The conservatives where I live shit blood absolutely any time any changes are made to roads to make them even slightly more pedestrian and bus/bike friendly. Preventing accidents/deaths and generally having a more usable, inviting environment for anyone that isn’t a car is unacceptable if it adds even a second to their commute. Go live on the fucking highway if you like it so much.
It’s funny because adding more non-car options tends to make using a car more pleasant. But conservatives aren’t known for being smart, correct, or good at long term thinking.
Yeah. My city changed a one way street that runs 30 blocks headed away from downtown from a two lane multiple stop sign traffic hazard to a single lane with plenty of parking, a bike lane, turn lanes for busy intersections, and highly visible intersections with proper pedestrian connections. Traffic would get backed up before, but now it goes pretty much straight through at the same time of day with barely any sloowing down. Sure, all the cars are in the same lane, but prevoiusly they were just spread out between two lanes and slowing down way more often to merge and turn more slowly.
Haven’t heard of any new plans to do the same with comparable streets despite being a roaring success. People look at a single lane and don’t understand it can be faster for everyone than two when done right.
That’s funny, Lead and Coal avenues in Albuquerque, NM had the same thing done to them, being made into one ways after being clogged two ways. It’s wild how much of civil engineering has to do with rate flow.
This was a two lane one way street that was reduced to one lane plus parking and turn lanes.
Ah my bad!
Every car commerical shows the fantasy of being the only car on the road.
It’s so ludicrous. and consistent that when you know to look for it, it’s actually hilarious.
People do not like traffic. They already hate most cars, cause they’re only driving one.
Perfect! 👌
Oh definitely. The fewer cars there are on the road the nicer it is for me to drive. Make public transport better for everyone, reduce traffic!
To be fair, I do not drive a lot in any particularly dense cities. Mostly countryside and for my main route, I use a shortcut that takes me off the boring highway, onto a curvy road that surprisingly few people use. I’m living the car commercials! Also I mean public transport for this particular route is nonexistent (one bus a day each way and they’re hella uncomfortable). If public transport was better for my use cases and if I wasn’t constantly lugging around a bunch of stuff, I’d sell my car and get a motorcycle to use on the weekends in the summer.
They have been brainwashed by car and oil companies.
That doesn’t excuse their ignorance, but it does highlight that the public information component will be very expensive to fix.
It’s not that. My theory is that its a brain chemistry thing.
Many drivers don’t do any form of exercise at all, and don’t do anything exillerating ever. The only time they experience any kind of movement faster than a shuffle is driving. It’s the most exciting and engaging thing they will do all year.
With this in mind, there’s kind of an imperative to zoom around as fast as possible without encountering adverse stimuli like a fine.
Yeah this. It’s kinda wacky how serious they are about it.
Controversial take (for this community): Electric personal vehicles were the catalyst for the electrification of commercial vehicles. So while it doesn’t address the problem of car-centric infrastructure, EVs have had a net positive impact on the environment by converting fleet vehicles to less polluting options as well as taking diesel trucks off the road.
Plus, even if you reduce the number of cars by 50% you still need to replace the other 50% on the road so the EV industry needs to grow
Kind of, right? That depends on a great many assumptions, and if you adjust them slightly, you get a different result. For example, if the U.S. were to switch from SUVs to small sedans and hatchbacks, the CO2 savings take many more years to obtain.
In other words, OK sure go EV, but the main targets should be what they always were: drive less, and drive small cars. Oh, and don’t be fooled into thinking EVs solve a problem when they don’t.
Well, they solve the pollution problem in built-up areas and they solve the CO2 problem if you increase solar and wind power. The one thing they don’t solve is the congestion problem.
The congestion problem, the microparticles from tires problem, most of the noise problem, the physical safety for pedestrians and cyclists problem…
Of all the problems with cars in cities, EVs solve one of them (air polution from burning fuels) and that only if the makeup of the generation infrastructure for the electric grid is mainly renewables or nuclear.
The CO2 problem is a pretty big problem to solve, to be fair. I charge my EV at night when the ejection is really cheap because it’s nearly all wind power.
I totally agree with you.
And what’s even sillier is that examining the facts, Electric cars are better than ice cars anyway.
