251
UAW strike could disrupt EV rollout. Environmentalists support it anyway.
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
251 points (93.4% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2389 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How would EVs prevent better solutions? You keep saying this but I don't understand why.
EVs are a distraction and driver funding from public transport options to spaces for cars. Cars need infrastructure such as traffic stops, crossings, parking, etc. And with metropolitan areas becoming increasingly crowded, all of this infrastructure takes up space and costs the city a lot of money as the land value rises.
For example, a car parking space where I'm from will cost something like $70/day. A shop double the size would be leased at $30k/month. Our rate money goes into subsidising the car parking spots because they need to sit somewhere where they're not being used.
EVs (in car form) still use the same spaces as cars and use up money that could be better spent on other things to improve city accessibility. That's a bit of the money part.
From an efficiency perspective, any kind of car (EV or otherwise), is extremely inefficient in Metropolitan areas because a large portion of the time is spent waiting in traffic. Any other type of transport moves more people per second than cars such as motorbikes, scooters, bicycles, trains, trams, buses etc. So, you're allowing a significant chunk of infrastructure to be occupied by an extremely ineffective mode of transport in a city of millions. If you remove the entire aspect of private vehicles in Metro areas, you free l suddenly free up a lot of space and increase efficiency for the other modes of transport.
EVs or cars would be useful in low density areas where the efficiency would be higher than using any other type of transport and would have a much more minimal impact on the climate than if large cities all used EVs.
We have the technology and the smarts to build a better world but we need to rip the band-aid off and understand that the problems that arise in our day to day is of our own making and that we can absolutely rebuild it from the ground up so that it is more sustainable.
But we don't HAVE those other means of transport, not nearly at the level to replace cars and not even at all in some places.
Your equation is basically "remove cars, replace with transit" but you're totally hand waving away the second part.
All the government subsidies to benefit EVs are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of retooling infrastructure to support public transit. It needs to be done, but it can't be done quickly without a massive, exponential increase in funding, and EVs won't cover that gap.
Being anti-EV is being against one of the most useful, efficient, and effective ways of lowering ghg emissions we have.
Your idea of "ripping the bandaid off" leaves millions of people stranded while they wait for transit to be built.
We can do both and must do both. EVs for now, transit for future.
In a single lifetime, we have moved into severe car dependency. Our cities are purposefully built so that only cars can be used. Don't you see? This is a problem that we've created completely by ourselves. If we keep heading in that direction because it's cheaper and easier, i.e. leaving the band-aid on, major investment into public transit simply will not happen because it's 'too expensive and too hard'.
I never said not do both, but I'm seeing time and time again that new roads are being invested rather than investment into other options. What usually happens in reality is one or the other. Look at Egypt, look at the US, look at Australia. Then look at places like the Netherlands.
Netherlands still have roads but in Metropolitan areas, there are a huge number of alternatives.
By the way, when you say you don't have other means of transport, what locations are you referring to? What I was referring to was Metropolitan areas. Regional areas, where there is a lower density, should still be provided with roads as a means of travel. It's ridiculous to think that Metropolitan cities don't have pubic transit infrastructure in first world cities.
This is politics more than anything else. I see loads of investment into transit in my daily life. But that's because I live in California.
Say you could somehow largely remove cars from a conservative led area, somehow. Do you really think they would spend money on transit? Of course not, they would tell the poors to walk.
Transit spending is an absolute necessity in what you're proposing, and all the band aid ripping in the world won't force it to happen when the purse strings are controlled by conservatives.
There's been this weird trend in young voters for a while now, along the lines of "if it just gets bad enough then it will turn good again, somehow!" If the Democrats lose badly enough they'll start enacting progressive policies. If the economy gets bad enough we'll increase the social safety net. If the climate gets bad enough we'll start banning fossil fuels.
It's some of the dumbest, most naive shit I've ever heard. There is no rock bottom. There is no wake up call. Ripping the band aid off likely just means we bleed to death.
Many cities in the US have only nominal bus lines. Buses that run twice a day, etc.