Electric cars are to save automobile industry profits. Not the planet.
If you want to save the planet, then ride a bicycle.
Sounds great if you don’t have to commute many miles 2 times per day in an area with no public transit.
All just to keep the roof over your head
Two failures do not make a right.
The point above stands. EVs do little for the environment. Compared to sensible options like transit and biking and walking they are marginally better, but hm hardly at all.
They reduce emissions in a neighborhood, in driveways and such, and they reduce sound pollution, which is great for local creatures.
They shift power generation to more efficient platforms, rather than messy, poorly maintained gas engines.
Battery production and recycling is a major issue.
For those who cannot walk or bike, an affordable ev is a great choice
You’re just reiterating my points. Yes they are better. And for people without a choice living in car dependent he’ll holes - an improvement.
But the fact that you live in a car dependent he’ll hole is another failure of our society - and prevents you from using much better options.
We should be addressing the root cause. Not the symptom.
In functional societies, EVs are a small improvement. The noise and carcinogen pollution, land use impact and simple danger to soft street users are key damages ALL cars make to spaces occupied by people.
Finally - I am tired of “we need cars for those with impairments / to reliever things / other bullshit.” We do not. It’s just the completely broken car-dependent American perspective.
Lol, we agree more than you think, but your despising incremental progress gets you nowhere. “But it isn’t progress! It’s not going the way I want it to go!” Sorry but you’re looking down the barrel of decades worth of small changes to get to any American future you’re seeking.
America is a big place, with many differing environments, governments, and needs. They aren’t all going to “get there” in unison, or in a hurry.
In the mean time, quit shaming people trying to benefit their local system, and trying to conduct their lives in the way they see best, while keeping their gone and feeding their family.
When I see a Prius driving around I know that could have been a misused ferd f-teen thousand truck, which lives it’s life commuting and getting groceries. I’ll take the Prius.
Seems to me like having to drive many miles to maintain a job that can pay enough to maintain your fairly far afield home (assuming the home costs less because it’s not in the same geography as the office) is a failure of the system as a whole and the company for not making their office work better for their workers.
I mean, unless you have a storefront or regularly have to go to specific places as part of your job, like lawyers going to the court house, then why tf does the company pay for very expensive offices in the middle of a metro area? Put the offices where the workers can actually live near it.
I work in IT, I go to the office to stare at a PC for 8 hours. Something I can literally do anywhere, but instead of IDK, working from home or having distributed offices spaces so people don’t have to drive as far, my companies only office is in the middle of a major Metro’s downtown in a high rise office for a massive amount of money. So now I have to pay, out of my pocket and time, to drive through downtown traffic, to a parking spot that costs me far too much monthly, so I can simply be physically there to do a job that only requires a PC and an internet connection.
It’s all fucking stupid… And every company seems to do this. Nobody ever comes to our offices and there’s literally no reason for them to be where they are, or for me to be there.
… or walk?
Fewer CO2 emissions is a good goal if you are going to buy a car. Keeping it as long as possible is a better goal.
… or walk?
Both have their role. Walking is appropriate for local short trips, while bicycles allow you to cover more distance, and is in turn superseded by transit in potential distance covered, while still being a low emissions mode of transportation.
Fewer CO2 emissions is a good goal if you are going to buy a car. Keeping it as long as possible is a better goal.
If the infrastructure allows for it where you live, going car-free is an even better goal for reducing CO2-emissions, and is only one of a long list of benefits of not traveling by car.
Barring that, voting and influencing politicians that can build infrastructure enabling more car-free lives is a good step in the right direction.
Hard to carry a TV on a bicycle, or transport loads to the recycling centre, or drop my kids off at school or any one of a thousand things that occur day to day.
Our world redesigned itself with the invention of cars. Trying to exist without them is very hard for your average family, especially those who live outside cities.
If you live in a backwards place this may be so. I can do all of those things without a car.
It’s a town of 90k people. The kind of town that the vast majority of people in the UK live in.
Just out of curiosity how can you transport something large and bulky, that isn’t allowed on public transport, let’s say furniture, or the remains of a shed you dismantled or any one of a hundred inconvenient loads that occur during your life without a car?
Ever heard of cargo bikes? I just own a trailer and that bad boy can carry so much shit, I am amazed every time I use it.
