They also reduce noise pollution
And reduce the propping of petrostates
And can be fueled, in theory, almost anywhere there are buildings (including your own home/work)
And that fuel can also, in theory, come from fully sustainable sources
They also help normalise the usage of renewable energy (this is a factor that shouldn’t be overlooked, imo)
They also do all those things much worse than transitioning away from car dependence.
And they give people an excuse to not move away from cars.
And they are so much heavier and deadlier than ICE cars at the same speed that they may actually actively discourage other modes, like walking or cycling.
edit: Look, I think every car should be an EV. And I also think there shouldn’t be many cars because cars still suck. Both can be true.
And they are so much heavier and deadlier than ICE cars at the same speed that they may actually actively discourage other modes, like walking or cycling.
whether a car has an ICE or a battery is the last thing on my mind when avoiding them
It doesn’t matter what your thinking about when a vehicle hits you…
This should go without saying but what’s on your mind about a car doesn’t change how deadly it is when it hits you.
And also pedestrian desth rates undoubtedly effect how safe people consider car free transportation options.
Since much of the noise pollution from cars comes from tire noise, I doubt EVs will reduce noise pollution that signifcantly.
It’s not tire noise I’m hearing in bed at 1am while some yahoo is treating residential roads like a racetrack.
That is because many cities/politicians refuse to enforce reasonable noise limits on automobiles. It should have never been legal/normalized to have exhausts loud enough to need hearing protection while outside of the vehicle.
That shit ain’t legal, it’s just not enforced.
Legal where I live, and in many states too.
those ppl will create noise at whatever cost lmao, I bet they’ll start attaching external speakers at some point to compensate for the lack of engine noise
Near motorways where they go high speed the reduction will be negligible, but is material around lower speed streets.
Something not mentioned is the significantly reduced brake dust as most EV braking is regenerative.
deleted by creator
I see this argument a lot about EV’s being heavier. And while it is true (for now) the actual weight difference is fairly nominal when comparing two popular closely spec vehicles.
Curb Weight Toyota Camry 3310 lb. Tesla Model 3 3582 lb. +272 lb.
The report goes on to note that pm10 is still reduced in heavier EVs with a smaller tradeoff for increased pm2.5. There are nuances sure, but I still interpret this as a net positive on particulate matter and a step in the right direction. That is something we should not discourage in a world that is still struggling to stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere. Fuck cars, but let’s try to make incremental improvements where we can.
Abstract: Assuming lightweight EVs (i.e. with battery packs enabling a driving range of about 100 miles), the report finds that EVs emit an estimated 11-13% less non-exhaust PM2.5 and 18-19% less PM10 than ICEVs. Assuming that EV models are heavier (with battery packs enabling a driving range of 300 miles or higher), however, the report finds that they reduce PM10 by only 4-7% and increase PM2.5 by 3-8% relative to conventional vehicles.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Is this really substantial? With a skilled manual driver or a clever automatic gearbox, the majority of braking should be engine braking. It seems to me that regenerative braking is typically replacing what would be engine braking, the unplanned stops still use friction brakes.
Regen braking can be significantly stronger than engine braking. Unless your battery is at 100%, it can essentially replace all friction braking outside of emergency stops.
Noise pollution is a function of speed.
At low speeds, it’s mostly engine noise. At highway speeds, it’s mostly tire noise.
Many city streets have near highway speed limits or designs that easily allow cars to reach near highway speeds.
Also Pedestrian crash avoidance mitigation (PCAM) systems are great, and will be required on all new vehicles soon.
You could also potentially use them as a solution for more efficiently allocating energy, less by pumping energy back into the grid, and more by running home power from the car battery during peak hours, rather than having to produce too much energy during off hours, having to shut down the power during peak hours or provide limited access, or having to provide power for less people. You can make the power go further, and especially for renewables which have potentially less consistent energy production (the nice part being that peak demand roughly lines up with peak production for solar power, at least, in the summer). But none of that’s really an attractive proposition to the american car buyer who wants to travel as far as possible at the drop of a hat, and you have to make car batteries larger and the cars themselves less efficient to compensate for this power draw and power storage that may or may not be happening at any given moment, so it’s sort of self-defeating with the american car market.
Obviously, it isn’t really a more equitable or more efficient solution broadly than doing something like pumping water uphill. Or trying to limit demand in the first place by decreasing surface area of homes, by moving towards multiple units in one building, increasing r-values by using better building materials you could shell out for with a larger amount of occupants, yadda yadda urban design garbage. Stuff that generally is antithetical to car-centric infrastructure and thus electric cars. You also potentially run into problems where the as the grid as a whole becomes less relied upon, they make less money, and then the grid starts to fail further in a positive feedback loop. Poor people can’t afford rooftop solar and electric cars, because most of them can barely afford rent and aren’t really the ones making those decisions anyways.
They also reduce noise pollution
Only at low speeds. At high speeds for a modern car the tyre noise is louder that the engine noise, and since electric cars are heavier they would be noisier.
And reduce the propping of petrostates
Replace mining oil with mining rare metals. Not a big improvement.
They also help normalise the usage of renewable energy (this is a factor that shouldn’t be overlooked, imo)
Why? Electric cars are causing a huge load on the grid and will continue to do so. In countries that haven’t managed the load and invested heavily in renewable capacity, those EVs are powered by fossil fuels.
This is pure oil company propaganda. I hate cars with a passion and want a car free society. We will get there but it will take time. But We need to get rid of gas NOW.
Anyone who spews this kind of filth is literally the enemy.
I really do not think so. Oil propaganda would support cars rather than be against it. I’m quite sure this is directed at the people who think EVs are a full solution.
This comic ISN’T anti-car, it’s anti-electric car.
Absolutely oil propaganda.
Why, then, does the picture with all the problems depict a gas car, and why is “tailpipe emissions” listed as one of the problems?
Also, usually corporate propaganda is done by less well-established cartoonists that don’t have reputations to ruin.
Because people like you eat it up.
I already discussed this exact thing once before on Lemmy, I’ll link to my old comment chain https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/3441189
And some other of the artist’s comics https://twitter.com/GregVann/status/1085788036573540354
But in short, no, in context this artist is anti-car.
It’s criticising cars in general, one if it’s arguments is that EV’s don’t solve some lf the main problems of cars (which gas cars also have)
EVs are the only solution to getting ourselves out of this mess. We can’t ban all cars in the next few years like we can with all gasoline cars. Building proper public transport takes time, especially when it’s been sabotaged to such a point. We need to transit to a carless society through ev or it’s literally over.
Propaganda is a slimy business and their current strat is bash EVs and bring up nihilism. Regardless of your intentions, you are being their mouthpiece by posting this.
I think we live in very different parts of the world. Where I’m from, it is quite self-evident that we have to transition to EVs, and most people in fact already do. However a lot of people seem to forget that EVs only solve part of the problem and that we have to think further, so from my perspective this comic can basically only be used for good.
But I do get that this could be used by reactionaries to push back against clean energy in places where such sentiments are common. However, I don’t think that’s a particularly big problem on the Fediverse.
That’s all true, maybe I’m overthinking it. I like his other work, the punch line just seemed prominently anti ev on this one and I think I’m developing a hair trigger for it. Most are a bit more reticent in my community and I’ve seen all kinds of arguments against EVs, some being they are just as bad for the environment so why bother.
I do agree it might lead to complacency, especially since most countries seem quite unwilling to tackle any kind of issues related to vehicles.
The only solution EVs provide is a pathway for automotive companies to continue to exist. They solve nothing and their existence continues to enable suburban sprawl, lack of public transportation, and the alienation of a car-centric society. You are trash for supporting EVs and you aren’t interested in a better world, one without cars.
