4 ms·
Because we could move the entire current stock of cars over to less carbon intensive fuel without having to build an entirely new fleet. Keeping in mind that m
by scoopertrooper 4y ago
Because we could move the entire current stock of cars over to less carbon intensive fuel without having to build an entirely new fleet.
Keeping in mind that manufacturing new cars (and the associated resource extraction) is extremely carbon intensive, then a carbon neutral-ish fuel might actually be the best option overall on a meaningful timescale.
- throwtheacctawy 4y ago[dead]
- MuffinFlavored 4y agoif 87 octane gasoline is $2.99/gallon and this is even 30% more, I’m not sure how you can expect to force the majority of the population (who is supposedly scraping by) to switch maybe the government could subsidize it as national debt?
- dontlaugh 4y agoSure Governments could today choose to subsidise high percentage bio diesel and ethanol oil mixes and fund that by taxing all other fuels. The end result could be exactly the same price for the many who do indeed struggle.
- kuschku 4y agoIn europe, we've been beyond 10$/gallon this year. And yet still far too many people drive unnecessarily.
- scoopertrooper 4y agoMy comments were limited to the question as to why we might want to do this in preference to EVs. In the case of EVs, the energy source is cheaper, but there is a much higher capital expense as those poor folks who are just scraping by will have to go out and buy new cars.