• 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    4 months ago

    This shit actually hurts my soul. This is the type of shit as to why we might not make it. We have the technology to mitigate climate change yet we don’t because those in power don’t want to see their power decrease. It’s a serious reason why we might not make it. How do we even begin to take direct action? I really have no clue, this entire planet, life as we know it, is entirely fucked if we don’t do something soon. The US government gave billions to implement charging infrastructure and the corps did jack SHIT with it, the government has become the corps fuck pig, bent over dishing out money while getting fucked.

    • set_secret@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Might not make it? Sorry man we’re literally looking down the barrel of end times.

      Human greed can only be stopped when the earth has nothing left to give.

      This is the reality we all exist in and 99% of us are powerless to change it, unless we all collectively agree to (spoiler we’re not gunna).

      • 3volver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nah, we’re not powerless, and we don’t all have to collectively agree. We have so many technologies that have been developed over the past several decades that can help solve this problem. Change is constant, this kind of shit is just another bump in the road.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          this kind of shit is just another bump in the road.

          I assume you are younger.

          I am in my 50s. The risk of this shit was known and tought to children in schools in the 1980s.

          Yet at every level. Things have gotten worse. We had solar in the 80s. Less efficient but only about 15% rather then the 20% we see now. But tax payer money in all western democracy. Was still funding oil research not batts wind or solar.

          Cars became bigger and less efficient as we watched. GM was known to have destroyed its own ev production pack in the 90s.

          Nothing at all was invested in building inferstructure to support other fuel types. Again dispite huge public investment in oil.

          And at every 0ossible point. What little that was done was aimed at indeviduals who have the least control. While corperations were allowed to keep expanding there use. Without facing any of the costs for replacement.

          Its a bump. But a 40plus year bump built intentionally to slow and limit changes in the way wealth is made.

          With so much false science and outright lies from corperations its insane.

          Exxon the plastics industry and many other. Behaived much worse the the cigarette industry did before them. And have not had to pay anything for there intentional and informed damage to billions of lives. Where as at least in nations with real health care options. Tobbaco companies have lost lawsuits and paid a fortune since discovery.

    • Vivendi@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      EVs are garbage anyways. The only way to actually save anything is to migrate most of the commonly occurring transportation to public electric systems like trains.

      EVs are made in a non sustainable manner by raping the earth for the last scraps of rare earth materials, they’re hardly the answer

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Certainly correct, we still need a path to direct action and it needs to be everywhere.

        • daemoz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          4 months ago

          Technology isn’t going to save humanity. Greatly reducing population size by limiting reproduction is the only chance for a long future for humans. Thats the most direct path, but also at odds with all of our forms of government and economics. China couldt afford to keep doing it and they understand this. Its the same with the earths ecology. We would need a massive enlightening and there are far too many material and lifestyle choices and campaigns to sway people away from our staus quo. Humanity is doomed by human greed and jealousy, it always was. But thats fine, once you come to terms with it, and if you caught it before having kids, its a pretty freeing understanding.

            • daemoz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              you are wrong, nowhere am I advocating for anything. I’m saying human overpopulation will lead to our doom. This response is why I don’t really care about sustainability anymore. I’m not having kids, feel free to keep your head buried in the sand. Asshat

    • LappingDog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Is there a number on the break even point where it’s better for the environment to buy a new EV than to keep driving an old ICE vehicle? I bike most days when I don’t need to buy more than a backpack of groceries or go more than 3 miles. Surely when you consider the carbon cost of refining materials and constructing a whole new vehicle, it doesn’t make sense in most situations for people who drive less than 30 minutes a day on average. This is of course assuming you have a current vehicle, new vehicles should have to be hybrid/EV in the modern era.

    • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      bro we’re so far past this lol

      it’s been too late for probably a decade now, get ready to starve cuz there’s only a couple years left

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      4 months ago

      I am constantly baffled how refusing to futute-proof the company meets the definition of “fiduciary responsibility”.

      “Let’s spike today’s profits by destroying tomorrow’s profits” doesn’t seem very responsible to me.

