3 ms·

> Who's building nuclear power plants now ? Renewable sources of electricity are stacked on top of non renewable ones so far You're arguing against a straw man

> Who's building nuclear power plants now ? Renewable sources of electricity are stacked on top of non renewable ones so far You're arguing against a straw man of your own making. No one is positioning EVs as the solution for generating clean energy. They are a solution for electrifying transportation which is a prerequisite for moving transportation from fossil fuel generation to clean energy. Moreover, the current average blend of energy sources in the US grid is already much cleaner than burning gasoline, and on top of that virtually all charging stations are powered by 100% renewable energy. > EVs generate half their lifetime pollution before even being driven on the street, This is an argument in favor of EVs. Solar panels also produce all of their emissions prior to being plugged into the grid. This is precisely the mechanism by which they reduce carbon output relative to fossil fuel energy sources which have a large upfront carbon cost and then an even larger ongoing cost. It's the same deal with EVs. > 3 tonnes personal steel cages transporting 1 person Well, we have to have some way of getting around, and most of the US is not dense urban area. Space is plentiful in the US, and anyway "steel cages carrying one person" isn't optimizing for space, not carbon emissions. Any sort of utopian restructuring of US transportation is going to involve way more carbon up front for decades to solve a relatively small part (transporting humans) of a problem that we need to have solved in decades. > This is just another chapter of the "don't worry we'll magically figure it out sometime in the future (_cough cough_ after I got my dividends and retire)" This kind of vapid, incorrect cynicism isn't helpful and probably violates the site rules. We already largely know how to drastically reduce our emissions--clean energy and electrification. EVs are part of the electrification story. There's not much to "magically figure out" except how to make renewable energy viable for base load generation economically, but since any anti-car transportation solution is completely ignoring economy (not necessarily to be confused with "the economy") anyway, we can elide the "economically" requirement for base load generation in which case we already know how to get from here to there. In whichever case, EVs involve much less "magic" to solve than any anti-car alternative.

trgn 5y ago
> We already largely know how to drastically reduce our emissions--clean energy and electrification I think the parent is arguing against this premise. You argue from a value system, in which cars for personal transportation, are an axiomatic condition. Not only that, cars, no matter their size, going as fast as geometry allows it, are an inherent fixture. Solutions like EVs are a solution to carbon emissions, but only within this value system. I can think of plenty of other solutions, all of them old-skool tech. Driving more frugal cars with high mpg (which will be lighter, smaller), would be a low-tech solution that anyone can implement today. However, since this is not in your value system, it does not occur to you. Since your value system is the dominant one, American car manufacturers no longer even want to put this solution up for sale. Not requiring people to commute, is another low-tech way we can curb carbon emission. Taxing cars by weight is a low-tech bureaucratic solution. A true forest of automated speed cameras to push top speeds down, and thus fuel consumption down, yet another one. Zoning which allows amenities in walking and biking distance is another, and infrastructure making walking and biking be safe, not having to worry about getting run over by 3-ton EVs, would be yet another low tech solution. None of the above curb quality of life. But rather, they exist in a world that cannot be imagined. > EVs involve much less "magic" to solve than any anti-car alternative. This quote is a perfect encapsulation of your solipsism. You cannot even imagine these other solutions, and if you do, they appear magic. While this "magic"is the reality on the ground in so much other parts of the world. Even within the US, they exist. EVs will not be a solution to curb carbon emissions. It is because EVs fundamentally do not address the root causes of why we have these emissions in the first place. The wasteful use of energy on personal transportation, caused by overly heavy, overly fast vehicles, having to drive over overly long distances, for even the most basic daily needs.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > You argue from a value system, in which cars for personal transportation, are an axiomatic condition. Not only that, cars, no matter their size, going as fast as geometry allows it, are an inherent fixture. ... However, since this is not in your value system, it does not occur to you. ... You cannot even imagine these other solutions You're making so many baseless and incorrect assumptions about my value system and thought process that it's very hard to assume you're arguing in good faith. You're welcome to try again without making assumptions about my beliefs or capacity for imagination.
  - chii 5y ago
    I think the original poster is arguing the point that having personal vehicles is the wrong solution, and that the life style of the typical american cannot imagine that as a solution. I think it is impossible to put the personal vehicle genie back into the lamp. Any future climate solution cannot involve decreasing the quality of life for the typical american (or western person, i'm using american as a catch-all term). EV is the compromise already.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I generally agree, but cars are fully integrated into even the most non-western countries regardless of wealth or poverty. I admittedly can't imagine solutions that also help us meet our (time constrained) climate objectives or which don't cost trillions of dollars, but I think it's pretty rhetorically crumby to criticize someone's "ability to imagine an alternative" without proffering one's own proposal.
- generalenvelope 5y ago
  Piggybacking to plug notjustbikes on youtube who does a nice job of outlining why the US's obsession with cars and single-family-zoned housing areas has dug us into the value system you're describing. That is not to say that working to fix these vast infrastructure problems is a simple or remotely carbon neutral feat (Amsterdam has taken 50 years to get there). We got here because of choices about how transportation/freedom in the US should look (many lobbied by the car industry). I'm not saying cars shouldn't exist. I don't think that's realistic with an area as vast as the US. But places like Amsterdam and Tokyo can clue us in that it doesn't need to be like this in reasonably dense areas. What if we could eliminate the need for cars in many areas by creating infrastructure that's vastly more efficient, cheaper, safer, and healthier to use? We already have a lot of this technology (bikes/trains/buses/trams + relevant infrastructure). Building this would be expensive and create a lot of pollution. Does that mean we shouldn't try?

