FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbbf03y wrote
Reply to comment by mrchaotica in New data shows 1 in 7 cars sold globally is an EV, and combustion engine car sales have decreased by 25% since 2017 by FarmhouseFan
Nobody is saying that either. This is literally a post about how EV's sales are increasing.
That's a good thing.
Nowhere does it say we should ignore better public transport or pedestrian centered infrastructure.
upL8N8 t1_jbc3x6m wrote
First, the statistics you showed in your headline aren't representative of one another. ICEVs dropped in sales largely because overall auto demand dropped. Only in the last year or two did EV production and sales really pick up. Sure, those sales played a part in helping to reduce ICEVs, but we we still have a long way to go.
Second, EVs do still emit and pollute. We not only need to zero out our global emissions, but also sequester carbon in our atmosphere to get to where we need to be.
Third, the auto industry, lead by Tesla, is taking us down the slowest possible route if the goal is rapid emissions reduction... largely because of government corruption in the form of tax credits, tax abatements, other forms of direct funding and loans, and tradable (aka saleable) carbon credits. Lovingly referred to as "subsidies". Frankly, Tesla (spokescompany for EVs and leading EV producer) would have died without these subsidies, and even if they somehow managed to survive, they wouldn't be anywhere close to the dominant position they're in today. Their sales would likely be a fraction of where they're at. When I think of a realistic technology saving the day... I typically think of technologies that don't need all taxpayers footing the bill so some a-hole CEO at the top can suddenly amass so much wealth as to become the richest person on the planet...
We definitely have to get the 1.4 billion ICEVs off the roads as fast as possible and replace them with plug-in vehicles... or better yet, with alternative forms of transit... yet we're battery cell supply limited and choosing to use up most of those battery cell resources on long range BEVs. Essentially the slowest and least efficient way to rapidly reduce emissions. PHEVs and HEVs would be far quicker; but they're treated like the red headed stepchildren of the auto industry. Today, if we used all of the battery cells to produce only long range BEVs, we could produce 8.2 million long range BEVs per year. (Down from 10.6 million BEVs + PHEVs produced in 2022) If we used all the BEV cells instead to produce PHEVs, we could produce 36.5 million PHEVs and 45 million HEVs... with the same number of batteries. It could have completely removed new ICEV production from the equation last year..
As to what mrchaotica said... if rather than spending all our resources and time on plug-in EVs (aka more automobiles), we instead spent those resources on re-defining transportation by building the necessary infrastructure to reduce overall driving miles, we wouldn't even need to replace all the cars on the planet to rapidly reduce emissions. A PEV (e-bike, e-scooter, EUC, e-sk8) use a tiny percentage of the overall materials and battery cells of a plug-in electric car, especially long range BEVs, and use a tiny percentage of the energy per mile in comparison. If we really cared about rapidly reducing global emissions and pollution, there's your solution.
Less energy for transportation means all of the renewable energy we're producing on our grid can more quickly replace fossil fuel power plants, given that electricity demand wouldn't increase anywhere near as much as it is with needing to charging plug-in EVS every night that use over 6x as much energy to travel a mile.
Combine that with strategies like working from home, 4 day work weeks, lower highway speed limits to improve the efficiency of every car on the road, and carbon taxes to push people to lower their emissions, and we'd have a workable strategy that would be making huge impacts today. Instead we're putting all of our hopes and dreams on the sllloooowwww rollout and expansion of EV automobile production...
I'll tell you this much... at the rate we're going... it'll take a helluva long time to replace all 1.4 billion ICEVs on this planet with long range BEVs. Again, 8.2 million last year.... 1.392 billion ICEVs to go.
mrchaotica t1_jbcfo5y wrote
> As to what mrchaotica said... if rather than spending all our resources and time on plug-in EVs (aka more automobiles), we instead spent those resources on re-defining transportation by building the necessary infrastructure to reduce overall driving miles, we wouldn't even need to replace all the cars on the planet to rapidly reduce emissions. A PEV (e-bike, e-scooter, EUC, e-sk8) use a tiny percentage of the overall materials and battery cells of a plug-in electric car, especially long range BEVs, and use a tiny percentage of the energy per mile in comparison. If we really cared about rapidly reducing global emissions and pollution, there's your solution.
