Oh shut up, ecars cause less environmental damage than normal cars by far. Yes they require lithium. The lithium required doesn’t get close to the damage of 300k miles worth of gas.
“but power plants burn coal for that electricity”
Not mine. I live in portland and have signed up for 100% renewable power. That’s a your-city problem. You should work on that.
I think you’re arguing points that weren’t made.
Individually owned automobiles and the systems required to support them are wasteful and polluting no matter how you power them.
Electric cars are better, yes. But their popularity is in a large part because they allow us to mostly maintain the status quo.
Do you think they are a sustainable long-term solution? Should we be planning our future around paved roads made almost exclusively for personally owned mostly single-occupant vehicles?
It’s two months later and I’ve done a 180 on this opinion and went from “fuck gas cars” to “fuck all cars”.
The car infrastructure is the shitty part, not so much the cars
@corm @1993_toyota_camry Sort of? All cars ruin our lives. But gas cars also ruin the planet, where electric are substially better now and will be almost carbon free in 30 years or so. Getting rid of cars in general is very desirable, but getting rid of gas cars is an existential necessity.
Removed by mod
US EPA isn’t trustworthy
Argue against the points not the name on it that you don’t like
The points against cars have already been made
A point was made above. You respond to the point. Not that you think the name on a link is full of boogeymen.
You’re literally in the fuck cars comm
Not to mention that the only reason electric cars seem somewhat sustainable, is that at the moment only the most wealthy people (globally) can afford to own a car. Just imagine what it would look like if the global middle class also got access to cars, electric or otherwise.
Electric cars help pollution like filtered cigarettes help smoker health. It’s a tangible improvement, but on the grand scale of things it’s not a significant improvement.
Still cars 🤷
Sigh…I own an EV and I will tell you that my reasons for buying it are less environmental and more practical. Not having to go to a gas station (charge at home) or how I literally have way more power than I need or that it’s just fun to drive. You can shit on EVs, but in all reality they are a superior car if you don’t get hung up on the fuel. I want to be better about the environment, but honestly, my EV is hands down my all time favorite car (and it’s not a Tesla). So before you mock em, go test drive a few.
A “superior car” is still a fucking car
They are better than a gas car in almost every sense. Except those giant SUV or pickup truck options. Those cars still don’t have a real place in a city. But reasonably-sized electric cars are absolutely perfect for commuters that have no real option but driving.
As much as I hate cars, removing them is only possible inside cities. North America has a very large rural area(and population) that needs to be converted away from fossil fuels.
Maybe yes, but a large part of society at least in America and Europe live in cities or suburbs, where cars are just bs
I completely agree with you on that one. Unfortunately I’m one of those rural people.
I’m banking on autonomous busing in hopes that we can eventually drop to one vehicle, we already have bus service but it’s only 1/hour to the nearest little town, and only 3/day to the nearest city(commuting busses @ $20 round trip per day)
We did buy an EV though for cost and environmental reasons (I live somewhere with a 99% clean grid)
trains
Trains are not financially viable for rural areas.
Cars are not ecologically viable for life to continue on planet earth
That’s a pretty shit argument. Humans are not ecologically viable for life to continue on planet earth at our current population, even if we remove all cars.
Yeah no, that’s Malthusian shit you’re arguing. It’s not equivalent to degrowth
Yea no what? We are already setting population targets via immigration right now, the question is about what the target should be (and why) not whether or not to do it.
To do what? Limit immigration so that poor ppl from countries we immiserated, exploited, and put in danger of climate collapse from our overconsumption can die? Sounds like nazi shit to me
That is just not true.
Yes it is. We hunted multiple animals to extinction and poisoned vast stretches of land long before the industrial revolution, we didn’t need cars to be assholes to nature.
True, but we could sustain a lot more people and also not bring animals to extinction and destroy the environment with the right policies. Blaming overpopulation is just facist propaganda.
North America has a large suburban population. The rural population is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels for the near future because of infrastructure scarcity and the energy density of fossil fuels.
Please post links, not screenshots of content
Thanks, will keep that in mind
I actually like the laziness of just images. Links for extra context and source are always appreciated though
I disagree, twitter won’t embed on the timeline, meaning you have to click the link to actually see the content, instead of just being able to expand the image. Images are much faster and easier.
Your argument is basically “fuck blind people” and “I don’t care about citing my sources”.
If you don’t want to link to Twitter, link to another twitter front-end, like nitter.net
You can include an image of the content in the body of the post as well as link to the source, but you discredit yourself if you just post an image without a source. And you exclude people who can’t see images.
Capitalism forever!
Wooooooo
