electric cars are sensible as stepping stone because redesigning and rebuilding cities takes an incredible amount of time and you reduce local pollution, which is worthwhile despite not being a total solution to climate change.
of course it's a joke that congress subsidize electric cars but not ebikes, and is doing fuckall about rail, but they wouldn't be doing that stuff even if the electric car industry didn't exist.
It's literally not nuanced though, it's just ad-read portending towards nuance. Nuance is admitting that we should be trying to find ways to keep older cars running for longer so we don't have to manufacture new ones while we transition towards public transit.
Nuance is recognizing that all cars are bad but electric cars are ever so slightly better than farting cars. Admitting that, even though all cars are bad, we should make an effort to keep older cars running for longer since that's less harmful than replacing them with new cars, that's nuance too.
I for one am part of the burn all cars with the drivers inside if necessary faction. I do however enjoy a nuanced discussion. :xi-lib-tears:
Except they aren't sensible when you consider the amount of resource extraction that is required for the lithium and rare earth metals involved, especially given the current carrying capacity and life expectancy of those batteries. It is literally more resource intensive to try to replace a sixth of the cars in the U.S. with electric cars than to try to refurbish and manufacture new parts for older cars. Personal car travel is not the main contributor to environmental stress, it is the infrastructure, shipping and manufacturing around cars that is environmentally devastating.
The tech just isn't there in a way to provide as a 'stepping stone'. Hybrids, maybe, full electric, no. But imo any step that serves as a justification to continue designing cities around cars is a recipe for long term environmental disaster.
electric cars are sensible as stepping stone because redesigning and rebuilding cities takes an incredible amount of time and you reduce local pollution, which is worthwhile despite not being a total solution to climate change.
of course it's a joke that congress subsidize electric cars but not ebikes, and is doing fuckall about rail, but they wouldn't be doing that stuff even if the electric car industry didn't exist.
a nuanced take on my chapo? get outta here!
It's literally not nuanced though, it's just ad-read portending towards nuance. Nuance is admitting that we should be trying to find ways to keep older cars running for longer so we don't have to manufacture new ones while we transition towards public transit.
Nuance is recognizing that all cars are bad but electric cars are ever so slightly better than farting cars. Admitting that, even though all cars are bad, we should make an effort to keep older cars running for longer since that's less harmful than replacing them with new cars, that's nuance too.
I for one am part of the burn all cars with the drivers inside if necessary faction. I do however enjoy a nuanced discussion. :xi-lib-tears:
Finally, a true connoisseur of nuance.
Except they aren't sensible when you consider the amount of resource extraction that is required for the lithium and rare earth metals involved, especially given the current carrying capacity and life expectancy of those batteries. It is literally more resource intensive to try to replace a sixth of the cars in the U.S. with electric cars than to try to refurbish and manufacture new parts for older cars. Personal car travel is not the main contributor to environmental stress, it is the infrastructure, shipping and manufacturing around cars that is environmentally devastating.
The tech just isn't there in a way to provide as a 'stepping stone'. Hybrids, maybe, full electric, no. But imo any step that serves as a justification to continue designing cities around cars is a recipe for long term environmental disaster.
new electric cars are better than new gas cars after a couple years