• corm@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh shut up, ecars cause less environmental damage than normal cars by far. Yes they require lithium. The lithium required doesn’t get close to the damage of 300k miles worth of gas.

    “but power plants burn coal for that electricity”

    Not mine. I live in portland and have signed up for 100% renewable power. That’s a your-city problem. You should work on that.

    • 1993_toyota_camry@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think you’re arguing points that weren’t made.

      Individually owned automobiles and the systems required to support them are wasteful and polluting no matter how you power them.

      Electric cars are better, yes. But their popularity is in a large part because they allow us to mostly maintain the status quo.

      Do you think they are a sustainable long-term solution? Should we be planning our future around paved roads made almost exclusively for personally owned mostly single-occupant vehicles?

      • corm@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s two months later and I’ve done a 180 on this opinion and went from “fuck gas cars” to “fuck all cars”.

        The car infrastructure is the shitty part, not so much the cars

        • CurtAdams@urbanists.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          @corm @1993_toyota_camry Sort of? All cars ruin our lives. But gas cars also ruin the planet, where electric are substially better now and will be almost carbon free in 30 years or so. Getting rid of cars in general is very desirable, but getting rid of gas cars is an existential necessity.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Electric cars help pollution like filtered cigarettes help smoker health. It’s a tangible improvement, but on the grand scale of things it’s not a significant improvement.

  • darkmugglet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sigh…I own an EV and I will tell you that my reasons for buying it are less environmental and more practical. Not having to go to a gas station (charge at home) or how I literally have way more power than I need or that it’s just fun to drive. You can shit on EVs, but in all reality they are a superior car if you don’t get hung up on the fuel. I want to be better about the environment, but honestly, my EV is hands down my all time favorite car (and it’s not a Tesla). So before you mock em, go test drive a few.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As much as I hate cars, removing them is only possible inside cities. North America has a very large rural area(and population) that needs to be converted away from fossil fuels.

    • thisfro@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe yes, but a large part of society at least in America and Europe live in cities or suburbs, where cars are just bs

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      North America has a large suburban population. The rural population is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels for the near future because of infrastructure scarcity and the energy density of fossil fuels.