• envelope@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Facebones@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        Don’t forget roads being a normal expense of governments but the expectation that mass transit pays for itself!

      • envelope@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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.

              • OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Not to mention having public transit would most likely increase the population density of areas and thus making the public transport even more useful

                • Facebones@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  And public transit actually scales in a productive manner, instead of “just one more lane, bro, I swear” bullshit.

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Even small towns should be designed without a car being essential unless you live on the outskirts/in the country.

        • Facebones@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • envelope@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

            • Facebones@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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. 🤷

        • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

    • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.