this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
179 points (96.4% liked)

World News

38639 readers
2480 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Vub@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago

So even on Lemmy people defend Tesla because “why not protest against coal” and “but this is EV”. Sigh.

People DO protest against coal, and to a much larger extent.

Tesla is a shitty scam company which deserves nothing but bankruptcy. Their factory is destroying huge areas in Brandenburg and uses massive amounts of water in an area where there is severe drought. Brandenburg even has deserts forming for those who are unaware. Even if you would accept Tesla, the factory is placed in the worst place possible.

Apart from the environmental aspects, the company is famous for being atrocious regarding workers rights. That crypto bro scam firm should just get the hell out.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Why are the climate protesters against electric vehicles?

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 82 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Climate protesters have expressed concerns about Tesla’s plans, which entail cutting down approximately 250 acres of forest in a rural community of fewer than 8,000 residents near a nature conservation area.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Should be noted that basically all of that forest is a tree farm monoculture.

Now they moved to protesting the water usage of the factory, which is high, but quite low compared to other industries and farms in the area.

I mean, fuck cars in general, but protests that focus on bullshit facts are not helping the cause.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago

The water usage is a huge issue. The region has suffered a severe drought from 2018-2022. There is some issues with a chemical bubble in the ground that require a careful and coordinated pumping by all water utilities and well operators in the area to not suck it into the aquifer.One water utility had to deny all building permits for new houses, schools, businesses because Teslas water consumption capped the legally and sustainably permittable water extraction in the area.

There was a huge shitshow around the permits Tesla gained with direct political interference from the state government to overlook legal requirements in particular in the context of water. Tesla is fighting to deny access for the water utility to the chemical analysis of the water they extract at their wells.

There is a risk that Tesla could permanently destroy the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people if they are not made to observe the legal requirements and cooperate with other stakeholders for water in the region.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NataliePortland@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago

Frack. That’s sucks

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Does the carbon savings make it worth it?

[–] JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch 8 points 4 months ago

In addition to other answers, keep in mind that Tesla gets credits relative to how far below the average carbon footprint their cars are and sell those credits to manufacturers of cars with more emissions. So in a way a part of the reduced liferime emissions are "gone" before the cars drive for the first time

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Highly doubtful. EVs still have a high footprint, especially those obese ones that we're making in the West.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They have a large footprint of creation. Their footprint over their lifetime is net negative when measured against direct alternatives.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Measured against ICE cars. Actual direct alternatives are public transport, bikes, and micro cars. And you're also assuming they're driven that long before the person buys another car.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Those are indirect alternatives. A direct alternative serves the exact same function.

It doesn’t matter if that person buys another car; it matter is the EV stays on the road. They do.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They do serve the exact same function. And no, they don't stay on the road. The batteries degrade, die and aren't replaceable due to proprietary designs. There's already plenty of dead EVs.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've been doing an ebike conversion to do errands around town. I won't be using it to travel to my mother in law's place 70 miles away. They aren't direct alternatives.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's what trains are for, or worst case, a car that isn't an oversized mess.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

I'd love that. We're also not likely to get it anytime soon between us and her. Though we hopefully will for other cities in the area.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The average life of an EV is over 13 years. The batteries, generally have 100k warranties and are consistently lasting well into the 150k mile ranges. These vehicles stay on the road for as long as an ICE automobile and have a negative carbon footprint when compared to that baseline.

Buses, trains, trams, etc. serve a similar overall function as a personal automobile, the two even share some overlap on fundamental functions; however, as they are not 1:1 replacements for one another any comparison can never be of a direct nature.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] slurpyslop@kbin.social 3 points 4 months ago

if there were some figures i could fiddle to fit that narrative, do you think that would mean that cutting down 250 acres of forest would actually be worth it rather than a convenience somebody has gussied up as "necessary" because it would make them a profit?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cygon@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's a battery factory that was built there despite environmental concerns.

I think the main things that attracted the ire of environmentalists are:

  • When the building permits were still being negotiated, Tesla just started clearing land illegally
  • A battery factory requires lots of water, this one was built in a region already low on groundwater
  • There have been several instances of spilled chemicals
  • The sewage coming out of the factory has been contaminated (phosphorus and nitrogen) beyond allowed thresholds for two years
  • The local water supply company is reportedly near its limit, but Tesla wants to expand the battery factory and clear additional land

.

But the situation is a bit muddy. Early protests around 2021..2022 often had a share of far right wingnuts trying to recruit people. That's lessened, though. This specific protest was definitely swelled in numbers by the factory expansion and land clearing plans, but is also part of a planned day of protests by the "Disrupt Tesla" group. They have a web presence here: https://disrupt-now.org/en/.

