this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
401 points (73.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9663 readers
64 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's wild but it actually is. BEVs produce around 30% fewer emissions per km than ICEs if you include every emmission on both sides.
With better manufactoring and better energy mix, you could expect maybe 40% fewer emissions compared to ICEs in a couple decades in the EU (likely much worse in the U.S. and other less democratic places).

That's not nothing and an amazing feat of engineering for sure but still nowhere near sustainable because the baseline (ICE) is just incredibly bad. 30-40% less than "incredibly bad" is simply not "good" when we actually need to be as close to 100% as possible.

If we shifted all current ICE transport to BEVs, that'd at best be a very small step in the right direction, not a solution in any shape or form.

We actually cannot put every single person on the planet into ther own 1-3t metal box to move them around, no matter the engine type of that box.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

BS. You’re assuming current (or is that past) levels of renewable energy and no recycling. Sure mining and processing done rare earths is polluting and energy intensive, but it gets cleaner every year based simply on increased renewable energy. Also, most of these metals are infinitely reusable, and just aren’t yet because it’s not worth it until they’re widely used

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

You’re assuming current (or is that past) levels of renewable energy and no recycling.

See the 40% figure. It assumes realistically achievable goals in the EU for the next decade or two.

most of these metals are infinitely reusable, and just aren’t yet because it’s not worth it until they’re widely used

That's not the problem. The problem is that it's not economical to recycle them. You technically could recycle them in the present day but mining new resources and throwing the old stuff into a landfill is just cheaper and I don't see that changing any time soon, especially not in undemocratic neo-"liberal" places such as the U.S.

This argument also misses that the current demand for transport is much smaller than the future demand will likely be. We aren't even close to putting every human on earth into their own metal box yet; that insanity is still in front of us if we continue like we have been the past century.

[–] Ibex0@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

most of these metals are infinitely reusable, and just aren’t yet

Nothing is infinitely reusable. We have so much e-waste.