3 ms·

Perfectly ok? The protests against cutting down the Hambach forest were among the fiercest environmental protests in German history, activists camped out in the

Perfectly ok? The protests against cutting down the Hambach forest were among the fiercest environmental protests in German history, activists camped out in the forest for years and it took hundreds of policemen to resolve that situation, one person died in an accident and the media covered this for many months. And to be frank electric cars don’t solve the climate crisis, right now they’re little more than expensive toys for the affluent, it’s cool to drive around in a Tesla but don’t believe you save the planet doing that.

ttyyzz 2y ago
With "Perfectly ok" I think the commenter meant that the German Politics contradicts itself with its decisions, e.g. We want to become “greener” aka climate neutral in the long term and at the same time we are reopening coal-fired power plants because we need the energy in the short term.
epolanski 2y ago
> And to be frank electric cars don’t solve the climate crisis If governments were serious about climate change they would invest heavier in public transport, not greener cars (which are only greener to drive, but definitely not manufacture).
- Ekaros 2y ago
  If there was real seriousness. We would ban all sort of current sized cars and move everyone to slower, smaller and lighter cars... Less material and less energy expenditure in general. Same thing should happen to housing... If anyone was actually serious about whole process.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    People want big things and climate only 'cares' about the emissions, so focus on the energy bill not on the size. To the extent those are the same, the market forces work out the same anyway. To the extent that they are different, focusing on the wrong thing means Goodheart's law will bite, and you'll end up with small dirty vehicles/homes instead of encouraging innovation that would allow big clean vehicles/homes.
    - epolanski 2y ago
      > and climate only 'cares' about the emissions How can size not be an issue behind emissions? Both the energy and materials required to manufacture and transport the car to the dealership are dramatically impacted by size. Between a light compact car and a huge SUV there is a way bigger difference in those costs that just weight would suggest. There's also other factors such as microplastics: most of those on our planet are not coming from plastic straws but tire wear. Bigger cars require bigger tires which will wear more due to weight and higher stress. We just can't pretend that the way we consume does not impact the planet. I'm not against big cars. But they should get taxed more, as in many parts of the world, whereas in US legislation which focused on the ratio between weight and fuel consumption basically made it more efficient to just build bigger trucks.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > How can size not be an issue behind emissions? There are three ways to look at this. 1. Which was bigger, and which was the greater source of emissions: a Ford Prefect, or one of Columbus' galleons? 2. I own a 38 m^2 apartment in the UK, and am buying a 107 m^2 house in Germany. The big one has approximately half the annual energy requirements of the small one. (That's raw power requirements, not CO2 etc., so it doesn't account for e.g. PV being used to supply that power). 3. Given the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 99.9% in order to stabilise the temperature (because of how long CO2 stays in the air), if it was as simple as "mass ∝ greenhouse gas emissions", then simply downsizing cars would not be sufficient — we'd have difficulty wearing clothes at that ratio, as even just your shoes wearing out becomes significant given the kinds of changes we want. It's such an enormous change that we can only solve it by a near total replacement for every part of almost all our industrial processes, and once we do that replacement, then we have to look again at what is possible, and decide from that what rules we need for houses and transport and everything else. If all the steel and aluminium, all the batteries and plastics, are zero carbon at that point, then it doesn't matter how much of them you use — zero CO2 per kg is still zero total, no matter if the vehicle mass is 100 kg or 10,000 kg.
ben_w 2y ago
> And to be frank electric cars don’t solve the climate crisis, right now they’re little more than expensive toys for the affluent, it’s cool to drive around in a Tesla but don’t believe you save the planet doing that. Tesla's current range doesn't go low enough to replace all vehicles, but transport is one of the single largest greenhouse gas sources — electric vehicles may not be sufficient, but it certainly is a necessary part of solving climate change, given the scale of the problem.

ttyyzz 2y ago

With "Perfectly ok" I think the commenter meant that the German Politics contradicts itself with its decisions, e.g. We want to become “greener” aka climate neutral in the long term and at the same time we are reopening coal-fired power plants because we need the energy in the short term.

epolanski 2y ago

> And to be frank electric cars don’t solve the climate crisis If governments were serious about climate change they would invest heavier in public transport, not greener cars (which are only greener to drive, but definitely not manufacture).

Ekaros 2y ago
If there was real seriousness. We would ban all sort of current sized cars and move everyone to slower, smaller and lighter cars... Less material and less energy expenditure in general. Same thing should happen to housing... If anyone was actually serious about whole process.
- ben_w 2y ago
  People want big things and climate only 'cares' about the emissions, so focus on the energy bill not on the size. To the extent those are the same, the market forces work out the same anyway. To the extent that they are different, focusing on the wrong thing means Goodheart's law will bite, and you'll end up with small dirty vehicles/homes instead of encouraging innovation that would allow big clean vehicles/homes.
  - epolanski 2y ago
    > and climate only 'cares' about the emissions How can size not be an issue behind emissions? Both the energy and materials required to manufacture and transport the car to the dealership are dramatically impacted by size. Between a light compact car and a huge SUV there is a way bigger difference in those costs that just weight would suggest. There's also other factors such as microplastics: most of those on our planet are not coming from plastic straws but tire wear. Bigger cars require bigger tires which will wear more due to weight and higher stress. We just can't pretend that the way we consume does not impact the planet. I'm not against big cars. But they should get taxed more, as in many parts of the world, whereas in US legislation which focused on the ratio between weight and fuel consumption basically made it more efficient to just build bigger trucks.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > How can size not be an issue behind emissions? There are three ways to look at this. 1. Which was bigger, and which was the greater source of emissions: a Ford Prefect, or one of Columbus' galleons? 2. I own a 38 m^2 apartment in the UK, and am buying a 107 m^2 house in Germany. The big one has approximately half the annual energy requirements of the small one. (That's raw power requirements, not CO2 etc., so it doesn't account for e.g. PV being used to supply that power). 3. Given the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 99.9% in order to stabilise the temperature (because of how long CO2 stays in the air), if it was as simple as "mass ∝ greenhouse gas emissions", then simply downsizing cars would not be sufficient — we'd have difficulty wearing clothes at that ratio, as even just your shoes wearing out becomes significant given the kinds of changes we want. It's such an enormous change that we can only solve it by a near total replacement for every part of almost all our industrial processes, and once we do that replacement, then we have to look again at what is possible, and decide from that what rules we need for houses and transport and everything else. If all the steel and aluminium, all the batteries and plastics, are zero carbon at that point, then it doesn't matter how much of them you use — zero CO2 per kg is still zero total, no matter if the vehicle mass is 100 kg or 10,000 kg.

ben_w 2y ago

> And to be frank electric cars don’t solve the climate crisis, right now they’re little more than expensive toys for the affluent, it’s cool to drive around in a Tesla but don’t believe you save the planet doing that. Tesla's current range doesn't go low enough to replace all vehicles, but transport is one of the single largest greenhouse gas sources — electric vehicles may not be sufficient, but it certainly is a necessary part of solving climate change, given the scale of the problem.