trgn 5y ago

> We already largely know how to drastically reduce our emissions--clean energy and electrification I think the parent is arguing against this premise. You argue from a value system, in which cars for personal transportation, are an axiomatic condition. Not only that, cars, no matter their size, going as fast as geometry allows it, are an inherent fixture. Solutions like EVs are a solution to carbon emissions, but only within this value system. I can think of plenty of other solutions, all of them old-skool tech. Driving more frugal cars with high mpg (which will be lighter, smaller), would be a low-tech solution that anyone can implement today. However, since this is not in your value system, it does not occur to you. Since your value system is the dominant one, American car manufacturers no longer even want to put this solution up for sale. Not requiring people to commute, is another low-tech way we can curb carbon emission. Taxing cars by weight is a low-tech bureaucratic solution. A true forest of automated speed cameras to push top speeds down, and thus fuel consumption down, yet another one. Zoning which allows amenities in walking and biking distance is another, and infrastructure making walking and biking be safe, not having to worry about getting run over by 3-ton EVs, would be yet another low tech solution. None of the above curb quality of life. But rather, they exist in a world that cannot be imagined. > EVs involve much less "magic" to solve than any anti-car alternative. This quote is a perfect encapsulation of your solipsism. You cannot even imagine these other solutions, and if you do, they appear magic. While this "magic"is the reality on the ground in so much other parts of the world. Even within the US, they exist. EVs will not be a solution to curb carbon emissions. It is because EVs fundamentally do not address the root causes of why we have these emissions in the first place. The wasteful use of energy on personal transportation, caused by overly heavy, overly fast vehicles, having to drive over overly long distances, for even the most basic daily needs.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> You argue from a value system, in which cars for personal transportation, are an axiomatic condition. Not only that, cars, no matter their size, going as fast as geometry allows it, are an inherent fixture. ... However, since this is not in your value system, it does not occur to you. ... You cannot even imagine these other solutions You're making so many baseless and incorrect assumptions about my value system and thought process that it's very hard to assume you're arguing in good faith. You're welcome to try again without making assumptions about my beliefs or capacity for imagination.
- chii 5y ago
  I think the original poster is arguing the point that having personal vehicles is the wrong solution, and that the life style of the typical american cannot imagine that as a solution. I think it is impossible to put the personal vehicle genie back into the lamp. Any future climate solution cannot involve decreasing the quality of life for the typical american (or western person, i'm using american as a catch-all term). EV is the compromise already.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I generally agree, but cars are fully integrated into even the most non-western countries regardless of wealth or poverty. I admittedly can't imagine solutions that also help us meet our (time constrained) climate objectives or which don't cost trillions of dollars, but I think it's pretty rhetorically crumby to criticize someone's "ability to imagine an alternative" without proffering one's own proposal.
generalenvelope 5y ago
Piggybacking to plug notjustbikes on youtube who does a nice job of outlining why the US's obsession with cars and single-family-zoned housing areas has dug us into the value system you're describing. That is not to say that working to fix these vast infrastructure problems is a simple or remotely carbon neutral feat (Amsterdam has taken 50 years to get there). We got here because of choices about how transportation/freedom in the US should look (many lobbied by the car industry). I'm not saying cars shouldn't exist. I don't think that's realistic with an area as vast as the US. But places like Amsterdam and Tokyo can clue us in that it doesn't need to be like this in reasonably dense areas. What if we could eliminate the need for cars in many areas by creating infrastructure that's vastly more efficient, cheaper, safer, and healthier to use? We already have a lot of this technology (bikes/trains/buses/trams + relevant infrastructure). Building this would be expensive and create a lot of pollution. Does that mean we shouldn't try?