This philosophy take that op posted about evs being a “rich person’s” green solution is a commentary on the general wealth required to own and maintain any car, not anything about ev technology itself.
It is verifiably true that even though cobalt mining and lithium mining are riddled with ethics issues, pollution issues, etc. The battery powered cars that those metals go into are still a net positive on the environment by year 4 or 5 of ownership. We should push for evs to use better battery chemistry but it’s not productive to try and shit on evs when battery research really hasn’t been a huge focus until recently and there is a ton of benefits.
ev cars were invented right around 1900. Imagine if we were focusing on the development of better batteries with cleaner chemistry, better power density, cheaper costs, etc for 100 years…we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And evs are better for cost of ownership for the end user. You didn’t costume brakes nearly as fast, dollar per mile costs for energy (gas or kws) are much cheaper in a lot of places for evs (I know California is expensive for energy, I’m speaking generally), no oil changes, no break downs due to drive train…evs just work until they need tires or a new drive battery in 12+ years.
This argument I’m presenting is purely for the case of EV car vs ICE car. Public transport should also be electrified once the power infrastructure is there. That’s the real problem.
The best 2 reasons not to get an ev over a regular car(especially since they are so cheap second hand right now) are 1. long trips being a headache and 2. Your electricity cost is really high.
If you live somewhere where electric is cheap and you need a commuter car an ev is so nice.
A two hour commute in an electric car is still two hours in crushing, soul destroying traffic. People ask me why I take a train and a freeway bus for my two days on campus, and I ask them why not? My drive is three minutes from my house to the train.
But in suburban Southern California, public transit is “for freaks and losers.” That was deliberate marketing.
It just sucks if 10 minutes by car/a little more by bike become 45 minutes by public transit, once an hour until 8pm.
thats a little overexaggerating, at most its takes twice as long depending on which bus and route you are taking.
I stopped taking the bus when my city decided to reduce the transit time on all routes. The reduced my transit time from 20 minutes to 45, including the 20 minutes waiting outside for a transfer.
It’s a 25 minute bike ride or 12 minute drive on average.
same for norcal, around bayarea, constantly getting the nagging, why arent you driving instead of taking the bus.
Nice. A flase dichotomy so the right can cut EV subsidies as well as not spending on public transport.
A flase dichotomy
It’s illustrative of our national economic strategy. Which is to subsidize private consumer manufacturing rather than to directly invest in higher quality infrastructure.
This isn’t a false dichotomy, its a deliberate strategy of Patriarchal Libertarianism (which has mutated into full throated corporate fascism).
Don’t disagree but in China you can get a new EV for less than 10k AND get the train.
It’s a magical place
That’s a problem, but small/micro particles aren’t the only metric. The gases released by exhaust are also a real problem for people that walk nearby cars, and they’re in a big quantity in certain cars.
But yea, balancing all of this is complicated.
Does having heavier electric cars with no exhaust but more tire usage (because heavier cars) so more particles in the air beneficial? I don’t believe we have serious studies about this, but it could change the meta.
Hear me out here, less cars regardless of their enegry source will reduce both exhaust and microplastics. We don’t have to trade one for the other when we can build alternatives that don’t produce either.
Yea, sure, but cars are still needed in many areas outside of cities
In rural areas or in small villages, it’s basically the only real good option, or for someone in a city to reach those areas in a timely manner
I do believe that public transport should be way more developed in cities, to the point where it becomes more worth it to go by public transport than in a car (ex: Paris)
And alternatives will always cause some sort of pollution. Way way less, but not zero.
Those areas don’t have nearly as high a concentration of these pollutants as a busy, 6 lane road the center of the city. Thats where improving air quality can matter the most, especially because that road is likely to have more pedestrians breathing the pollutants than a rural road.
And on this I agree. But I still think for the air we breathe, the old polluting cars should go. I’d love a future where public transportation is way more developed and used, and the only remaining cars are electric or at least efficient (bye bye diesel)
When I have a full disk and have no storage space left. I open a program and see a visual representation of the largest files taking space. I clear them out first because its easy and quick.
For some reason, when we have too much CO2 going into the atmosphere, we see the visual representation of who is polluting the most, and take care of the smallest, little fragmented space. We don’t select the larger chunks like industry, aviation, marine transport, we pick each individual car and press delete.
