Submitted by altmorty t3_124yq0y in technology
Comments
SunnyGrassBeachRelax t1_je3zrjp wrote
It's kinda shitty for average joes but we're at a point where the environment needs to be fixed and fixed fast. The Brussels effect is a thing that will definitely come into play here especially with a lot of leading car manufacturers being headquartered in the EU.
Concernedmicrowave t1_je40xif wrote
This ain't going to fix anything. Transportation is only 13% of the EU's total carbon emissions. And all cars and trucks being electric won't even get rid of all of that 13% unless the power grid is 100% renewable. That power has to come from somewhere. Furthermore, a new electric car that is replacing an existing gas car has to make back its manufacturing costs before it becomes greener, further increasing the futility of this measure.
And there's the rest of the world who are less green to begin with.
At this point, barring a technological miracle or nuclear holocaust, nothing we do is going to prevent run away climate change. We will simply have to be prepared to deal with the consequences. Electric cars will and should replace gas cars, but there isn't any point in trying to force it when the technology is still too expensive and flawed.
The best approach would be to take a step back and let electrification happen at the pace the tech is developing and focus green efforts on power grids, manufacturing, construction, and reducing consumerism.
L3aking-Faucet t1_je5fh7z wrote
If California bans anything related to gas powered engines than the rest of America will most likely follow.
Concernedmicrowave t1_je5oouq wrote
It's one thing to ban new production gas cars, quite another to make it highly impractical to operate existing ones.
m00fster t1_je49ws2 wrote
Most people in Europe don’t need cars. At least where I live almost no one I know owns a car
dantheman999 t1_je4bf5n wrote
I live in Europe and practically everyone I know owns at least a car. I'd love not to, but the public infrastructure here just unfortunately isn't set up for everyone to use it, especially away from major cities or suburbs.
Tobias---Funke t1_je44g0b wrote
The 7 largest container ships give out more pollution than EVERY car on the planet combined.
disembodied_voice t1_je5pnjk wrote
I really wish this misinformation would die. That claim only applies in terms of sulfur oxides, which cars don't emit in any appreciable amount. It's like saying trucks don't pollute because a single cat produces more cat poop than every truck in the world combined, as long as you define pollution solely in terms of cat poop. In reality, road transport accounts for seven times as much CO2 emissions as shipping.
m00fster t1_je49sgi wrote
My biggest issue are car fumes while walking to and from work
[deleted] t1_je2oz3z wrote
[deleted]
HaveACigarOnMe t1_je3f6sm wrote
Boy the Reddit politburo are ready to deal out negative internet points lol
Upbeat-Elk926 t1_je486ja wrote
This c02 neutral requirement just means people are going to get rich selling carbon credits, and ultimately all cars will still be available.
Due-Resident-4588 t1_je2p57m wrote
The same “activists” screaming about climate change and wanting fossil fuels banned are the same people who fly their Private jets all over the world . How ironic
PurelyLurking20 t1_je33zxg wrote
I promise you I don't have a private jet and I would push for fossil fuel bans until the day I die.
GekkosGhost t1_je47xeg wrote
>I would push for fossil fuel bans until the day I die.
You'll have too. Cars last 20 years and even when new sales cease the existing fleet will require fuelling. Classic cars, many of which are over 40 years old now, will continue requiring fuel for another 40+ years.
I don't mind electric cars. They can be fun. But we're decades, plural, away from having enough infrastructure to support mass adoption here in the UK. It's very imminent they don't push back the switchover closer to the time.
PurelyLurking20 t1_je4babs wrote
I really don't want us to even switch to relying on electric cars so much, we need to focus on mass transit and walkable neighborhoods both for the environment and just for the general life satisfaction that comes from it.
GekkosGhost t1_je4j6f7 wrote
You might prefer walking or taking the bus but most people don't. Cars aren't going anywhere.
PurelyLurking20 t1_je4jk9u wrote
Infrastructure that supports everyone driving cars can be removed from dense cities. We don't have to leave it up to individuals to decide. Just remove enough streets/parking or create bus route only lanes in downtowns with wide sidewalks and protected bike lanes. It naturally cuts down on traffic by making it more inconvenient to drive in than just using a different mode of transport.
There's a need for cars in remote locations but no need in an urban center.
GekkosGhost t1_je4jwcb wrote
>Infrastructure that supports everyone driving cars can be removed from dense cities
It's, I understand that's what you want, but it isn't what most people want. They don't mind standing in the train waiting for a bus that doesn't come.
>Just remove enough streets/parking or create bus route only lanes in downtowns with wide sidewalks and protected bike lanes
Again, I get that this is your utopia but it's others hell.
