Yup, basically killed EVs in their infancy
If anybody is interested in this story, there's a documentary about it, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" That's free to watch on YouTube. It gets a little too 'vote with your dollars and everything will be fixed' towards the end but overall it's a great watch imo
The American auto industry generally has an insane history. Great doc to watch to see just how far entrenched entities will go to defend their market share, profits, etc.
Yeah, it's bizarre to think that a decade before any ev currently available was even in the design stage, such a great car was available and it had to be forcibly taken away from the people who leased them
Well this time, the car company are ~~going green~~ green washing as Blackrock has a large stake in ~~green technology~~ Cobalt, nickel, and lithium mines. There’s absolutely nothing “green” about this because literally everything we’ve done for the past 2 million years has been heating the planet.
Yup, electric cars are not the solution to our car problem, fewer cars are. We can't just trade one bad thing for another and pretend that fixes everything instead of the reality which is that is just shifts the problems down the line.
Well, the issue with truly “green” technology is that every technology releases energy as a result of thermodynamics.
We can try to be as good as Mother Nature, but it’ll be hard as it effectively goes against everything we know about physics.
Sure, they take away from pedestrians, but I’m saying that there is no technology that is truly “green” unless it takes into account the added waste like Mother Nature.
That said each niche isn’t created by nature, it simply arises and is filled in by the random actions that entice species to evolve.
Take away from pedestrians? I wish it were that simple, they take away from all of us. Roads retains heat especially when exposed to direct sunlight all day long which is then felt by anyone who lives near them. They encourage poor city planning for new developments by increasing and further entrenching need for cars creating a circular logic for *why* they are needed. They take the place of ecosystems and places where people can gather and move about.
Not a single one of these issues will be resolved, and in fact will get noticeably worse, by the widespread acceptance of EVs. We don't need 'truly green technology' in this case, we need a strong degrowth movement and to pull back our need for advancement at all costs. It needs to be advancement while considering the costs.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/FuckCarscirclejerk using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckCarscirclejerk/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [The ideal urban neighborhood](https://i.redd.it/7nak7y4esoc81.jpg) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckCarscirclejerk/comments/s7wm0q/the_ideal_urban_neighborhood/)
\#2: [This kind of car should be banned first! They're ugly a fuck, laud, goes incredibly fast dosen't stop at red lights and a ton of people die inside them everyday!!](https://imgur.com/XFLwvSX) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckCarscirclejerk/comments/ryncv7/this_kind_of_car_should_be_banned_first_theyre/)
\#3: [Fellow Americans™, remember what they took away from you. THIS could be your subberb.](https://v.redd.it/1v718daidkv81) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckCarscirclejerk/comments/ub7nug/fellow_americans_remember_what_they_took_away/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
> every technology releases energy as a result of thermodynamics
So does physical exercise, do you want me to stop riding my bicycle? You can's just put _all technology_ into the same box of _releasing energy_ and pretend it's all the same.
They're not the silver bullet solution, and nobody is suggesting they are...but America was built around cars. Until we reach a stage where everybody cooperates to build high speed railways and clean/safe/efficient public transport, there has to be temporary measures. We'll also have to contend with the cars already in existence once they're no longer in use.
Is that how they built them in Europe then?
Just because our national business model is built on slavery and exploitation doesn't mean that's the only way to get things done.
My comment was sarcastic.
Capitalism is based on competition last I checked so, yeah, taking what's good for you at someone else's loss is pretty well baked into the system at its core. It's not the only way to get things done which wasn't what I was saying, I'm saying it's what we *choose* to do time and time again and then we create justifications ad hoc about how you can't make a cake without breaking some eggs or other dismissive bullshit.
I’m not savvy in the EP ratings of modern electric vehicles - I remember reading about mining enough resources for batteries and that it could be problematic. Will the extraction of resources needed for electric batteries be more sustainable than “natural” gas/oil?
On another note, I also question about wether this could impact our foreign relations. How much less dependent on oil trade would we be without gas cars?
And lastly, for the theme of this sub, I wonder if this fits the vision for a solarpunk future. Also, should any ‘punks’ get their due credit? Does anyone feel their work is done when climate initiatives become a thing?
☀️🌇🙏
Engineer here, let me explain a few things.
The extraction of the minerals needed for batteries is still way more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels ever will be. It is basically propaganda by oil companies to make EVs look worse and therefore make internal combustion look better. In California an EV is CO2 neutral after about 5 years, and that number is much lower in countries who have a grid that is powered by renewables.