      • Jambalaya@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s because it’s a prisoners dillema. If they do it and other companies don’t, they are at a disadvantage. The only way to get proper behavior is to have the government force companies to behave.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The desires of private shareholders, which have exclusively become “give me more NOW!” are wholly incompatible with the long term needs of our species, such as homeostasis with our sole shared COMMUNal habitat. The private shareholders that dictate how our economy runs through their captured governments literally only care as far out as their next quarterly earnings/ego score report, the planet can explode beyond that as far as they’re concerned, and my pet theory is that the wealth class is so egotistical, living like Pharoahs as others suffer and still needing mooaaaaaaar, that they kind of want the world to end after they’re gone, as they were the only point of it ever existing from their perspective.

        Our species only pays lip service to the second, because many to most of us have been successfully propagandized to believe in the lie that we may one day be in the irresponsible sociopath hoarder con-man class, whether through lottery or not buying lattes, lol. And heaven forbid we kneecap the gluttonous, destructive lifestyle we delude ourselves we’ll one day have with… barf… responsibilities towards the societies that facilitated such unethical levels of antisocial wealth hoarding to begin with. Punching down looks fun amirite?

        Basically the self-inflicted doom of our species that we’re sleep walking towards can be boiled down to this meme:

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        the same reason that you’re better off taking the lump sum vs the 30 year pay out if you win the lottery.

        money today that i can use today is worth more than money tomorrow.

        and money today that i invest now, will be worth a lot more than money tomorrow that i can’t invest and get interest on

        it’s not responsible in terms of my company lasting a long time… but it’s responsible in terms of profit.

        • shikitohno@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          the same reason that you’re better off taking the lump sum vs the 30 year pay out if you win the lottery.

          money today that i can use today is worth more than money tomorrow.

          You might be theoretically better off in an ideal outcome, but I’m pretty sure taking the 30 year payout is the generally recommended option. If I were to win the Mega Millions at the current level, I would need to make investments that paid $96,244,081 over 30 years just to equal the tax savings of taking the annuity versus the lump sum payment. That works out to a 3.1% return on the initial lump sum, every year, 30 years straight. Granted, this isn’t exactly impossible, but it does require a few caveats. For example, this assumes you don’t actually spend any of that money, investing 100% of it and never having a bad year. Of course, the average lotto winner is not exactly known for their great ability to invest their money. Meanwhile, there’s nothing preventing the person taking the 30-year annuity from investing a portion of their annual payouts, which are guaranteed, while returns on investments are explicitly not guaranteed.

          A guaranteed $96,244,081 return is a better investment than a possible $200,000,000 that’s continent on absolutely nothing going wrong for the next 30 years, but the sort of people who run companies seem to forget about this these days.

          • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            money now is worth more than money later.

            because of inflation, and also because i can use it now. money i am getting in 30 years is no good to me now.

            this isn’t that hard of a concept.

            • shikitohno@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              When your justification is an uncertain investment, it isn’t that hard of a concept to realize you’re wrong. You’re literally the only person I’ve ever seen advocating for the lump sum payment as the financialyl sound move when it quite nearly halves 100% sure income.

              Inflation is also much less of a concern when you’re talking about literal millions of dollars, unless you’re talking about the Zimbabwe national lotto. If you’re living in a way that your ability to live with $15,000,000/year towards the end of a 30-year annuity payout has materially changed, you have bigger issues than inflation going on.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      No. So many people misunderstand that. No, it does not simply mean you automatically sacrifice longterm profits. Fiduciary responsibility is pretty widely open to interpretation because shareholders overall can want different things. Some stocks barely budge in price but the board gives good dividends. Some companies make no profit for years upon years because they are pushing for growth. Just chalking this up to fiduciary responsibility is misguided and misses many big reasons why many boards choose short term profits while sacrificing longterm sustainability. Many get most of their earnings in stock. As long as they can keep the share price up long enough for them to make bank, they have little care about the longterm health of the company. This is one of the reasons that stock buybacks have been so big over the last decade.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Nothing surprising.

    EVs have been developed since the 90s at least as far as I know, and progress on them has been sabotaged at nearly every turn by the industry.

      • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Wasn’t aware of that. My thoughts were more towards the EV1, although I assume there were many others before that.

        • Resonosity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          They’re referring to how Thomas Edison created the first electric vehicles back in the 1800s. They might have had a future until Ford introduced assembly lines. Then the rest is history.