Look, cars have to change and Americans will have to be dragged kicking and screaming but It kind of pains me when someone looks at an old car someone is driving, using it way past its intended lifetime, and tells them they are the problem. While being perfectly fine taking an airplane twice yearly and ordering shit from china, shit they will forget they ordered before it actually arrives…
That because the big files right now are the OS. Just deleting system32 isn’t a good idea, but moving to a more efficient system is difficult. So we do the easy thing and delete old PDFs, and maybe some old games. But the system needs to be changed, and the sooner the better.
I get it. Is there really no bigger fish to fry? Cars are the only ting? I mean, yeah, we’ve put laws or goals in place to replace them slowly and thats good. Better we start the process as soon as possible. Are we doing the same for the bigger fish too?
The thing is that cars are deeply intertwined with other sources of emissions that are much bigger than them, and realistically those other sources can’t be practically dealt with while cars are so prevalent, or at least, dealing with them are much easier in a less car dependent society.
Consider something like oil fractions, when oil is refined you get gasoline, but also fuel oil, diesel, kerosene, bitumen, and others. The production of any one of those is buoyed by the production of the rest, and you can’t do much to control the ratios you’re getting. As long as gas demand is high, all the others will be produced as well, and if they are produced, people will find a use to burn them. Airlines become more fuel efficient or decrease traffic; Previously cost prohibitive uses for kerosene become viable as the price drops due to a consistent supply and a reduced demand from high value airline consumers.
For a serious reduction in oil use, every element of it needs to be reduced in tandem so that the value of no one fraction can keep production high.
We don’t select the larger chunks like industry, aviation, marine transport, we pick each individual car and press delete.
In fairness…
The nuclear powered cargo ship is already here.
And as China is the premier builder of trans-Pacific cargo ships (1,500 to 1,700 ships per year, which is more than the US has built in the last ten) this is technically getting addressed.
Also, incidentally, the premier electric car manufacturers are almost entirely East Asian. The only functional airplane manufacturer is French. Heavy industry in the US is on the verge of total collapse (outside AI and Bitcoin mining).
The US plan to cut emissions is basically just Degrowth.
I agree. My boyfriend and I were forced to buy a car some years ago because public transport in our area kept cutting budgets to the point that he would have to get up at 3.30-ish in the morning in order to get to work at 8.
We were avid users of public transport for our whole lives and wanted to support it until we were no longer given a choice, but to cave. If I have to go somewhere nowadays, he drives me because of how shit public transport has become in our country. It is genuinely pathetic. He made this decision on both of our behalf after a longer train ride of mine ended in me being stuck on a train station an hour away from home at 2 in the morning, having to wait for the next train home at 4.30. He jumped in the car and came and got me and that was one of the last times I used public transport. Really sucks when you want to support it, but it doesn’t want to support you.
Tax rebates for massive luxury electric SUVs but you’re on your own if you want to buy an e-bike worth less than the total tax rebate for an EV. Most places won’t even build infrastructure for anything other than cars. My city has roads with no sidewalks that go straight to downtown and some newly built suicide bike gutters along a major stroad.
Some states have programs, I know Cali has a program for ebikes https://www.ebikeincentives.org/
Though I will admit most of Cali is not bikeable (at least socal imo, norcal is better)
Here’s a list from what I could find online on it. https://tstebike.com/blogs/new/unlock-savings-2025-u-s-state-e-bike-tax-credits-and-rebates
As long as a majority of Americans live in suburban areas, car dependency will continue.
If suburbs were developed to be people-centric, you really wouldn’t need a car for 99% of your daily tasks. Most trips by car are very short, and can very easily be replaced by non-car modes of transportation.
The argument I usually hear from car-brains is that we have to pRoTeCt RuRaL cAr DrIvErs.
Unless you’re transporting anything of a decent size which most people do frequently.
Define “decent size” and define “frequently”.
It’s incredibly rare to see pickup trucks in the suburbs or city hauling stuff. Sure, there’s that one guy who collects metal scraps once a week, but that’s about it. He’s using his truck to make a living, not to take his kid to school up the road.
Heavier or more awkward than you can comfortably carry. Weekly/monthly food shop, furniture, weekend getaways, etc.
Weekly/monthly food shop, furniture, weekend getaways, etc.
