• ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think many environmentalists are like, “My dream is a car-dominated society but electric.” It’s an improvement, to be sure, but I feel like every (realistic) environmentalist would prefer trains and trolleys to planes and cars.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      This seems like one of those situations where every leftist is like, “I think about unions, transportation, and housing.” and the media somehow decides the left is hellbent on forcing people to attend sensitivity training in Smart Cars.

      • rikonium@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        This reminded me of a person online talking about how they didn’t understand why tree-huggers appreciated wind power despite the bird strike numbers - well because climate change itself is a much bigger fish!

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or also because of the bird strike numbers. I believe they are quite low.

          Many such complaints were based on an old wind farm in Altamont Pass that did have a serious problem. However it was a mountain pass on a migratory bird route and the towers were open framework with plenty of spots for roosting. Once we stopped those two things, bird losses dropped precipitously.

          I believe people making those complaints have also lost perspective. My support for anything to further reduce the remaining bird losses is not inconsistent with the belief that we already well into a better spot.

          People making those complaints also seem unable to expand their minds to the huge bird loss from the polluted air pr if we didn’t

        • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Their parts get made. They get manufactured. Pretty sure that involves fairly substantial emissions, just not compared to what we have now.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, everything involves emissions, but when we’re talking about a 80%-90% reduction over what we have now, you can’t just handwave that away. That’s a tiny fraction of our current position.

            And if we’re going to consider that, let’s consider the ghg emissions of laying new bike trails and railroads? Of building new buses and trains?

            Manufacturing emits GHGs for anything but it’s a small fraction of the life cycle GHGs of a vehicle, especially if the electricity used in manufacturing is also renewable.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              the people designing, making, and distributing all use GHG. The robots that make them all run on GHG. The distribution networks that support them all use GHG. Even the power that goes into the charge stations are coal and oil powered.

              That’s a myth, and fossil fuel propaganda.

              Much of the entire supply chain, and most of the energy mix that powers them, are already renewable and that fraction is increasing all the time.

              For example, in California the power mix is roughly 50% renewable. In San Francisco it’s almost 100%. So if I purchase a Tesla, there’s very little fossil fuels in the post manufacturing cycle.

              The whole point of EVs is to decouple transportation with fossil fuels. As our grid gets greener, so do our vehicles.

        • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          OK we don’t make nearly enough renewable energy to meet the demand of American motorists, and likely never will. We use millions of barrels of oil each day. How many wind turbines will match that?

          Are they “greener” than gasoline vehicles? Sure, but it’s still tremendously wasteful of energy. Most of the energy is expended moving the weight of the vehicle and batteries. Not only this but cars dictate how we build and design urban areas. we will continue building and expanding cities and towns to accommodate cars and their sense of distance. We’ll also need to continue wasting space for parked vehicles. This is all tremendously wasteful. We will also continue relying on a massive network of paved roads that require constant maintenence and are themselves made out of oil.

          There’s also the issue of tires. They shed rubber and it goes into our environment, affecting humans and wildlife. It’s not a small thing.

          In short, nothing about cars can be truly green. We’d be much better off investing in networks of highspeed rail, light rail, cycle lanes, and electric busses. These would have much bigger impacts, and much sooner. But instead we are committed to happy motoring and the drive-thru lifestyle

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can regulated-capitalism your way out though.

            Just because nothing comes out of a tailpipe doesn’t magically erase the environmental impact they have.

            It does erase something like 80-90% of the environmental impact they have. Not magically, just because EVs are designed to be better for the environment.