• darkmugglet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • GoatTnder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • minimar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • itchy_lizard
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

  • corm@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • 1993_toyota_camry@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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?

      • corm@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s two months later and I’ve done a 180 on this opinion and went from “fuck gas cars” to “fuck all cars”.

        The car infrastructure is the shitty part, not so much the cars

        • CurtAdams@urbanists.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          @corm @1993_toyota_camry Sort of? All cars ruin our lives. But gas cars also ruin the planet, where electric are substially better now and will be almost carbon free in 30 years or so. Getting rid of cars in general is very desirable, but getting rid of gas cars is an existential necessity.

    • lgsp@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • lgsp@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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

          this is from a Wikipedia monthly scientific news

          • bstix@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • vldnl@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • minimar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re strawmanning here, nobody said electric cars aren’t better. They just aren’t the solution.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • thisfro@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe yes, but a large part of society at least in America and Europe live in cities or suburbs, where cars are just bs

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

          • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • bulbasaur@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

              • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

    • Kevin@l.1in1.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • Kalkaline @lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.