Food shopping doesn’t require a large truck, or even a car.
I’ve carried 120lbs worth of groceries on an old bike + a lightweight trailer. It’s easy to haul stuff on a regular bike, and if hauling large loads is something that you’d often do, a cargo bike makes a lot more sense than a car.
These days, since I don’t support Walmart anymore, I can walk to my local grocery store a few times a week with a handcart, and get all the groceries I could need (even pulling 60lbs+ with a handcart is easy). I can also get exercise and connect with other humans at the same time! It’s a better way of doing it.
Furniture? How often? Most people get stuff like that delivered for free, or might rent a small van for the odd time they want to pick up themselves.
Weekend getaway is understandable. I don’t know anyone who goes on them every weekend. Maybe on a holiday weekend, but even then, owning a car for the odd getaway seems… wasteful.
The majority of people would still benefit from people-centric infrastructure, and an even greater number of people don’t need anything bigger than a small car (if that).
And I say that acknowledging that North American cities aren’t even designed with people in mind, so imagine how useless cars would be if they weren’t the priority?
Are you single? Food shop with a family is not feasible with the weather and roads here. Vegan too so a lot bulkier. Tins, bottles of juice, fruit and veg, dog food, etc. it barely fits in the car.
Move furniture about all the time, last week I took my garden furniture to my SILs for a party she is having.
Away doing something most weekends yes, kids demand it. Can’t exactly put the pram on a bike either so even with great public transport the weather makes doing anything without shelter unpractical.
Are you single?
No. And before kids moved out I was shopping for four adults + extra for when the grandkids stayed over.
Food shop with a family is not feasible with the weather and roads here.
Even though the option to have groceries delivered is available, I get groceries by bike or on foot all year round. In Canada. We get snow and sub-zero temperatures.
Vegan too so a lot bulkier. Tins, bottles of juice, fruit and veg, dog food, etc. it barely fits in the car.
Yes, also vegan. 25 years, now 🤩 I get it, we buy large bags of flour, rice, dry beans, and other bulky ingredients on a regular basis.
At peak-pet, we had five adult cats and two large dogs. At that time, I’ll admit that ordering pet food online with free delivery was just what we did.
Grocery shopping does require planning if you’re going infrequently.
Being in the suburbs or city, most people would have access to at least a few grocery stores within a 20 minute bike ride.
Move furniture about all the time, last week I took my garden furniture to my SILs for a party she is having.
If all the time, then you are able to justify having a larger vehicle. Most people, including most SUV owners, are not moving furniture all the time.
Away doing something most weekends yes, kids demand it. Can’t exactly put the pram on a bike either so even with great public transport the weather makes doing anything without shelter unpractical.
When we had the grandkids over, I was using a child trailer (for two) and using panniers for the groceries.
Since all grocery stores since Covid offer curbside pickup, it was much easier than you’d think.
And I don’t have a cargo bike, which would make things even easier.
My point is that a people-centric city plan would remove barriers for mostly everyone. Even within a car-centric framework, it’s totally possible to avoid using a car for most trips.
I wouldn’t have believed it until I tried.
Your experience basically flies in the face of how millions around the world live all the time without cars or needing them that much.
Maybe your particular situation, who knows, but yeah.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Unless you’re moving furniture or have a physical disability it’s not really an issue. It’s also easy to use Uber/Lyft/etc and book a large vehicle on the occasions you do actually need it.
I guess if you’re buying a ton of pet food/litter or drinks regularly it could be a pain, but if an area is actually designed well you won’t be carrying it very long. And if you plan ahead and have one of those little luggage/shopping carts you don’t have to carry it at all.
Source: have lived for the past 15+ years without a car.
The juice and alcohol would barely fit in the carts
Move furniture frequently, do have a physical disability, pets, kids. Not feasible without a car. Using taxis all the time would be a fortune and kinda defeats the purpose, no?
A cargo bike would probably be better for you, then, or just a cargo attachment to a bike. E-bikes are strong enough for hauling and getting around that I see a parent and 1-2 kids being hauled around by them all the time, and I doubt your groceries outweigh that.