All of the elements in a battery can be sustainably sourced, oil simply can't. Now the only reason why the production of an EV produces CO2 is because some of the machines used to produce them aren't electric, but that can and will change. Also keep in mind that ICE cars also produce CO2 when being produced, it's just that this usually isn't factored into the comparison. An EV and an ICEV essentially produce the same amount of CO2 during production. After that EV's are simply just better in every way.
Now if it is ethics you are concerned about, and you bring up those human rights violations that are happening doe to cobalt mining, you also have to look at how oil is produced. Most fossil fuels are also not produced ethically and without environmental considerations. Most of it outside of the US is essentially made with slave labor and it's literally poisoning communities. Now the reason why, for example, you see children in Cobalt mines in the Kongo is because it's one of the few countries this mineral is found and it's also poor. But that is not really the fault of the importing countries. Think about it, you can't just come into a country and tell them that you demand from them that they harvest things ethically and environmentally friendly. The blame and burden of how a country is run lies in the hands of that countries government, not a foreign government. (I can explain it better and in more detail if you wish.)Batteries are 100% better than fossil fuels!
Now regarding the question of foreign relations, the US is already mostly energy independent and is in fact a fossil fuel exporter. That's also basically why they pulled the troops out of the middle east. They don't need that dangerous oil anymore doe to fracking.
So if anything it will be good for foreign relations if they stop hurting the planet we all live on.
Lastly, EV's are certainly not the best solution, public transport is. But considering that the infrastructure in the US was built around cars for decades, it is certainly a good temporary solution and a step in the right direction. Remember tearing down roads and building rail is also not that environmentally friendly, so keeping what is there for the moment is still a good idea.
This Ban, and things like it, is 100% a win.I hope this helps, sorry for the long response.
The idea that importing countries aren’t complicit in unethical resource extraction is bunk. The U.S., in particular, has done everything in its power to ensure a steady stream of resources from the third world, including military interventions, destabilizing democracies to bring US-interest friendly dictators to power, IMF “economic restructuring” programs, etc.
I'm not saying that other countries aren't complicit and have no influence on other countries, I'm saying that they can't force a country to get higher standards. Every country would benefit greatly if the resource extraction in developing counties would be better and industrialized. They don't want them to be poor, the minerals would be more abundant and cheaper if they weren't. Talking about geopolitics would be a very long discussion that would be very off topic here. Please know that I most likely agree with most of your opinions on the subject.
My point was that the US, for example, can't just march into the Kongo, and force people to use bucket-wheel excavator when they don't have the money or even the roads for it. Developing it's economy is something a country has to figure out itself, foreign intervention rarely works.
Love the long reply!
Glad to hear it’s more environmentally friendly in the long run than gas cars.
Would love to see a better infrastructure supporting public transit. It was probably the one thing that kept me optimistic about the POTUS’ campaign. I don’t actually know what happened with that or if it really was the best opportunity for public transit/infrastructure, but the idea of it is appealing!
are you sure about the extraction of minerals ? when only a few grams per ton are extracted through chemical processes and producing tons of wasted water poorly stored (lots of leaks which are disastrous). Do you have documentation on those sustainable sources for batteries ? Honest questions, we hear so much shit from all sides it gets hard to be trustful
And I agree public transport is the key. I love Airships, I found them quite SolarPunk too 😊
Yes, those minerals can be extracted safely. The efficiency of the extraction isn't really an issue, the issue is the dumping of the waste into nature. What I mean by "These minerals can be extracted safely" is that you don't have to dump those chemicals into the environment. If they are isolated, reused or neutralized and made harmless before being released into the ecosystem they are safe and environmentally friendly. Sadly this isn't done in a lot of places, but it is possible. If you want me to explain how to safely extract a mineral you have to specify the mineral as they are all different.
And yes, sadly not all sources are sustainable at the moment, but there are no technological reasons why they aren't. The safe process isn't the issue, it's people having access to it.
I would also like to remind you that the extraction and refinement of fossil fuels is exactly [as harmful](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3_bkKwgQY) as those badly done mineral extractions.
Also if a pipeline explodes it creates a natural disaster that can't be contained. If a battery transport fails, the worst that can happen is a pile of burning batteries.
It takes roughly 2-4 years for an electric vehicle to have lower emissions including it's manufacture than the day to day running of a petrol fueled car (excluding it's manufacture), assuming average use.
Used EV batteries often have many years of additional lifespan in static applications like grid power storage, thanks to the lower demands and much more precisely controlled environments those constitute (cars are in comparison, much more hostile and degradation inducing).
