16 ms·

His argument distills to: solve it all-at-once, or don’t solve it at all. This is an uninteresting and uninspiring line of thinking that ignores the nature of

by Denzel 7y ago

His argument distills to: solve it all-at-once, or don’t solve it at all. This is an uninteresting and uninspiring line of thinking that ignores the nature of socially dynamic systems which don’t exist in a world of instantaneous cause-and-effect. His conclusion states that electric cars make a difference, but they don’t make a real difference: “I do think they can slightly reduce unsustainability” but “by switching from a regular car to electric I might think that I am making a real difference”. I’m sorry that the author doesn’t consider a real reduction in emissions a real difference. Look, it’s simple, climate change will require a concerted effort to change in multiple markets across multiple arenas. And the solutions are not mutually exclusive. People that buy electric cars to help the environment or become vegetarian, are probably more likely to make additional changes in their life, and persuade others to make changes as well, to reduce emissions. Most people arrive at the decision to purchase an electric vehicle exactly because they are questioning their way of life. Electric vehicles are not a talisman of false hope, they’re a singular step in the right direction.

eptcyka 7y ago
The argument isn't that doing _something_ is bad, it's that the amount of effort people put into obtaining their shiny non-paleolithic-compost-fueled-but-rather-battery-powered 2 tonne sledgehammers would be better spent changing policies that operate on organizational rather than individual units. How about we just stop buying as much shit from halfway across the world? Global trade requires us to spend stupid amounts of fuel in engines that have never been optimized for emissions. This of course involves making changes to global trade, this is a lot harder, but surely all those people who are capable of shelling out at least 30000$ (but in reality, barely anyone gets the cheapest model because this is a luxury item) could be doing things that make a bigger difference.
- Denzel 7y ago
  You didn’t rebut any of my points. First, can you not buy an electric car and advocate and enact organizational or systematic change? They’re not mutually exclusive. Second, how do dynamic systems composed of many independent, self-directed agents change? Instantaneously or over some period of time? How long is that period of time? Probably much longer a period of time than it takes to purchase an electric vehicle (< 1 minute) and reduce your emissions immediately.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    They’re not mutually exclusive. Well, you can only spend a given dollar once. So if for example the government spends $$$$ to put an EV charging point in every street light, that's $$$$ they didn't spend making busses more appealing.
    - zip1234 7y ago
      Except the government does even need to do that. The government could actually make money by leasing spaces/taking a cut of revenue to put chargers and letting private industry install them and manage them.
      - nguoi 7y ago
        >Except the government does even need to do that. And perhaps it won't, if enough of the people that make it up read articles like this to ignore the very powerful automotive lobby
      - usrusr 7y ago
        The reality of many governments however is that they are handing out money to the few people who frequently buy new cars for making those cars fractionally less unsustainable, while those who don't drive get pushed aside by even heavier and wider cars (using current "3" by BMW and Tesla as a comparison sample)
      - notJim 7y ago
        There are problems there though, because adding parking spaces makes driving more desirable for both EVs and non-EVs, and parking spaces tend to compete with bike lines in US cities. And as long as US cities remain car centric, having parking be expensive enough to be a deterrent to driving (or a major revenue source) is going to be a 3rd rail for local politicians.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      That assumes that the lack of appeal of buses has anything to do with money. Until buses can: * Deliver me from point A to point G without stopping at B, C, D, E, and F along the way * Provide room for more than a handful of cargo/luggage and park / wait around while I load/unload it * Actually stick to a goddamn timetable (looking at you, Muni) Then no amount of money will make buses more appealing to me than a car. Trains have these same problems, minus the inconsistent timetables, and have the added benefit of typically going at least a little bit faster.
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
  This is a textbook example of false dilemma fallacy. Replacing ICE cars with electric cars doesn't preclude other environmental measures, and in fact, people who worry about their car's emissions tend to be people who worry about other environmental issues as well.
  - new2628 7y ago
    ..it surely precludes the environmental measure of not having a car.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      And what exactly is that impact? The author never specified; just asserted "cars are bad because reasons" and left it at that.
  - notJim 7y ago
    But continuing to have car-centric cities, and investing more into car-centric infrastructure, as many cities and states continue to do, is a real dilemma. Government funds are limited, especially in the current era, and space in cities is limited, too. We should be converting interstates to high-speed rail, and cheap/free city parking into bike lanes, but if our plan to tackle climate change is all about electric cars, none of that stuff is going to happen. In a sense, this conversation mirrors the myopia the article talks about, because people who disagree with it are defending their individual consumption choices, while ignoring the broader social and policy connections that surround them.
- avip 7y ago
  Eco-friendly behavior does not abide to laws of matter conservation. I see no reason to suspect people who reduce carbon footprint using X would stop being vegetarians for example. In fact, everything I know suggests the opposite - environmental engagement is always a positive feedback loop.
- pas 7y ago
  A lot of people already don't buy shit. At all. I mean after about a decade I finally gave in and bought a used TV (instead of using a PC monitor). I already don't fly to useless tech conferences, and work remotely (so no mindless daily commute). And eventually when the e-charger network will become widespread enough around here, I guess, I'll buy a used EV instead of the current car, because cities can't ban these smoke machines fast enough. And when the choice is presented I already buy local stuff. But.. this is a luxury for me/us, because of the enormous income inequality bonus of IT/tech. Those who already live on the edge won't pick the local things, they will pick the cheapest one. And the way to make the GHG-friendly stuff cheap is to tax the shit out of the GHG-positive things. And that unfortunately seems like a pretty hard challenge, thanks to our wonderful society favoring chauvinists rhetoric, trade wars, nationalist triades, and other bullshit. So, yes, in terms of the big picture EVs don't matter much, but without even presenting an alternative, it'll be quite impossible to persuade the other half of society.
  - navigatesol 7y ago
    >And the way to make the GHG-friendly stuff cheap is to tax the shit out of the GHG-positive things. Making everything more expensive is a political dead-end, and would exacerbate income inequality.
    - oftenwrong 7y ago
      Not if it is revenue-neutral.
    - pas 7y ago
      Who said everything? Taxing stuff that comes from large scale industrial destruction of the environment is completely different than everything. Plus all the carbon tax schemes start with direct rebates to the tax payers in equal parts, so those who consume more get less back than those who don't.
      - academic_nimrod 7y ago
        >Taxing stuff that comes from large scale industrial destruction of the environment is completely different than everything. That's pretty much everything. At the very least, the commodities used to make everything are sourced from large industrial processes.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Sounds like the typical apocalyptic activist thinking where actually helping the problem /at all/ is a bad thing because it distracts from their grandiose vision and makes their crazed plan that even they can only see happening in severe conditions - often because it involves mass murder. I have seen far too many examples of self declared communists saying things like a $20/hr minimum wage is bad thing because it distracts from overthrowing "the oppressor".
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I paid net $22K for a new 2015 Nissan LEAF (after $10K in combined government incentives). You could have gotten the base model (with resistance heat only) for under $20K, but that’s a fairly poor choice for New England year ‘round usage.
  - siffland 7y ago
    Even at 22k, that is a lot for most people. Online it says the LEAF can go 150 miles for around $4.80. Your payment would be around $375ish a month with at least $100 for insurance (probably more). Why would most people do that when they can get a used car cheaper or keep driving what they have. It is just expensive (i am not saying i would not like a Nissian LEAF, that would be sweet). I guess i see people buying EV's and ask why the rest of the world is not (i know you are not asking this, but a lot of comments i read are) when we cannot afford them.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Totally agree. All our other cars have been bought used. My wife’s CR-V has been excellent and was $7500 (or maybe it was $8500) when 5-ish years old. We don’t carry collision insurance on it at this point. I wouldn’t have bought the LEAF new either if it weren’t for the $10K in government cheese that came with it. (I can buy a $32K car; I just choose not to as it seems a waste.)
- amluto 7y ago
  > Global trade requires us to spend stupid amounts of fuel in engines that have never been optimized for emissions. Whoa there! These engines are indeed not optimized for emissions like NOx and particulates, but they are impressively efficient. I believe that a good deal less CO2 is emitted shipping a container across the ocean than would be spent driving it across the country. Anyhow, the economic solution here is clear: a carbon tax that applies to imports. The serious proposals do this.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
People that buy electric cars to help the environment or become vegetarian, are probably more likely to make additional changes in their life, and persuade others to make changes as well, to reduce emissions. I'm not sure about that, some of my neighbours seem to think that giving up plastic bags is enough to offset their annual holiday in Bali. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing
- Denzel 7y ago
  Sure, I’d be interested in seeing actual data. Which is why I qualified my statement with “probably” because of course I have anecdotes that counter your anecdotes. :) I just don’t have the time to look into any primary sources.
  - thomasz 7y ago
    Those milieus who care most about the environment consistently turn out to have the highest environmental footprint. The point isn't that these people are hypocrites. Maybe they are (who, besides a cynic, isn't to some degree?), maybe they are not. The point is that it doesn't matter at all. People by and large will not alter their behavior in any major way for a common good as long as the individual marginal advantage is dwarfed by the individual marginal cost. Fishers will happily eradicate all fish in their fishing grounds and thus destroy their own livelihood, and will fiercely protest any meaningful regulation aimed at conserving. Consumers will happily fly around the world or commute in a SUV until the planet is doomed.^1 It's just the way it is, lamenting the sinful human nature doesn't change a thing. We need meaningful regulation. -------- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- thinkcontext 7y ago
  Which is why a carbon price is so essential. Even if all the information was readily available to consumers, its too complex to be able to interpret.
thomasz 7y ago
You cannot shop yourself out of a societal problem. The tragedy of the commons guarantees that.
mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
The problem is time. Or lack of it. We cannot afford for the markets to work things out for us. Sure, you can shift culture and behavior but that takes time that we do not have. It’s time for drastic policy change and swift global action.
- sak5sk 7y ago
  Don't know why you're being downvoted. We currently have only 1 nuclear plant under construction. Any new construction wouldn't be complete and operational until at least 2033. IPCC clearly stated we need to make significant progress if not reverse emissions by 2030. The idea that nuclear is somehow going to save the day is insane. Sure, if we had plants that were nearly complete (in the US) and we prioritized operational approval and somehow got the population on board.. but that simply can't happen.
endymi0n 7y ago
This comment hits the nail on the head. Plus, what the OP conveniently ignores, is that electric cars aren‘t a talisman, but a bridgehead. If electric cars succeed on a large scale, it means we solved making electricity storage fast, dense and cheap enough to put them on the road. Putting that technology into the electric grid and combining it with renewables will enable dirt cheap, limitless energy, which will contribute in a major way towards solving all the other problems OP enumerated.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Agreed. Consider using the term "low-carbon energy" in place of "renewable energy". We want to promote the right stuff. Biofuel is considered renewable but is high carbon. Nuclear fusion would be low carbon but not considered renewable. The difference matters hugely for future energy policy.
  - dTal 7y ago
    Biofuel is carbon-neutral because the carbon comes from the atmosphere. It's fine to burn it because its emissions have already been bought and paid for in its creaion. The problem with carbon is digging it up, in an open cycle. Renewable is a more strict term than carbon-neutral, it's true, but all "renewables" are by definition closed-loop and hence carbon-neutral.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      This is a common but incorrect assumption. Biofuels are very far from carbon neutral. Renewable is in no way restricted to the desirable. As an extreme case in point, wood in particular is a horrifying energy source due to health detriment from particulates. Have a look at some data: https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-co2-of-fuels.png https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-... Source: Schlomer S., et.al., 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
reitzensteinm 7y ago
If you dump BEVs on a grid that's transitioning towards renewables, you'll delay that transition. It doesn't make sense to account for the emissions as being the average of the grid, because you're delaying shutting down your dirtiest power to deal with the marginal load. BEVs are clearly the future, and offer opportunities for distributed storage and demand dispatch that will help us keep the grid stable even with high renewable mixes. They're going to be great in the future, and for that we need to build up a market for them. That's where the real difference will come from.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Doesn't that contradict itself? Increased storage capacity delaying the transition to renewables? When storage at scale is the hard part and electric car batteries can power a house for a few days? Not to mention that the transportation sector is a part of the grid fundamentally. Even if it interferes with one metric it is still better overall which makes the complaint seem like it misses the point.
  - reitzensteinm 7y ago
