You must log in or register to comment.
They also reduce noise pollution
And reduce the propping of petrostates
And can be fueled, in theory, almost anywhere there are buildings (including your own home/work)
And that fuel can also, in theory, come from fully sustainable sources
They also help normalise the usage of renewable energy (this is a factor that shouldn’t be overlooked, imo)
You don’t even need buildings really, depending on your definition of a building. I’ve seen some really cool remote solar canopy setups, and they’re not connected to any sort of infrastructure. Just a big umbrella with ~20 solar panels+micro inverters, and a couple of EVSEs on them. It’s not DCFC, but it’d still get you 10-20MPH of charge when camping or something.
When you buy an EV, it does not replace the gas combustion engine. The old car is shipped to Africa where it lives on for several decades more. The avg age of a car bought in Africa is 21 years old. So the EV just adds an additional harmful planet parasite.
They also reduce noise pollution
The noise pollution is exported to Africa.
And reduce the propping of petrostates
Petrostates get propped up by consumers wherever your car ends up.
They also help normalise the usage of renewable energy (this is a factor that shouldn’t be overlooked, imo)
I don’t see how EVs are needed for that. If everyone hypothetically switched to bicycles, renewable energy would still be the goal.
Not sure I get the humour? Is it “don’t fix anything unless you can fix everything?”
It’s meant to underline that cars in general aren’t that healthy for the the environments we live in and our people, even if we switch completely to electric. I think it’s to combat the notion that if everyone just buys an electric car, we’ll all be fine.
Bingo. In short, #fuckCars.
It’s that electric cars are a figleaf. They don’t really fix anything if we keep seeing them as our (almost) exclusive mode of transport.
They aren’t a fig leaf, they’re a bandaid. They fix the emissions problem which is currently the most pressing issue. They aren’t a perfect solution but they are one that is applicable now and fighting against them is just playing directly into the fossil fuel industries hand. Fighting for better public transport is great but until that happens electric vehicles are harm reduction.
They don’t fix the emissions issue at all, at best they reduce it. But the real problem of these semi-solutions is that they give people the feeling that it’s OK just buy more cars again because they believe (or maybe want to believe) “it fixes the emissions issue”. In my neighborhood most families have 2 if not 3 cars in front of their house. If I look on the street, by far most cars have a single occupant, they’re 90% empty space. Electric or not that is not sustainable.
I agree public transport won’t solve everything (not even in the long term) but if we’re going to have personal motorized transport it’s going to have to come down in scale significantly. No more giant trucks. No more multiple SUVs for a single family. Your second car could easily be a two seat city car (and yes, electric of course) or even better one of those little ‘fake’ cars with the scooter size engine. Hell get a scooter or a bike even.
I mean if you ask me we should go in a lot more radical direction, but that would be a start. A band-aid is not going to cut it at this point.
The problem is America is built assuming the use of cars. Most Americans cannot simply trade their car for a bicycle, because they live too far away from goods and services. And even if they could ride the bike the 5 or 10 or 20 miles to the nearest grocery store, good luck getting little Timmy and Suzie to their soccer practice or scout meeting.
So at least an electric car stops the tailpipe emissions while we think about changing where people live and where their services are located.
Everyone loves this “we can’t just tear up infrastructure for public transit” argument but ignore that it’s EXACTLY what we did for cars.
Don’t forget roads being a normal expense of governments but the expectation that mass transit pays for itself!
I’m referring to the millions of people who live where there is no possibility of public transit because the population density is way too low. I’m all in favor of making cities car-free zones, but outside of major population centers, the quickest way to help the environment is to switch to electric vehicles.
If we can afford roads for everyone to drive on we can afford mass transit to replace it.
Ahh yes let’s run a bus on a route that has two riders.
We could run a smaller vehicle if there are only ever two riders that need the service, or avoid having a route when there are too few people.
School districts can sort out how to move small numbers of children spread out in rural areas, the same can be done for any population. It also means that there might be some area that don’t have enough mass for mass transit.
But right now we have a lot of places with plenty of mass that just refuse to believe that mass transit can be a solution because of decades of car company propaganda.
Not to mention having public transit would most likely increase the population density of areas and thus making the public transport even more useful
And public transit actually scales in a productive manner, instead of “just one more lane, bro, I swear” bullshit.
Most cars are not used by people living out in nowhere, on a road that only two people use.
Even small towns should be designed without a car being essential unless you live on the outskirts/in the country.
There’s actually a few places that’s been exploring public transit for rural areas.
The quickest way to help the environment is to lessen car dependence.
I think you and I are using different definitions of “quickest”. Lessening car dependence in the US will take years. People can drive electric today.
As this meme shows, driving electrically does very little in the grand scheme of things, especially if you burned fossil fuels to generate that energy. Theres also the infrastructure required for EVs which is prioritized in more urban areas than rural ones. Getting people to switch to electric now while tricking them into thinking it is completely green will do more to slow the shift away from car dependancy in my opinion.
In those big money “glorified suburb white flight” ““rural”” areas maybe, otherwise it’s laughable to think they can afford a functional electric car that won’t die or need a prohibitively expensive battery replacement in two years OR find somewhere to charge in their bfe town an hour from home.
Meanwhile, if you’re obsessed with actions doable “today,” you could get a fleet of vehicles up and running tomorrow to offer transit services to people in need. 🤷
the quickest way to help the environment is to switch to electric vehicles.
When you buy an EV, it’s not a replacement. Your old car is shipped to Africa where it runs for several more decades. So you’re just adding another harmful car to the planet.