EVs have about half the lifecycle emissions as a gas car, given today’s electric grid. Which is better, but not all that much better.
However: 80% of the US lives in metropolitan and micropolitan areas. 20% of the US is rural. You can build better public transit in cities and small towns, and stop doubling down on building shitty-ass suburban stroads and sprawl. But Farmer Joe is never going to bike 20 miles to the nearest Dollar General. It’s just not practical, and neither is putting a bus stop in front of every farm.
A car-lite world where Farmer Joe drives an EV to a farmer’s market that 95% of people walked, biked or took a bus to seems way better than either the status quo or a car-free world.
What did “farmer joe” do before cars I wonder? Plus it’s 100% fine if “farmer joe” still uses fossil fuels for his tractor and to drive into town. That isn’t a problem that is solved by EVs. that isn’t a problem that needs to be solved, and that absolutely isn’t the reason you are bringing up EVs at all.
Before cars, he’d probably have gone into town much less, and would probably have gone by horse.
that isn’t a problem that needs to be solved,
Why?
It must be nice living in a little bubble where you don’t have to think about social and political realities.
Ironic talking about me living in a bubble when you are literally in a bubble every time you drive. Hope you are ready when the “social and political realities” make a car-centric society untenable.
the people who think EVs are a full solution.
Those people don’t exist. These kinds of arguments are only made to cause disagreement. It’s like car-racism.
Did you really just say car racism lmao.
No, I said it’s LIKE racism, meaning that it has similarities.
Literally NOBODY thinks that EVs are a “full solution” to environmental damage or climate change or whatever the whataboutism is about this week.
It’s only beneficial to put this argument forward for two groups: Car manufacturers and oil producters.
Then why is my neighbour down the street spewing this shit on Facebook daily? He is not a car manufacturer or oil producter.
No, it’s because he has been lead to believe that the smug EV people are going to take his vehicle away. He has bought the lie and now he’s spreading the arguments that will fragment car owners so that nothing will ever change.
The entire purpose is to split car users and preserve the status quo.
This is the fuck cars community. We should hate all cars equally. When I see other posters here repeating the lies from the car and oil industries, I have to point it out.
Why would Big Oil support cars that don’t use its product?
deleted by creator
My brother in Christ, you literally have no idea how much stuff is made out of petrochemicals, do you? Try asphalt, industrial solvents, cosmetics, any real lubricant, fertilizers, pesticides, textiles, circuitry, detergents, insulation, PVC, paint, adhesives, roofing material, synthetic rubbers, as well as a ton of pharmaceutical products and food additives. And that’s not even an exhaustive list. Gasoline is a big part of the petrochemical industry, but it’s not the totality of it.
I do know how much we use petrochemicals. Gasoline is not a direct synonym for petrochemicals, it’s definition is fuel for combustion engines. None of the products you mentioned are made out of gasoline.
I’m curious why you think ocean microplastics can stick around for a few more decades or centuries
deleted by creator
I was gonna argue that rolling resistance doesn’t have a large impact on efficiency, but apparently I was wrong
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance
An example of a very light high-speed passenger train is the N700 Series Shinkansen, which weighs 715 tonnes and carries 1323 passengers, resulting in a per-passenger weight of about half a tonne. This lighter weight per passenger, combined with the lower rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rail means that an N700 Shinkansen is much more energy efficient than a typical automobile.
deleted by creator
Anyone who thinks cars are a solution to anything is my enemy.
But We need to get rid of gas NOW.
That’s fine, but electric cars are only moving the gas right now.
deleted by creator
The funny thing is, electric cars help with the tire/brake dust and mined materials issue. Regenerative braking reduces the wear on brakes, and electric motors provide smoother power delivery, which reduces tire wear. As for the mined materials, electric cars generally take more material to make, but they are also easier to recycle, and the batteries themselves are able to be recycled in to even better batteries that they were when brand new.
Ugh guys come on, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good (or better). We cannot snap our fingers and fix everything. Incremental steps are necessary.
Incremental steps are not personal EVs. They are diesel and electric buses. EVs eliminate 1 problem (tailpipe emissions) while creating 2 more (battery manufacturing, increased vehicle weight making road and tire wear worse, and making them more deadly - there’s others, take your pick) and not addressing the other hundred problems with car dependence.
Buses use the same infrastructure as cars. Bus stops are stupid cheap in comparison to anything else. And then, bus lanes can be implemented to prioritise buses and keep them from getting stuck in traffic.
The number one (by a long way) selling vehicle in the US is a massively over sized truck. Designed to be so heavy to avoid falling under emissions laws.
There is no electric vehicle that comes even close to that. You want those people interested in electric cars. They don’t give a single fuck about what your think about buses and nothing you will ever do in your lifetime will change that. Ever.
Getting people into EVs is an across the board incremental improvement in the exact definition of the word.
You’re right about the massive benefits of transit and trains in particular would be so amazing… but none of the people we want getting out of F150s give a single shit.
@xenoclast @ProgrammingSocks once you add a weight tax and special license qualifications they might start changing their tune
Yeah, but they’re also a pretty big part of the voter base, so how would you get that passed?
I don’t care about getting people into things. That’s a highly individualistic way to look at the problem. Car dependency is a societal problem, and marketing won’t solve societal problems. There needs to be a fundamental change in the way we (specifically the government) view transportation as a whole. (And as an extension to that, there also needs to be a change in regulation to close that loophole for light trucks.)
What’s important to me is getting lawmakers and those advocating to the lawmakers on board with funding public transit and making the streets safer for all people using them. Yes we need people on board too but really only enough to get these ideas in lawmakers heads as a major issue. A minority. The majority of people don’t understand or care and that’s fine, because their minds will start to change once they see it actually working. In the words of NJB, there are not that many car people, bike people, or train people. Most people just want to get to their destinations as quickly and efficiently as possible.
We don’t live in a direct democracy. 51% don’t have to explicitly agree to laws. The government passes laws that are bad for people and the majority disagree with all the time. Not saying the majority of people disagree, I honestly think they couldn’t care less. I’m just saying we don’t actually have to recruit hundreds of millions of people.
Unfortunately, a major part of this plan is going to have to restrict what oil companies are allowed to do and nowadays that’s seemingly impossible. Only seemingly though. Nothing is truly set in stone.
Ok you try riding the bus everywhere with your whole family dude. That’s not happening. It’s incredibly inconvenient. Especially given the infrastructure we have.
I’m loving my electric car and hope you all get one.
Having been to the UK and Germany, it’s incredibly convenient and much quicker than driving in many cases. I’ve used the metro where I live and it’s also much quicker, the only issue is the closest bus stop is 20 minutes away by foot. That’s easy to fix though.
I live in the UK, and I can say it depends greatly on your circumstances.
In general, if you’re traveling between an outside town to a city it’s usually an alright experience.
However, if your commute is between two outside towns then you have to be lucky, otherwise a car ends up being the only real viable option. My work is about 15 miles away, and before I had a car I had the only option of a railway line that ran through my town. If that line ever had issues getting cancelled or on the train strikes were on that day I couldn’t get to work because to get my work was 2 buses and 2 hours to go 15 miles. The train ran once an hour and didn’t call at half the stops on a Sunday including the stop I needed for work so if it was a Sunday I literally could not get to work.
It’s not even cheaper than a car when I factor in leisure travel, many places I regularly go to take longer to get to by car and are usually a worse experience whether that be service infrequency, long layover times or services getting cancelled/being on strike.
Oh sure, I agree that it’s not always perfect, but neither is driving. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been randomly stuck in gridlock because someone got in a crash on the freeway.
The issue here is entirely that there is no choice that can be made. You either drive, or you don’t go anywhere. I don’t want to need a car, I want to want a car. Cars are convenient, but when they’re required to do literally everything then they’re a massive inconvenience.
If I was able to make a choice, I could share a car with someone else. As it stands, we both have to own one.
Having lived in Germany, you obviously didn’t meet enough people. They fucking love thier cars dude. Yeah their buses are better, but I was shown many people’s cars as if they were a child.
Oh sure, obviously people like cars, but in the cities we’d park and switch from car to rail because it’s significantly faster. I also stayed in the city for a couple of weeks and didn’t need a car at all.
Compare that to the US where you need a car or you die, even in the city, and it’s not even a contest.
I have an electric vehicle. I ride it everywhere in my city and it costs basically nothing. It’s an ebike. I’ve done nothing to it, it’s a normal 350w motor capped at 32 km/h. And damn does it feel so much better than driving in traffic.
Local commuter rail, walkable cities, and nationwide high speed rail are all necessary to completely eliminate 90% of individual car ownership. We should be advocating for these systems of convenience which will make car ownership obsolete while incentivizing EVs while the infrastructure is built up, not demonizing EVs and making them appear as useless and a waste of time for helping fight climate change. Plus we need EV utility vehicles and trucks for professionals who need them to do their job.
It’s not that perfect (public transport) is more difficult than good (electric cars). More often good is the enemy of perfect since the industry is lobbying for it and against the other
Hence mocking Musk instead of guillotining him.
Climate change is a big enough problem that it is worth prioritizing.
I see them as “diet” cars. Similar to if someone is trying to cut back on sodas, switching to diet sodas is a net benefit. That’s not to say diet sodas are good for you or remotely healthy, they’re just less bad than the alternative.
Yeah, except the sweeteners they use to make diet sodas “diet” make those sodas just as bad, if not worse, than the originals. Which also works for the car analogy given the source of the energy most EVs use :/
Source? Because from what I’ve learned, they’ve studied aspartame so much now it’s almost silly, and it has never been proven to be “worse than sugar”. Though the sugar industry is really happy you believe otherwise.
It’s absolutely worse!!!
Because it tastes like shit that’s all lol
Source please. (There isn’t one)
given the source of the energy most EVs use :/
What? This is hilariously wrong.
A profoundly filthy coal power plant has multimillion dollar filtration the size of your damn apartment. That gross coal is scrubbed more than the gasoline from any vehicle possibly could be.
In a first world country it’s not possible to have an electric car as dirty per joule as a gas vehicle.
Further, the powertrain is direct and therefore dramatically more efficient, so on a distance basis you get an additional multiplier. That’s where the EPA MPGe comes from - total energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline, converted to range on the electric vehicle.
That’s about 33 kWh in one gallon, which is about half the total storage capacity of my Bolt EUV 2023 (65 kWh) which has about 240mi of range on a full charge, which is why the MPGe is ~120mi/gal, which for an equally polluting power source as a personal gas vehicle, is 5-6x cleaner. Public DC fast chargers are frequently exclusively renewably powered.
It’s impressive because literally every possible angle of your statement is hilariously incorrect.
I wouldn’t say prioritizing rather than worth practicing. Corporations do much more damage than all the automobile drivers.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Transportation (28% of 2021 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 94% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.2
To further break it down:
The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector.
So the idea that transportation emissions from regular people is totally negligible compared to corporate excesses isn’t actually realistic. It’s a major chunk of it.
Exactly. We’re a minority but it’s still like 15%-20% of the overall problem that’s addressable.
Exactly. Corporations ABSOLUTELY are a problem we NEED to fight. But its also not an excuse to pretend we’re all completely blameless. People get furious when you tell them we cant sit around and wait for climate change to magically fix itself or billionaires to magically become good and stop. But that WE are going to have to actually make changes and put our money where our mouths are
To be clear this isn’t quite my own argument; even though I am saying that transportation emissions are too substantial to be ignored, I am skeptical of “personal responsibility” type solutions. I think it would be better to approach this with stuff like taxing companies based on employee commutes, taxing oil, urban planning and improved public transportation.
Even those require individuals to do something though. Since the government and basically every corporation is entirely opposed to this. You still have to march and protest and call your representatives and fight for it. There’s no reality where this ever changes with no one doing anything beyond an occasional Facebook post. However, even if suddenly our politicians and billionaires all had a change of heart, the necessary changes to effectively combat this environmental catastrophy would mean a complete upheaval of our lives. Cars and animal products either cease to be made or are so expensive barely anyone can afford them. We’ll be using public transportation and bikes and eating mostly vegan diets and bringing our reusable bags to our zero waste grocery stores. Itd force people to do all the things that various groups are already trying to get everyone to do (and to be clear im not sitting on my high horse claiming i already do all that, because i dont) There’s no way through this where we solve the problem and it doesnt require all of us to change our own habits
the necessary changes to effectively combat this environmental catastrophy would mean a complete upheaval of our lives
Yes. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to frame things as being about who is ‘good’ and who is to be blamed, or that the impetus for change should be personal initiative to adjust away from unsustainable lifestyles. What’s needed is uncompromising policy solutions, and ones that are designed by experts to actually have a direct impact. People often get confused about what matters and what doesn’t, and proportionality. For instance restrictions on plastic bags at grocery stores is totally negligible for climate change, and arguably makes the situation slightly worse. Meat consumption has a significant impact globally, but in a first world context is relatively insignificant compared to the other things we do to create emissions. The problem isn’t that people aren’t choosing to live virtuously, since even if they did many attractive definitions of virtuous would not produce the needed results, and realistically that is not a viable way for human behavior to be adjusted anyway. The problem is that the circumstances around us shape our lives, and impel us to live in an unsustainable way, and that is what has to change.
Basically I think it just has to be more things like, accepting that deliberately high gas prices are a necessary sacrifice for the wellbeing of humanity, rather than asking everyone to choose to drive less and pat themselves on the back when they manage it and feel shame when they do not.
Corporations. Ok, so that’s out of my responsibility then, since I don’t buy anything from corporations. Good to know.
Can I just have good public transit, or safe bike lanes, I don’t even want a car.
I’m lucky enough to live somewhere with 24/7 public transit and generally walkable spaces. Some of my coworkers have moved out of the city to cheaper places and I’m just like yeah sure you pay less for rent or your mortgage, but now you’re in a car-first wasteland.
To keep in line with the meme, you must acknowledge that bikes also have pollution from tire wear and replacement, require road salt many places, causes accidents which lead to wounds or death of humans and animals and causes pollution from brake wear and manifacturing.
As the post clearly implies, if you can’t fix every issue with something simultaneously, then you should’t attempt to fix anything at all. /s
I don’t even think you have to fix every issue. Human existence by nature requires us to use and change our environment and our job is to minimize that so we can continue living on this planet.
Both of those examples solve our issues to a point where they’re non-existent. Yes, they’re still produced but they’re well within our manageable amounts and would reverse much of the damage we did if we did them on mass.
I’m not even necessarily against electric cars. I just don’t want one personally, I don’t think they’re great or even the solution, but they’re certainly better than combustion. They just still aren’t great, especially when we already have the actual solutions.
EVs also greatly reduce brake dust, as most use regenerative braking under normal circumstances, leaving traditional braking for hard (emergency) braking.
But massively increase tire dust, which is a much bigger source of air and water pollution than brake dust.
edit: There are literally dozens of articles about how EVs will produce more tire particulate pollution than ICEs.
Here is an article in the Guardian about how much worse tyre particulate pollution is than tailpipe exhaust.
This Atlantic article discusses tire particulate increase from EVs:
New EV models tend to be heavier and quicker—generating more particulates and deepening the danger. In other words, EVs have a tire-pollution problem, and one that is poised to get worse as America begins to adopt electric cars en masse.
According to this Forbes article:
Tires were already a problem, but when we switch to electric cars, according to Michelin, we increase tire wear by up to 20%. According to Goodyear, it’s up to 50%. This is validated also in other research that we’ve seen.
edit: To be clear, EVs are better than ICEs and every car should be an EV. But EVs also suck and we still need to transition away from car dependence.
Source for that?
It’s even worse than I said. Tire pollution is even worse than tailpipe pollution.
Tires were already a problem, but when we switch to electric cars, according to Michelin, we increase tire wear by up to 20%. According to Goodyear, it’s up to 50%. This is validated also in other research that we’ve seen.
I’m not seeing anything about how brake dust is nearly as big of a problem. Literally dozens of articles about how bad tire pollution is. I’m not even mentioning microplastics! Tires are the biggest source.
Fuckin hell I never thought that the tire pollution would increase. Makes sense because the batteries are heavy af right?
Yes, much heavier. It wouldn’t be such a big problem if car sizes weren’t exploding, and if people didn’t demand such absurdly high battery ranges “just in case”, even though their daily commute is not 300 miles. Consumers also seem to want unnecessary power instead of efficiency, negating some of the benefits of the transition.
I imagine the increased torque of electric motors has something to do with it too. That extra power has to go somewhere
here is the RAC - a major road assistance company in the UK & Ireland - explaining EV particulate emissions. Basically, no the particulates aren’t any worse from an EV and are actually better compared to ICE, both brake and tyre.
Doesn’t mean particulates are good in any circumstance, but this argument, that somehow EVs are even worse, which is largely being propagated by people & groups with a vested interest in ICE cars is a complete nonsense.
Forgive me, but the articles suggested that the problem with tires was their deteriorating into miroplastic particles with use. What other miroplastic problem with tires is there that you’re not mentioning?
You’re right, I wrote that confusingly. I mean to say that the research I linked to is just about air pollution from tires. There are also non-air pollution consequences, as microplastics leak into our food supply, drinking water, our environments, our oceans, etc. This is no small matter.
Everyone who cares about the environment is in favor of EVs over ICEs, but some bad effects will actually increase with EV use. We need to transition every remaining car to EV, but we also need to transition society away from cars.
The Guardian article mentions that there’s some hope of mitigating that problem though:
The average weight of all cars has been increasing. But there has been particular debate over whether battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which are heavier than conventional cars and can have greater wheel torque, may lead to more tyre particles being produced. Molden said it would depend on driving style, with gentle EV drivers producing fewer particles than fossil-fuelled cars driven badly, though on average he expected slightly higher tyre particles from BEVs.
Dr James Tate, at the University of Leeds’ Institute for Transport Studies in the UK, said the tyre test results were credible. “But it is very important to note that BEVs are becoming lighter very fast,” he said. “By 2024-25 we expect BEVs and [fossil-fuelled] city cars will have comparable weights. Only high-end, large BEVs with high capacity batteries will weigh more.”
It was revealed to them in a dream when they didn’t take their medication
Source for that? If there is an increase of that at all it would be surprising. “Massively” definitely is just make belief.
You don’t need to make up shit to support your point
No they don’t
Not only are they MUCH worse than brake dust, tire pollution might be worse than tailpipe emissions.
The comprehensive study has found that in everyday driving, particulate emissions from tires are 1,850 times greater than the equivalent exhaust emissions. This is only made worse by the heavier battery packs fitted to electric vehicles, which increase vehicle mass and, in turn, place further strain on the tires.
edit: this is not to say the tire particulate has the same greenhouse effect. Experts overwhelmingly agree that EVs are better for climate change. But EVs are still bad for the environment.
My EV is under 4000 pounds what about all those 8000 pound trucks SUV on the road. Ford latest Raptor or what ever it is is heavier the the F150 Lighting EV. Brake dust shouldn’t even matter on a EV, I’ve 170k on my original Brakes. Gas cars still use electric the “gas refinery” and the pollution from the refinery. And there’s still much less environmental impacts like no oil changes no NOX no Co2 and ETC.
Your EV is worse, per distance and per capita, than any non-car mode of transportation. Compared to ICEs, it’s better in one particular way, worse in others, but still causes major environmental damage through bad land use. Cars are one of the biggest killers worldwide, and EVs may make that problem worse.
Oh yes, I forgot about how brake dust is burning towns to the ground because of extreme weather and inundating low lying regions with rising sea levels.
Do you seriously think a community called “fuck cars” is trying to defend gasoline cars over EVs? This is a public transportation gang good sir, madam, or otherwise.
The community no, but individual commenters yes. Blogs like carbuzz, yes.
I was talking about tire dust being worse than brake dust. Was that a typo?
Literally no one is arguing that EVs aren’t better for the climate than ICEs. But a lot of the climate harm of cars is not just tailpipe emissions, but bad land use. Pavement, parking lots, urban sprawl, are major contributors to climate change. I don’t understand this idea that if we push to move away from cars, it will encourage ICE use. It’s an inane argument.
edit: I also haven’t seen studies of how much air particulate matter from tires contributes to the greenhouse effect. I don’t doubt it’s still better than ICEs, but it could still be significant.
EV’s aren’t better for the “climate”.
Petrol will always be superior, and when we can’t produce anymore, it will be time to go back to wood gas. EV’s will forever be toys.
That’s not an argument, that’s a declaration.
You said tire pollution is potentially worse for the environment than tailpipe emissions. That is a wildly irresponsible thing to say. That’s what I was objecting to.
There absolutely are people arguing that ICs are better for the environment, as if climate change doesn’t affect the environment.
If you’re going to buy a new car, don’t, but if you’re going to buy one anyway, prioritize reducing of ghg emissions.
Edited: changed “euphemistically” to reducing, my fault for not proofreading my auto correct (I use swore typing on my phone so sometimes things go really sideways)
Then you’re responding to the wrong comment. The comment you’re responding to is one where I say that tire pollution is worse than brake pollution. In the thread where I say that tire pollution can be worse in some ways than tailpipe emissions, I specify that EVs are still better than ICEs for the climate.
So you’re responding to a comment where I didn’t say what you claim I said, while accusing me of holding a position I don’t hold.
They’re all sourced to the same “study” by a climate denialists outfit.
Just don’t go race mode everyday and and it will be reduced to just heavier weight. Get smaller than supers sized truck and it will compensate for the weight as well.
No they don’t massively increase tyre dust. In fact, if you go to motoring organisations, or actual tyre repair / refit companies they will tell you straight out that tyres on EVs don’t wear any faster than regular tyres. The only difference really between an EV tyre and a regular one is the cross section which is different to account for the generally higher weight of an EV.
We hate cars so much, we’ve come full circle to parroting fossil fuel industry propaganda against EVs, I see.
I’m not unsympathetic to the fuckcars movement, but I have to ask about the road salt. When it snows and the roads are icy, what’s supposed to happen? What’s the plan for getting around, for getting to work, for getting to school? We can be using beet juice and other less impactful de-icing brines, but you still need the cars to get people where they need to go. Is the argument that people should stay home? Are we suggesting that colder climates just shouldn’t be populated? Busses need the road salt, too. Trains and trolleys de-ice their tracks. Even urban areas where you can walk everywhere need to salt the sidewalks.
Where I live it’s common to spread gravel on the snow to increase grip. And then, of course, it is expected that everyone has the appropriate shoes and bike tires to not slip.
