6 ms·

My next car will be "no car at all". Even electric cars have huge externalities that you do not pay for, but your children, namely, the disposal of the batterie

My next car will be "no car at all". Even electric cars have huge externalities that you do not pay for, but your children, namely, the disposal of the batteries, pollution created by the manufacturing, costly extraction of rare earths etc. Instead we should heavily invest in high-speed trains.

lb1lf 8y ago
High-speed trains are wonderful where the population density is sufficiently high, but in more sparsely populated parts, the car (and, for longer distances, the plane) is likely the only viable solution for decades to come. With that as a starting point, the cars and planes might as well be electric. (Or hydrogen powered!)
- fulafel 8y ago
  I think this reasoning pins down the wrong variables of the equation. You can pick your housing and location based on not owning a car (among other criteria). And it scales too. And for decision-makers it's responsible to nudge your citizenship to this direction.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Assuming one can get a house at an affordable rate to start with. It doesn't scale because not everyone is rich enough to live close to transportation hubs nor they can take everyone that wants to live nearby.
    - fulafel 8y ago
      Housing supply and transport infra mostly responds to demand without pricing out people. Outside of urban hotspots where rent seeking rules. Most cities, and most people's home vicinities, are not land cramped like the world's megacities.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Come to Europe to the cities where one actually finds a job and then try to use the public transportation for that 1h 30m commute time, easily done in 30m with a car.
        fulafel 8y ago
        Already there, but it's not like that. 1h 30m in public transport would get me to another town.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        If you are lucky enough to live in suburbs with a job that works for you and good connection, then all the best. Just don't assume it actually scales for everyone, specially when the closest bus stop requires 15m walking for a bus that only comes around every 30m, just to get to the next connection point.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    While urbanisation overall is probably a net plus for the environment, do keep in mind that, say, farming is quite area intensive. Someone needs to work at those farms - and they are not going to commute to work by high-speed rail. (Granted, there are experimental urban farms out there, but I don't see those feeding the planet on a short-term scale.)
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Farming is area intensive, but the number of farmers we need has been steadily declining.
  - eertami 8y ago
    >You can pick your housing and location based on not owning a car Only if you want to live in a large city and don't do anything outdoors. I go skiing, hiking, mountain biking, camping 3-4 times a week. Where I live (the Alps), it is extremely difficult to not own a car. There is no infrastructure and the terrain is unfriendly. There isn't a housing or location option in Europe that allows me to give up my car and have access to the things I like to do
    - fulafel 8y ago
      Usually you can also comfortably live in a small city few km from its center and have good outdoor options. People will need to compromise of course. The alternative, not beating global warming is a big compromise too.
      - clarry 8y ago
        > The alternative, not beating global warming is a big compromise too. It's not either-or. Owning a private car in the Alps and using it for the occasional shopping or skiing trip is far from being the main source of CO2 emissions for their respective country, let alone for the world.
        fulafel 8y ago
        The cost structure of private cars (big fixed cost, thereafter low marginal cost per km) and convenience works against this. Yeah, there are always exceptions, but these planning decisions should be made by considering people in aggregate. Re "not the main source" - the co2 emission pie is very fragmented. We can't afford to go after only the biggest source of emissions. This is the divide-and-not-conquer method of losing this battle, to consider all the little parts in isolation and on each decide that it's not significant!
        clarry 8y ago
        > Re "not the main source" - the co2 emission pie is very fragmented. We can't afford to go after only the biggest source of emissions. This is the divide-and-not-conquer method of losing this battle, to consider all the little parts in isolation and on each decide that it's not significant! You're right, we're all responsible, and we can't just point at the biggest offender and not do anything about ourselves. But at the other extreme of the spectrum, hyperbole and guilt tripping of people who could be wiped from the face of earth without making a statistically significant impact on CO2 emissions isn't right either. Simply framing things as "cars or the planet" is wrong on so many levels. As per 2017 statistics, the eight Alpine countries (including Europe's biggest polluter, Germany) accounted for about 4% of the world's CO2 (a third of US's numbers), half of it due to Germany. I'm not going to look up the statistics but I believe a large proportion of Germany's output is due to industry, and aluminum production in particular. It does not help that their atomic energy fears have driven up coal power plants. Even so, all but one of the Alpine countries have reduced their CO2 output since the 90s. Meanwhile over the same time period China has more than quadrupled its CO2 emissions and is the top polluter, and CO2 per capita both in China and the US is higher than in Europe. > Yeah, there are always exceptions, but these planning decisions should be made by considering people in aggregate. But we still (thankfully) allow people to make individual choices. If that means we improve the infrastructure required for a car-free life and still allow those who live in the Alps to choose a car (while strictening the emission & efficiency regulation), it's OK. Or is it? Then why cars specifically? Right now there's no such thing as a personal carbon budget, but there's a whole bunch of things that contribute to the pie. The status quo is that if you're rich, you can consume more (income vs consumption): http://www.stat.fi/tietotrendit/media/uploads/tt2018/nurmela/lokak/nurmela_lokak_kuvio-01.svg http://www.stat.fi/tietotrendit/media/uploads/tt2018/nurmela... So far we've been very much accepting that some people produce more emissions than others. Should that change? I think that is something we should address before we ask if one should be allowed to choose to live in the Alps in a place where getting by without a car isn't feasible. In any case, private transportation in that region is not killing the planet. And for that matter, motorsport isn't either. I don't think we need to plan around those things, there are significantly more pressing areas to consider.
