3 ms·

What a strange thought. Why on earth not? Many families have two cars, and having any electric car, over 2 gas cars, seems preferable, yes?

by b112 4y ago

jeffbee 4y ago
The remaining per-capita carbon budget to avoid > 1.5C climate change is 50 tons. Two new cars could easily consume that entire amount, even if never driven. Replacing the entire vehicle fleet with battery-electric cars is a bad enough idea, but replacing it with twice as many cars is truly unworkable. Replacing your short-range transport needs with a bicycle, on the other hand, is a great idea.
- ehnto 4y ago
  Per capita budgets don't make much sense to think about that literally I don't feel. We could all be good little beans and meet our individual climate targets and still get fucked by the industrial practices of the bare necessities. We need to materialize the cost of carbon, so that it's felt by industry. We also need to get a wriggle on with research of remediation. I am optimistic that we will pull through, but I don't think it will be because we met our prevention targets.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > Replacing your short-range transport needs with a bicycle, on the other hand, is a great idea. I don’t disagree, but not every area is what I would consider bicycle friendly. Especially in the US. Nearest grocery to me is 4 miles away. Certainly do able on a bicycle, but unfortunately in this area the roads are not super friendly for bicycles. I’d rather not be run over by a semi full of tomatoes, while going to buy some tomatoes.
  - b112 4y ago
    It's so site specific, and people make stringent statements based upon their location. It's not clever, or being insightful, or forward thinking, if it makes no sense. Try getting groceries on a bike, at -40C and with ice and snow everywhere. Now try it as an octogenarian, or even as a 40 year old in those conditions. Come on! People need transportation 12 months a year, not 4 of them! A bike is absolutely, positively not a car replacement in many places, at all, ever, period. My statment may seem harsh, but I keep seeing all these suggestions which show people only thinking of where they live. Oh and the hilarious counter suggestion I've heard sometimes. "Don't live there then". What? OK, abandon Canada, and its ability to feed the world with wheat, rye, meat in its summer. Good call, that.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      People are going to have to come to a point where they realize that their ridiculous libertarian fantasy of living to old age in a cabin surrounded by glaciers ten miles from anyone else is never going to work. There is no transportation solution to poor land use planning. The fact that this particular fantasy can't work is not an indictment of the bicycle, it is an indictment of the fantasy. Civilized people live in little clumps called villages, towns, or cities, where the transportation problem is amortized by bringing essential goods such as food by truck to the center of the village where it is within walking distance of even the octogenarians. I recently got so fed up with the meme that most people live far from other people that I made this visualization of where people live in California. The territory-weighted view of life is completely defective. The overwhelming majority of people live near other people. That some people live far from other people is not important for general commentary or policy. Those few people can do what they like and it's just not important enough to discuss. https://observablehq.com/@jwb/californians-from-oregon-to-mexico https://observablehq.com/@jwb/californians-from-oregon-to-me...
      - b112 4y ago
        California's population is about the same size of Canada's, a country larger than the entire US. While many people do live in cities, many live in, and outside cities, in rural areas. Rural areas which support the farms you seem to like. Farms do not live in a vaccuum, and require an entire infrastructure of people working, and living in these areas, including schools, etc. But outside of this, I noticed you completely glossed over climate as an issue, ignoring inclement weather for most of the year. Your map of warm California is irrelevant here, and does not discuss this. Canada has very excellent urban planning, and often has grocery stores near by. That only helps at certain times of years, and only helps in dense areas. This is part of the problem. Electric cars are an awesome solution, yet what I see always is hard core environmentalists harming positive change. An electric car is far, far better than gas, yea? Is it? Then holy hell, just drop the blather and embrace it, and be happy change is happening. Get behind the positive. We have vegetarians manipulating the climate crisis to get their way (no beef is not bad for the environment), we have the bike/anti-car side doing the same. You want truth? Here's truth, and you saw it with all the covid political stupidity. Push too far, and it backfires...
lambic 4y ago
I think the OP is talking about single car households becoming two car households just to have one of each. Fewer cars is better, electric or not.

