not sure if it hits like it did in my head
Electric cars are here to save the car industry, not the environment.
The most environmentally friendly car is the car you already have, and the most environmentally friendly (also safest, healthiest, quietest, just in general the most considerate) way to get from point A to point B is by walking, biking, bus, or train.
The only time EV saves the environment is when all of the following are met:
- your old car is completely gone,
- there is zero way to get to where you need to be without a car,
- and you have been fighting for good transport and safe bike lane all along.
It does
I bought an electric car because it was a better car for my needs. I got a good deal on it. Electric cars have fewer, simpler moving parts. They require fewer oil changes and donât have to deal with heat dissipation. I can also have it plugged into my house each night, which means I always have a âfull tankâ every morning. I can set the heat or air conditioning to come on on a schedule because it doesnât produce carbon monoxide. The car is much quieter and drives a lot smoother.
They have a lot of benefits, but they donât exactly save the environment. Lithium mining is very destructive to the local environment and itâs done in countries with questionable ethics around worker health and safety. Most experts agree that over the lifespan of a car, electric cars are better for the world environment than gas vehicles, but if you really want to make an impact on the environment, taking public transit or biking or walking or other forms of micro-mobility would actually make a way bigger impact. And if those kinds of things are difficult where you live, you should really be supporting public policy to make that better.
Very good. Bottom panel could also read "to save the automotive industry âď¸"
Electric cars are to save automobile industry profits. Not the planet.
If you want to save the planet, then ride a bicycle.
Sounds great if you don't have to commute many miles 2 times per day in an area with no public transit.
All just to keep the roof over your head
Seems to me like having to drive many miles to maintain a job that can pay enough to maintain your fairly far afield home (assuming the home costs less because it's not in the same geography as the office) is a failure of the system as a whole and the company for not making their office work better for their workers.
I mean, unless you have a storefront or regularly have to go to specific places as part of your job, like lawyers going to the court house, then why tf does the company pay for very expensive offices in the middle of a metro area? Put the offices where the workers can actually live near it.
I work in IT, I go to the office to stare at a PC for 8 hours. Something I can literally do anywhere, but instead of IDK, working from home or having distributed offices spaces so people don't have to drive as far, my companies only office is in the middle of a major Metro's downtown in a high rise office for a massive amount of money. So now I have to pay, out of my pocket and time, to drive through downtown traffic, to a parking spot that costs me far too much monthly, so I can simply be physically there to do a job that only requires a PC and an internet connection.
It's all fucking stupid.... And every company seems to do this. Nobody ever comes to our offices and there's literally no reason for them to be where they are, or for me to be there.
... or walk?
Fewer CO2 emissions is a good goal if you are going to buy a car. Keeping it as long as possible is a better goal.
... or walk?
Both have their role. Walking is appropriate for local short trips, while bicycles allow you to cover more distance, and is in turn superseded by transit in potential distance covered, while still being a low emissions mode of transportation.
Fewer CO2 emissions is a good goal if you are going to buy a car. Keeping it as long as possible is a better goal.
If the infrastructure allows for it where you live, going car-free is an even better goal for reducing CO2-emissions, and is only one of a long list of benefits of not traveling by car.
Barring that, voting and influencing politicians that can build infrastructure enabling more car-free lives is a good step in the right direction.
Hard to carry a TV on a bicycle, or transport loads to the recycling centre, or drop my kids off at school or any one of a thousand things that occur day to day.
Our world redesigned itself with the invention of cars. Trying to exist without them is very hard for your average family, especially those who live outside cities.
The people who broke the testla are the ones who murdered the tree by putting asphalt right up to its trunk.
nature: "you should take the train instead"
The train doesn't stop at the recycling centre. Nor does it stop at my childrens' schools. Ditto my office, the supermarket, IKEA, the house of the person I just bought weed from.
The layout of our towns expanded with the ubiquity of cars. Services agglomerated and became situated where land was cheap rather than central.
Bikes and light mass transit have their use cases but removing cars is not feasible for the majority of households
The planet is subscribed to !fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
Weird disconnect here though that stopping climate change was about saving trees, and not our own sorry arses.
I bought an electric car to insulate me from gas prices, because the instant torque makes them fun to drive, and because the cost of ownership is way lower than an equivalent gas car.
It had nothing to do with the environment, but if it helps, great.
Great joke!
And for the rest: yes, electric cars aren't saving the environment. We just don't have historical data on the effects like we do with fossil fuels. Add in trashed batteries, lithium mining, slave mining, and the shipping costs (in pollution mostly) and it's possibly worse (just counting consumers). We really need to deal with shipping globally and major corporations effects. But I bet you already knew that.
I did but I'm glad to see you say it nonetheless :)
Doesn't matter, companies love greenwashing these days
(Just forget about the lithium mines)
Irony would be the car still kills the planet. I think this is technically coincidence. But I'm in no way an expert and could be entirely wrong. Just commenting to see if anyone definitively has the answer.
Edit: to be clear, I'm discussing the difference between irony and coincidence. My bad.
Theyâre significantly less damaging to the environment but the lithium mining is awful and the resources to generate electric currently are pretty damning. But all things considered, even with those they are significantly more eco friendly so if we could focus on green electric generation EVâs would be extremely more friendly.
But a real solution to green transportation involves cutting out vehicles for personal use. Using public transportation like buses and stuff (which can be electric too) would cut down on transportation emissions significantly. Intercity travel is tough because of the distance. Trains are an option, but honestly they arenât fast enough for most people when youâre traveling hundreds of miles. I think electric cars are still the better option there. Them moving trucks to electric is a big help too. Tractor trailers arenât as inefficient as many people think. They use exhaust fluid to curb tons of emissions. But they do an extreme amount of driving so it still has a significant impact.
More solar, wind, or hydro electric would make us a very green planet that costs a lot of money and not much interest from people with the money to do it. Itâs a solved problem, but no one wants to implement the solution
My understanding of the words is similar. Irony is when you expressly think something will happen, and then it doesnât (or vice versa).
So obviously the owner was thinking âmy car is definitely not going to be crushed by a treeâ and thus this is actually ironic.
But that would imply every bad thing is ironic. I think it's when you have reason to believe the exact opposite should happen. You have no reason to believe a tree will never fall. But if you're obsessed about tree falling on car safety, you'd then have that expectation. That's why most things in the song Ironic are actually coincidences, but a song dedicated to irony being wrong about irony is actually ironic.
Technically the city, that didn't take of the tree, killed the car and the tree.
The tree, a lifelong pyromaniac, heard stories of these legendary "lithium fires" and wanted to see for itself.
Alright Alanis, here's a fork
"If I'm going down I'm taking one of you with me!"
It looks still driveable to be honest.
dude i hate it when this happens ha ha
Agree wholeheartedly, but that is one strong roof. Any other car a tree that size would have cut the car in half
Itâs clearly resting on something (the building on the other side of the street) by how itâs positioned. I think youâd be greatly challenged to find a tree that comes to rest naturally like that where there wasnât something holding the other end up.
It's on the building on the other side...
Ah, had to double take. You are correct
You buy Tesla to look cool/rich and support a POS billionaire, you buy a Nissan leaf because you care about the environment to some degree. You ride a bike to save the planet.
It isn't an electric car tho, as it isn't up in flames!