    In the short term, it means you're just keeping fossil fuel power plants online for longer (if you're in the process of transitioning). You stop burning oil in your car though, and it's still a win, though in terms of ROI not an amazing one. In the long term, once you're generating so much renewable energy that it's causing instability in the grid and you can't pump more in, BEVs are a probably an essential component of handling that. Certain grids at certain times have already reached this point (the SA battery being a great example of where BEVs could have helped), but most are many years away from it, depending on how the price of solar trends.
adamlett 7y ago
The way I read TFA, the argument is this: If you think electric cars is the solution or a meaningful part of the solution, you're wrong. It does not say electric cars are bad, and it certainly does not argue that we should not solve [the climate crisis] if we can't solve it all-at-once. There are unfortunately still many, many people, who—even if they accept that human caused climate change is real—do not appreciate how urgent the crisis is.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  It does say EVs are solving the wrong problem, which (OP says) is that our consumerist lifestyle is unsustainable.
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >There are unfortunately still many, many people, who—even if they accept that human caused climate change is real—do not appreciate how urgent the crisis is. I am one of these people. How urgent is it? Between the denials and exaggerations, I really can't tell.
  - panzagl 7y ago
    I'm also one of those people. I mean, the only meaningful change we could make in a couple years would involve mass depopulation of the planet- anything else is on the order of decades.
pankajdoharey 7y ago
"But overall, they are too little too late. An electric car is still a car, and permeates our car-dependency the same as any other car." .... Well yeah..., till Startrek's teleportation is invented.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jacquesm 7y ago
That's a pretty uncharitable reading of TFA. My take-away is this: if we use the electric car as a way to persuade ourselves that our 'way of life' is safe if only we all switched to electric vehicles then we are ignoring the elephant in the room: it is our way of life that is the problem, not how we transport ourselves.
- justin66 7y ago
  A "way of life" isn't something you flip a switch on, it's a conglomeration of factors which might or might not be made to change. I think that's the parent poster's point.
- Denzel 7y ago
  I actually strove to be charitable in my interpretation. Sure, his heart may be in the right place, but his framing is not. And I feel like he's doing more to invite analysis paralysis than actually help people make decisions. if we use the electric car as a way to persuade ourselves that our 'way of life' is safe if only we all switched to electric vehicles then we are ignoring the elephant in the room Who is doing that? I'm genuinely asking for sources because I don't know of anyone that is pushing electric cars as the solution. Not Tesla, nor people who buy Teslas, nor people who buy electric cars. I want sources because all I can do is speak about the individuals I've come across. In my life, some of the people that have bought electric vehicles also: - Advocate in local government for bike lane buildout in their cities. - Adopt vegetarian or vegan diets. - Ask their employers to buy carbon offsets for any work-related flights. - Push schools, hospitals, governments, apartment complexes, etc. to transition what they can to solar or wind energy. (My brother's HS didn't have solar panels, now they have solar+batteries providing some X% of their energy needs.) The list goes on. Yes, I agree with the author, electric vehicles aren't the full solution. No, I don't agree that they're a talisman of false hope. That's pretty strong, inflammatory wording. And no, I don't agree with the author's decision to set his article in a negative framing. To me, that does more to invite analysis paralysis than a positive framing would. If he (or anyone) knows a better route, then please offer CTA for a program where individuals can pay $X for a guaranteed Y benefit towards addressing climate change. Electric vehicles offer exactly that CTA. Why didn't the author?
Barrin92 7y ago
They don't make a real difference, and the author is correct about it. If you drive towards a wall and you're accelerating and all you're doing is slowing the rate of acceleration you're still going to run into the wall at terminal velocity. The author correctly points out that the total increase in car usage, mostly conventional engines is going to offset the small dent that electric cars make, and that cars themselves are only a small fraction of the transportation industry to begin with. And not to mention that there's global shipping, construction, meat consumption all of which is by itself faster increasing than any environemntal solution in the respective domains which all only marginally change the equation to begin with. Our ecosystem doesn't care whether we tried really hard and if we were really good citizens or whether we did nothing, all that matters at the end is if our efforts were significant enough to not degrade our environment. And we're off by a magnitude or two and that's not going to change until we make radical changes to how we manage our societies.
- theworld572 7y ago
  So whats the alternative? Do nothing at all? If you have $100k left to pay on your mortgage, and somebody offers you $5k towards the mortgage are you going to tell them they're offering you a "false hope because you'd still have $95k left to pay"? EDIT: This is also known as the "nirvana fallacy": because the solution is not perfect - that means it is worthless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    No, the alternative is to figure out how to change the very fundamental levers of the system in a way that enables change on a scale that matters. The individual consumption lens is going to accomplish nothing. If you could move an entire country from being car dependent to being largely car free, by pushing rapid urbanisation and transit and you put 20 car drivers onto a train or a bus, then we're starting to talk about measures that actually have some effect. Or if we eliminate meat consumption altogether rather than promising people magic lab meat every five years, that would have an effect. Or if we put some significant money into a manhattan project for carbon capture, that at least gives us a statistical shot. But buying a tesla or a linen bag at the supermarket or paying 50 cents for a biodegradable cup at starbucks isn't saving the planet, it's the modern version of paying the catholic church for absolution. And in the long and infamous history of bad references to fallacies, this isn't one either. If you need to go from 100 to 10 and you're spending billions on something that gets you from 100 to 99.9 you're wasting time and energy that you don't have.
raaaaraaaa2 7y ago
"real reduction in emissions" ...real problem is : Is your electricity 'clean' ? In France for sure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France in China I don't think so : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China ...however local pollution is zero so that's huge benefit for large cities of course.
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
The really irritating thing about the 'solve it all at once' argument is that electric cars, in a very real way, are the keystone that lets the entire arch support itself. Renewable energy sources are already the cheapest ways of generating electricity at certain times, the trouble is that those aren't always when the electricity is needed. Energy storage makes investment in renewables much more profitable. The problem is, energy storage is itself expensive, much too expensive to invest in for most situations. By attaching wheels and motors, electric cars make people pay more for batteries than they ever would otherwise be willing to spend on energy storage.