          The EV1 was the first commercial development in the US following the World Wars, but even before then you had solar EVs being made for science and eclectic racing before then. Think of those weirdly shaped cars only made for 1 driver that have solar panels covering the entire body of the car.

          Funny thing is that we’re now seeing some commercial (or soon to be commercial) manufacturers add solar panels in the same way. Just look to Hyundai and Aptera.

    • Baphomet_The_Blasphemer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      I remember an early Saturn EV that was never sold, only leased so GM could maintain ownership of them. Even with a limited range, the drivers all loved them for commuting and running errands, and many tried to purchase them outright, which GM refused. Eventually, GM issued a mandatory recall for all the Saturn EVs, mothballed the project, and then they released the Hummer… made me sick even at the time.

  • Auzy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Here in Australia I busted someone with a locked Facebook profile who apparently worked at a ford reseller lying about Kias EV9.

    He did the whole laugh emoji and called me a stalker, but deleted his message a few minutes later (probably got a call from his employer who I tagged who was probably worried about the legal repercussions). I pointed out it was libel to lie like that

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    is that purely because they can’t make them well or is there another reason?

    honestly the japanese EV ive been in felt decent?

    • kalleboo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Japan doesn’t have enough electricity. After Fukushima, they lost most of their nuclear. The country is densely populated, and the parts that aren’t populated are covered in forested mountains, which all makes building the required amount of renewables very difficult. So today and in the future, Japan runs on coal and natural gas. So they make cars that run on hydrogen (which is more efficient to create out of their imported natural gas than burning the gas for electricity) and then sell those abroad greenwashed as “but you can produce hydrogen from green electricity!”

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      The margins are thinner. There’s almost no resale value. Someone might buy a 60k car and eat the payments for a few years, knowing that they can sell it any time for a decent price.

      Buying a 60k EV is more like setting your money on fire. The car might be fine, great even, but it just won’t hold it’s value.

        • TrumpetX@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          This is what I’ve done on my last 2 cars. First was a Leaf that I leased dirt cheap. The second was a used Tesla at more than 1/2 off. I’m looking at a truck now and finding amazing deals on the '23 F150 lightnings. I’d prefer a Rivian and I’m not quite ready to let my Tesla go, but soooooon.

          Someday, the deals will be harder to find, but for now take advantage!

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Those are reasons people don’t want to buy EVs, not reasons for companies to sabotage the change over.

        • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Companies give zero fucks about anything but money.

          Completely retooling for EVs is expensive with a lot of risk. And they’ll make less money afterwards…

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          People not wanting to buy them seems like an entirely normal reason to be lukewarm.about making and selling them.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Not at 60,000 dollars they don’t. But too bad, between the IRA and the Chinese EV tax the administration is making sure we aren’t ever burdened with EVs cheap enough for mass adoption.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        why is that? i don’t think lithium batteries degrade THAT fast?

        if the used market had these dirt cheap evs here id probably be considering them. scratch that there is no way to charge them in my country unless you live in a house, or unless you can use regular power outlets hahaha

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        There’s almost no resale value.

        That is not an EV thing, that is a new, rapidly developing technology thing.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      4 months ago

      The tariffs were explicitly to protect them. To prevent them from having to compete. We’re about to eat a lot of shit.

          • buzz86us@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            The issue I’m seeing here is that there isn’t anything to protect legacy auto does not make a product that is remotely comparable

  • dropped_the_chief@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    We’re all going to fry in old age. Our children are going to become sterile. Who tf knows what’s going to happen to whatever ppl make it past that.

  • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    The Japanese car companies put all their eggs in the hydrogen basket, despite their early head start in EV with the Toyota Prius and such, and as hydrogen looks to be more and more of a dead end due to transportation and safety concerns, of course they are going to be sandbagging EV adoption to buy time and catch up.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Now that we’ve trained the whole world in american-style corporate criminality, we’re gonna pull the rug out from them and reveal ourselves to be the good guys! Right? Right, guys?

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      Tesla isn’t really a major car company in the transitional sense since they didn’t exist at all as a pre-EV car company.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Blame everyone but your SUV driving selves. The devil made you do it Im sure.