And even when salt is used, cars need a lot more salt per person than other modes of transport does.
edit: clarification
When I lived near a volcanic area, they used the cinders for winter grip. Played hell on car paint. So, add that to the runoff.
And even when salt is used, cars need a lot more salt per person than other modes of transport does.
Can I get a source on this? I’m not even sure what you mean by it, because salt clears active roadways as much as it does backroads, so how is this being measured “per person”?
Where I live it’s common to spread gravel on the snow to increase grip. And then, of course, it is expected that everyone has the appropriate shoes and bike tires to not slip.
You’re talking about pedestrians, but what about non-pedestrian traffic? The roads are more than just avenues to get to the grocery store, they’re also how the grocery store gets stocked with goods for rising out storms. It how the ambulance gets to you.
And what about the disabled or elderly? Can you get a wheelchair across the gravel?
This picture comes to mind:
For pedestrians and bikers, you need a lot less surface to deice, plus the lower speeds means it is not quite as vital to see all the snow gone directly. And yes, you will need roads for different purposes, but you would need a lot fewer of them, and with fewer lanes, if everyone wouldn’t take the car. Also, for supplying stores, a lot of the things trucks do can easily be done by trains.
If it’s cold enough to freeze the ground, I’m not riding my bike. First, having the right tires is one thing, but black ice and surprise potholes will eat your snow tires. Second, it’s going to be too cold to be out in the cold air for the several hours you need to bike to school or work.
Busses require the same amount of roads as cars. So you’re going to need the same amount of salt for busses. You might need less for sidewalks, but that’s only because people cannot walk as far as they can drive.
If everyone who normally takes the car would switch to taking the bus, all of a sudden you’d only need one lane in places where you previously needed two or three, because cars are very space-inefficient, so that makes a big difference.
Also, it’s not quite true that they’d require the same amount of roads. I don’t know about where you’re from, but where I live buses use about a quarter of the roads and you can still easily get anywhere by bus.
Additionally, salt isn’t used for rail vehicles at all.
I think public transit is important, good for the environment, and should be a much larger budget item everywhere.
But your math simply isn’t true everywhere. You can’t take 20 cars off the road and put them all on a bus, because those 20 cars aren’t going to the same place at the same time. Urban areas that already have busses blanketing the city and running constantly, the math works and you just need additional busses to up capacity. But for where I live, on the edge of suburban and rural areas, you’d need a thousand more busses on the road to cover every route and destination. And these are places where most roads are only one lane in each direction. The major highways would still need several lanes because of the additional busses to fill demand for additional routes, and smaller roads would need to be widened in many places to allow for the larger turning radius of a bus.
So you need the same amount of salt to cover the same amount of road. Maybe some areas could recapture a lane or two for bike lanes and pedestrians, but you still need to salt those, and they won’t have the benefit of being driven upon, which crushes ice and moves it out of the way. One or two slip and fall lawsuits later, and municipalities are just going to close them any time there’s a little snow.
Once again, I’ll say that the argument against cars is compelling. We should work to provide more public transit, because it is better for society to have reliable public transit. We should protect bike lanes, because it is better for our health and the environment, and encouraged freedom and development for adolescents. We should make more residential areas walkable because it is better for communities to be walkable. It fosters relationships among neighbors, encourages the support of local businesses, and improves the health and wellbeing of everyone who lives there.
Those are the arguments that get you there. Talk about the good it does, not the bad it doesn’t. People who don’t already agree with you will pick the one thing that doesn’t ring true and key in to ignore and dismiss the rest.
deleted by creator
When it snows and the roads are icy, what’s supposed to happen? What’s the plan for getting around, for getting to work, for getting to school? […] Are we suggesting that colder climates just shouldn’t be populated?
This line of questioning is really important, and it’s why I think there’s no addressing our devastation of the environment without digging deep into the assumptions of our society.
Society, as we understand it today, requires all of us going to work and school every day, no matter the weather, otherwise it doesn’t work. We can’t live like that. It just doesn’t work. We exist in the world, and our attempts to pretend like we are somehow apart or above it, that our daily lives shouldn’t be impacted by it, are destructive. We just can’t be in such a hurry all the time.
So yes, when the weather is bad, we need to slow down, focusing our efforts on our highest priority infrastructure, like ambulances, with everyone else taking a beat, or even pitching in. To do that, we need to rethink our society, because as things stand now, I agree with you, that’s not really possible.
This is why I think degrowth and socialism are the only human way through the climate crisis. Capitalism is a death cult of infinite growth that forces each of us to contribute to our own destruction every day because we have to get to work to live every single day.
Yeah, I think the argument is that you shouldn’t need the cars to get people where they need to go. This can be addressed two ways: either we don’t use cars or we don’t need to go (as far).
People should be able to travel with other modes that require less salt to deice, and cities could be built to not require cars for most trips. Salting sidewalks and bus lanes is better than salting those things plus roads and highways.
It’s also worth considering that yes, people should be able to just stay home. People shouldn’t be at risk of losing their job/home because they couldn’t safely make it into work. Parents shouldn’t have to rely on school as daycare.
I’d be curious to see if urban heat Island affects salt use. Maybe if we build dense enough, we don’t even really need salt to cover 99% of the population.
So…the issue isn’t cars, it’s capitalism? All we need to do to get rid of cars and all their negative effects is rearrange our country on a socioeconomic level?
Yes, capitalism is the root problem. Some people argue that you cannot overcome climate change under capitalism (and neoliberalism, specifically).
But I think it’s unlikely we’ll be able to change the underlying system without society collapsing in some way. Or a revolution.
However, I don’t think you have to get rid of capitalism to reduce cars and make a positive impact. Climate change is a scale: the more we do now, the less bad it will be in the future. So doing something is still better than nothing, even if it doesn’t solve the problem entirely.
Reducing cars (and therefore emissions) can be helped by improving public transport and increasing the number of options for transport. In many places, cars are the only way to get anywhere, especially in countries that focus on car infrastructure. Having the options to bus, train, bike, walk, or drive will reduce the number of drivers. In the case of bike lanes, at least in my country, there is evidence that adding bike lanes increases the number of cyclists (and therefore decreases the number of cars on the road). “Build it and they will come,” if you will.
I have a car, but I most often bike or take the bus. We can’t get rid of cars entirely; there are reasons people need them (tradies needing vans with their equipment, certain disabilities needing customized transport options, courier parcel delivery, etc.). But reducing the number on the road at any time is helpful.
You can use a brine salt solution before it precipitates to reduce overall salt usage by 60-70%.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/climate/road-salt-water-supply.html
In Colorado we spray ‘sand’ which is still a chemical mix with actual sand, but less disruptive
This incidentally is why used school buses from Colorado are highly desirable in the skoolie community (a skoolie is a used school bus converted to a motorhome). In addition to the generally high-quality transmissions and retarders (essentially for handling mountainous terrain), the “sand” you use doesn’t promote rusting-out of the bus bodies like road salt does. In a sense, though, this is still bad for the environment: the extended lifespan of these vehicles keeps them on the road spitting out carbon dioxide longer then they otherwise would.
I don’t think trains de-ice anything, no one’s out there deicing train tracks - they are far too remote
Here in Canada there are definitely de-icing/ snow removal machines used on the tracks. Large propane heaters keep switches clear of ice so they can operate. Hi-rail trucks will go ahead of trains through the mountain passes to ensure the way is clear. During particularly bad snow storms they can use machines like this to clear the snow.
The trains will also release gravel on the rail to improve braking times.
Depends on the location, but there are a few different strategies for trains in cold weather.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/us/chicago-train-tracks-fire-trnd/index.html
There’s literally a special type of train for clearing the tracks.