[–] uienia@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Not evs in general, just tesla.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

EVs are a good next step but they still use tires that break down leaving microplastics in the environment and a study showed they may even leave more.,

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

It doesn't have to stay that way, and probably won't. Batteries improve by 5-8% per year. We're also reaching the point where, with better charging infrastructure, we don't particularly need longer range. Weight can go down rather than range going up.

There's no reason EVs have to be heavier than ICE cars, and they probably won't be in the next few years.

[–] UprisingVoltage@feddit.it 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Electric cars do not address any of the main issues cars bring to our society, which are:

  • Pollution -- Cars are responsible for a significant amount of global and local pollution (microplastic waste, brake dust, embodiment emissions, tailpipe emissions, and noise pollution). Electric cars eliminate tailpipe emissions, but the other pollution-related problems largely remain.

  • Infrastructure (Costs. An Unsustainable Pattern of Development) -- Cars create an unwanted economic burden on their communities. The infrastructure for cars is expensive to maintain and the maintenance burden for local communities is expected to increase with the adoption of more electric and (someday) fully self-driving cars. This is partly due to the increased weight of the vehicles and also the increased traffic of autonomous vehicles.

  • Infrastructure (Land Usage & Induced Demand) -- Cities allocate a vast amount of space to cars. This is space that could be used more effectively for other things such as parks, schools, businesses, homes, and so on. We miss out on these things and are forced to pile on additional sprawl when we build vast parking lots and widen roads and highways. This creates part of what is called induced demand. This effect means that the more capacity for cars we add, the more cars we'll get, and then the more capacity we'll need to add.

  • Independence and Community Access -- Cars are not accessible to everyone. Simply put, many people either can't drive or don't want to drive. Car-centric city planning is an obstacle for these groups, to name a few: children and teenagers, parents who must chauffeur children to and from all forms of childhood activities, people who can't afford a car, and many other people who are unable to drive. Imagine the challenge of giving up your car in the late stages of your life. In car-centric areas, you face a great loss of independence.

  • Safety -- Cars are dangerous to both occupants and non-occupants, but especially the non-occupants. As time goes on cars admittedly become better at protecting the people inside them, but they remain hazardous to the people not inside them. For people walking, riding, or otherwise trying to exercise some form of car-free liberty cars are a constant threat. In car-centric areas, streets and roads are optimized to move cars fast and efficiently rather than protect other road users and pedestrians.

  • Social Isolation -- A combination of the issues above produces the additional effect of social isolation. There are fewer opportunities for serendipitous interactions with other members of the public. Although there may be many people sharing the road with you (a public space), there are some obvious limitations to the quality of interaction one can have through metal, glass, and plastic boxes.

(Batantly copypasted from the pinned thread on r/fuckcars)

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (14 children)

(Batantly copypasted from the pinned thread on r/fuckcars)

Please don't do that. I have no problem with this kind of content in that echo chamber, but presenting it as objective truth calls into question huge portions of this that are either purely subjective to blatantly wrong.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

Which portions are wrong? They are all correct. EVs are still a major source of pollution, in particular microplastics and particles. The upkeep of car infrastructure is insanely expensive. For Germany it is expected that every public parking spot costs 8.000 € a year to the economy. The space battle in urban areas is blatantly clear....

[–] Anamana@feddit.de 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Where do they say it represents a form of 'objective truth'?

But I agree walls of text are not nice, at least try to summarize it a bit to make it readable..

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Where do they say it represents a form of ‘objective truth’?

Well I don't see any "/s" on it so I take it on face value that that poster is presenting it as being true. Are you saying I should assume they believe its fiction?

[–] Anamana@feddit.de 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure if you know what objective truth means, but why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it's a political movement.. not a scientific research facility? It's not their goal to be objective, but to push for change. Not saying the things they stated are wrong, but they are first and foremost moral statements.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility?

You and I are in full agreement on this. I have zero issue with this content in the anti car lobby sub, except that's not where the poster is putting it anymore. They're posting it in "worldnews". This is why I have a problem with it here, but not there.

[–] Anamana@feddit.de 2 points 4 months ago

I mean we're here in the comments to exchange perspectives primarily. Never saw anyone quoting research papers. There's no rule about forbidding comments to be biased or opinionated. So I'd say our access to any form of potential objective truth, as fundamental basis for discussion, is fairly limited. World news is not only about scientifically validated facts. It's rather a fast paced informational feed, where you have to balance speed and factual quality.

And we had context for the anticar lobby comment, so it's not like the person said: look, here is the irrefutable truth from an independent source. They rather said: Look here are some reasons for why XYZ is bad.

I don't have a problem with it, besides it being a lazy and hard to read solution.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

Being against electric cars because they are cars is certainly a view you can take.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How do you say "SCRAMBLE!" in Deursche?

[–] Goodman@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 months ago
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Germany factory

We finally know where they make Germany.

load more comments
view more: next ›