- JKCalhoun 7y ago
  The author talks about a lot more than the cost of energy to power the car. For one, there is the cost in energy of building and maintaining the roads.
  - Faark 7y ago
    The author is kinda talking about civilization. And no, expecting humans to give up much on that front won't save the planet. We have to improve on a lot of fronts and the attention argument is one of the better ones... finding better ways to achieve the same is worthy pursuit. Sailing across the ocean to save on emissions worthy action for some young female climate activist, but certainly not something many of us would be willing to do.
- Forge36 7y ago
  The interesting thing about electric cars is that many of them sorry scheduled charging (my charging station also supports remote configuration of when I can charge). If my electric provider was willing (and able) to control when I could charge my car, they could use the the batteries to level out peaks in production to a degree. Off peak charging already exists today, however there aren't enough electric cars to make utilities heavily incentivise of peak charging solutions (it would only make sense for me to do so if my car was fully electric and not a hybrid due to initial installation costs)
  - 7y ago
jhoechtl 7y ago
> Most people arrive at the decision to purchase an electric vehicle exactly because they are questioning their way of life. Electric vehicles are not a talisman of false hope, they’re a singular step in the right direction. Oversimplistic view, you have a stake in Tesla or you don't know better. Otherwise you would also discuss the TCO, the total power need to produce e-vehicles, where Lithium is harvested and under what circumstances, that increased electricity demand fuels the discussion about nuclear power plants. And many more points to consider which certainly don't give a 100% conclusive picture in favor of e-mobility.
Mirioron 7y ago
>His argument distills to: solve it all-at-once, or don’t solve it at all. I disagree. I think the argument that's being made is rather that switching to electric cars isn't enough, but people focus on it so heavily that people feel as though switching to an electric car is saving the planet. The problem here is that it's not enough and due to how hyped up electric cars are there won't be enough will left to tackle many other problems that affect climate change. I don't know if I came across properly, so I'll explain it in a different way: humans have a limited amount of attention and will. Switching to electric cars is a useful move to combat climate change, but due to how hyped up electric cars are, it will satisfy many people's urge to do something for the climate. This occupies most of the limited amount of attention and will, thus there isn't enough left over to tackle all the other, bigger, problems.
- jmnicolas 7y ago
  > switching to electric cars isn't enough It's not enough it's worse : basically by buying an electric car you're outsourcing your pollution to China and Africa.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Aren't a lot of electric cars (e.g. Tesla, Nissan Leaf) made in the US from batteries made in the US?
    - jmnicolas 7y ago
      Where do rare earth materials contained in the batteries come from ? To the best of my knowledge it comes from Africa and China.
- llsf 7y ago
  So the problem is the "hype" around electric cars, not the electric car itself. Nobody said "buy an electric car, and you are done, the planet would be saved". And if some people do believe that, then it is an education issue, not an electric car issue. A bit tired of people shooting for perfection and berating those who actually try to make a difference, even so slightly. Maybe a more effective solution would be to ban any fossil fuel powered large ships and planes ("the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars." http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182 http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-mo... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping#Atmospheric_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...). And yet we all know this is not going to happen anytime soon... and still we would keep getting blog posts saying that electric cars are a problem (of hype or whatever) for the environment.
JKCalhoun 7y ago
> His argument distills to: solve it all-at-once, or don’t solve it at all. I read the article and didn't get that impression at all. I got: electric cars are an improvement, but don't fundamentally solve the problem.
- Goronmon 7y ago
  I mean, "the problem" in the author's eyes is capitalism, technology and entertainment. His solution is that we need to get back to subsistence farming as our main way of life.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
api 7y ago
He also perpetuates what I call abstinence based environmentalism. It won't work for the same reason abstinence based sex ed won't work. You are not going to guilt trip people into being poor. It's failing hardest in the developing world because do you really expect people in Africa, South America, and Asia to listen to rich Westerners guilt trip them into not doing what those same rich Westerners are doing? "To save the planet we need you to stay poor." The response is a predictable "fuck you." There are only two possible futures: 1. We develop ways of running our civilization in a more sustainable way. This is a huge multifaceted roll up your sleeves engineering problem. Electric cars are a huge piece because they break a big part of our hard dependence on carbon based energy and free us to substitute other things. Anything that gets hot, blows, flows, or shines can make electricity, while ICE cars only run on petroleum. No, it is not enough, but the way you do things like this is piece by piece. 2. We adapt to climate change and other major environmental problems as they unfold. Some world where people stop wanting transport and air conditioning and such is as realistic as the one where teens dont have sex. Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that this is an engineering problem not a moral problem. Environmentalists have treated it as a moral problem for 50 years and this has accomplished nothing at all. It reminds me a lot of the drug war. Edit #2: I also see a similarity in the human reaction. When you shame teens about sex they still have sex but they hide it. Shame people about industry and they outsource it all to China, in other words hide it.
- NohatCoder 7y ago
  "abstinence based environmentalism", that right there is a perfect term, thank you!
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
I read the article's message as follows: electric cars are still cars and cars are always going to be bad for the planet, so stop driving any cars, including electric cars. So he's not trying to argue for a total solution or no solution. He's arguing that the proposed solution is actually part of the problem, and that it is not a solution because it is part of the problem, not because it is a partial solution. You, and others in this thread, are saying that electric cars are a small step towards a solution to climate change, even though it is not a complete solution. However, any solution to climate change, partial or complete, needs a reduction to our greenhouse gas emissions and electric cars do not achieve such a reduction (to CO₂ specifically). That's because having only a few people buy electric cars does not reduce CO₂ emissions given that everyone else keeps buying more and more normal, dirty cars; and having everyone buy electric cars does not reduce CO₂ because then we have enough electric cars that we are still emitting more than we can afford to.
- blueadept111 7y ago
  Nobody wants to hear that the only solution is to keep human population levels to something sustainably low. It's more fun to pretend that shiny new tech will save us.
gregknicholson 7y ago
> I’m sorry that the author doesn’t consider a real reduction in emissions a real difference. Building a new (electric) car also produces emissions. It may be that we produce less emissions overall by continuing to use existing cars.

