3 ms·
Once we have a critical mass of electric vehicles and they become the default/norm, would that dismiss the argument that cars are bad for the environment? Of c
by atonse 2y ago
Once we have a critical mass of electric vehicles and they become the default/norm, would that dismiss the argument that cars are bad for the environment?
Of course there’s still some fossil fuel use (tires, some mining, etc) but overall, is there anything inherent to cars that we would continue to suggest that people just try to not use cars and use public transportation instead?
- mint2 2y agoThere’s a lot of sociological problems with a car dominated society. Reducing the green house gas impact of cars fixes none of those.
- atonse 2y agoCan you expand on this a bit? I am curious. Because most of the time people talk mostly about the fossil fuel impact (which will be greatly reduced in our lifetimes). But are you confirming my guess, that we would no longer be able to say cars are bad on environmental grounds?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mint2 2y agoNo, I am not. Car dominated cities and transport have many issues. All EVs do is mitigate the tailpipe CO2 issue. Take for example the phrase “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” Cars definitely are ideal for certain things, but designing society and the built environment with car transport at the primary concern is highly misguided and bad for the environment even if tailpipe emissions are no longer a thing.
- yowzadave 2y agoCars are bad for urban environments, independent of their impact on CO2/energy production--they result in traffic, too-wide streets, pedestrian danger, and generally less pleasant cities.
- atonse 2y agoThe pedestrian danger is a valid one and will be for a while (until more self driving cars come out, probably?) But in what way do they make for less pleasant cities? Wouldn't moving to electric vehicles all but get rid of noise pollution from cars?
- 0x5f3759df-i 2y agoAbove 20ish mph most of the noise from cars come from their tires not from the engine.
- mint2 2y agoIf you ever visit SF, make sure to walk across the Golden Gate Bridge. It’s scenic as all hell, but also gratingly loud and unpleasant from the road noise (note the term is road noise not engine noise) Running next to >30mph street is a mentally taxing experience. Running on a road or trail without traffic is amazing and one realizes a mental burden is removed by eliminating the noise and extra attention required for safety.
- yowzadave 2y agoTry visiting one of the European city centers that has disallowed cars—it is a remarkable experience for a variety of reasons: 1. The quiet—you can call to somebody on the other side of the street and they will hear you! 2. Visibility—walking down a street with no street parking is a completely different experience, you can see all of the storefronts, all of the pedestrians, etc. 3. Mobility—you feel total freedom as a pedestrian; cross the street wherever you want, no need to worry that you'll get plowed over by a car.
- atonse 2y agoBut for the city centers that have disallowed cars, sure, as a pedestrian that's nice. But how about for restaurants needing supplies and others needing a vehicle to get in there? I actually like the idea of superblocks like they have in Barcelona. They were wonderful. They seem like a highly pragmatic solution where you can have a mix of pedestrian friendly zones and still allow for vehicles (and in some cities, in the pedestrian friendly zones, only EV delivery vehicles are allowed). This kind of stuff to me seems more pragmatic than the general sentiment that cars are bad.
- micahdeath 2y agoNot all places have public transportation... Rural areas specifically. What options would we have there? I'd hate to drive to town and have to wait a few hours to recharge to go home... Hybrid's would be ok for that at least.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoHow far away is town? A modern EV has 300 miles of range and can charge the bottom half of its battery in 20 minutes.
- johnea 2y agoAnd given a rural located home, one wouldn't charge in town at all. Leaving the car plugged in overnight, while you sleep, leaves it with full range in the morning. I think this is one of the biggest advantages of EVs, that is least touted: you never have to go to a gas station ever again. Also a rural location offers the easiest installation of solar/batteries, which means that not only do you never go to the gas station again, but your transportation fuel is now provided onsite. Providing a huge increase in independence/autonomy.
- atonse 2y agoCan you expand on this? Because the overwhelming number of use cases show that "driving to town" would be < 100 miles. And if you plugged in your car while you ran whatever errands you needed to (or could get 100 miles of range at a L3 charger in < 10 mins, which is even possible today), what exactly is a use case where this wouldn't suffice? For the record, I'm actually in favor of keeping cars and I consider proposals about people ditching their cars to be absolutely impractical, and will land on deaf ears. That said, like any other normal human being, I would like to reduce pollution _everywhere_. So I'd like to understand if people will still make those arguments once the "cars are bad for the environment" impact is greatly lessened from EVs.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y agoNot if they are heavy SUVs, because tire wear -> abrasion -> particular matter. Not if they are accellerating faster, because 'whee! high torque, let's burn some rubber' -> even more abrasion. Also all that shit IS NOT growing on trees, and I havn't seen even one sankey-diagram accounting for all the externalities, be they ecological or economical. It's just one big money grab. Churn, Churn, Churn! The wheels must turn, ever faster and hotter, until they burn. Then comes another plotter along, and tells how our ways were wrong. Here is the next solution, everything else has been a delusion!
- cassianoleal 2y agoHigh cost of road maintenance, pollution from shredded tyre rubber, pollution from brake, motor and other fluids.