4 ms·

> Longer term, California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change. Is this statement really tr

> Longer term, California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change. Is this statement really true if car manufacturers continue to migrate towards electric vehicles?

benrbray 6y ago
Yes, using less energy is better, dirty or not. Reducing our dependency on cars also has many other benefits: fewer traffic accidents; reduced parking requirements means more space for people in cities; less sound pollution, which is better for our bodies and for our ecosystems in and around cities; lessen the cost of living by no longer requiring a $15,000 machine as a prerequisite to having a job; increased density means increased foot traffic to small businesses, encouraging healthy competition; increased density can (has the potential to) mean a stronger, more connected community, less segregated by wealth etc. etc. etc.
- bestnameever 6y ago
  > Yes, using less energy is better, dirty or not. But that is not the question. The question is whether California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change?
0xddd 6y ago
The hyperlink in the section you're quoting points to a Vox article that aims to address that very question. It explains that passenger vehicles are responsible for a major portion of California's emissions and the switch to EVs is not happening anywhere near fast enough to meet the desired reduction targets.
Barrin92 6y ago
The emission levels of an electric vehicle curently are 70% of a normal vehicle so yes. Electric cars are only as clean as their energy input which is still overwhelmingly carbon-based and will be for the foreseeable future. Also the resources needed for the battery creation and lots of the parts effectively wreak havoc on the environment in the third world. There's a rush on minerals including practises such as strip mining which is hugely ecologically damaging. Also cars will always be a colossal space waste: https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd Having every individual carry two tons of steel around whenever they go grocery shopping will probably make our ancestors look at the us the same way we look at people in caves to be honest
- bestnameever 6y ago
  > The emission levels of an electric vehicle curently are 70% of a normal vehicle so yes. Electric cars are only as clean as their energy input which is still overwhelmingly carbon-based and will be for the foreseeable future. So you change their energy input instead. So no, there are other options.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    well, we're not living in sim city and nobody can snip with their fingers to change the energy mix. Over the last 30 years the global energy mix has fallen from being 91% carbon based to a whopping... 88%. Projections for 2040 range from 5-20% renewables if we're realistic. Meanwhile, the total number of cars globally is going to more than double to 2 billion in the same time, in particular in the developing world. (where the energy transition is even more difficult). So under realistic assumptions this isn't really a solution. In particular in the US people seem to love the idea of buying themselves out of the dog house by purchasing an expensive car, but to be effective there needs to be a systemic transition away from this waste of resources.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

benrbray 6y ago

Yes, using less energy is better, dirty or not. Reducing our dependency on cars also has many other benefits: fewer traffic accidents; reduced parking requirements means more space for people in cities; less sound pollution, which is better for our bodies and for our ecosystems in and around cities; lessen the cost of living by no longer requiring a $15,000 machine as a prerequisite to having a job; increased density means increased foot traffic to small businesses, encouraging healthy competition; increased density can (has the potential to) mean a stronger, more connected community, less segregated by wealth etc. etc. etc.

bestnameever 6y ago
> Yes, using less energy is better, dirty or not. But that is not the question. The question is whether California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change?

0xddd 6y ago

The hyperlink in the section you're quoting points to a Vox article that aims to address that very question. It explains that passenger vehicles are responsible for a major portion of California's emissions and the switch to EVs is not happening anywhere near fast enough to meet the desired reduction targets.

Barrin92 6y ago

The emission levels of an electric vehicle curently are 70% of a normal vehicle so yes. Electric cars are only as clean as their energy input which is still overwhelmingly carbon-based and will be for the foreseeable future. Also the resources needed for the battery creation and lots of the parts effectively wreak havoc on the environment in the third world. There's a rush on minerals including practises such as strip mining which is hugely ecologically damaging. Also cars will always be a colossal space waste: https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd Having every individual carry two tons of steel around whenever they go grocery shopping will probably make our ancestors look at the us the same way we look at people in caves to be honest

bestnameever 6y ago
> The emission levels of an electric vehicle curently are 70% of a normal vehicle so yes. Electric cars are only as clean as their energy input which is still overwhelmingly carbon-based and will be for the foreseeable future. So you change their energy input instead. So no, there are other options.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  well, we're not living in sim city and nobody can snip with their fingers to change the energy mix. Over the last 30 years the global energy mix has fallen from being 91% carbon based to a whopping... 88%. Projections for 2040 range from 5-20% renewables if we're realistic. Meanwhile, the total number of cars globally is going to more than double to 2 billion in the same time, in particular in the developing world. (where the energy transition is even more difficult). So under realistic assumptions this isn't really a solution. In particular in the US people seem to love the idea of buying themselves out of the dog house by purchasing an expensive car, but to be effective there needs to be a systemic transition away from this waste of resources.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]