If you haul furniture for work or are constantly doing free deliveries for friends or something then yeah, you’re going to need transport that accommodates that. But that’s an edge case and doesn’t really negate the societal need for communities to be built around human beings and not cars. If you lived where I do you would be eligible for door to door service from the disabled transit to take you to and from the grocery store. There’s not a reason for you or anyone else to need to spend (tens of) thousands of dollars on a car, insurance, gas, and maintenance to access food or your job when we could just be doing mass transit and improving pedestrian/cyclist access.
I wasn’t arguing against building communities to be built around human beings, I’m saying they aren’t so it’s infeasible.
I’ve never seen anyone with kids on bikes here because it’d be miserable. Narrow roads, parked traffic, and no safe routes from A->B for most things. No bike routes, can’t go on the motorway, backroads are a death sentence. Looking at a cargo bike - never seen one IRL - that would fit a small weekly shop. Then you have the kids and all their stuff. God forbid we want to take the dog also.
There’s no need to spend on a car. There’s a shop for essentials within walking distance like there is anywhere I’ve lived in the UK, you could just not visit people who live further than walking distance from you, rely on other people to drop off things for you. Spend a lot more time commuting doing smaller trips to avoid being overloaded, spend more in the expensive local shops. Order a delivery from ASDA instead of driving around the zero waste shops, local co-ops, etc. Just a lot less practical and more restrictive. Not really edge cases, people use their cars to transport stuff regularly. New homes take time to build up, new family members, refurbishments, events, etc. If you don’t drive then someone else is doing it for you or you’re just doing less.
It would be miserable to bike with kids where you are right now because of who your local government decided public space belongs to and how they should get to use it (ie, people in cars and they should use it by driving around). It doesn’t have to be that way and it’s absolutely possible to live perfectly happily without a car when communities choose to prioritize public space being for things other than cars.
That’s not even true. E-bikes solve the low density suburb problem. You just need to actually build out appropriate bike lanes and trails. Suburban neighborhoods aren’t unfixable.
Many millions of Americans spend at least an hour commuting to and from work every day. I don’t think they’re going to want to do that on an e-bike.
Your vision is too small. What do you think the biggest problem is for deploying transit to suburbs? The last mile problem. You can have a train to the suburbs, but people still then need to drive from the train station to their home. With an e-bike, that solves this problem.
Sure, you can cite some hypermiler that commutes 2 hours across rural land between cities, but now you’re just masturbating to edge cases, the equivalent of someone that justifies buying a giant truck because they move a couch once a year.
E-bikes solve the last mile problem of transit. Look at how trains and bikes actually work in countries like the Netherlands. People tend to bike to the train station, ride the train, then take a bike to their destination. With an e-bike, your train stops only needs to be within a couple of miles of both your start and destination. E-bikes make solve the problem of the incompatibility of low-density suburbs and transit.
How am I going to bring home groceries for my family of 4 on an E-Bike?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_bike
You get an electric cargo bike. The idea only sounds terrifying, no? But that’s because you’re imagining riding the thing with your kids through car traffic. If you have the infrastructure to make it practical to run errands with vehicles like this, without sharing paths with cars? Just other vehicles of similar size and speed? Suddenly it’s much more sensible.
I do groceries for 2 people once a week with a bus and my legs. With an e-bike and a cargo trailer it would be trivial.
I used to do something like what you’re describing. I would drive my car to a light rail station then take the train into the city to work. I suppose what you’re talking about is just replacing the car with an e-bike. That’s fine, but I don’t see a huge difference in this scenario between an e-bike and an electric car, especially since I wasn’t just driving to the light rail station, I was also driving to the grocery store and to restaurants and to the houses of friends and family, etc.
Now, if I had lived in the city nearer to my work, and to stores, and restaurants, and shops, etc, an e-bike would have made a lot more sense.
Most people in suburbia have a stores within a reasonable e-bike distance of them. And yes, there isn’t a ton of difference between the e-bike and an electric car in that context. Which is the entire point! The difference is that one costs a minimum of $30k, while the other can be had for less than $1k. And for the resources to build one electric car, we can build dozens of e-bikes.
The difference is that one costs a minimum of $30k, while the other can be had for less than $1k.