  - clarry 8y ago
    > You can pick your housing and location based on not owning a car If all I ever wanted from life was to go to work and back to my apartment, via a grocery store. As a matter of fact, I can't choose where my friends and relatives live, and I'd probably have to drop some of my hobbies too if I were to live without a car.
    - fulafel 8y ago
      The change is going to have to affect your friends and relatives too. You can always adjust your hobbies, or work. Global warming is more important.
      - clarry 8y ago
        Doesn't mean they'll be living next door all of a sudden!
    - adrianN 8y ago
      You will probably have to drop some of your hobbies too if we don't manage to limit Global Warming to below 2 degrees.
      - clarry 8y ago
        Yeah, well, I did things the other way around and picked my job around not having a commute. That means remote, I work from my apartment. I still have a car, but I drive much less than those who commute by car every day. It might be sitting unused in the lot for weeks (I have my feet & bicycle for grocery store trips). But when I need it, I need it, the public infra and ridesharing simply isn't there. (But I occasionally give rides and haul stuff for people who don't own a car, hey, isn't that exactly what we need?) As far as global warming is concerned.. well, one glance at the statistics shows that my car ownership couldn't matter less. For example, if you take the top polluters (China & USA) and compare to my country (Finland), and break it down by sector, you'll find that our transportation's contribution to CO2 emissions in the world is a fraction of nothing. As far as domestic energy consumption goes, we've cold winters, and heating is the biggest drain. There's a lot that could be done to improve the energy efficiency of older homes without spending too much money but the will isn't there. The only way we get heat efficient buildings reliably is via regulation that applies to new buildings.
  - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
    > And for decision-makers it's responsible to nudge your citizenship to this direction Is the flip side of this "People who want to live in solitude are not qualified to make decisions"?
    - fulafel 8y ago
      You can live in solitude quite ecologically without a car too of course. Nudge =! force
      - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
        "Nudge" is the 21st century version of "force", as it's been realized that "force" provokes backlash
        fulafel 8y ago
        It means a different thing.
maccam94 8y ago
Except lithium ion batteries are very recyclable, and rare earth elements aren't in limited supply, they're just usually very sparsely distributed.
- justasimpleman 8y ago
  Wear from car tires cause the majority of microplastics that get into the seas (around 50%, if I'm reading understanding this study correctly): http://epanet.pbe.eea.europa.eu/ad-hoc-meetings/workshop-plastics-environment-11-12-may-2015/presentations/microplastic-pollution-norway-m.-kjeldby-miljodirektoratet/download/en/1/S2%205_Kjeldby.pdf http://epanet.pbe.eea.europa.eu/ad-hoc-meetings/workshop-pla...
  - justasimpleman 8y ago
    At least in 1st world countries. The contribution of those are rather small compared to China and India. WorldBank Pollution data: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.pm25.mc.m3?end=2016&start=1990&type=shaded&view=map&year_high_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.pm25.mc.m3?end=2... Maplecroft Deforestation Risk 2018 (as opposed to his 2012): https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/esg-deforestation-risk-shoots-up-over-2018/ https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/esg-deforestati... Statista Countries Polluting Oceans (updated version of his): https://www.statista.com/chart/12211/the-countries-polluting-the-oceans-the-most/ https://www.statista.com/chart/12211/the-countries-polluting... https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/05/1818859116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/05/1818859116
- fulafel 8y ago
  I think the industrial scale, cost efficient recycling bit is untried, and we don't know if it will come to wide use soon enough to help with co2 footprint of cars?
- justasimpleman 8y ago
  Also, manufacturing and charging li-io batteries for cars currently still produces more CO2 than petrol vehicles: https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/lithium-bat...
xedeon 8y ago
> Instead we should heavily invest in high-speed trains. This is ideal for obvious reasons. If only cities and governments (especially in the U.S.) would see the value. But alas it seems like only some countries can pull it off. Also, most EV batteries today are highly recyclable and with fewer moving parts they can last much longer than ICE cars.
Dumblydorr 8y ago
I love investment in trains but in the USA, small improvements to investment wouldn't be close to enough. We need EVs because the political will is simply not there for any infrastructure spending. Its either EVs or more emissions, sad state of affairs.
jordanbeiber 8y ago
This is ideal. Unfortunately the society has been pushed into “car as a requirement” territory for ages. I commend the effort, and I’d like to not need a car... perhaps I don’t, but it will require a few major changes. It’s crazy that car pools are not more common, btw.

