4 ms·
I suspect that HN User gman is trying to make exactly that point. (I could be wrong though.) I wonder if 30 to 40 years from now, we'll be having the same conv
by bilbo0s 7y ago
I suspect that HN User gman is trying to make exactly that point. (I could be wrong though.)
I wonder if 30 to 40 years from now, we'll be having the same convo about electric cars that we are having about recycling plastic? Something that seemed good on the surface, but masked all kinds of externalities.
I mean, at least electric should be a bit better than ICE in daily use. But will making these things at scale in the first place cost too much in the way of carbon production? Or other forms of pollution that we as consumers don't even know about yet? You may say, "well it was your job as a consumer to know the impact your purchases were having." But I'm just not that knowledgeable about that stuff. I don't know if a billion electric cars are bad or good? And it might not even be the cars, just the fact that we have to make the roads may be polluting somehow? Or whatever? It's just too much for a consumer to know. Should I be buying electric? Or supporting mass public transit? Which is better? Or is it just a question of which is worse? There's a lot to think about there.
Or maybe it's just me?
- lorenzobr 7y agoI bet you don't believe in climate change either, do you?
- andyhmltn 7y agoThat's a hell of an assumption to make
- bilbo0s 7y agoJust for full disclosure, I believe in climate change. But I'm not sure I believe that having electric cars is better than having electric trains or buses? I honestly don't think it's stupid for me to ask whether or not having electric cars is the best strategy for dealing with climate change.
- ljcn 7y agoIt is an interesting question. The best option is almost certainly to not use a car (walk, cycle, or bus instead). The emissions are much lower[1] (absolute and per-distance) and you might get some health benefits. If a car is needed it depends how you're planning to power it. This answer[0] does a great job of looking at the energy inputs of building a car. I thought the up-front cost would be higher but the emissions from producing a car are comparable to the emissions of using the car for a few years. So if the choice is between a used ICE car and a new EV and charging it with renewable energy, it's (surprisingly) probably worth buying the new EV. If you're planning to charge it with power from a coal plant though you should probably get the used ICE car. [0] https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-an-electric-car https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-required-to-build-a... [1] https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/how-much-co2-does-cycling-really-save https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/how-much-co2-does-cycli...
- sandworm101 7y ago>> and you might get some health benefits. That depends. There are streets in the UK so polluted that jogging on them, breathing in lots more bad air, is actually worse for you than not jogging. Similarly, the violent accident rate for bicycle commuters is scary. I don't know of any regular commuter who hasn't been to hospital at least once.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoThe statistics show that even allowing for the risks cycling is better than not. Having said that I have had a hospital visit.
- ljcn 7y agoYes the last time I checked this was the case. Most western cities are clean enough that cycling is still a net-win.
- WorldMaker 7y agoBoth of those are more reasons to ban cars. ;) Most spot pollution is car exhaust, and most violent pedestrian/bike accidents are car-related.
- ljcn 7y agoIn addition non-negligible sources of particulates are tyres and brakes wearing down.
- sandworm101 7y agoI said violent accent, not cars. People commuting on bikes collide with other things than cars. Regular bike commuters can hit 50+kph. At those energy levels, hitting a curb or tree branch can put you in hospital.