by Denzel 7y ago

eptcyka 7y ago

The argument isn't that doing _something_ is bad, it's that the amount of effort people put into obtaining their shiny non-paleolithic-compost-fueled-but-rather-battery-powered 2 tonne sledgehammers would be better spent changing policies that operate on organizational rather than individual units. How about we just stop buying as much shit from halfway across the world? Global trade requires us to spend stupid amounts of fuel in engines that have never been optimized for emissions. This of course involves making changes to global trade, this is a lot harder, but surely all those people who are capable of shelling out at least 30000$ (but in reality, barely anyone gets the cheapest model because this is a luxury item) could be doing things that make a bigger difference.

Denzel 7y ago
You didn’t rebut any of my points. First, can you not buy an electric car and advocate and enact organizational or systematic change? They’re not mutually exclusive. Second, how do dynamic systems composed of many independent, self-directed agents change? Instantaneously or over some period of time? How long is that period of time? Probably much longer a period of time than it takes to purchase an electric vehicle (< 1 minute) and reduce your emissions immediately.
- michaelt 7y ago
  They’re not mutually exclusive. Well, you can only spend a given dollar once. So if for example the government spends $$$$ to put an EV charging point in every street light, that's $$$$ they didn't spend making busses more appealing.
  - zip1234 7y ago
    Except the government does even need to do that. The government could actually make money by leasing spaces/taking a cut of revenue to put chargers and letting private industry install them and manage them.
    - nguoi 7y ago
      >Except the government does even need to do that. And perhaps it won't, if enough of the people that make it up read articles like this to ignore the very powerful automotive lobby
    - usrusr 7y ago
      The reality of many governments however is that they are handing out money to the few people who frequently buy new cars for making those cars fractionally less unsustainable, while those who don't drive get pushed aside by even heavier and wider cars (using current "3" by BMW and Tesla as a comparison sample)
    - notJim 7y ago
      There are problems there though, because adding parking spaces makes driving more desirable for both EVs and non-EVs, and parking spaces tend to compete with bike lines in US cities. And as long as US cities remain car centric, having parking be expensive enough to be a deterrent to driving (or a major revenue source) is going to be a 3rd rail for local politicians.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    That assumes that the lack of appeal of buses has anything to do with money. Until buses can: * Deliver me from point A to point G without stopping at B, C, D, E, and F along the way * Provide room for more than a handful of cargo/luggage and park / wait around while I load/unload it * Actually stick to a goddamn timetable (looking at you, Muni) Then no amount of money will make buses more appealing to me than a car. Trains have these same problems, minus the inconsistent timetables, and have the added benefit of typically going at least a little bit faster.
Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
This is a textbook example of false dilemma fallacy. Replacing ICE cars with electric cars doesn't preclude other environmental measures, and in fact, people who worry about their car's emissions tend to be people who worry about other environmental issues as well.
- new2628 7y ago
  ..it surely precludes the environmental measure of not having a car.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    And what exactly is that impact? The author never specified; just asserted "cars are bad because reasons" and left it at that.
- notJim 7y ago
  But continuing to have car-centric cities, and investing more into car-centric infrastructure, as many cities and states continue to do, is a real dilemma. Government funds are limited, especially in the current era, and space in cities is limited, too. We should be converting interstates to high-speed rail, and cheap/free city parking into bike lanes, but if our plan to tackle climate change is all about electric cars, none of that stuff is going to happen. In a sense, this conversation mirrors the myopia the article talks about, because people who disagree with it are defending their individual consumption choices, while ignoring the broader social and policy connections that surround them.
avip 7y ago
Eco-friendly behavior does not abide to laws of matter conservation. I see no reason to suspect people who reduce carbon footprint using X would stop being vegetarians for example. In fact, everything I know suggests the opposite - environmental engagement is always a positive feedback loop.
pas 7y ago
A lot of people already don't buy shit. At all. I mean after about a decade I finally gave in and bought a used TV (instead of using a PC monitor). I already don't fly to useless tech conferences, and work remotely (so no mindless daily commute). And eventually when the e-charger network will become widespread enough around here, I guess, I'll buy a used EV instead of the current car, because cities can't ban these smoke machines fast enough. And when the choice is presented I already buy local stuff. But.. this is a luxury for me/us, because of the enormous income inequality bonus of IT/tech. Those who already live on the edge won't pick the local things, they will pick the cheapest one. And the way to make the GHG-friendly stuff cheap is to tax the shit out of the GHG-positive things. And that unfortunately seems like a pretty hard challenge, thanks to our wonderful society favoring chauvinists rhetoric, trade wars, nationalist triades, and other bullshit. So, yes, in terms of the big picture EVs don't matter much, but without even presenting an alternative, it'll be quite impossible to persuade the other half of society.
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >And the way to make the GHG-friendly stuff cheap is to tax the shit out of the GHG-positive things. Making everything more expensive is a political dead-end, and would exacerbate income inequality.
  - oftenwrong 7y ago
    Not if it is revenue-neutral.
  - pas 7y ago
    Who said everything? Taxing stuff that comes from large scale industrial destruction of the environment is completely different than everything. Plus all the carbon tax schemes start with direct rebates to the tax payers in equal parts, so those who consume more get less back than those who don't.
    - academic_nimrod 7y ago
      >Taxing stuff that comes from large scale industrial destruction of the environment is completely different than everything. That's pretty much everything. At the very least, the commodities used to make everything are sourced from large industrial processes.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Sounds like the typical apocalyptic activist thinking where actually helping the problem /at all/ is a bad thing because it distracts from their grandiose vision and makes their crazed plan that even they can only see happening in severe conditions - often because it involves mass murder. I have seen far too many examples of self declared communists saying things like a $20/hr minimum wage is bad thing because it distracts from overthrowing "the oppressor".
sokoloff 7y ago
I paid net $22K for a new 2015 Nissan LEAF (after $10K in combined government incentives). You could have gotten the base model (with resistance heat only) for under $20K, but that’s a fairly poor choice for New England year ‘round usage.
- siffland 7y ago
  Even at 22k, that is a lot for most people. Online it says the LEAF can go 150 miles for around $4.80. Your payment would be around $375ish a month with at least $100 for insurance (probably more). Why would most people do that when they can get a used car cheaper or keep driving what they have. It is just expensive (i am not saying i would not like a Nissian LEAF, that would be sweet). I guess i see people buying EV's and ask why the rest of the world is not (i know you are not asking this, but a lot of comments i read are) when we cannot afford them.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Totally agree. All our other cars have been bought used. My wife’s CR-V has been excellent and was $7500 (or maybe it was $8500) when 5-ish years old. We don’t carry collision insurance on it at this point. I wouldn’t have bought the LEAF new either if it weren’t for the $10K in government cheese that came with it. (I can buy a $32K car; I just choose not to as it seems a waste.)
amluto 7y ago
> Global trade requires us to spend stupid amounts of fuel in engines that have never been optimized for emissions. Whoa there! These engines are indeed not optimized for emissions like NOx and particulates, but they are impressively efficient. I believe that a good deal less CO2 is emitted shipping a container across the ocean than would be spent driving it across the country. Anyhow, the economic solution here is clear: a carbon tax that applies to imports. The serious proposals do this.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