What a strange thought. Why on earth not? Many families have two cars, and having any electric car, over 2 gas cars, seems preferable, yes?

by b112 4y ago

What a strange thought. Why on earth not? Many families have two cars, and having any electric car, over 2 gas cars, seems preferable, yes?

jeffbee 4y ago

The remaining per-capita carbon budget to avoid > 1.5C climate change is 50 tons. Two new cars could easily consume that entire amount, even if never driven. Replacing the entire vehicle fleet with battery-electric cars is a bad enough idea, but replacing it with twice as many cars is truly unworkable. Replacing your short-range transport needs with a bicycle, on the other hand, is a great idea.

ehnto 4y ago
Per capita budgets don't make much sense to think about that literally I don't feel. We could all be good little beans and meet our individual climate targets and still get fucked by the industrial practices of the bare necessities. We need to materialize the cost of carbon, so that it's felt by industry. We also need to get a wriggle on with research of remediation. I am optimistic that we will pull through, but I don't think it will be because we met our prevention targets.
kcplate 4y ago
> Replacing your short-range transport needs with a bicycle, on the other hand, is a great idea. I don’t disagree, but not every area is what I would consider bicycle friendly. Especially in the US. Nearest grocery to me is 4 miles away. Certainly do able on a bicycle, but unfortunately in this area the roads are not super friendly for bicycles. I’d rather not be run over by a semi full of tomatoes, while going to buy some tomatoes.
- b112 4y ago
  It's so site specific, and people make stringent statements based upon their location. It's not clever, or being insightful, or forward thinking, if it makes no sense. Try getting groceries on a bike, at -40C and with ice and snow everywhere. Now try it as an octogenarian, or even as a 40 year old in those conditions. Come on! People need transportation 12 months a year, not 4 of them! A bike is absolutely, positively not a car replacement in many places, at all, ever, period. My statment may seem harsh, but I keep seeing all these suggestions which show people only thinking of where they live. Oh and the hilarious counter suggestion I've heard sometimes. "Don't live there then". What? OK, abandon Canada, and its ability to feed the world with wheat, rye, meat in its summer. Good call, that.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    People are going to have to come to a point where they realize that their ridiculous libertarian fantasy of living to old age in a cabin surrounded by glaciers ten miles from anyone else is never going to work. There is no transportation solution to poor land use planning. The fact that this particular fantasy can't work is not an indictment of the bicycle, it is an indictment of the fantasy. Civilized people live in little clumps called villages, towns, or cities, where the transportation problem is amortized by bringing essential goods such as food by truck to the center of the village where it is within walking distance of even the octogenarians. I recently got so fed up with the meme that most people live far from other people that I made this visualization of where people live in California. The territory-weighted view of life is completely defective. The overwhelming majority of people live near other people. That some people live far from other people is not important for general commentary or policy. Those few people can do what they like and it's just not important enough to discuss. https://observablehq.com/@jwb/californians-from-oregon-to-mexico https://observablehq.com/@jwb/californians-from-oregon-to-me...
    - b112 4y ago
      California's population is about the same size of Canada's, a country larger than the entire US. While many people do live in cities, many live in, and outside cities, in rural areas. Rural areas which support the farms you seem to like. Farms do not live in a vaccuum, and require an entire infrastructure of people working, and living in these areas, including schools, etc. But outside of this, I noticed you completely glossed over climate as an issue, ignoring inclement weather for most of the year. Your map of warm California is irrelevant here, and does not discuss this. Canada has very excellent urban planning, and often has grocery stores near by. That only helps at certain times of years, and only helps in dense areas. This is part of the problem. Electric cars are an awesome solution, yet what I see always is hard core environmentalists harming positive change. An electric car is far, far better than gas, yea? Is it? Then holy hell, just drop the blather and embrace it, and be happy change is happening. Get behind the positive. We have vegetarians manipulating the climate crisis to get their way (no beef is not bad for the environment), we have the bike/anti-car side doing the same. You want truth? Here's truth, and you saw it with all the covid political stupidity. Push too far, and it backfires...

lambic 4y ago

I think the OP is talking about single car households becoming two car households just to have one of each. Fewer cars is better, electric or not.