>It naturally cuts down on traffic by making it more inconvenient to drive
Yes, that is the whole entire problem in a nutshell.
>There's a need for cars in remote locations but no need in an urban center.
That's lovely if you live, work, and don't try to leave that urban center. It's utterly unworkable once you realise most people working and shopping in the center of town don't.
PurelyLurking20 t1_je4kncj wrote
That's an entirely American problem. Suburbs only really exist like that in America and a select few places that were ruined by people trying to plan cities like we did.
If you properly plan a city there is no reason to drive around downtown, those areas are reserved for people.
Buses in America are currently unreliable because they are not funded and infrastructure is not made with them in mind. That can also be fixed.
The reason americans don't live downtown (often) is because instead of making our cities dense we have created few homes in those areas and allowed single family home zoning which needs to be entirely done away with. If you just replaced parking lots with more housing there would be no issue. If you want to visit dense areas like that you would just bus in or use other transit. It's not really about what people want right now because Americans have not been exposed to living like that.
It's an objectively happier lifestyle just by the numbers. I barely even use my car because I moved to a dense enough city that I can just walk everywhere.
GekkosGhost t1_je4ot1i wrote
>That's an entirely American problem
No it isn't. We have the exact same issue with all major cities here in the UK.
>If you properly plan a city
Most European cities and so capitals are older than the car, older than the bus, and often older than the pushbike.
Hard to plan for what you can't envisage.
>It's an objectively happier lifestyle just by the numbers
Yeah, your numbers. It's objectively miserable waiting in the rain for a bus that may never come.
>I barely even use my car because I moved to a dense enough city that I can just walk everywhere
That's nice for you but wholly unrealistic for most people.
If we're replanning cities then we need to focus on personal airborne transport, because that'll be the future with some leccy cars knocking about.
Nobody is going back to pushbikes and buses. That's the 1800s and 1900s. It's over and done.
PurelyLurking20 t1_je4py1i wrote
I guess I didn't make it clear enough but the UK tore down a lot of the prior existing cities or never rebuilt them after WW2 so that they could make way for the same type of development that America did. You are suffering the same problem but your neighbors in places like Amsterdam aren't.
You know what is miserable? Sitting in traffic and wasting my life away every day. Not being able to walk like we were naturally born to do in order to pick up something to eat or buy groceries. The noise of highways, and the likelihood that you'll die there. Pedestrians getting mowed over by cars. The insane amount of pollution and waste they've created. I would take getting rained on a little bit if it was substantially less full of oil byproducts.
The reason cities were built how they are now in America, and by extension the UK, was because of aggressive lobbying by the oil and vehicle industries to remove pedestrian centric spaces and create ridiculously expensive suburbs. We changed our plans once and we can again, some cities have already made moves in the right direction.
Bikes and buses are the most reasonable transport. You know what is even worse than some idiot on a loud ass bike at 6 am? Some idiot revving up his jet powered hovercraft in your weird dysfunctional future. Have you been anywhere near a flight line? Or even a fairly large drone? That will never be allowed near residential areas.
If you want your personal vehicle, move to the countryside and don't ruin public spaces for everyone else. The only unrealistic thing about living in a walkable city is how insanely expensive they are for housing right now. And that's because too many people are trying to live in them and instead of building more vertically we are building useless parking lots for suburbanites that can't afford to live here currently.
GekkosGhost t1_je4s5bl wrote
>the UK tore down a lot of the prior existing cities or never rebuilt them after WW2 so that they could make way for the same type of development that America did
Lol. No we didn't. We revbuilt Coventry because it got flattened but every city we had at the start we had by the end.
MK we tried around your planning, with mixed results. But that was a new city.
>You know what is miserable? Sitting in traffic and wasting my life away every day
Self driving motorhomes will fix that.
>Not being able to walk like we were naturally born to do in order to pick up something to eat or buy groceries. The
I've just got back from a walk into town (the one I live in rather than work in). Traffic didn't stop you walking you just stay on the pavement.
>Pedestrians getting mowed over by cars
Most pedestrians cause the accident they're involved in. Very few get stuck on the footpath.
Same with cyclists which is why so few motorists are persecuted despite almost every cyclist having video evidence of their accident.
>The insane amount of pollution and waste they've created.
No case to answer Vs electric cars.
>I would take getting rained on a little bit if it was substantially less full of oil byproducts
That's nice for you but it's not the choice most people would make. They could make it now and they don't.
>Bikes and buses are the most reasonable transport
If by reasonable you mean terrible then yes. They're slow, inefficient, unpredictable, and pony useful for short journeys. It's legacy thinking.
