Or just invest in public transit instead of more cars?
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
43 points (93.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5243 readers
242 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In practice, we need ebikes, cycling infrastructure, better transit, and EVs. No one thing can be enough to get to where we need to be.
Sure but when it comes to investment using public money the worst options need not make the cut. You can count on people to blow copious amounts of their own money on the convenience and luxury of EVs. Public money should be focused on cycling infrastructure in the most full-blown way possible. And if there is still money to spend, then public transit. #fuckCars.
How about not charging 5 years salary of the average people for a car.
Cash for clunkers2.0
It would be a good move, provided that it's also associated with rules to stop making huge gas-guzzling trucks as a single-person commuter vehicle.
Do I get paid if I replace my car with a bicycle? No?
Then this doesn't seem to be about reducing pollution so much as handing tax money to car makers.
A lot of cities have started programs which do in fact pay people to move to an ebike.
How about pay people to retrofit. If they can standardize swaps for the Civics/Camrys/Accords and such, they could make a big dent.
That's what the article is about: paying people to switch
Hm, sorry if I missed a section. It seems to be only about trading in old cars for a credit toward a new one. I was suggesting paying people to retrofit existing vehicles to be EVs.
Bingo. Indeed you caught on to the problem with this rebate program.
The article fails to mention that retired cars worldwide go to Africa, where the average age of a car at the time of purchase is 21 years. So the clunkers continue to emit GHG and EV buyers falsely assume they’ve done something good for the planet. They only move the emissions from the US to Africa.
In that whole article, there is only ONE sentence that covers where the clunkers go:
“The clunkers go to a nonprofit that breaks them down to recycled scrap and pours the proceeds into scholarships to train car mechanics.”
Sounds encouraging, but it’s hard to be convinced that they are actually melting down the metals. I want direct 100% reassurance that they are doing the right thing. In fact, melting them down is only the right move if the frame is trash. If the frame and everything apart from the engine and transmission is good, the environmentally sound approach is to convert them to an EV (to thwart the purchase of a new EV). And for engines that are still good, the best move is to convert them to power generators which would only be used during power failures.
I’m skeptical because if they really are just melting the metals, I would think the revenue is only enough to cover the wages of the scrap workers.. not sure about scholarships. But say it’s true that there is spare money in the end. It should go to cycling infrastructure, not cars in any way.
#fuckCars
Currently, that's more expensive than buying a brand new car
I believe it. All the retrofits I've seen seem to be highly custom and/or for classic cars. If someone developed a standard procedure for converting Honda Civics for example, I thought there could be savings and it would make a decent impact since they're so common.
I also think some people would be more receptive to an "upgrade" rather than a full on trade-in. People can get attached to their cars for reasons other than economics.
There are companies that specialize in doing the conversion to EV. So indeed the gov rebate could theoretically be to cover the cost of that. I think $6k would be sufficient budget.
I could keep driving my same car for another 5 years, at the cost of about $150 month plus odd repairs, or I can pay $300/ month for something new. I have big worries about the cost of battery repairs as well.
I really want to adopt an EV, but my clunker is super cheap to drive and easy to fix.
At some point you end up needing an expensive repair and the price calculus changes.
Eventually, yeah. If I add a new motor and clutch over that time the cost goes up to $200/month. I'm still not high enough to justify the cost of a new car with increased insurance and taxes.
EV’s are capitalism’s solution to the climate crisis. In other words, they are worthless, except to car-manufacture executives. Invest in public transportation and bike accessibility.
You can do both...
The majority of my driving is for hiking actually, so public transport wouldn't help me
I mean you're right.
I'll keep my hybrid and wait for the solid state battery.
They are paying you to throw away probably the biggest plastic thing you own. How thoughtful.
Here's the thing: the bulk of the climate damage cars do happens during operations.
Replacing fossil-fuel-burning ones with ones which don't burn fossil fuels is a net win for any car that's actually driven several times per week.
It's better to get people onto bikes, ebikes, or mass transit, but those won't work for 100% of the population.
those won't work for 100% of the population
Surely it's more like 99% in the USA (j/k) 😉
Realistically better transit plus cycling infrastructure could displace half or more of driving
In some places. But if you're in a non-metropolitan area somewhere that it gets cold and snowy, you're going to need a vehicle to bring you directly to your house unless maybe you're downtown, and it's going to need to have four wheel drive or at least enough weight to grip the snow.
Bikes with studded tires do amazingly well in snowy conditions. The main reason people don't use them more is that car drivers are a lot more dangerous. Get rid of the cars, and it's totally doable.
Even seasonal replacement of cars would be an improvement.
If you tried to bike in heavy snow here your entire tire would literally be buried. Especially if there were no plows.
There are, in fact, places that get real snow.
Yes, there are conditions where you are better off on skis or snowshoes than a bike. And there are conditions where you should be in a snowmobile and not a car or truck. What you're describing sounds like that.
Skis would probably be more reasonable at certain times of year, but the terrain between cities isn't exactly designed for skiing.
I know you want American infrastructure to not necessitate some sort of vehicle bigger than a bike, but it literally just does. Wanting it won't make the change, and making unrealistic suggestions will remain just as ineffective as making no suggestions at all.
Accessibility is also more or less non-existent with these proposed solutions.
somewhere that it gets cold and snowy,
Cyclist’s mantra: There is never bad weather, only bad clothes.
Especially if there were no plows.
If only plows existed.
They won't if you get rid of cars. Good luck plowing with a bike.
You don’t use a car to plow the sidewalk. It’s too wide. Why would think a cycle path doesn’t have the same problem? Of course you use a bicycle to plow a cycle path.
Have you ever experienced actual snow? Like, four feet deep with a frozen crust on top? You're not plowing that with your feet.
Yes, in Minnesota. I shoveled it but just as well could have used a snow blower. I certainly would not have driven a car or truck onto a path as narrow as a sidewalk.