People that buy electric cars to help the environment or become vegetarian, are probably more likely to make additional changes in their life, and persuade others to make changes as well, to reduce emissions. I'm not sure about that, some of my neighbours seem to think that giving up plastic bags is enough to offset their annual holiday in Bali. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing

Denzel 7y ago
Sure, I’d be interested in seeing actual data. Which is why I qualified my statement with “probably” because of course I have anecdotes that counter your anecdotes. :) I just don’t have the time to look into any primary sources.
- thomasz 7y ago
  Those milieus who care most about the environment consistently turn out to have the highest environmental footprint. The point isn't that these people are hypocrites. Maybe they are (who, besides a cynic, isn't to some degree?), maybe they are not. The point is that it doesn't matter at all. People by and large will not alter their behavior in any major way for a common good as long as the individual marginal advantage is dwarfed by the individual marginal cost. Fishers will happily eradicate all fish in their fishing grounds and thus destroy their own livelihood, and will fiercely protest any meaningful regulation aimed at conserving. Consumers will happily fly around the world or commute in a SUV until the planet is doomed.^1 It's just the way it is, lamenting the sinful human nature doesn't change a thing. We need meaningful regulation. -------- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
thinkcontext 7y ago
Which is why a carbon price is so essential. Even if all the information was readily available to consumers, its too complex to be able to interpret.

thomasz 7y ago

You cannot shop yourself out of a societal problem. The tragedy of the commons guarantees that.

mrhappyunhappy 7y ago

The problem is time. Or lack of it. We cannot afford for the markets to work things out for us. Sure, you can shift culture and behavior but that takes time that we do not have. It’s time for drastic policy change and swift global action.

sak5sk 7y ago
Don't know why you're being downvoted. We currently have only 1 nuclear plant under construction. Any new construction wouldn't be complete and operational until at least 2033. IPCC clearly stated we need to make significant progress if not reverse emissions by 2030. The idea that nuclear is somehow going to save the day is insane. Sure, if we had plants that were nearly complete (in the US) and we prioritized operational approval and somehow got the population on board.. but that simply can't happen.

endymi0n 7y ago

This comment hits the nail on the head. Plus, what the OP conveniently ignores, is that electric cars aren‘t a talisman, but a bridgehead. If electric cars succeed on a large scale, it means we solved making electricity storage fast, dense and cheap enough to put them on the road. Putting that technology into the electric grid and combining it with renewables will enable dirt cheap, limitless energy, which will contribute in a major way towards solving all the other problems OP enumerated.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Agreed. Consider using the term "low-carbon energy" in place of "renewable energy". We want to promote the right stuff. Biofuel is considered renewable but is high carbon. Nuclear fusion would be low carbon but not considered renewable. The difference matters hugely for future energy policy.
- dTal 7y ago
  Biofuel is carbon-neutral because the carbon comes from the atmosphere. It's fine to burn it because its emissions have already been bought and paid for in its creaion. The problem with carbon is digging it up, in an open cycle. Renewable is a more strict term than carbon-neutral, it's true, but all "renewables" are by definition closed-loop and hence carbon-neutral.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    This is a common but incorrect assumption. Biofuels are very far from carbon neutral. Renewable is in no way restricted to the desirable. As an extreme case in point, wood in particular is a horrifying energy source due to health detriment from particulates. Have a look at some data: https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-co2-of-fuels.png https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-... Source: Schlomer S., et.al., 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

reitzensteinm 7y ago

If you dump BEVs on a grid that's transitioning towards renewables, you'll delay that transition. It doesn't make sense to account for the emissions as being the average of the grid, because you're delaying shutting down your dirtiest power to deal with the marginal load. BEVs are clearly the future, and offer opportunities for distributed storage and demand dispatch that will help us keep the grid stable even with high renewable mixes. They're going to be great in the future, and for that we need to build up a market for them. That's where the real difference will come from.