>That will never be allowed near residential areas
And yet they will be. It's the future. So trying to make everyone live in the past. We didn't mind it so we changed it. Progress.
>If you want your personal vehicle, move to the countryside and don't ruin public spaces for everyone else
If you don't want to be near people personal vehicles then move to the countryside and stop loving in a city morning about everyone else. You can do this now.
PurelyLurking20 t1_je4u3xn wrote
Im not gonna argue anymore based on your views on future tech development without considering the consequence I don't think we're getting anywhere. You fell for the same car centric propaganda you've been fed. Also you walked to the store which is already better than what Americans can do in their suburbs. That's legitimately not an option for most people here.
GekkosGhost t1_je4vpp7 wrote
Yeah, you seem determined to drag us back to a golden age that never was and refuse to embrace technology as though the luddites were coming back on one of your buses.
Let's agree to disagree.
Due-Resident-4588 t1_je38ufi wrote
I should’ve said those at the top who have power. Obviously us every day people don’t have private jets.
m00fster t1_je4a36y wrote
Many of us don’t even have cars so why should we care
Badfickle t1_je3q6w8 wrote
eh. ICE vehicles are already losing. These bans don't really do much. The market will already have switched by then. You'd be hard pressed to buy an ICE vehicle by 2035 except very niche vehicles.
Pikkornator t1_je2mt5y wrote
To be honest it feels like the EU leaders a class bullies and dont even listen to the people..... and the scary thing is that nobody even voted for these people to be put in these places rather then their criminal friends.
02Alien t1_je1trns wrote
I'm so excited for this, it'll be great for Tesla which really needs the boost imo
simon1976362 t1_je1x3bx wrote
Maybe make a cars that stays on the road for 20 years.
02Alien t1_je1xon6 wrote
my Tesla works fine you probably just are using it wrong
DuFFman_ t1_je2ldi8 wrote
Tesla going to get consumed by real car manufacturers within 10 years. They made a cool electric car. They haven't made a good car yet though.
Badfickle t1_je3qbsx wrote
That's why survey after survey Tesla is at or near the top in owner satisfaction.
DuFFman_ t1_je3s7yn wrote
Ya, great cult of personality the Tesla culture has.
Badfickle t1_je4taku wrote
peak reddit.
Yes. You know better than the people who actually own the cars. If the people who own the cars have an opinion different than yours they must be in a cult. I hate to break it to you but most car buyers don't give a crap one way or the other about Musk.
02Alien t1_je2p0hq wrote
Tesla's are fantastic cars. Great build quality and great performing. And all the tech inside them
DuFFman_ t1_je2pib7 wrote
Tesla's have been rated the lowest build quality of all manufacturers for the last 5+ years. Their fit and finish is terrible. And I would know, my job is automotive assembly.
pulse14 t1_je2vbi3 wrote
Check again. Last year, Consumer Reports ranked Tesla above Volkswagen, Mercedes, Jeep, and GM. New models are always unreliable and improve over time. Most of the non-Tesla EVs are now at the bottom of the list, because they are new models.
DuFFman_ t1_je2z2mk wrote
>Models from Tesla Motors, which leads the market in EV sales, continue to have issues with body hardware, steering and suspension, paint and trim and climate system. The Model 3 has average reliability, while other Telsa models – including the S, Y and X – are below average.
As I said. Fit and finish sucks on a Tesla. Right from CR.
pulse14 t1_je33ud3 wrote
You said they had the lowest build quality. Their best selling model is now average compared to all vehicles and the best for an EV. That's pretty impressive considering its massive ramp up in production.
DuFFman_ t1_je35f4i wrote
As a collective score between their 4 categories, one of which is safety. I'm talking strictly fit and finish. Their build quality is not good.
02Alien t1_je2xzmn wrote
FACTS yes Tesla had some build quality issues, with EARLY models. They've ironed most of it out and have great build quality now
Source: have driven a new model 3 many times
radiculous13 t1_je386gq wrote
Haha. You just named the worst car brands!
Badfickle t1_je3qeqb wrote
That's an old talking point. Model 3 has the second highest reliability rating of any ev.
Few-Swordfish-780 t1_je2rbbj wrote
They are crap. Everything about them is made to be as cheap as possible. They are the Lada of EVs.
Few-Swordfish-780 t1_je2r7kd wrote
Why would I want one of those POS?
Concernedmicrowave t1_je3zf6w wrote
"Internal combustion cars can continue to be registered after 2035 if they only use fuel sources which are CO2 neutral"
Yikes. Sounds like they are saying "buy a new car or get fucked lol". Hope to god the US doesn't follow suit.
Unless they can get 100% CO2 neutral gasoline, this sounds like poorer Europeans are going to be fucked.