Have we ever thought they were a solution and not just a stopgap?
The problems are many and the manufacturers are complicit, but EVs do have a use. Right now, they are helping to raise awareness of the problems, the causes and guilty parties. That’s a broad effect and if little else it will help to push things along, which is much needed generally.
The other thing they do is help to reduce poisonous emissions around pedestrians and other road users. Buses are a big problem with that and large EVs can make a big difference in cities.
More EVs in cities will help reduce NOx and particulate emissions and that alone is worthwhile.
Until proper alternatives are fully operational, EVs are not the worst thing.
Until proper alternatives are fully operational, EVs are not the worst thing.
Considering that the effects of, causes of and solution to climate change has been known and attainable since the 40s, personal electric car ownership is not so much moving us in the direction of the ultimate, final end-goal as they are simply saving the car industry.
Yes, that’s great and all but until those solutions are realised we can and should make use of what’s available to us if there are direct benefits.
If I can use a product of the car industry that doesn’t poison the people around me and makes some of those people think a bit more about climate issues, while doing the same journeys I did with an ICE, why shouldn’t I?
Apparently I have to clarify that the ultimate, final end-goal of which I speak is actually just getting rid of cars. We could do this today, or at least severely limit its use by making it unnecessary for the common-person, instead of transitioning to another type of car which will kick the proverbial can down the road and make the problem even harder to deal with later because we’re still tearing up our cities to build parking lots at the same pace and increasing the distance between everything, electric or not.
If I can use a product of the car industry that doesn’t poison the people around me … why shouldn’t I?
Because it’s still the car industry, which is now, instead of lobbying for oil wars, employing child slaves in disadvantaged countries to work in toxic mines. Your massive lithium battery is not free of guilt, or even just less guilty than oil, and no tech-bro battery innovations are coming to save us.
… and makes some of those people think a bit more about climate issues … why shouldn’t I?
I don’t think most people care or give a second thought to the climate when they see a car accelerate quietly, rather they think something along the lines of Wow, that almost hit me! I nearly died! Anyway…
… while doing the same journeys I did with an ICE, , why shouldn’t I?
Because the point is that you shouldn’t be doing those journeys. You shouldn’t have to have the least efficient form of personal transportation to be a functional member of society. If you need something, ideally you should just put on your shoes and go get the thing on your legs or bike or take a bus, tram or train. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city
I’m not sure if you realise, but I do agree with you. Unfortunately the problems are bigger than just saying fix it today, get on your bike.
It’s going to take longer than we want to make those changes and cars may never go away. As much as things like bikes and public transport are better, for lots of reasons, people like cars.
These problems are political and require political solutions. In the mean time I’ll do what I can, and if that includes not using ICE cars then I don’t think you can blame me for it.
Have we ever thought they were a solution and not just a stopgap?
Until proper alternatives are fully operational, EVs are not the worst thing.
You’re undercutting your own argument here.
EVs make sense in rural contexts, but that is and will always be a niche application. We can’t afford to ignore the bigger picture - most people live in cities. There are more efficient and better options to decarbonize cities than electric cars.
As the other commenter pointed out, electric cars are a step. A lot of people living in cities are ready to go farther now though. Let’s not ignore them or get in their way.
There are more efficient and better options to decarbonize cities than electric cars.
Yes, I know. What I’m saying isn’t about that, it’s about raising awareness of climate issues while also reducing extremely toxic emissions around the people who live in cities.
They aren’t a long term solution but they have their uses for now. I don’t see how that’s a bad thing.
About 56% of the world lives in urban settings. I wouldn’t call 45% of the population a niche market, however I would say that even a significant portion of the rural population could be better served with non-car transportation options. Removing fossil fuels as much as possible from our energy use will still be vital to averting a major crisis, and alternatives will need to be found for those 45%, too, especially since they will use proportionally more transportation energy than their urban counterparts.
Have we ever thought they were a solution and not just a stopgap?
The problems are many and the manufacturers are complicit, but EVs do have a use. Right now, they are helping to raise awareness of the problems, the causes and guilty parties. That’s a broad effect and if little else it will help to push things along, which is much needed generally.
The other thing they do is help to reduce poisonous emissions around pedestrians and other road users. Buses are a big problem with that and large EVs can make a big difference in cities.
More EVs in cities will help reduce NOx and particulate emissions and that alone is worthwhile.
Until proper alternatives are fully operational, EVs are not the worst thing.
Considering that the effects of, causes of and solution to climate change has been known and attainable since the 40s, personal electric car ownership is not so much moving us in the direction of the ultimate, final end-goal as they are simply saving the car industry.
Yes, that’s great and all but until those solutions are realised we can and should make use of what’s available to us if there are direct benefits.
If I can use a product of the car industry that doesn’t poison the people around me and makes some of those people think a bit more about climate issues, while doing the same journeys I did with an ICE, why shouldn’t I?
Apparently I have to clarify that the ultimate, final end-goal of which I speak is actually just getting rid of cars. We could do this today, or at least severely limit its use by making it unnecessary for the common-person, instead of transitioning to another type of car which will kick the proverbial can down the road and make the problem even harder to deal with later because we’re still tearing up our cities to build parking lots at the same pace and increasing the distance between everything, electric or not.
Because it’s still the car industry, which is now, instead of lobbying for oil wars, employing child slaves in disadvantaged countries to work in toxic mines. Your massive lithium battery is not free of guilt, or even just less guilty than oil, and no tech-bro battery innovations are coming to save us.
I don’t think most people care or give a second thought to the climate when they see a car accelerate quietly, rather they think something along the lines of Wow, that almost hit me! I nearly died! Anyway…
Because the point is that you shouldn’t be doing those journeys. You shouldn’t have to have the least efficient form of personal transportation to be a functional member of society. If you need something, ideally you should just put on your shoes and go get the thing on your legs or bike or take a bus, tram or train. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city
Fix it today, not tomorrow
I’m not sure if you realise, but I do agree with you. Unfortunately the problems are bigger than just saying fix it today, get on your bike.
It’s going to take longer than we want to make those changes and cars may never go away. As much as things like bikes and public transport are better, for lots of reasons, people like cars.
These problems are political and require political solutions. In the mean time I’ll do what I can, and if that includes not using ICE cars then I don’t think you can blame me for it.
You’re undercutting your own argument here.
EVs make sense in rural contexts, but that is and will always be a niche application. We can’t afford to ignore the bigger picture - most people live in cities. There are more efficient and better options to decarbonize cities than electric cars.
As the other commenter pointed out, electric cars are a step. A lot of people living in cities are ready to go farther now though. Let’s not ignore them or get in their way.
Yes, I know. What I’m saying isn’t about that, it’s about raising awareness of climate issues while also reducing extremely toxic emissions around the people who live in cities.
They aren’t a long term solution but they have their uses for now. I don’t see how that’s a bad thing.
About 56% of the world lives in urban settings. I wouldn’t call 45% of the population a niche market, however I would say that even a significant portion of the rural population could be better served with non-car transportation options. Removing fossil fuels as much as possible from our energy use will still be vital to averting a major crisis, and alternatives will need to be found for those 45%, too, especially since they will use proportionally more transportation energy than their urban counterparts.