That’s true, yet I still think many people will opt to spend the additional money for a car. They’re covered and climate controlled, and they offer more passenger and cargo capacity. In the Netherlands, which you mentioned as an example of a country with high e-bike adoption, there are still millions of cars. I’m sure there are fewer cars than there otherwise would have been, but cars are still very much in the transportation mix. Not a bad thing, necessarily. I definitely think it has reduced car dependency - cars are no longer as much of a necessity - but cars are not eliminated.
No, they are unfixable. Suburban infrastructure costs far more to maintain than the tax and fee revenues it generates.
As long as new housing is built in suburbs due to zoning, people will continue to live there.
All of the housing in my city that is near downtown or near business districts is either abandoned, run down, or gets converted into businesses.
Even if every car on the road was electric, the world will still become an ash pile in 50 years.
It’s more blaming the people for the problems of the rich, who will never be seriously regulated. It’s easier to blame all of us.
I often wonder how the emissions generated by producing and shipping a new electric vehicle compare to just keeping your old ICE vehicle until it rusts to pieces. Like how long does it take to break even from that?
It depends how quickly you put on miles (and which study you base the calculation on). For most EVs, they break even with the emissions of an ICE car at about 15k miles. By 200k, the EV emitted 52% less emissions compared to the average car.
If the electric grid is powered by more renewables in the future, that would jump to 78% less emissions at 200k.
A very long time. On the order of multiple decades, IIRC. Realistically, keeping an old ICE vehicle in proper running order beats the carbon footprint of purchasing a new EV.
My daily driver is a '98, I keep it running without codes in efficient closed loop and keep up on all the maintenance.
Now, the classic Ranger to electric conversion I want to do, not sure what the footprint is.
A very long time. On the order of multiple decades, IIRC
Not true. It also very much depends on where your power comes from (coal/sun).
Skimmed that article. If I’m reading it right, it’s 100k miles for a NEW EV to match the carbon footprint of a NEW ICE. That larger footprint is due to the batteries and rare earth/copper.
I.E. this doesn’t account for the carbon footprint of making a entirely new car vs keeping an old one running well.
I.E. this doesn’t account for the carbon footprint of making a entirely new car vs keeping an old one running well.
Any car’s carbon footprint is very much about the fuel, that will be much greater impact than the production of the vehicle itself. That’s why coal powered electricity is around the same as fossil fuels. Look at the graphs in the article.
I don’t think you understand the scale of the carbon footprint of manufacturing a new car. The footprint of all those raw materials. The majority of the materials are virgin and not recycled for new cars.
I’ll look again if you say it’s there, but that article is comparing the costs of new EV to new ICE. It does not show new EV to used ICE.
When talking about individual carbon footprints vs industrial footprints you get some counterintuitive effects. Recylcing often has a larger footprint than virgin and costs more, most corporations only pay lip service to recycling as it is more expensive. That being said, even with virgin materials, the footprint of manufacturing dwarfs the fuel usage footprint for decades when talking about vehicles. Especially if the vehicle is relatively efficient and the annual mileage is low.
Think about it this way, with a large margin of error, you can directly covert the cost of a new vehicle into carbon. Say $30k of carbon. Every step of the process from mining the ore to make the alloy to the carbon produced by workers driving to work. How many years does it take to burn $30k of carbon in fuel?
The person that purchases a new EV every few years has a larger footprint than the person that drives the same old ICE the entire time. The footprint disparity is also increased the lower the ICE driver’s milage.
The article does compare two new cars, but it’s not hard to see that if your ICE don’t have a start “price” (your well maintained ICE), then the EV will have to drive two years on hydro based power, about three years if it’s mixed power (green + fossil), and 13-15 years if pure coal power.
The success of EV (lower carbon emissions) highly spends on green power.
this doesn’t account for the carbon footprint of making a entirely new car vs keeping an old one running well.
Part of the problem is deliberate Planned Obselecence as an industrial manufacturing strategy. Cars - particularly American cars - begin to fail after ten to fifteen years. Finding parts becomes more difficult over time, finding skilled mechanics even more so, and risks of accident (particularly on highways with speeds exceeding 55mph) lead to cars getting totaled before they’ve been fully exhausted.
I’ll spot you that simply yanking new ICE cars off the road and replacing them with electrics is wasteful. But when you’re talking about a ten year old vehicle, the math for those next ten years gets fuzzier as the risks inherent in ownership rise.
Incidentally, this is why mass transit improvements are an overall better play. Swapping old cars for new is never going to be as efficient as swapping cars for buses and trains, which are maintained as a fleet rather than as an oddball assortment of flavor-of-the-month private vehicles.
No doubt. Most people don’t have the skill or desire to keep 27 year old vehicles running at good efficiency. It’s also common to start adding performance parts or disabling the emissions tech, which is even worse.
I’m on my fourth vehicle lifetime, including the one I lost in a flood. Been drving for over three decades. Figure that I’m actually pretty far down on emissions as so much pollution is tied to the original manufacturing.
There’s that whole reduce and reuse thing everyone forgets about and jumps right to recycle.
The proper comparison here is replacing used ICE with used EV. As battery tech and manufacturers get better, new ICE should have a heavy tax that disincentivises private purchase and ultimately bans them except for edge cases. Keep a collector class with a small maximum mileage and other restrictions.
Those figures also assume all virgin materials for batteries. The reality is that as more batteries are built, they will reach a critical point where battery recycling is a major source of elements for new batteries. We’re only just now coming to that point where there are 10+ year old EVs out there that have batteries that need to be recycled.
Also those studies all look at the super inefficient 3rd world exploitation of minerals and labor to get lithium. There are new techniques being developed out in the Salton Sea (desert in southern california) that extract lithium from ground water pumped in a closed loop. The expectation is that production technique alone will be enough for the entirety of the next few decades of American need. And that’s a far, far more efficient technique.
No doubt. I’m not anti electric vehicle or anything. Common sense says mass transit, robotic taxis/communal cars with low private ownership and all of it electric would be the ideal end goal.
You can easily make the argument that you should buy used electric when your current vehicle repair cost is beyond the value of it.
Thanks for the source.
I agree on mass transit. Highly recommend Adam Something’s youtube video on why self driving cars will increase traffic and waste. Its not a solution for cities large or small. Rural communities may see benefits but they pose weirder problems.
Because at least in the US the airline and car industries hand shake to stop commuter trains.
The west coast regions also have an additional problem where the slopes will need massive amounts of tunnels for high speed rail and are complicated by a lot active geologic zones. So while its the best solution (trains) its expensive but Japan managed to do it. Its not going to be cheap or quick to build the needed infrastructure. Add in most people are heavily invested in car infrastructure when they buy a car. So there’s a public will barrier here built out of billions of garages, cars, and driveways sold.
People also pose “flying cars” etc as a solution. Piloting air vehicles requires air traffic controllers and communicating on an extreme level in addition to pilot licenses and security problems. Its not also not a serious answer to transportation.
Also for flying cars, when a non-flying car breaks down suddenly, it can be a dangerous situation but you just need to avoid hitting anything until your momentum is lost and generally have options (brakes might lose power assist but could work, if they don’t there’s still emergency brakes, and if those also fail, there’s engine braking if you have transmission control, or steering back and fourth to lose momentum via turning friction, and once you’re going slow enough, even colliding with something stationary can help).
With flying cars, maybe it can glide, assuming it even works like that and isn’t more of a helicopter or just using some kind of thrusters. Plus, if you’re falling to your death anyways, you might not have the presence of mind to try to optimize what you do hit with what control you do have to minimize damage to others. Hell, the safety feature might even be ejecting and leaving it to fall wherever, while hoping none of the other flying cars hit you or your parachute, or fly close enough to mess with the airflow in a way where the parachute might fail.
And that’s not even going into how much more energy it takes to fly vs roll.
Flying cars don’t make practical sense. And where they do, we already have helicopters.
mass transit enables the individual to travel far and wide at low cost
public transit provides autonomy to the individual to travel without the liability of owning and operating a half-ton missile just to get around
thanks, henry. your horrible ideas still echo throughout history to this day. elon’s taking notes.
Electric cars are not a “green solution”. Because of all the associated costs to produce and maintain them:
The battery requires rare minerals that are to be mined elsewhere (Africa, China, south america…), in abject conditions.
The host country needs to deploy charging stations, plugged to the grid, which has a high cost in copper, contributing to point above.
The internal wiring of the car also increase the cost, contributing also to the first point.
And what to do of all the defective/old batteries ?