Beet Juice? Do they remove the color or will everything be stained purple forever?
that’s processed sugar beet waste, not literal beet juice
They use sand around here (Indiana).
deleted by creator
As much as I agree, these are different things. EVs are fixing greenhouse gases. While the others are also bad things, they aren’t really global climate changers.
Except EVs still have a significant carbon footprint from their manufacture. So do train cars and buses, but to transport everyone in cars instead of public transportation would require orders of magnitude more materials, and therefore a much higher carbon footprint. Not to mention the poor land use that car dependency causes, which both leads to deforestation and impedes reforestation, which is a further climate change contributor.
EVs also have the ability to live longer. If an average EV is usable for twice as long as an ICE vehicle, its carbon footprint from manufacturing is already down to 50%.
So can transit vehicles, in fact they last even longer so I don’t see this as an advantage for EVs. In Vancouver, Canada for example, there are fully self-driving electric trains from the 80s that are still running perfectly fine today, and the only reason they’re getting scrapped soon is because they’re loud and uncomfortable compared to newer trains, which even then I personally don’t like the transit agency’s decision to scrap them because that’s super wasteful, they could probably run another 40 years with good maintenance.
Alright well that’s good. When the US shrinks down to the size of Vancouver maybe that will be a good option.
The US has in fact shrunk down to the size of Europe which has excellent public transportation.
US can’t have good transit because it’s so much bigger than a single city.
The US doesn’t have cities the size of Vancouver, or municipal governments that can solve transit locally.
The country is simply to big for that.
But alternatives we have and know to work solve both greenhouse gasses and local porblems.
We’ll have to stop driving gas cars specifically, but we’ll also just have to drive less in general.
Are they? Because unless you live in some green energy paradise, most EV are charged using coal plants.
Doesn’t need to be a “green energy paradise”, just a reasonably well connected first world country.
Take a look at Electricity Maps. Unless you live somewhere isolated or with very poorly developed grid infrastructure (or some central US states, apparently), you should see a non-trivial amount of electricity being generated by non-fossil fuels. For example, at the time of typing this 77% of the electricity I’m using is low-carbon and 50% of it is renewable.
That’s the kicker. EVs don’t have to rely on fossil fuels to operate (but they can make use of them depending on the grid infrastructure). ICE cars on the other hand are burning fuel wherever they go.
Walking or cycling will always be the least polluting means of getting around, but if you really need a car then you could do a lot worse than getting an electric one.
I’m really sceptic about that kind of metrics because many of them take carbon offsets into account, and carbon offsets are mostly greenwashing.
Power mix in the world right now is over 50% coal and gas, and only hydro is over a 10%. This is worldwide, so mix varies depending on where you are.
In the end EVs are no making a dent in power demand. They are increasing it. The percentage of fossil fuels is maybe going down but total fossil fuel consumption is increasing as our demand does. Green energy is only taking some of the slack from the increase.
EVs will be remembered as the thing we did to keep using cars and feeling good about it.
The problem is, the way I see it, all energy use is connected. Basically the problem we have is energy consumption grows faster than clean energy production. So requiring more green energy in this context still sucks. Even where I live where all of our energy is green (at least in the grid), extra energy can be sold either via selling it to other provinces/states, or by making deals with companies to do their production here where energy is cheap and green.
Energy is a commodity on a market. If you use it to inefficiently move people, you can’t use it for other things. Remember that to move a 150 lbs person in a car, you have to move about a ton and a half of car…
@Mars @wrinkletip Hello, what century are you living in? The US gets only 20% of its electricity from coal and dropping fast. In CA it’s 0%.
Aside from that, EVs are so much more energy efficient that an EV using electricity from a coal plant still produces less CO2 than an ICE car.
Not op, but the material gathering and building of EVs is far more energy intensive and resource intensive than gas cars. They do even out but it takes a number of years on the road depending on the vehicle.
Additionally they are very heavy which requires more infrastructure maintenance and therefore more emissions.
That is to say EVs are not a sure fire improvement and it depends on the car, the place you are, the supply chain producing your car, where it’s going to end up, and your own driving habits.
Or we could just invest in rail instead of doubling down on private vehicles. Then we can be sure.
I always have felt like blaming cars, of all things, misses the bigger picture. 1 crude oil shipping vessel produces more pollution than the entirety of cars in America will for a year. Cars are one of the things that actually empowers individuals to live their individualized lives. Hell, some people live in their cars/rv/campers and it allows people to escape the rigors of daily life.
I agree we should take aim at making them more environmentally friendly, and take a harder focus on replacing plastic components with metal and/or other recyclable alternatives. If we could sequester carbon into them somehow that would be even better; but things like carbon fiber require nasty epoxies that are difficult to break down again once they need to be recycled.
When you talk about “pollution” (compared to a shipping vessel) you are only talking about greenhouse gas emissions. This is the exact fallacy that the comic is addressing.
Localised particulate matter pollution will have a much more severe and direct impact on human health. Whether widespread individual car ownership is worth the cancer and microplastic pollution in our bodies is certainly still open for debate. However, this “environmentally friendly car” that you are imagining is a pipe dream.
Humans living fulfilling, individualised lives has been happening for more than just the last century.
Cargo ships also emit a shit ton of particulate, NOx, and SO2 since they aren’t required to have the same emissions controls as on road vehicles. It’s a serious problem for both climate change and immediate health impacts.
But those cargo ships exist whether we’re also driving a bunch of cars or not. It’s just totally orthogonal.
If anything, switching to heavy EVs will increase the amount of pollution caused by cargo ships. Bringing up cargo ships makes no sense as a defense of EVs
Plus, short of putting nuclear reactors on every ship, they can only really function on oil based fuels. Nothing compares in terms of energy density. If you somehow managed to put god knows how many battery packs on a ship without it sinking, it would probably take months to charge and suck tens of megawatts from the grid whilst doing it.
Cars are one of the things that actually empowers individuals to live their individualized lives.
Only those who are able to afford to, and can safely drive a car. Cars, and especially car dependant places, suck for anyone that can’t.
But this argument basically implies that we should gut the majority of people’s benefit because of a minority’s inconvenience. Certainly we should accommodate the minority who can’t, especially if it means living a fulfilling life, but not at the expense of everyone else.
Making life easier for those who can’t or doesn’t want to drive detracts nothing from those who can. In fact it is beneficial for those who want to drive to have denser cities, and better public transport. It means safer streets, less traffic and lower insurance premiums. Yours is a false dichotomy.
You lack reading comprehension. I did not give you a false dichotomy, because a false dichotomy requires that I present to you two options, with the stipulation that you can only choose one or the other. Nowhere in my previous post did I do any such thing.
I merely reiterated what I understood your stance to be, and offered an alternative; which would be not unduly hampering other people’s experience because of a minority.
You’re so focused on being “right”, that you’ve lost sight of the actual discussion in an effort to portray my argument as some sort of argumentative fallacy. Which ironically enough, is in itself, another fallacy – called the fallacy fallacy.
You’re not arguing with the original poster. Someone definitely lacks reading comprehension skills and is irrationally fixated on proving themselves right at all times, but it ain’t me. You created a straw men and presented it at “either this or that”, false dichotomy. Again, supporting those who don’t want or can’t drive doesn’t infringe upon the rights of car owners and those who do want to drive. This is not an oppressor-oprressed dynamic. That’s classic victimization. We can help and accommodate to the needs of minorities without having to disregard the needs of the majority. At least learn your moral arguments right.
I find the language you use interesting. Those who take their living room with them to save a few minutes “benefit”, whereas those who have to breathe in the fumes and be victims of traffic violence are “inconvenienced”.