lb1lf 8y ago

High-speed trains are wonderful where the population density is sufficiently high, but in more sparsely populated parts, the car (and, for longer distances, the plane) is likely the only viable solution for decades to come. With that as a starting point, the cars and planes might as well be electric. (Or hydrogen powered!)

fulafel 8y ago
I think this reasoning pins down the wrong variables of the equation. You can pick your housing and location based on not owning a car (among other criteria). And it scales too. And for decision-makers it's responsible to nudge your citizenship to this direction.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Assuming one can get a house at an affordable rate to start with. It doesn't scale because not everyone is rich enough to live close to transportation hubs nor they can take everyone that wants to live nearby.
  - fulafel 8y ago
    Housing supply and transport infra mostly responds to demand without pricing out people. Outside of urban hotspots where rent seeking rules. Most cities, and most people's home vicinities, are not land cramped like the world's megacities.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Come to Europe to the cities where one actually finds a job and then try to use the public transportation for that 1h 30m commute time, easily done in 30m with a car.
      - fulafel 8y ago
        Already there, but it's not like that. 1h 30m in public transport would get me to another town.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        If you are lucky enough to live in suburbs with a job that works for you and good connection, then all the best. Just don't assume it actually scales for everyone, specially when the closest bus stop requires 15m walking for a bus that only comes around every 30m, just to get to the next connection point.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- lb1lf 8y ago
  While urbanisation overall is probably a net plus for the environment, do keep in mind that, say, farming is quite area intensive. Someone needs to work at those farms - and they are not going to commute to work by high-speed rail. (Granted, there are experimental urban farms out there, but I don't see those feeding the planet on a short-term scale.)
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Farming is area intensive, but the number of farmers we need has been steadily declining.
- eertami 8y ago
  >You can pick your housing and location based on not owning a car Only if you want to live in a large city and don't do anything outdoors. I go skiing, hiking, mountain biking, camping 3-4 times a week. Where I live (the Alps), it is extremely difficult to not own a car. There is no infrastructure and the terrain is unfriendly. There isn't a housing or location option in Europe that allows me to give up my car and have access to the things I like to do
  - fulafel 8y ago
    Usually you can also comfortably live in a small city few km from its center and have good outdoor options. People will need to compromise of course. The alternative, not beating global warming is a big compromise too.
    - clarry 8y ago
      > The alternative, not beating global warming is a big compromise too. It's not either-or. Owning a private car in the Alps and using it for the occasional shopping or skiing trip is far from being the main source of CO2 emissions for their respective country, let alone for the world.
      - fulafel 8y ago
        The cost structure of private cars (big fixed cost, thereafter low marginal cost per km) and convenience works against this. Yeah, there are always exceptions, but these planning decisions should be made by considering people in aggregate. Re "not the main source" - the co2 emission pie is very fragmented. We can't afford to go after only the biggest source of emissions. This is the divide-and-not-conquer method of losing this battle, to consider all the little parts in isolation and on each decide that it's not significant!
        clarry 8y ago
