Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

internet_chump t1_j42oyrh wrote

These minerals will get mined in China regardless, so the energy consumption to mine them is essentially a wash.

The energy used to transport them will decrease because of the lesser distance.

I trust Sweden more than China when it comes to mitigation of environmental impacts of tailing ponds, habitat loss, etc.

More electric cars means more efficient use of energy and increased use of renewable sources. That means less oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, for those of you concerned about the arctic.

Overall I see this as a net positive.

55

CreativeMischief t1_j43yxyt wrote

Lmfao electric cars an insignificant factor when it comes to climate change. The solution isn’t more environmentally friendly cars, it’s adequate public transportation to significantly reduce our reliance on cars in the first place

16

DM_DM_DND t1_j4487nv wrote

Electric vehicles are still a meaningful improvement as long as your grid is green. If the grid isn't green, it's largely meaningless.

10

ZeenTex t1_j44olcb wrote

Iirc, consensus is that electric cars, even with electricity from coal, is still 60 to 80 percent less polluting than a petrol fueled car.

1

DM_DM_DND t1_j44terr wrote

That is generally true (but depends on costs associated with moving the electricity) although coal is so absolutely terrible that it's still pretty bad. I suppose it's probably serviceable if you have transitioning sources like natural gas.

Still, a bus is better if you have anything like carrying capacity number of people.

4

ZeenTex t1_j44va9p wrote

Well, transporting fuel has its costs too.

Also, agree with the public transport thing, but people would revolt if you denied them the use of their dear cars.

(I don't have a car by they way, nor a drivers license even, but have the luxury to live in a place with excellent, cheap public transport, taxi's and no daily commute due to my job)

1

trelium06 t1_j437yjz wrote

Ideally, you use up all the resources of your geopolitical foes even if it enriches them and save your nations resources for later

6

internet_chump t1_j43edv9 wrote

And if your "geopolitical foe" uses all the riches you've helped them gain to expand their influence into Africa and gain more resources?

Or if they cut off supply and you're woefully behind on being able to capitalize on your own resources?

Besides the obvious strategical failings of this notion, we don't live in some stupid game where people are keeping score or will be declared "the winner". If you're approaching geopolitics with the attitude that there will be both winners and losers then you don't understand the first thing about it. The human race is facing extinction. Either everyone wins or everyone dies.

11