First of all, thank you for supporting my point.
That said, as insane as it sounds since global warming is a huge problem, emissions are actually the least of the problems with cars! The more basic issue is that car-centric development is the root cause for almost all of our other problems, from the housing crisis, to obesity, to poor mental health/lack of socializing (due both to the time/stress of commuting and the lack of "third places" that exclusionary zoning creates).
upL8N8 t1_jbgzzcj wrote
Could take it one step further and suggest that the real issue is greed, laziness, self-centeredness, apathy, entitlement, and lack of forethought. Once you give a person a toy, it's hard to convince them to give it up; especially for a less convenient form of transportation or a smaller house/yard, regardless of whether that alternative helps them/humanity overall or makes their lives better.
Making matters worse, the auto / mining / fuel industries are major global industries. For large regions to suggest we back away from cars instantly leads to lobbying efforts to stop all movement in that direction.
It is interesting that the proposition of creating the option for alternatives is often pushed back against by people in the communities; they simply don't want to pay for things they won't personally utilize, even if many people will utilize it, it'll improve the area, and over time it'll lead to densification around the routes over the coming decades. They don't want to deal with driving around bike lanes, watching out for bikers, less parking, or slower speed limits.
In pushing back, they not only stymie progress, they push the infrastructure in the wrong direction, further towards car centric infrastructure, making it more difficult to install public transit / bike lanes in the future, making it relatively more inconvenient for drivers.
On the plus side, there are 'some' solutions that car companies and communities are having a hard time pushing back against. Namely working from home... WFH was different than bike lanes / public transit in that suddenly a huge percentage of workers were effectively forced to work from home over an extended period of time. Society as a whole all experienced the benefits of working from home, and as a community there was a huge push to continue it.
What if everyone was suddenly told they couldn't drive anymore and had to commute by bike? Over that period, it would no longer be taboo, and people could get a taste of the experience and realize it's not as bad as they may have thought. No fear of cars running them over would be a big plus too.
Given that such a thing will never happen with alternative forms of transit, the only solution is for people to deal with the bullshit infrastructure setup for cars that's a deterrent to bikes / public transit and be a role model and lead by example. If more people do it, communities will think it less weird / inconvenient and be more willing to entertain it, and there will be more people to push our representatives to start expanding the necessary infrastructure.
We're still many many years away before any real pressure can build up, which is sad because if we really wanted to transition today, we could. Everyone could just stop driving, dust off their bikes and ride them, learn public transit routes and use them. Thus my original paragraph... the real issue is greed, laziness, self-centeredness, apathy, entitlement, and lack of forethought.
If emissions / cars are such a massive cataclysmic problem, why are we doing the bare minimum to deal with it?
mrchaotica t1_jbhmyyy wrote
> It is interesting that the proposition of creating the option for alternatives is often pushed back against by people in the communities; they simply don't want to pay for things they won't personally utilize, even if many people will utilize it, it'll improve the area, and over time it'll lead to densification around the routes over the coming decades. They don't want to deal with driving around bike lanes, watching out for bikers, less parking, or slower speed limits.
What's really interesting -- and I'm not faulting you for it, by the way, since it's a super common misconception -- is that this entire argument is backwards!
The real issue isn't that we're trying to spend extra money on alternatives; it's that we're trying to stop spending orders of magnitude more money massively subsidizing driving cars. In reality, those people are on the other side of the selfish spending argument because they're the ones forcing the rest of society to spend money benefiting them.
Remember, bikes don't need special lanes except to make them safe from encroachment by cars.
Driving places isn't inherently better; it only became so because we spent the last century demolishing our perfectly-good downtowns to build parking lots, spending trillions of dollars on highway projects, rewriting zoning codes to force private property owners to provide plentiful "free" parking at their expense, and otherwise bending over backwards to accommodate them.
In contrast, if property owners were free to build traditional development (i.e., if we abolished the government regulation restricting them from doing so) people would freely choose to walk and bike places instead of driving because those would be the quicker/easier/better option.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbc5d1q wrote
Are EV's better for the environment in the long term than traditional ICE cars?