        > Re "not the main source" - the co2 emission pie is very fragmented. We can't afford to go after only the biggest source of emissions. This is the divide-and-not-conquer method of losing this battle, to consider all the little parts in isolation and on each decide that it's not significant! You're right, we're all responsible, and we can't just point at the biggest offender and not do anything about ourselves. But at the other extreme of the spectrum, hyperbole and guilt tripping of people who could be wiped from the face of earth without making a statistically significant impact on CO2 emissions isn't right either. Simply framing things as "cars or the planet" is wrong on so many levels. As per 2017 statistics, the eight Alpine countries (including Europe's biggest polluter, Germany) accounted for about 4% of the world's CO2 (a third of US's numbers), half of it due to Germany. I'm not going to look up the statistics but I believe a large proportion of Germany's output is due to industry, and aluminum production in particular. It does not help that their atomic energy fears have driven up coal power plants. Even so, all but one of the Alpine countries have reduced their CO2 output since the 90s. Meanwhile over the same time period China has more than quadrupled its CO2 emissions and is the top polluter, and CO2 per capita both in China and the US is higher than in Europe. > Yeah, there are always exceptions, but these planning decisions should be made by considering people in aggregate. But we still (thankfully) allow people to make individual choices. If that means we improve the infrastructure required for a car-free life and still allow those who live in the Alps to choose a car (while strictening the emission & efficiency regulation), it's OK. Or is it? Then why cars specifically? Right now there's no such thing as a personal carbon budget, but there's a whole bunch of things that contribute to the pie. The status quo is that if you're rich, you can consume more (income vs consumption): http://www.stat.fi/tietotrendit/media/uploads/tt2018/nurmela/lokak/nurmela_lokak_kuvio-01.svg http://www.stat.fi/tietotrendit/media/uploads/tt2018/nurmela... So far we've been very much accepting that some people produce more emissions than others. Should that change? I think that is something we should address before we ask if one should be allowed to choose to live in the Alps in a place where getting by without a car isn't feasible. In any case, private transportation in that region is not killing the planet. And for that matter, motorsport isn't either. I don't think we need to plan around those things, there are significantly more pressing areas to consider.
- clarry 8y ago
  > You can pick your housing and location based on not owning a car If all I ever wanted from life was to go to work and back to my apartment, via a grocery store. As a matter of fact, I can't choose where my friends and relatives live, and I'd probably have to drop some of my hobbies too if I were to live without a car.
  - fulafel 8y ago
    The change is going to have to affect your friends and relatives too. You can always adjust your hobbies, or work. Global warming is more important.
    - clarry 8y ago
      Doesn't mean they'll be living next door all of a sudden!
  - adrianN 8y ago
    You will probably have to drop some of your hobbies too if we don't manage to limit Global Warming to below 2 degrees.
    - clarry 8y ago
      Yeah, well, I did things the other way around and picked my job around not having a commute. That means remote, I work from my apartment. I still have a car, but I drive much less than those who commute by car every day. It might be sitting unused in the lot for weeks (I have my feet & bicycle for grocery store trips). But when I need it, I need it, the public infra and ridesharing simply isn't there. (But I occasionally give rides and haul stuff for people who don't own a car, hey, isn't that exactly what we need?) As far as global warming is concerned.. well, one glance at the statistics shows that my car ownership couldn't matter less. For example, if you take the top polluters (China & USA) and compare to my country (Finland), and break it down by sector, you'll find that our transportation's contribution to CO2 emissions in the world is a fraction of nothing. As far as domestic energy consumption goes, we've cold winters, and heating is the biggest drain. There's a lot that could be done to improve the energy efficiency of older homes without spending too much money but the will isn't there. The only way we get heat efficient buildings reliably is via regulation that applies to new buildings.
- xkcd-sucks 8y ago
  > And for decision-makers it's responsible to nudge your citizenship to this direction Is the flip side of this "People who want to live in solitude are not qualified to make decisions"?
  - fulafel 8y ago
    You can live in solitude quite ecologically without a car too of course. Nudge =! force
    - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
      "Nudge" is the 21st century version of "force", as it's been realized that "force" provokes backlash
      - fulafel 8y ago
        It means a different thing.

