this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
53 points (77.9% liked)

Memes

45704 readers
1325 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Electric cars don't solve every problem with private vehicle ownership but they're certainly a step in the right direction. Most EVs average an equivalent of more than 100mpg versus most ICEs, which are around 30-40. You can also power an EV with renewable resources. This isn't possible with ICEs (yes, I know you can power certain diesels with biofuel, but it's horribly inefficient).

"Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one" is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one

Also, what do you think happens to your car when you replace it with an electric car? Do most people just drive their old cars into the ocean when they upgrade?

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one" is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.

Yeah, but this still holds a lot of water. More often than not people buy a new car to have a new car or even worse they buy one specificcally because they are misguidedly trying to lessen their carbon footprint.

[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

huge unsupported assumption with no basis but your anal tugging.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not sure why you are having trouble finding support or what anal tugging even is, but looking at Americans at least. They get a new car. On average every 6 to 8 years. A decently maintained car will easily last 11-14 years. If you are finding a better explanation that genralizes than what I described to explain this gap I'd love to hear it

[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Most people buy used cars. So those cars are already 11 to 14 years old. Inform yourself.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

After 8 years you're getting to the point where the average person is gong to start running into problems with their car, especially if they bought used. At that point a person may buy a new car for many reasons not "just because". But even in your example, it's a 3 year gap. That could be accounted for by someone commuting more than average or taking long trips and getting more wear and tear.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can't even. Where are you getting that data? Unless the average person is driving a bmw they don't start running into any kind of serious issues until 11-14years. Anything sooner than that is typically easily fixed and much cheaper than buying a new car. I don't understand why people here don't realize there is a huge push by advertisers and American culture to buy new cars well before they are needed. People want new cars >> than they need new cars. I'm not fabricating that. Even in a recession yes this mentality remains strong. If that's important for you go for it I guess and yes of course buy electric or hybrid if you can. If you really want to make a carbon footprint dent though, hold off on buying a new car for a few years and with decent maintenance and minor repairs you will save yourself money and save the environment. Jesus

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

People don't run into issues for 11-14 years? You're assuming everyone is buying a brand new car. You're entire stance is destroyed by the simple concept of buying used cars.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

People aren't just buying new cars for fun in a recession. The point is people will need to buy a new car at some point. Either because they now need their own car or their old one isn't viable. At that point, choosing an electric car is a step in the right direction. That's why this post is stupid, it's acting like buying an electric car is just a frivolous purchase and not acknowledgeding that when someone needs to buy a car there is a choice to be made.

[–] toastus@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More often than not people buy a new car [...] trying to lessen their carbon footprint.

This seems very hard to believe.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Try looking it up. That might help

[–] toastus@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just because I wanted to be sure I am not being mistaken for some reason I just googled a couple different search terms for motivations to buy a new car.

None of the results is even close to confirming your ludicrous quote from above.
So again I am baffled by how confidently wrong you keep on posting here.

[–] Custoslibera@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

My frustration comes from the fact that hybrids exist and are not used nearly as enough as they should (all cars should have been mandated as hybrids a decade ago) and this would reduce the downsides of electric car production.

I’m not defending ICEs here, I just think the overall environmental credentials of electric cars at this point in time isn’t as good as hybrids.

I fully expect this to change in the future but I’ve got entire fleets of vehicles which are less than 5 years old being replaced by electric and that makes no sense.

Also cars generally are just a terrible solution to mass transport. We already have the most environmentally friendly option known to man. Bicycles and trains.

Edit: for further information on hybrid vs electric see this analysis:

https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, which is why I'm downvoting you.

I'm huge into going green, going mass transit, and everything else, however, most people cannot fit into one worldview, which is why this is more nuanced than your meme suggests.

As an example The Midwest in the states does not have mass transit, so they have to drive. So trains and bikes are out. Hybrid still uses gas, and for the vast majority of them they will be on the freeway, so a hybrid is basically the same as an ICE car anyway, so yeah, I'll push them into getting EVs if what they're doing is commuting. However than it gets more nuanced to "is this for roadtrips", because then maybe hybrid is better.

Which is why again I say it's a person-to-person basis. For you maybe a hybrid is the only option, but saying EVs are wrong for everyone is a very naive approach.

[–] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah. America isn’t the world.

Plenty of countries have functioning public transport.

America is not the exception, you can survive without cars.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My issue with typical hybrids is that they got all the complexity of an ICE powertrain, in addition to all the complexity of an EV powertrain, plus the complexity of merging the two.

Slightly less efficient, but I think I'm more in support of EVs with gas range extenders. Maybe it's just a question of semantics. But more than that (if we're gonna keep cars) we need to invest in charging infrastructure. Idk why it sucks so bad, and why gas stations aren't installing charging stations.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It's a fair assumption that adding extra systems to the car makes it overall less reliable, but it's not necessarily true. Electric motors, compared to IC engines, are extremely simple and reliable. The servicing guidelines for the electric drivetrain in my hybrid is essentially "replace the battery if it stops holding enough charge", there is no schedule for any routine maintenance of those components. Adding the hybrid system also reduces the wear and tear on the conventional drivetrain and brakes. Hybrids can do regenerative braking, which means that (for my vehicle at least) most of the braking down to maybe 10mph is done by regen, which functionally has no wear and tear. The electric motors also assist the ICE at the times where peak wear and stress occur, reducing the load and stress on the motor, and extending it's lifespan. By adding the hybrid system, the overall reliability and lifespan of the vehicle is increased rather than decreased.

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Remember kids, if you're not solving climate change entirely in one single step, there's no point in trying.

Seriously, what a brain dead argument lol

[–] PilferJynx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Plus, ev's keep the pollution out of the cities and places we tend to live in.

[–] UnverifiedAPK@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah! It keeps it in India and Madagascar, fuck those guys.

[–] kryostar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's the matter with you? Who stole your lunch money?

[–] UnverifiedAPK@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn't realize I needed an /s

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago
[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's under the premise of, of you have a functional car. It you got rid of that and bought an electric, you aren't helping anything.

https://youtu.be/MQLbakWESkw?si=IGV7CRjQslRSI-er

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

There's a lot wrong with this video as most videos on EVs from 2016. The data is sources for electricity production is actually over a decade old now (Sep 2013) and it rationalizes that the electric cars will break down before the grid ever moves towards greener sources. This is a very silly notion considering solar is straining the grid with too much power at times, times where EVs could charge. They can also charge over night encouraging nuclear power to be more financially feasible as nuclear relies on a base load as they don't like to turn off.

They're not a silver bullet and in some cases like the Hummer EV they are worse than an old car but if you have to drive a lot it is completely less carbon intensive than an ICE for most EVs.

Here's a still pretty old but more nuanced video: https://piped.video/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM

The greenest car is a train car.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Every car on the road being converted to electric with magic wouldn't fix climate change. If you didn't also get trucks and SUVs it may not even move the needle Personal car use is not a major cause of climate change. It just doesn't matter compared to industrial and commercial emissions.

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Of course it won't fix climate change in one go, but doing so would remove a major fossil fuel dependency for your average Joe and make them much more likely to vote against fossil fuels.

Put another way, how many people driving gas cars would vote in favor of heavy taxes on fossil fuel use?

Now, how many would vote that way if they personally didn't have any dependencies on fossil fuels?

Also, highway vehicles account for 1.5 billion tons of GHGs being emitted each year, that's 11% of the global yearly GHG emissions, so yeah, it definetely would "move the needle". In the US specifically it's as much as 20% of our nations emissions.

And yeah I already know the next argument "bUt YoUr JuSt UsInG fOsSiL fUeLs To ChArGe It" - except you're not necessarily, in my area (part of CA), you can choose to have 100% of your electricity provided by renewable sources for a small monthly premium ($18/month). Additionally in CA, all new homes are being built with solar power, which further increases your ability to charge without fossil fuels.

And in the areas that isn't true, it's at least getting groundwork laid down to make it true. An electric car can be powered by renewable energy, a fossil fuel car must be powered by fossil fuels.

There are a lot of steps to solving climate change beyond "buy an electric car", and you're right that industrial and commercial pollution accounts for the majority, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing on all fronts.

We've already waited way too long to act, we can't afford as a species to say "well, I'm not going to change my car until the industrial polluters get their shit together", we have to push in Every possible direction, all at the same time to make progress, and electric cars overtaking fossil fuel cars is a big part of that.

There's a lot of work to be done globally until electric cars are 100% green, both in terms of power infrastructure and the processes to create them, but there's no way forward with gas cars, so we need to start moving over as a society now, phasing out the production of gas cars with electric

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's this concept under socialism called "development" where you make small steps towards your desired outcome. Naturally, capitalists hate this which is why they spend so much money pushing for all-or-nothing "solutions" and encouraging people to quit when it doesn't work. Whatever it takes to make sure that people don't fundamentally challenge their illegitimate rule as they burn the planet for profit.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We will never consumer our way of of a problem capitalism created. And public transit is nearly always a better solution to spending on car infrastructure.

... but... If you're gonna buy a new car anyway, they have the potential to cause less climate impact (although they're still environmentally devastating in other ways). As power generation becomes cleaner, so too do the cars. ICE cars are already about as environmentally friendly as they're gonna get, but EVs still have a lot of potential improvement (both in emissions and in things like material mining).

Although the tire microplastics is gonna get worse.

[–] GenesisJones@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They already do cause less of an impact than ICE powered cars. Anyone can Google the information that shows that even though battery production is unclean, fossil fuel production over the life of a car is worse.

If the EV last for more than about 5 years, it was worth it.

[–] Toadiwithaneye@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

5 Years.... This is part of the problem.. What happens to this car after 5 years, it gets "recycled". The metal does and the rest goes into a landfill to gas off. Micro plastics are just part of it, the gasses are a major polluter too. The reason you can own and keep your old car is that they were built to last, our current disposable society is the problem. Electric cars are dirty! Let go dig massive hole in the desert, lets separate the wanted materials out with lovely chemicals, then we can throw it all away. So clean.... Right to repair, build to last, and strong public transport is the way to go.

[–] Pandemanium@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No one is recycling still-working cars after only 5 years. Unless you're talking about insurance deciding to salvage a vehicle after a wreck, which is a different story. Even those don't always get destroyed, some are parted out and some are probably shipped overseas to get a second life.

[–] Toadiwithaneye@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

New cars are cheaply made, with parts that sold in modules (parts attached to other parts) and are by far more expensive then their older counterparts. They also have been engineered to be a pain for mechanics to work on, they are no longer built to last or be repair friendly. Many parts are engineered with fasteners that break when you remove them, not making them friendly to being parted out. As for EV's they are a dirty bandaid to a dirty problem, the batteries alone are, made with rare earth metals lithium, manganese and cobalt. These are all pulled out of the earth using chemicals to separate the materials, these mining areas may never fully recover the impact is huge. We still do not have the technology to recycle them, they just like plastics are not fully recyclable. We could build an affordable, repair friendly car that would be a great trade in for Dads old beater, but that wouldn't get you into a New Ford Crapbox Deluxe.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This post is fucking idiotic. Without electric cars climate change CANNOT be addressed.

Nothing is ever as simple as a single solution. Mouth breathing OPs need to get that through their thick stupid skulls

[–] ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Afraid you're wasting your breath. OP appears to be a member of fuckcars, which feels like it's coming from a good place but is mostly just short-sighted and infantile. I live in DFW and not having a vehicle is not an option, but these folk would classify me alongside the devil because I dare to use a combustion engine. If I could realistically use an electric vehicle I would.

I'm sure that in OPs mind everyone should just abandon their cars tomorrow and that will immediately solve all of the climate change as if private vehicle owners are the ones actually causing the problem in the first place.

[–] rexxit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fuckcars is made up of people with little life experience who think they have all the answers, and people who fetishize city living and think it's normal or healthy for humans to live at a density like NYC (and fuck you if you disagree). They're oversimplifying to the point of meaninglessness, and handwaving away the problems.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've lived in places far less dense than NYC with robust public transit far better than NYC. Owning a car would've just been a burden 99% of the time. And it was certainly healthier than living in car-centric suburbs, both physically and mentally. Not everywhere is America where we can't fathom anything but cars and McMansions

[–] rexxit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What's far less dense with better public transit than NYC? The most popular example of no-car city design I see is Amsterdam, which is 1/2 the density of NYC, but still 15x the density of where I'm from (not even close to a rural area). I think robust public transit at 1/15th the density of Amsterdam and 1/30th the density of NYC is a pipe dream.

In these lower density places, maybe you luck out and you're walking or biking distance to work. If you change jobs do you have to move instead of hopping in the car and commuting a bit further? In circumstances like these, transit can't possibly serve every origin and destination efficiently, and personal vehicles can offer efficient point to point.

[–] Sunfoil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Without electric VEHICLES* climate change cannot be addressed. Expensive new electric cars are not the solution. Electric public transport, retrofitting old vehicles, making current vehicles last, and people adopting two wheeled electric solutions will be the solution. Cars like Teslas are awful and buying one shouldn't be considered making a difference.

[–] Mammothmothman@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

What if I told you buying an EV is more about not paying for gas than it is about fighting climate change.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

The main issue in the push for electric cars, is that we're pretending that we can fix things with no lifestyle changes.

And for the richer people, that's probably true. But there's a big chunk of people for whom the electric car revolution means no more personal transport.

I accept that, but we need to invest in public transport exponentially more than we are doing. It needs subsidising up the wazoo so people outside the inner-city bubble can still get around. By just pretending that electric cars will reach affordable levels for the poorest, we're inviting trouble further down the line when they can't use their petrol cars any more.

[–] HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Keeping an old car is better, but having one that works is even better than that. Cause, you know, eventually cars stop working. That's a thing.

[–] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

#sobbing, crying, utterly inconsolable.

All I want is small, cheap, reliable economy boxes back. Simple, uncomplicated, user servicable, cheap cars. Engine, transmission, differential, a cab, lights, wind down windows. Without an unnecessary extra 5 miles off wires for the equally unnecessary half ton of electronics and plastic.

Unfortunately that seems to be an unreasonable ask nowadays.

[–] UFODivebomb@programming.dev -1 points 1 year ago

Double overly reductionist takes with no positive contribution. Congrats! This is crap.

[–] eltimablo@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh look, another anti-car meme from someone who clearly doesn't understand cars. Keep it up, Lemmy. One day your relentless negativity will achieve something, and I'll laugh all the way to my grave because it'll be the exact opposite of what y'all wanted.

[–] thepiguy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you understand cars right? Pray tell, what is wrong about this post. We all obviously need your divine knowledge, ofc which I presume will also have cited sources right.

[–] eltimablo@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Bike 45 miles each way to work and tell me it's still a viable solution for everyone, everywhere.

Try to build a rail network that adequately covers 3.8 million square miles without driving your country into blinding debt.

Tell me that I need to haul a cello that I value more than my own life in the rain.

Squeeze enough groceries for a family of four to eat for a week into bicycle saddlebags.

But as I mentioned elsewhere, the more smug and sour you act, the more the average person is going to oppose you simply because you're an absolutely insufferable asshole. Then again, if you had social skills, you probably wouldn't be here in the first place because you'd have friends (and maybe a fucking clue).

Go eat uranium, you smug piece of shit.