Yes or no.
mrchaotica t1_jbcejpp wrote
If by "the environment" you mean the place where humans live, EVs are not better because they take up just as much space and therefore ruin cities with excessive highways and parking lots just as much as ICE cars do.
In the long term, cities have to be made walkable -- not just for fixing global warming, but also for fixing things like obesity, the housing crisis, the fact that the suburbs are financially insolvent, etc. too.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbceu1e wrote
Ok now pretend there are places that aren't cities.
mrchaotica t1_jbcncoz wrote
What, you think rural folks are buying EVs?
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbcouct wrote
upL8N8 t1_jbh6o3h wrote
I suggest you do some actual research...
There's a reason your article didn't show absolute sales figures and only showed sales growth. Start with a tiny number in 2021 and triple it in 2022, and while the percentage growth will show 200%... there are still only a tiny number of sales in that state.
Your link suggests Mississippi saw a "HUGE" increase in Hybrid and EV adoption. Note that they didn't break out the Hybrids from the EVs.. and most people would consider "EVs" to represent the plug-in variety. Why is that?
Most EV sales in the US are in the wealthiest states in the US, as can be seen in my link above. California, Washington, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and other wealthy coastal states. It also just so happens that most of these states are participating in the ZEV tradable credit program, and also offer state EV tax credits. The states with the most sales have also benefited the most from federal EV tax credit programs over the years; essentially transferring wealth from the entire US taxpayer base to those specific states.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh6yli wrote
You said yes, I get it.
upL8N8 t1_jbh74w7 wrote
Do research and stop talking out of your backside. It's good for ya.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh7v7f wrote
You're going to be ok, just take some deep breathes before you launch into another unnecessarily long diatribe about how you always need to find the bad in the good rather than just be happy that at least we are transitioning to a world where we might have clean air and water eventually. What will you do then?
upL8N8 t1_jbkfuev wrote
Facts vs confirmation bias. You were sure your point made sense and you even found an article written by an EV media writer (the bottom of the barrel in terms of journalism) that you believed backed it up. With scrutiny of the data in that article, it's quickly evident that it's not proving high take up rates of EVs in rural areas. Growing take up rates... sure... but if you sold one car last year and 3 this year, it's an amazing 200% growth rate... which is barely a scratch on the surface.
You seem upset that I called you out... ? 🤣 Heaven forbid I write more than a short one liner to show my intellectual superiority to others, and instead show actual thoughtful evidence and consideration to a topic.
Tthis is why misinformation spreads. People are so stinking lazy and refuse to look past their own biases and do actual research and fact checking before posting shit as if it's a fact.
upL8N8 t1_jbh4quh wrote
It's a bit of a silly question isn't it?
Yes or no.
😉
Trying to sum up a complex situation with a single yes or no question isn't doing anyone favors. I never stated EVs weren't a better solution than doing literally nothing. I went into the details and grey areas that no one likes to think or talk about. I know... thinking hard... details hard. Me drive car fast. Me save / me don't care about environment.
When you delve into the details about where we need to go, and where we're going with the goal of reducing emissions, we're taking pretty much the worst and slowest direction we could possibly consider. And who are the main beneficiaries? Humanity, the planet, or a few corporations; including the oil and mining industries, and primarily one specific car company who's leading the way towards a subpar solution and being rewarded handsomely for it?
This is what happens when the corrupt government picks technological and corporate winners, rather than simply taxing that which is bad and letting the market resolve the issue. If long range BEVs are the best solution, the market will push for it. If PHEVs / HEVs are the best solution, the market will push for it. If bikes, working from home, and 4 day work weeks are the best solution, then the market will push for it.
But then what do you expect from government representatives whose campaigns are financed by corporations, who are constantly lobbied by those corporations who treat them as if they're 'great friends', who are allowed to freely trade stock on insider information, and who may be promised lucrative positions once they're out of office.
As if it wasn't obvious, corporate campaign financing and lobbyists have far more money in their coffers than organizations fighting for the environment and the little guys.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh5023 wrote
So yes, got it.
upL8N8 t1_jbh72sh wrote
>It's a bit of a silly question isn't it?
So yes... got it. At least you didn't back down from your silliness I guess.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbc43bx wrote
People live in rural areas.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments