251
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago

I don’t think many environmentalists are like, “My dream is a car-dominated society but electric.” It’s an improvement, to be sure, but I feel like every (realistic) environmentalist would prefer trains and trolleys to planes and cars.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

This seems like one of those situations where every leftist is like, “I think about unions, transportation, and housing.” and the media somehow decides the left is hellbent on forcing people to attend sensitivity training in Smart Cars.

[-] rikonium@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago

This reminded me of a person online talking about how they didn’t understand why tree-huggers appreciated wind power despite the bird strike numbers - well because climate change itself is a much bigger fish!

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Or also because of the bird strike numbers. I believe they are quite low.

Many such complaints were based on an old wind farm in Altamont Pass that did have a serious problem. However it was a mountain pass on a migratory bird route and the towers were open framework with plenty of spots for roosting. Once we stopped those two things, bird losses dropped precipitously.

I believe people making those complaints have also lost perspective. My support for anything to further reduce the remaining bird losses is not inconsistent with the belief that we already well into a better spot.

People making those complaints also seem unable to expand their minds to the huge bird loss from the polluted air pr if we didn’t

[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Most people making those complaints at this point are bad-faith conservatives.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

EV cars are just a way to keep the "happy motoring" society going with a veneer of environmentalism.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not a veneer. EVs powered by renewable energy contribute almost nothing to GHG emissions.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

OK we don't make nearly enough renewable energy to meet the demand of American motorists, and likely never will. We use millions of barrels of oil each day. How many wind turbines will match that?

Are they "greener" than gasoline vehicles? Sure, but it's still tremendously wasteful of energy. Most of the energy is expended moving the weight of the vehicle and batteries. Not only this but cars dictate how we build and design urban areas. we will continue building and expanding cities and towns to accommodate cars and their sense of distance. We'll also need to continue wasting space for parked vehicles. This is all tremendously wasteful. We will also continue relying on a massive network of paved roads that require constant maintenence and are themselves made out of oil.

There's also the issue of tires. They shed rubber and it goes into our environment, affecting humans and wildlife. It's not a small thing.

In short, nothing about cars can be truly green. We'd be much better off investing in networks of highspeed rail, light rail, cycle lanes, and electric busses. These would have much bigger impacts, and much sooner. But instead we are committed to happy motoring and the drive-thru lifestyle

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

OK we don’t make nearly enough renewable energy to meet the demand of American motorists, and likely never will.

You've been reading too much propaganda.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-opinion-renewables-will-power-future-of-us-energy/

Most of the energy is expended moving the weight of the vehicle and batteries.

Yes this is literally how a vehicle works

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Cool, well, enjoy your fantastic future. Happy motoring!

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago
[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Their parts get made. They get manufactured. Pretty sure that involves fairly substantial emissions, just not compared to what we have now.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Sure, everything involves emissions, but when we're talking about a 80%-90% reduction over what we have now, you can't just handwave that away. That's a tiny fraction of our current position.

And if we're going to consider that, let's consider the ghg emissions of laying new bike trails and railroads? Of building new buses and trains?

Manufacturing emits GHGs for anything but it's a small fraction of the life cycle GHGs of a vehicle, especially if the electricity used in manufacturing is also renewable.

this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
251 points (93.4% liked)

politics

18821 readers
5036 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS