- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I find this ignorance really frustrating that people believe purchasing an electric car is somehow environmentally neutral. People should be educated on the environmental toll of EV production, lithium mining, tire pollution etc.
Asking purely from a point of ignorance - is that not the same for ICE cars? Sourcing of battery components is a clear difference, but ICE cars also require materials to be sourced, manufactured, transported, usage input costs, drive on the same infrastructure, and also require disposal after they’re no longer operable.
Are these metrics truly that different between EV and ICE cars? If not, then all we’re really saying is that “making cars is not good for the environment” which, while accurate, seems like an insane point to use against EVs when comparing them to ICE
Yes, thats the point. EVs are still cars and have a massive individual resource and space requirement. Shifting away from car centric design would save energy and space in urban environments. Transit shares it’s life cycle with many more people than private vehicles do which spreads its larger resource and energy demand accross a signifcantly larger ridership.
I completely agree with that message, but until we get to that point there is a clear utility for EVs.
Shifting urban development to be less car-centric overall will take decades of effort, if not generations, and we can’t expect people to quit their commuter job, sell their car, and find an overlap of employment and public transport that works for the planet when there’s no social or infrastructural support for it.
In the meantime, to me at least, it makes sense to transition to EVs instead of ICE while that infrastructure is developed. It seems to me that perfect (a public transportation focused society) is becoming the enemy of good (reduced emissions for the sea of single person vehicles we currently have), or at least that is frequently my perception when every thread talking about EVs has people in the comments mentioning manufacturing costs as a hurdle, when the only plausible alternative is ICE vehicles with more environmental impact
We can’t, but we also can’t expect it to be possible to change if we don’t stop zoning in such low and sprawling densities. The more car centric infrastructure we build, the deeper the hole gets. We can build transit prioritized neighbourhoods and also encourage EV development, but the former is nearly illegal to build in much of North America.
Everyone here agrees with that sentiment or they probably wouldn’t be here. However an individual can’t just whistle up a transit system. Even in the best of cases, transit takes years or decades to develop
I live in a part of the US with decent transit, and have commuted by rail where possible. I’m a big fan of rail and advocate for it. My town is centered on a train station and is zoned for higher population density near the center, creating a nice active walkable downtown with a traditional “Main Street “, and a quick train ride to the nearby city. We do everything right, to a greater extent than most of the US, but I still need a car
Anyhow, working from home is even better for the environment than transit, I walk to restaurants and parks, and still need a car. My electrical provider only has 20% renewable energy thanks to NIMBYs , but coal is long gone so overall my EV is pretty clean, and I use it less every year
Overall I am pro electrification of cars, I just don’t like that they are pushed as some ultra green revolution. The overall energy expenditure on them is still massive. Other cities should focus on becoming more walkable and transit friendly like yours is, that way people actually have the option to travel in truly more effecient ways like walking or transit. Pushing just electricfication of cars while not addressing any of the other concerns of them like the economic and zoning costs of roads and extensive parking lots is just making an ineffecient system slightly less ineffcient.