this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
337 points (95.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43968 readers
835 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have not seen this mentioned before, but the Teslas people buy in the US isn't helping the environment. You just are saving on fuel!
Nah, they're an incremental improvement. EVs are more efficient at turning energy into locomotion. They get >100 mpge. The increase in tire wear isn't nearly as significant the CO2 emissions. I'm pretty sure there are studies that show EVs are better for the environment as a whole than ICE vehicles (even accounting for things like lithium mining and fossil fuel powered grids).
Tesla is a horrible, anti-consumer company. A lot of companies make EVs now (but a lot of those companies are pretty horrible too, I guess).
I disabled notifications, so sorry for the late response.
In theory, what you're saying is true. The problem is, these are expensive cars, meaning they're all being bought by people with relatively deeper pockets. They just replace their relatively new cars with Teslas instead of prolonging the use of their existing ICE cars.
The result is more vehicle turnover for "green" reasons, but that is a lie. The use of vehicles for fewer and fewer months to move to an electric car is not helping the environment in any way.
Traded-in vehicles don't go to waste. Vehicle life cycles are actually pretty efficient. If a car runs, and is street legal, it will likely be bought and used by someone. Once a vehicle does not run, it will go to a salvage yard and used for parts. After a while, whatever metals are left will be recycled.
Edit: Yes, I don't think everyone should just ditch their ICE cars to "help the environment." I don't know if anyone is arguing for that. And, all new cars are bought by wealthier people because all new cars are way too expensive and have all kinds of "features" with dubious utility. I do think this is a problem. Until a couple years ago, I've never bought a new car. The only reason I bought a new car is because I couldn't find a used car that was worth the price (used car market was pretty fucked up back then). Coincidentally, I ended buying an EV, lol (a Leaf).
How is it not helping the environment when compared to a gas or diesel car? You’re saving on fuel but you’re also burning far less fuel to produce the energy required and are using it more efficiently. I think you got this one wrong.
Lithium mining is quite destructive, and electric vehicles don't have the longevity ICE cars have and more quickly turn into waste. We've just replace one form of ecological damage for another.
Reducing our dependence on oil is important, but we need actual sustainable solutions, like investing in public transportation infrastructure powered by renewables, and reducing reliance on personal vehicles.
Capitalists are seeking to profit off of the lie that your individual decisions can help save the planet from their relentless profit seeking behavior. Don't believe them. They just end up selling their carbon credits giving another company the greenlight to pollute even more, canceling out any benefit they might be able to claim.
The article I posted from MIT in my other comment makes the claim that what you’re saying is not true. They have similar longevity, without the waste of oil changes and other additional carbon emissions, and the majority of ecological damage comes from charging infrastructure which can be made completely green. Additionally, Lithium can be recaptured and companies like Sigma Resources are finding ways to make the sourcing and recapture even more sustainable. Unless oil-based power sources can get better while simultaneously outpacing the current growth of renewable energy forms, I think your statement can’t possibly be true.
Look, if you think that replacing gas cars with another kind of car is going to save the planet, you've lost the plot. Less than 10% of carbon emissions come from personal vehicles, and electrification doesn't offer significant relief.
If you want to pretend that carbon credits don't exist, you can do that, but they do exist and "eco-friendly" companies just sell them for profit so that someone else can pollute on their behalf.
If electric cars offer any benefit at all, it is basically irrelevant because carbon emissions aren't going down, and carbon credits literally cancel out the good. Those carbon credits are badly over-allocated to EV companies, because those companies overstate their impact, so its likely they are just making things worse.
Elon Musk isn't going to save you.
That’s a short-sighted way to look at it. Less than 10% might come from personal vehicles but 31% comes from commercial transportation which can also be electrified. On top of that, 37% of remaining emissions come from generating energy and electricity from fossil fuels. As more of those sources become alternative sources like wind, water, solar, etc., electric vehicles (including commercial vehicles) take a huge chunk of emissions and dirty forms of energy away.
http://climatechange.chicago.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
We don’t need carbon credits. We need clean sources of energy that are sustainable. If we were really desperate, we could come up with nuclear sources but that would need more public support and is rife with bad waste.
No one said anything about Elon. But you’re wrong about electric cars.
The energy cost to build the car in the first place will never be offset by the usage it will see. You personally might be saving on fuel costs but the energy it costs to refine and build those things taken together with the opportunity cost of what doesn't get built because of the limited supply of resources needed to make those batteries and the whole thing becomes much more of a gray area.
Electric cars aren't here to save the planet they're here to save the car industry.
But that’s only the case because of the electricity used to create those components. Using green sources like solar power and wind energy would turn that to 0. Some of that is already offset by those sources today and the gap between electric and gas production is only an 11% difference.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
My diesel truck takes three years to turn over the carbon emissions that it took to make my EV.
But that’s only the case because of the electricity used to create those components. Using green sources like solar power and wind energy would turn that to 0. Some of that is already offset by those sources today and the gap between electric and gas production is only an 11% difference.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
With that prices, the fuel has been paid for when you purchase one.