering people removes nearl every issue that self-driving cars have. Being automated means that 24/7 schedules are possible. If there are enough trains and high enough saturation, need for cars and even taxis is removed.
One train transports 100s of people, the driver is a fairly low proportion of the cost. And there's other members of staff that are required even in a fully automated system. (network monitoring, security). Removing the driver is a nice step, but it doesn't fundamentally change the economics of rail transport. If a route is uneconomic, that's going to be the case without a driver too.
Removing the driver mainly removes barriers to running late - meaning things like drunk driving can be significantly reduced since transit in the US is virtually non-existant at drunk'o'clock, effectively pressuring people into bad decisions when their judgement is the poorest.
If a route is uneconomic, that's going to be the case without a driver too.
Infrastructure is vital to economic and other activity. It needs to be treated as an investment or necessary cost, not a business. Doing otherwise inevitably results in collapsing bridges, toxic spills, and other symptoms of neglect as corners are cut to maximize profit.
We're in agreement that night trains are a good thing, but you should push for them whether or not your trains are driverless.
You misunderstand my use of economic. Everything has a cost and a benefit which can theoretically be calculated, with infrastructure like transit that benefit extends beyond fares. Typically governments will do this calculation when deciding whether to pursue a new project, they include all the planning, construction, running costs, and externalities e.g. climate impact, and all the benefits from fares, economic activity, new opportunities for industries and development, ect. This produces a cost benefit ratio. In my research with transport, the best value projects are local safety improvements like cycleways, sometimes the ratio is as good as 10. Large public transport projects are maybe 1-2, and large motorways are usually less than 1. My point was a train driver is a small cost that isn't going to significant affect this. Of course, this analysis often gets ignored and the overpriced motorway gets built anyway.
My favorite part about this sub is how everyone acts like the entire world is able to just stop having a car and be able to carry on normally about their lives as if cars haven't been forced into nearly all infrastructure plans globally since this inception. Like it's every citizens personal choice that nobody built a functioning transit system in the many decades before they were born, or that the place they can afford to live is too far from the place that pays the wages they need to live is too far to bike or bus to.
Like, push for fewer cars and less car centric design, but also stop being a fucking removedy dick about it.
Oh I'd love to hear your explanation for why it's irrelevant, and what crucial oversight I've made that you've managed to in your extensive 16 hours on Lemmy.
Disagree on noise. Electric cars are quieter when going slowly and the main noise is engine, but louder when going fast and the main noise is tires.