Nasrudith 7y ago
Doesn't that contradict itself? Increased storage capacity delaying the transition to renewables? When storage at scale is the hard part and electric car batteries can power a house for a few days? Not to mention that the transportation sector is a part of the grid fundamentally. Even if it interferes with one metric it is still better overall which makes the complaint seem like it misses the point.
- reitzensteinm 7y ago
  In the short term, it means you're just keeping fossil fuel power plants online for longer (if you're in the process of transitioning). You stop burning oil in your car though, and it's still a win, though in terms of ROI not an amazing one. In the long term, once you're generating so much renewable energy that it's causing instability in the grid and you can't pump more in, BEVs are a probably an essential component of handling that. Certain grids at certain times have already reached this point (the SA battery being a great example of where BEVs could have helped), but most are many years away from it, depending on how the price of solar trends.

adamlett 7y ago

The way I read TFA, the argument is this: If you think electric cars is the solution or a meaningful part of the solution, you're wrong. It does not say electric cars are bad, and it certainly does not argue that we should not solve [the climate crisis] if we can't solve it all-at-once. There are unfortunately still many, many people, who—even if they accept that human caused climate change is real—do not appreciate how urgent the crisis is.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
It does say EVs are solving the wrong problem, which (OP says) is that our consumerist lifestyle is unsustainable.
navigatesol 7y ago
>There are unfortunately still many, many people, who—even if they accept that human caused climate change is real—do not appreciate how urgent the crisis is. I am one of these people. How urgent is it? Between the denials and exaggerations, I really can't tell.
- panzagl 7y ago
  I'm also one of those people. I mean, the only meaningful change we could make in a couple years would involve mass depopulation of the planet- anything else is on the order of decades.

pankajdoharey 7y ago

"But overall, they are too little too late. An electric car is still a car, and permeates our car-dependency the same as any other car." .... Well yeah..., till Startrek's teleportation is invented.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 7y ago

That's a pretty uncharitable reading of TFA. My take-away is this: if we use the electric car as a way to persuade ourselves that our 'way of life' is safe if only we all switched to electric vehicles then we are ignoring the elephant in the room: it is our way of life that is the problem, not how we transport ourselves.

justin66 7y ago
A "way of life" isn't something you flip a switch on, it's a conglomeration of factors which might or might not be made to change. I think that's the parent poster's point.
Denzel 7y ago
I actually strove to be charitable in my interpretation. Sure, his heart may be in the right place, but his framing is not. And I feel like he's doing more to invite analysis paralysis than actually help people make decisions. if we use the electric car as a way to persuade ourselves that our 'way of life' is safe if only we all switched to electric vehicles then we are ignoring the elephant in the room Who is doing that? I'm genuinely asking for sources because I don't know of anyone that is pushing electric cars as the solution. Not Tesla, nor people who buy Teslas, nor people who buy electric cars. I want sources because all I can do is speak about the individuals I've come across. In my life, some of the people that have bought electric vehicles also: - Advocate in local government for bike lane buildout in their cities. - Adopt vegetarian or vegan diets. - Ask their employers to buy carbon offsets for any work-related flights. - Push schools, hospitals, governments, apartment complexes, etc. to transition what they can to solar or wind energy. (My brother's HS didn't have solar panels, now they have solar+batteries providing some X% of their energy needs.) The list goes on. Yes, I agree with the author, electric vehicles aren't the full solution. No, I don't agree that they're a talisman of false hope. That's pretty strong, inflammatory wording. And no, I don't agree with the author's decision to set his article in a negative framing. To me, that does more to invite analysis paralysis than a positive framing would. If he (or anyone) knows a better route, then please offer CTA for a program where individuals can pay $X for a guaranteed Y benefit towards addressing climate change. Electric vehicles offer exactly that CTA. Why didn't the author?

Barrin92 7y ago

They don't make a real difference, and the author is correct about it. If you drive towards a wall and you're accelerating and all you're doing is slowing the rate of acceleration you're still going to run into the wall at terminal velocity. The author correctly points out that the total increase in car usage, mostly conventional engines is going to offset the small dent that electric cars make, and that cars themselves are only a small fraction of the transportation industry to begin with. And not to mention that there's global shipping, construction, meat consumption all of which is by itself faster increasing than any environemntal solution in the respective domains which all only marginally change the equation to begin with. Our ecosystem doesn't care whether we tried really hard and if we were really good citizens or whether we did nothing, all that matters at the end is if our efforts were significant enough to not degrade our environment. And we're off by a magnitude or two and that's not going to change until we make radical changes to how we manage our societies.

theworld572 7y ago
So whats the alternative? Do nothing at all? If you have $100k left to pay on your mortgage, and somebody offers you $5k towards the mortgage are you going to tell them they're offering you a "false hope because you'd still have $95k left to pay"? EDIT: This is also known as the "nirvana fallacy": because the solution is not perfect - that means it is worthless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
- Barrin92 7y ago
  No, the alternative is to figure out how to change the very fundamental levers of the system in a way that enables change on a scale that matters. The individual consumption lens is going to accomplish nothing. If you could move an entire country from being car dependent to being largely car free, by pushing rapid urbanisation and transit and you put 20 car drivers onto a train or a bus, then we're starting to talk about measures that actually have some effect. Or if we eliminate meat consumption altogether rather than promising people magic lab meat every five years, that would have an effect. Or if we put some significant money into a manhattan project for carbon capture, that at least gives us a statistical shot. But buying a tesla or a linen bag at the supermarket or paying 50 cents for a biodegradable cup at starbucks isn't saving the planet, it's the modern version of paying the catholic church for absolution. And in the long and infamous history of bad references to fallacies, this isn't one either. If you need to go from 100 to 10 and you're spending billions on something that gets you from 100 to 99.9 you're wasting time and energy that you don't have.

raaaaraaaa2 7y ago

"real reduction in emissions" ...real problem is : Is your electricity 'clean' ? In France for sure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France in China I don't think so : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China ...however local pollution is zero so that's huge benefit for large cities of course.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

The really irritating thing about the 'solve it all at once' argument is that electric cars, in a very real way, are the keystone that lets the entire arch support itself. Renewable energy sources are already the cheapest ways of generating electricity at certain times, the trouble is that those aren't always when the electricity is needed. Energy storage makes investment in renewables much more profitable. The problem is, energy storage is itself expensive, much too expensive to invest in for most situations. By attaching wheels and motors, electric cars make people pay more for batteries than they ever would otherwise be willing to spend on energy storage.

JKCalhoun 7y ago
The author talks about a lot more than the cost of energy to power the car. For one, there is the cost in energy of building and maintaining the roads.
- Faark 7y ago
  The author is kinda talking about civilization. And no, expecting humans to give up much on that front won't save the planet. We have to improve on a lot of fronts and the attention argument is one of the better ones... finding better ways to achieve the same is worthy pursuit. Sailing across the ocean to save on emissions worthy action for some young female climate activist, but certainly not something many of us would be willing to do.
Forge36 7y ago
The interesting thing about electric cars is that many of them sorry scheduled charging (my charging station also supports remote configuration of when I can charge). If my electric provider was willing (and able) to control when I could charge my car, they could use the the batteries to level out peaks in production to a degree. Off peak charging already exists today, however there aren't enough electric cars to make utilities heavily incentivise of peak charging solutions (it would only make sense for me to do so if my car was fully electric and not a hybrid due to initial installation costs)
- 7y ago

jhoechtl 7y ago

> Most people arrive at the decision to purchase an electric vehicle exactly because they are questioning their way of life. Electric vehicles are not a talisman of false hope, they’re a singular step in the right direction. Oversimplistic view, you have a stake in Tesla or you don't know better. Otherwise you would also discuss the TCO, the total power need to produce e-vehicles, where Lithium is harvested and under what circumstances, that increased electricity demand fuels the discussion about nuclear power plants. And many more points to consider which certainly don't give a 100% conclusive picture in favor of e-mobility.

Mirioron 7y ago

>His argument distills to: solve it all-at-once, or don’t solve it at all. I disagree. I think the argument that's being made is rather that switching to electric cars isn't enough, but people focus on it so heavily that people feel as though switching to an electric car is saving the planet. The problem here is that it's not enough and due to how hyped up electric cars are there won't be enough will left to tackle many other problems that affect climate change. I don't know if I came across properly, so I'll explain it in a different way: humans have a limited amount of attention and will. Switching to electric cars is a useful move to combat climate change, but due to how hyped up electric cars are, it will satisfy many people's urge to do something for the climate. This occupies most of the limited amount of attention and will, thus there isn't enough left over to tackle all the other, bigger, problems.

jmnicolas 7y ago
> switching to electric cars isn't enough It's not enough it's worse : basically by buying an electric car you're outsourcing your pollution to China and Africa.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Aren't a lot of electric cars (e.g. Tesla, Nissan Leaf) made in the US from batteries made in the US?
  - jmnicolas 7y ago
    Where do rare earth materials contained in the batteries come from ? To the best of my knowledge it comes from Africa and China.
llsf 7y ago
So the problem is the "hype" around electric cars, not the electric car itself. Nobody said "buy an electric car, and you are done, the planet would be saved". And if some people do believe that, then it is an education issue, not an electric car issue. A bit tired of people shooting for perfection and berating those who actually try to make a difference, even so slightly. Maybe a more effective solution would be to ban any fossil fuel powered large ships and planes ("the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars." http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182 http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-mo... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping#Atmospheric_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...). And yet we all know this is not going to happen anytime soon... and still we would keep getting blog posts saying that electric cars are a problem (of hype or whatever) for the environment.

JKCalhoun 7y ago

> His argument distills to: solve it all-at-once, or don’t solve it at all. I read the article and didn't get that impression at all. I got: electric cars are an improvement, but don't fundamentally solve the problem.

Goronmon 7y ago
I mean, "the problem" in the author's eyes is capitalism, technology and entertainment. His solution is that we need to get back to subsistence farming as our main way of life.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

api 7y ago

He also perpetuates what I call abstinence based environmentalism. It won't work for the same reason abstinence based sex ed won't work. You are not going to guilt trip people into being poor. It's failing hardest in the developing world because do you really expect people in Africa, South America, and Asia to listen to rich Westerners guilt trip them into not doing what those same rich Westerners are doing? "To save the planet we need you to stay poor." The response is a predictable "fuck you." There are only two possible futures: 1. We develop ways of running our civilization in a more sustainable way. This is a huge multifaceted roll up your sleeves engineering problem. Electric cars are a huge piece because they break a big part of our hard dependence on carbon based energy and free us to substitute other things. Anything that gets hot, blows, flows, or shines can make electricity, while ICE cars only run on petroleum. No, it is not enough, but the way you do things like this is piece by piece. 2. We adapt to climate change and other major environmental problems as they unfold. Some world where people stop wanting transport and air conditioning and such is as realistic as the one where teens dont have sex. Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that this is an engineering problem not a moral problem. Environmentalists have treated it as a moral problem for 50 years and this has accomplished nothing at all. It reminds me a lot of the drug war. Edit #2: I also see a similarity in the human reaction. When you shame teens about sex they still have sex but they hide it. Shame people about industry and they outsource it all to China, in other words hide it.

NohatCoder 7y ago
"abstinence based environmentalism", that right there is a perfect term, thank you!

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

I read the article's message as follows: electric cars are still cars and cars are always going to be bad for the planet, so stop driving any cars, including electric cars. So he's not trying to argue for a total solution or no solution. He's arguing that the proposed solution is actually part of the problem, and that it is not a solution because it is part of the problem, not because it is a partial solution. You, and others in this thread, are saying that electric cars are a small step towards a solution to climate change, even though it is not a complete solution. However, any solution to climate change, partial or complete, needs a reduction to our greenhouse gas emissions and electric cars do not achieve such a reduction (to CO₂ specifically). That's because having only a few people buy electric cars does not reduce CO₂ emissions given that everyone else keeps buying more and more normal, dirty cars; and having everyone buy electric cars does not reduce CO₂ because then we have enough electric cars that we are still emitting more than we can afford to.

blueadept111 7y ago
Nobody wants to hear that the only solution is to keep human population levels to something sustainably low. It's more fun to pretend that shiny new tech will save us.

gregknicholson 7y ago

> I’m sorry that the author doesn’t consider a real reduction in emissions a real difference. Building a new (electric) car also produces emissions. It may be that we produce less emissions overall by continuing to use existing cars.