Carsharing or you call a transport company. You don’t actually need to own a car.
Someone needs to own a car still.
And that someone can’t be available every day when I need to do two school runs and an office trip.
That someone can’t always be available when the sink springs a leak and I need to go buy some new washers and plumber’s mait.
I really question your life experience at this point. If you’re single, childless and living in a big city, sure, cars are very unnecessary. For most people this isn’t the case
how often do you seriously carry a tv? and believe it or not, most kids can ride a bike, or even walk!
Great, well I have a six year old that needs to get to his school which is about a mile and a half away and I need to get to work 20 mins after which is about three miles in the other direction.
I then also need to do his pickup during my lunch break.
Most people’s lives don’t work without a car because that’s not the society that car ownership created.
not sure if it hits like it did in my head
Electric cars are here to save the car industry, not the environment.
The most environmentally friendly car is the car you already have, and the most environmentally friendly (also safest, healthiest, quietest, just in general the most considerate) way to get from point A to point B is by walking, biking, bus, or train.
The only time EV saves the environment is when all of the following are met:
- your old car is completely gone,
- there is zero way to get to where you need to be without a car,
- and you have been fighting for good transport and safe bike lane all along.
The people who broke the testla are the ones who murdered the tree by putting asphalt right up to its trunk.
Or the tree trunk grew to the asphalt.
Either the asphalt shohldnt be there or a smaller tree should have been used.
Nonetheless it’s clear someone has asphalted right up to the trunk and that should have never occurred.
nature: “you should take the train instead”
The train doesn’t stop at the recycling centre. Nor does it stop at my childrens’ schools. Ditto my office, the supermarket, IKEA, the house of the person I just bought weed from.
The layout of our towns expanded with the ubiquity of cars. Services agglomerated and became situated where land was cheap rather than central.
Bikes and light mass transit have their use cases but removing cars is not feasible for the majority of households
I bought an electric car to insulate me from gas prices, because the instant torque makes them fun to drive, and because the cost of ownership is way lower than an equivalent gas car.
It had nothing to do with the environment, but if it helps, great.
Great joke!
And for the rest: yes, electric cars aren’t saving the environment. We just don’t have historical data on the effects like we do with fossil fuels. Add in trashed batteries, lithium mining, slave mining, and the shipping costs (in pollution mostly) and it’s possibly worse (just counting consumers). We really need to deal with shipping globally and major corporations effects. But I bet you already knew that.
Irony would be the car still kills the planet. I think this is technically coincidence. But I’m in no way an expert and could be entirely wrong. Just commenting to see if anyone definitively has the answer.
Edit: to be clear, I’m discussing the difference between irony and coincidence. My bad.
My understanding of the words is similar. Irony is when you expressly think something will happen, and then it doesn’t (or vice versa).
So obviously the owner was thinking “my car is definitely not going to be crushed by a tree” and thus this is actually ironic.
But that would imply every bad thing is ironic. I think it’s when you have reason to believe the exact opposite should happen. You have no reason to believe a tree will never fall. But if you’re obsessed about tree falling on car safety, you’d then have that expectation. That’s why most things in the song Ironic are actually coincidences, but a song dedicated to irony being wrong about irony is actually ironic.
Technically the city, that didn’t take of the tree, killed the car and the tree.
“If I’m going down I’m taking one of you with me!”
You buy Tesla to look cool/rich and support a POS billionaire, you buy a Nissan leaf because you care about the environment to some degree. You ride a bike to save the planet.
Nissan leaf is a piece of shit
Yup. People driving an “uncool” car because of their priorities. Though yes, there are other, better EVs.
A Leaf has no long driving capability. It uses a charging standard that is dead. On top of that, it doesn’t have a long range at all.
That’s why it’s shit, not because of it being “uncool”
You’ll notice I never said the Leaf was a good car.
Agree wholeheartedly, but that is one strong roof. Any other car a tree that size would have cut the car in half
It’s clearly resting on something (the building on the other side of the street) by how it’s positioned. I think you’d be greatly challenged to find a tree that comes to rest naturally like that where there wasn’t something holding the other end up.
It’s on the building on the other side…
Ah, had to double take. You are correct