Cars are one of the things that actually empowers individuals to live their individualized lives.
So if I’m forced to live in my car or forced to use it because I would otherwise most likely be run over if I was riding a bike or the distance is too far for walking and I can’t catch public transit to my destination, am I empowered? Having a choice of how I want to get to places is empowering, not “oh I’ll guess I’ll go in my car”. I can see the argument for living in a car, but I also know that people sometimes make that choice because it is literally cheaper to buy and re-do a car so they can live in it rather than renting in some areas.
Cars are, and honestly should be treated as, a luxury good. It’s fun to drive around some routes form time-to-time, but I’d much rather bike or ride public transit to places rather than drive.
This is one of the main cores behind the anti car and fifteen minutes city concepts. I’m currently facing the choice. Should I buy a car? Because, though I currently move and live without, using a car for commute would be a net personal gain. Biking is not an option, there is no infrastructure nor protections for moving on a bicycle in my city. I have to commute 50km each way, my job is not possible to be done from home, moving closer to work is financially prohibitive. Any new job would be near the same exact geographic area. A car would reclaim almost 3 hours of my day and multiply my options for leisure 10 fold for relatively cheaper. I hate to have to face that dilemma.
If a significant amount of people live in their cars, it means that the housing market and the wages are seriously out of whack, and the government has not been doing their job for the last decades.
I know you’re being hyperbolic to try and make a point, but according to the International Maritime Organization:
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), expressed in CO2e — of total shipping (international, domestic and fishing) have increased from 977 million tonnes in 2012 to 1,076 million tonnes in 2018 (9.6% increase).
Whereas in a pdf from the EPA at the bottom of this page says passenger cars and light-duty trucks produced 1,046 million metric tons of CO2 in 2021.
So to recap, all maritime shipping in the world produced only slightly more CO2 than the passenger cars and light trucks only in the United States.
Damn, thanks for the rebuttal – Do you have any other sources that are closer to 2022? Covid REALLY did a fucking number on everything from shipping to travel, both reducing travel and increasing shipping - so I’m concerned that those numbers may be a little different in a post-covid world. Still, very enlightening facts!
I do not. The previous study of its kind from the IMO was from 2014 and looked at the years 2007-2012, so it seems to take a few years for them to be able to put all the information together.
The position of most people in this community is usually “Cars should cease to be the primary means of transportation for North Americans as soon as possible”. There are cases where cars and trucks are the only logical option, like rural communities, but in cities we should be aggressively against cars as a primary means of transportation. Nothing solves the the problems cars cause like replacing them with a train or bus or cycling
Even living in a European city with good bike and public transit options, I run into cases where a car is the only logical option.
Which is why I rent them a few times and year which basically comes down to sharing a handful of cars between a few hundred neighbours. Every single person having one or multiple cars is insanity, especially when you consider traffic conditions.
Part of the issue here is that if you own a car, it’s often cheaper to take the car than public transport, because most of the car expenses are paid independent of the immediate usage.
Car value deprecation, taxes, maintainance, all of that cost you money no matter whether you drive into town today or use some other means of transport.
I think it would be much better to put all taxes onto the fuel price. If you pay €5 for a litre of fuel, instead of the ~€1.5/l that we are currently paying, it would make more sense to take public transport some times.
I think this is the huge balancing point at which cars rely on. You saw a lot more small cars and less of these huge monster trucks roaming around North America back when gas had hit $5/gallon. Now gas is $3 but accounting for inflation, it’s probably at one of the cheapest points it’s ever been.
Even though I argue many times for cars in these posts, I long for a day when gas is $10/gallon so that these 3-5 ton behemoths aren’t on the road carrying a single person. I’m fine with this causing an artificial limitation on people to pick and choose when they use their personal transportation. Granted, we’ve also seen that this results in the economy slowing down overall as people choose to go fewer places and thus spend less money overall.
The thing is that the 1 container ship transports a hell of lot more actual cargo from one place to the other than personal cars, which are mostly used for commuting lazy buttchecks back to where they came from in the morning.
i feel like you probably didn’t realize what community you are posting in. this is the anti-car community. not the better car community, the anti-car community.
No I realized damn well what community I was posting in. That’s the great thing about intellectual discourse, is the ability to argue a cause based on its merits in order to refine an opinion or idea to its ultimate ends. Without dissenting opinions being allowed, all you do is isolate yourself into an echo chamber where your opinions are never challenged and get ever-more extreme to the point of comedic proportions. You need your ideas challenged so that you can make an educated and refined argument. Additionally, my arguments allow me to be open to correction and I can update my own opinions based on arguments made against my statements as well. I know the internet has taught many people that argument = bad, but true discourse invites other opinions that may not necessarily agree. I, in my propensity to wish for the best in humanity, am of the hopes that I can achieve that here on a platform where I assume that people are slightly more intelligent because they had the foresight to leave the previous platform which has been overrun with anti-intellectualism.
I always have felt like blaming cars, of all things, misses the bigger picture.
On the contrary, doing anything other than blaming cars misses the bigger picture that car-dependent development is what drives, directly or indirectly, almost all the pollution except for industry and agriculture:
-
The emissions of the cars themselves, of course.
-
The emissions associated with producing all the extra concrete you need to build places to store the cars, as well as wider roads to fit all the traffic. (EDIT: and longer roads, for that matter, because inserting all the space for car storage forces your destinations to be further apart!)
-
The emissions associated with restrictive low-density zoning codes forcing 90% of the population to live in single-family homes exposed to the environment on all six sides, instead of giving them the freedom to choose to live in denser housing where shared walls increase thermal efficiency.
Don’t forget that even if you have a lawn and a few trees/flowers on your single-family home backyard, that area is mostly dead to nature.
So spreading the suburbs out that much means that much more nature will be destroyed.
You even said it.
Car dependent development. There’s your actual enemy.
Susie buying a car to get to work every day because cycling is not feasible is not your enemy.
Why are you trying to rebut an argument I didn’t make?
“doing anything other than blaming cars”
“Car dependent society”.
Blame the dependent society, not the vehicle within it
-
I love the childish smug energy of this comic which simultaneously suggests merely mitigating a serious problem is inadequate and also provides no proposed solution whatsoever. If solutions which have compromise because they are rooted in reality are a problem, I suggest finding a way to live in a world of fantasy.
Your right it is a childish problem because a child could think of the solutions you seem to be unable to, instead of cars we could use trains or bicycles, or just walk. Solutions from that fantastical world you lived in before you could drive.
It is straight up delusional to believe we could just flip a switch and not have cars anymore. And I also notice you still haven’t provided an actual solution outside of “just use trains, bicycles, or walk.”
Whenever I see takes like this, I just assume they aren’t from, or maybe have never visited, America. The majority of the country was built on the assumption of travel via automobile from public transportation (or the lack thereof) to urban planning to housing. For the country to function without cars, it would require massive renovations to rebuild cities vertically, install a vast and complex rail system, and completely alter the culture of work and trade. And we can totally do this, but it will be very expensive and take a very long time, and to suggest investing in EVs in the meantime is somehow foolish because it doesn’t fully solve the problem is a bit dense. You can do both at once, not that we are, to be fair.
Fully investing in sustainable public transportation and infrastructure is something that would have to take at least a decade, even with absolute maximum commitment. So, yes, anyone who thinks that you can “just switch to trains, bicycles, or walking” is incredibly naive and absolutely fantasizing. Not suggesting it can’t be done but we have to live in reality where cost, labor, time, and public interest are factors and those make “just” doing it a bit more complex.
