this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
361 points (95.0% liked)

Not The Onion

12350 readers
409 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 212 points 9 months ago (12 children)

He suggested solutions like drivers keeping the same car for longer periods of time

That's what i have been doing... Is that wrong, or just too much anti-consumerism to be presented as a good thing in our society?

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 125 points 9 months ago (5 children)

He's right honestly, cars, especially electric cars, produce a large portion of their CO2 emissions when they are manufactured.

We would all be better off if people kept their "gas guzzlers" but only used them rarely. A car in a garage has zero co2 emissions.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 100 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Which is one reason this anti WFH campaign pisses me off so much. We could cut emissions quite a bit just from that but we can't even do that little because: greedy assholes.

Was I the only one who, during covid lockdowns, was amazed at how fucking clear the air was? Did everyone just forget? Idk why most humans can't look at that and go "we all need to make this permanent" and then do it. But we evolved to prefer the worst of us in charge.

Anyway. Yeah. I WFH and drive about 5000 miles a year. And we tend to keep our cars 10-15 years. It's way more affordable than a new car every few years, assuming you get a car that has low maintenance costs. More people oughta do that.

[–] kozy138@lemm.ee 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Seriously.... Covid was an eye opener me as well.

It was so much quieter outside. The air was cleaner. Animals were returning to previously deserted areas at remarkable rates.

Everyone was itching to get back to "normal," but normal was what was causing all of the destruction on the first place.

The government should literally be paying people to stay home and do nothing. I remember reading somewhere that it is more cost effective in the long run. Rather than fixing damage and rebuilding cities after increasingly severe natural disasters.

[–] WaxiestSteam69@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I live on a really busy parish road and I noticed the same thing. The first 3 months of the COVID timeline were great. My company sent everyone home and we all worked remotely and the traffic on the road at my house dropped to almost nothing. It was glorious. I'm still working from home because my company sold the office building they owned and hasn't built a new one. I can't say the same for other companies because traffic is horrible in front of my house. The noise and the air quality are back to pre COVID levels of suck.

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Anti-WFH is because companies know workers have so much mobility and a virtual workforce can leave to work for any company in the world. It’s a form of lock-in. People don’t like disruption or change, so they are less likely to leave for a higher paycheck. To be honest I’m surprised more American companies haven’t leveraged work from home to shift non customer-facing white collar jobs to Eastern Europe.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Anti wfh I think is run by business office real estate owners. I could be wrong, but wfh fucks them the most. Their investments gotta pay off and real estate is never supposed to go down in price, I'll fucking stab you bitch or something like that, the conversations I have heard at charity galas.

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I dont think so because businesses love shedding fixed overhead so it’s more likely they are trying to get a return on their investment or they think it’s worth the trade off. I’m convinced half the company’s moving to southern states are doing so just to reduce overhead but using the current red state/blue state zeitgeist as cover.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Ya but then rich people would be slightly less rich. We can’t have that.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is the industry blaming a famous person for making sense.

Replacing the gas guzzlers with EVs would be great, but the cost/benefit ratio isn't there. If you need a new car and can afford an EV, get one.

Car manufacturers need to do more to make EVs more affordable. They need to do a better job making their argument that they are good cars with significant environmental benefits.

They won't, because they still want to sell gasoline cars.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Conversions are another option that just aren't being used because of red tape. The paperwork takes nearly as much work as the actual conversion.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Admittedly the last time I looked into a conversion was like 20 years ago, but back then it would have cost as much as a new car. Has the price come down at least?

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I live in a car city but I only use it to go groceries or maybe an event. I go twice a week tops.

All my friends told me I should have gotten a Tesla and that because I'm a tech guy that I'd buy a Tesla. I'm like, I don't drive enough, so I bought a used Civic.

By the time this Civic needs to be retired, there should be plenty of affordable options for me? Or maybe I can move to a place that doesn't require one.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

Absolutely the most reasonable take. Reduce your trips, and use what you already have until it's dust. Let the EV industry grow, tech advance, and manufacturing processes clean up a bit, slowly adopt, and transition over.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago (18 children)

They offset all those emissions by the time they've reached like 80k km in places where electricity is produced using coal (compared to a gas vehicle that increases its total emissions as time goes) so no, he's not right actually.

That's not even taking into consideration the wear on emission equipment and cars age.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If most people replace their cars every three years they're not getting to 80,000 km before they buy a new one.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do they though?

And it's not as if these cars were sent to the scraper, they're sold on the used market and replace gas cars.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

According to Mr. Bean's original article, that's the average length of car ownership in Britain due to the prevalence of three year leases.

And it doesn't matter if they're going on the used market because there's still another new car getting built that doesn't have to be.

[–] racemaniac@startrek.website 4 points 9 months ago

Yeah, the policy causes more cars to be sold, which is also an important thing to take into account.