The only wise move AFAICT is to convert your car to an EV & then perhaps use the engine to build a backup power generator for your home. But this won’t happen because suburban car drivers are addicted to convenience and nice new things. They are happy to have this false ecology excuse to buy a new car.
Indeed. And Utrecht sets a good example:
You choose where you live and where you work. If you select a home-workplace pair that is not cyclable, you fucked up. The fix is not buy another car. The fix is to move.
So it’s better right? Just not perfect but there are no perfect solutions.
There are no perfect solutions, but there are often better solutions. Electric is better than internal combustion private vehicles, sure! But avoiding investment in public transport in favour of electric vehicles is also just not helping to the extent that we need.
EVs → nearly as shitty as cars with an exhaust (+ introduces lithium problems & power plant emissions). Not even close to perfect. Merely calling them “imperfect” misses the point. They’re not even good.
Public transport → significantly better than EVs, but still quite shitty on the environment.
Bicycles (e-bikes) → significantly better than public transport (but demand lithium).
Bicycles (push bikes) → nearly perfect.
Walking → perfect (if you don’t fart). But ⅓ the efficiency of cycling.
That’s the point, it’s not perfect at all, but it’s better, so let’s take that solution for now and work on the next problem
Public transports can do a lot, but it can’t do everything, same for bikes and walking. If we start rejecting every progress because it’s not good enough then we won’t ever progress.
This is some im14andthisisdeep shit. None of these other problems will even matter if we don’t work towards solving emissions. This is a disingenuous take from an edge lord loser.
Maybe there should be a community for lame biased political comics.
You know the solution to the other problems, such as massively investing in public transit, also significantly help reducing emissions, right?
Oh, I must have missed the part in this anti electric vehicle comic that argues for significant increase in public infrastructure? Or is the author going to release another comic about how trains have brakes and hit animals/people too?
It’s almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.
Or you can Google the artist and see that he is an activist that actively supports policies for expanding bicycle infrastructure. As well as making other comics criticizing the defunding of public transit.
Like, I don’t know, to me this is an obvious reading of the comic.
to me this is an obvious reading of the comic.
Right…
It’s almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.
Fine, here, have some of the other comics of the artist
Does it matter? Why do I need to know the lore behind this dude’s political views to dislike this comic? It’s misleading bullshit regardless of whether or not I agree with the point they failed to make.
Bruh, let me repeat your original bloody comment
Oh, I must have missed the part in this anti electric vehicle comic that argues for significant increase in public infrastructure? Or is the author going to release another comic about how trains have brakes and hit animals/people too?
It’s almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.
You literally talked about the author here. And you said that the comic was intentionally vague.
Well, I’m saying it wasn’t, and it is you that are forcing in your own, wrong, interpretation into it.
Yeah, it’s framed horribly. But if the comic specified that it was something like a hummer (the EV form weighing x1.9 what a gas hummer does… it’s 9063lbs without any cargo) it would make more sense. All the issues scale with size and weight, and there is also personal cost.
If electric Kei cars were normal it would be a much better situation, though people are going to rightfully feel less safe with the idea of being in a small vehicle while on the same road with the increasing popularity of large trucks/SUVs (that is if Kei-class vehicles aren’t banned/restricted for that very reason).
I feel like a lot of these are still relevant even if primary travel is switched to trains or whatever.
Except for that the environmental cost per head goes way down compared to cars.
It’ll still fall into the problem the comic fell into. No solution to assisted travel is perfect. Even horseback has a negative effect since they can trample humans and animals, and oft traveled paths would still be plant free.
Point being, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
Point being, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
What are you calling good? If you’re worried about horses trampling animals (incl. human), that would sound like letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Cycling is nearly perfect by comparison and I’m happy to make EVs and public transport the enemy of cycling.
Cycling is nearly perfect by comparison and I’m happy to make EVs and public transport the enemy of cycling.
That’s exactly what he means, you don’t really want to treat things less than perfect as enemies.
It’s not useful modelling/labeling and you just create the notion that you can not be appealed to.That’s exactly what he means, you don’t really want to treat things that less than perfect as enemies.
It depends on how far from perfect they are. It’s reckless and socially irresponsible to not treat EVs as enemies.
It’s not really useful modelling/labeling and you just reinforce the notion that you can never be pleased.
Get asses on bicycle seats, and I am pleased.
Are bikes made from locally sourced materials, which are environmentally friendly to collect?
If you mean to ask does globalization exist, of course.
Given that globalization exists, bicycles are the winner in this context as well because there are many more manufacturers and bikes are orders of magnitude less complex (thus fewer components to import). Unlike cars which are complex enough to have components that are big and/or heavy shipped all over the globe. Bicycles are made on your continent with minimal shipping weight. The simplicity of bikes also means fewer components that can break.
The most significant problem with bicycles is the Chinese are making copious bikes with non-standard low-quality components not built to last. Cheap Chinese-made bikes have a shorter lifetime than others and the components have compatibility problems so the whole bike gets scrapped.
These issues are not inherent in bicycles themselves. Buy a sustainable domestically made bike with standard parts, not a cheap €100 Chinese import.
How are those bikes being transported? Hundreds of miles on the back of other bikes?
This answer would vary for every warehouse-retail shop pair. I pulled my current bike out of the trash and restored it. My previous one was designed locally in my city & manufactured in Poland. Likely shipped by rail.
Fair point. Every time I sit through rush hour traffic, I think “thousands of people are all headed in the same direction every day, and we can’t build a more optimal system?”
Yes, except many orders of magnitude smaller. Unlike EVs.
Just love how the dead bodies under car are considered mere “imperfections” by car-advocates in this thread.
Ok but you won’t unbuild roads and tiredust emissions wont just go away either