I didn’t say we could just flip a switch, like you said it will be a long and difficult process, but it will take even longer if we continue to focus on evs as the solution. We could do both at once with unlimited funds and will but we don’t have that, there’s opportunity cost, each dollar we spend on ev subsidies is one not going to projects that can reduce emissions by a lot more like high speed rail and electric bus infrastructure, and currently were spending hundreds of billions of public and private money on evs while almost completely ignoring the other more sustainable solutions. The sustainability movement in the u.s. has very limited funds and public will, and to spend most of that on halfway solutions is short sighted. We need to focus all the resources we can into this because like you said, even with that it would take decades and were running out of time.
I do live in America and have for almost all my life. I have traveled all around this country and know that most of it is extremely car dependent. But my reaction to that is not the problem is so big, we should just do small incremental changes, it’s the problem is so big and were running out of time, we need to do a full 180 right now if I want future generations to not live in a hellscape.
All of this is also just about sustainability, cars are bad for a myriad of other reasons, like the comic says, along with discouraging exercise and exasperating income inequality, and anything that helps people realize how bad they are and denormalizes them is a good thing.
@Tarcion @Not_mikey
Hello Tarcion
Happy to have you here joining this conversation. I completely agree that the USA will not stop driving cars overnight.
This is mostly because USA hasn’t even cottoned on the fact that cars are really bad for cities, the environment and humanity. (That’s not to say all cars and vehicles are bad, there are shades of grey, but those single occupancy short trips are really bad)
There is an amazing amount of information out there on how we get rid of cars. There are literally hundreds of YouTube channels, Podcasts and Blogs. It’s really good thought-provoking and inspiring stuff. None of them have a magic fix for Traffication (that is the name of a great book you should read), but together, they show an America, that is less car dependent is very much possible.
The very first part of this journey is to educate ourselves on this subject and share our knowledge with others. Which I hope you will do. If you want help finding information on a particular aspect of ending, Car Depdency ask me and I’ll point you in the right direction.
Cheers
LeeYhe first part of the journey is getting you to not sound like your from the 1800s.
I think everyone here, even the ones ‘fighting’ to save cars, can all agree cars are not good for the environment. It’s just some of us live in areas where the nearest store is 20 minutes away, never mind work or friends. The public transportation when running here barely gets used because the stops are still far away from where you need to go since everything is in BFE. So either you need to get sweaty walking where you need to go, or get an Uber and use a car anyway.
So, what’s your solution to that Mr. Lee?
@UrPartnerInCrime
Cool. So you do see there is a problem. That’s the important bit, and after that it’s about working for change.
The Fossil Fuels Industry has done a great job of making people feel guilty about their “CO2 Footprint” but I don’t think we should. The reason why you don’t have options is because the system the Fossil Fuels Companies have supported and encouraged for 100 Years have taken those choices away and created a situation when many lifestyles are only possible with cars.
So my advice to you is don’t worry about it, it’s not your fault you don’t have choices. Carry on as you are. If you can get a more efficient vehicle, that would be nice, but if you can’t afford one, no problem.
What you can do is support all those people, organisations, and politicians who live in cities where we can have transport choices. Vote for politicians who want transport choices. Support organisations that are fighting parking minimums, working for mass transit and bike lanes, in urban areas, where changes can be made.
We need to pick the low hanging fruit. Who knows, one day you might move to one of these places!Man, you talk in a way that makes people in your side not want to be on your side
@UrPartnerInCrime
Didn’t you like my solution?
deleted by creator
EVs may even lead to increased tire debris.
But less brake pad wear. The regenerative braking reduces a lot of the need for brake pads.
Source?
Every mechanic who’s worked on one? Everyone who’s owned one?
Well, here’s a source to counter your anecdote
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/4a4dc6ca-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/4a4dc6ca-en
Although lightweight EVs emit an estimated 11-13% less PM2.5 than ICEV equivalents, heavier weight EVs emit an estimated 3-8% more PM2.5 than ICEVs. In the absence of targeted policies to reduce non-exhaust emissions, consumer preferences for greater autonomy and larger vehicle size could therefore drive an increase in PM2.5 emissions in future years with the uptake of heavier EVs.
Thats pm2.5 in general, not specifically from break pads
Regenerative braking is basically turning the motors into a generator to recharge the battery. If you brake regeneratively, you’re not using your brake pads at all.
Many EVs can have their settings adjusted to where 90+% of braking can be just regenerative.
I wouldn’t doubt people driving EVs may even have less sustainable lifestyles in general because of their absolved guilt from driving the EV. Not that the average driver matters much when considering cargo and air traffic.
Your typical ICE car driver does not live a more sustainable lifestyle because of guilt.
Yes, your average driver creates a fraction of the emissions of the average flight.
But there are hundreds of millions of drivers in the US. Billions of car trips. And only tens of thousands of flights.
Changing the impact of one driver is small. Systemically changing the impact of tens of millions of drivers adds up.
This is actually backed by research.
I live in a city with about 2 million people. It has major sprawl and lots of guys with big trucks to compensate for little personality. The city has a brown haze floating over it that is a result of tailpipe emissions.
EVs may not be the solution to climate change, but they are helping my local area with air pollution. Well… they would if they were more popular. Every time a local buys an EV, ten more prosthetic penises are sold.
Sounds like Houston, TX.
Could just as easily be Phoenix…
I just wanna say I appreciate people here making intelligent, good faith arguments on both sides without resorting to black or white thinking or getting too aggressive/ abusive.
Fuck you, (insert insult of your choice here)!
… I agree.
EVs also help with the brake disc “dust” since a lot of the braking is “regenerative breaking” done by the electric motor and does not use the brake pads at all. They require less maintenance, and have fewer parts in them, so fewer manufacturing materials. With very few exceptions, they are also smaller vehicles with more safety features which should result in fewer pedestrian casualties.
Obviously having no vehicles at all would be even better at solving these issues, but that’s not practical for our current reality. Maybe in 100 years.
I will say that “autopilot” features should absolutely be outlawed and cause nothing but trouble to everyone.
deleted by creator
I will say that “autopilot” features should absolutely be outlawed and cause nothing but trouble to everyone
Autopilot is a pretty broad category. I like the autopilot on my car, which is nothing like elon musks self driving bullshit. It only turns on on supported highways and uses lidar instead of machine vision. All it does is maintain a following distance and follow the curve of the road. On Long drives it stops your foot and arms being fatigued and frees up a lot more mental space to look out for road hazards, it has a camera in the wheel that makes sure you have your eyes pointed at the road. I don’t see any risks for this sort of simple autopilot but it does have a lot of upside.
I’d definitely rather ride the train if it didn’t cost 200 dollars and come once a day, but until it gets better(and I’ve been writing a lot of letters to my officials) my self driving ev is the best alternative.
100 years is ambitious only if you want to remove all of the cars. There are plenty of milestones that can be attained fairly quickly :
- Smaller cars. Less energy, materials, etc. Safer for other road users (you don’t get hit on your vital organs, better vision for the driver and everyone else since pedestrians can easily see over the car).
- Less car use is available now, if we just empower the alternatives (make bike usage safe, make public transport good enough)
- No more cars in cities. Bikes + trains mostly do the job, you can rent a car if you leave the city, or park it at the outskirts.
- Even smaller cities used to be liveable without a car. This could be brought back, but that’s probably a tough hill to climb.
Which market is it that is producing smaller EVs? They’re all just regular cars turned EV, which means they’re heavier and you can’t feature-rich your way out of physics as per pedestrian safety
China
China has some great small, low and medium range electric cars. They’re not allowed to be sold in the U.S. due to protectionism, but they exist, and they’re cheap as hell compared to most EVs.