But you initially said "If most people replace their cars every three years they’re not getting to 80,000 km before they buy a new one.", and that is plain wrong, the car is not scrapped after those 3 years, so when it changes owner for the first time is irrelevant. And that 80k km is worst case scenario, that assuming all electricity is generated in the least environmental way possible, in practice it's often <40k km that there is already a break even because not all electricity is generated by coal.

[–] sdoorex@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Except that is ignoring the filtering effect of the used market. As a car ages and changes hands, it is likely to replace an older, less efficient car. How else could we replace the oldest cars that are going out of service due to being at the end of their life?

It’s not like the people that are buying old used cars are suddenly going to afford an expensive new car. Instead, they need an affordable used car.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] bassad@jlai.lu 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

nah even an ICE car in a garage is not neutral : it needs oil & filters changes every 1-2 years if you want to keep it running, and gas does not like to be stored more than 3-6 months.

This said, so you are so right we should stop using cars as much as possible and walk, bike, take public transports, or rent when needed.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 4 points 9 months ago

Genuine questions:

Does the creation of lubricating oil actually cause a notable level of CO2 emissions? (I guess that depends on synthetic vs mineral?)

Does gasoline "going bad" and having to be disposed of produce CO2 emissions? or, since it's destroying gas that would otherwise be burnt, is it actually carbon negative?

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago

It depends on how much you drive, and what you drive. If you have a Prius and drive 2000 miles a year the emissions payoff for getting an EV would probably be longer than you’d even want to keep the car. If you’re in a diesel F350 and do 20,000 miles a year, mostly city, then yeah an EV will be net zero in like 5 years or less.

As I’m sure someone will mention inevitably, not using a car in the first place is the best option. Public transit, walking, biking, are all much better solutions.

[–] sirdorius@programming.dev 19 points 9 months ago

Anti-consumerism is bad because it would expose the fact that our economy is overproducing shit we don't need, so we would need a massive reorganization of society. You can tell who that is bad for.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

A portion of the public thinks that anything saying that you shouldn't immediately hop on the electric car bandwagon this moment is saying that electric cars are failures entirely. Drive your internal combustion car til it's dead, it's already here and will be phased out itself over time. No sense in making significantly higher artificial demand, leading to further pumping out cars that, no matter how you look at it, are expensive to the environment to build. Let the adoption come as cars start dying, let the EV industry keep advancing, and get one as your next car whenever that is.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

It's sky news, a far right media outfit with questionable factual credibility. Notice they didn't say that this what they attacked him on, only that it was in the piece that they were criticizing. It's intentionally misleading to make you think their position is ridiculous.

Don't fall for this propaganda.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

No it's not wrong. Hell, I drive EV and lots of people ask me about it, And of course I'd love if more people did it, to cut down on fossils, but realistically it's always a financial decision, so I honestly tell them "If you already have a car, and don't need a new car, then it's a bad financial decision to buy a new car."

However, when you do need a new car, then it's likely a good decision to buy an EV, but you need to run the numbers if you want to know for sure. There are a lot of factors in this, some of which are dependent on your own personal milage and finances and others on where you live and what is available.

If you do run all the numbers for the duration of ownership, it's likely always a good decision to buy a new EV in comparison to ICE cars, and the thing that made my decision was that in my case, it wouldn't even make sense to buy the cheapest beater car, because over the years that I expect to drive this car, it's cheaper to buy a new EV than to exchange and/or repair older ICE cars. But I'm sure it varies. You gotta have some idea of how much you need to drive for the next 5 years, and most people probably don't.

Atkinson is sort of right in advising people to hold out a while. The prices are dropping and in just a few years, it won't even be a question. However I also understand the criticism, because as a public figure he should not be passing out blanket statements like that. There are likely people who will not buy an EV now because of his statement, even if it's against their own self interest.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

But I'm full, father! I can consume no more!

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, i'm driving a 20+ year old car and while i feel guilty about the higher emissions older design have, it's still run and in awesome shape. Got talked by my ex for still using an old car, but meh, if it still run it still run.

Definitely getting an electric car next though, if i ever have that budget. Even then the local electricity production is still not ready for clean energy.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

I’m holding on the the car I bought in 2019 until I can do an electric conversion on it.

I don’t need a NEW car.

[–] Magister@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Me too, my car is 10 years old, all paid, I only have 83'000 miles on it, yeah I changed brakes/rotor and a couple of stuff mainly in suspension/linkage because of pothole... but that's it.

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

A new Toyota Corolla makes roughly 100g of CO2 per km driven and a car produces on average 5.6T of CO2 when being manufactured. You've driven through the CO2 equivalent of manufacture in roughly 60000 kms. I chose the Corolla for this comparison because it's pretty fuel efficient.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You might want to check your math there, champ.

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Fixed. Thanks!

[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Assuming your numbers are correct, the Corolla emits 6000 x 100 = 600 000 grams of CO2. That is 600 Kilograms, not 6 tons.

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)