maccam94 8y ago

Except lithium ion batteries are very recyclable, and rare earth elements aren't in limited supply, they're just usually very sparsely distributed.

justasimpleman 8y ago
Wear from car tires cause the majority of microplastics that get into the seas (around 50%, if I'm reading understanding this study correctly): http://epanet.pbe.eea.europa.eu/ad-hoc-meetings/workshop-plastics-environment-11-12-may-2015/presentations/microplastic-pollution-norway-m.-kjeldby-miljodirektoratet/download/en/1/S2%205_Kjeldby.pdf http://epanet.pbe.eea.europa.eu/ad-hoc-meetings/workshop-pla...
- justasimpleman 8y ago
  At least in 1st world countries. The contribution of those are rather small compared to China and India. WorldBank Pollution data: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.pm25.mc.m3?end=2016&start=1990&type=shaded&view=map&year_high_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.pm25.mc.m3?end=2... Maplecroft Deforestation Risk 2018 (as opposed to his 2012): https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/esg-deforestation-risk-shoots-up-over-2018/ https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/esg-deforestati... Statista Countries Polluting Oceans (updated version of his): https://www.statista.com/chart/12211/the-countries-polluting-the-oceans-the-most/ https://www.statista.com/chart/12211/the-countries-polluting... https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/05/1818859116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/05/1818859116
fulafel 8y ago
I think the industrial scale, cost efficient recycling bit is untried, and we don't know if it will come to wide use soon enough to help with co2 footprint of cars?
justasimpleman 8y ago
Also, manufacturing and charging li-io batteries for cars currently still produces more CO2 than petrol vehicles: https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/lithium-bat...

xedeon 8y ago

> Instead we should heavily invest in high-speed trains. This is ideal for obvious reasons. If only cities and governments (especially in the U.S.) would see the value. But alas it seems like only some countries can pull it off. Also, most EV batteries today are highly recyclable and with fewer moving parts they can last much longer than ICE cars.

Dumblydorr 8y ago

I love investment in trains but in the USA, small improvements to investment wouldn't be close to enough. We need EVs because the political will is simply not there for any infrastructure spending. Its either EVs or more emissions, sad state of affairs.

jordanbeiber 8y ago

This is ideal. Unfortunately the society has been pushed into “car as a requirement” territory for ages. I commend the effort, and I’d like to not need a car... perhaps I don’t, but it will require a few major changes. It’s crazy that car pools are not more common, btw.