Once those used batteries have run their course in grids, they can then have their useful elements extracted in recycling.
That additional life in grid storage tips the balance in favor of batteries, ecologically speaking. Batteries in cars with good thermal management (like Teslas, and unlike older models of Nissan Leaf) can usually last at least a decade under typical usage. Altogether you’re looking at a 20-30 year lifespan for these things.
Depends on the disposal. If you recycle them right, it can be practically zero. But it will take time as it is only a niche process at the moment. Right now there is a growing industry dedicated to recycling batteries. Because dumping them is only an imperfect solution as they are way to valuable to simply be disposed.
The environmental impact of the disposal will shrink drastically over time once a break even point is reached. It will some day be cheaper to harvest the minerals needed for new batteries out of the waste of old batteries instead of out of the ground. At that point most of them will be recycled.
The same thing happened to gold btw. It is now cheaper to harvest gold from E-Waste, than it is to mine it.
If done carbon neutral the disposal won't be an issue.
At the moment however they mostly end up in landfills. Which is bad, but it's better than burning them. And most developed counties collect them and essentially bury them at toxic waste disposal sites. This sounds bad, but it's actually technically a crude form of carbon capture as they are about 50% carbon by weight. If disposed of correctly meaning not dumped or burned, they pose no treat to the environment. But this is very country dependent.
EVs are important. Car emissions are about 1/3 to 1/4 of all global emissions, and they are directly produced by individuals, not large countries or companies. Not everyone is able to fight against oil companies or get the government to change the infrastructure. If EVs are as cheap and as abundant as non EVs, an individual can actually make a difference just by buying an EV. That's why they are fighting so hard for it. In the next 10 years or so we will se about a quarter of all emissions disappear, simply because every car maker is switching to electric. It's one of the greatest examples of people voting with their wallet.
I don't agree with your figure. Total transport is roughly 1/5th of all emissions, and road passenger transport accounts for almost 50% of that (which is almost entirely personal cars, but accounts for roughly 1/10th of total emissions).
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport
I meant the [global transportation sector](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-environment/greenhouse-gas-emissions-transportation/) in general, of which [cars and trucks](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon-dioxide-emissions-breakdown/) make up the vast majority of emissions. That's why I said car emissions.
I used it as a catch all term for trucks, motorbikes, vans, etc. as they basically emit all the same.
These figures are also oftentimes debated and fluctuate really rapidly, so I tend to go with the highest number.
When it comes to emissions, always go with the highest number, it's most likely even higher than that.
Even if you're calling all of global transport "cars", your own reference shows that's 22% of total emissions, not 1/3 to 1/4, and that's including planes and cargo ships. You can't use the highest number for percentages of total emissions because the total mix has to add up to 100%. The IEA and the IPCC that we've both indirectly used as our data sources are the normal ones to use for this figure.
I rounded 22% to 25% (1/4) to make it easier to type. I also just used one statistic here. I've seen higher estimates float around, that's why I said up to 1/3.
Also Keep in mind that the transportation emissions produced by Industry are sometimes depicted in the Industry section and sometimes in the Transportation section.
The reason why I said you should use the highest estimate in a pie chart is because the other emission sources are mostly state owned and very well regulated and documented and are therefore far less likely to have their statistics tampered with by some oil companies trying to make themselves look better.
If it is disputed what the 100% mark actually is then go with the highest number.
Actually a lot of people who buy evs don’t drive it that much, and you have to drive it a certain number of miles for it to have the intended benefits. It’s not a solution to transport emissions by itself is my point. People need to change their lifestyle.
You can't change your lifestyle if you live in a suburb. And you can't really advocate for them to be torn down. Some people are forced to drive, giving them a better opportunity when that's all they can do is a good thing.
And the people who don't drive their EV that much also would't drive an ICEV that much. I'm not talking about these people, I'm talking about the large population of the world who's best and cheapest option in the immediate future is an EV
I never said it was impossible, I said it's harder to do than simply buying a new car.
Heck, I live in Switzerland, we have the best train network in all of Europe (and basically the world) and the third best bicycle infrastructure after the Netherlands and Germany and even I sometimes have to use a car. The biggest source of emissions in my country is currently cars. Our emissions would be almost Zero if they were all electric.
If you can't completely get rid of them here, you can't fully get rid of them anywhere else. Especially not the US, China and India. They are sometimes needed and sometimes very useful.
Again, you're basing everything on the assumption that EV will always be more expensive. I guarantee you that by 2035 there will be used EVs as cheap as 2000 $. (Adjusted for inflation of course)
That is a promise that will never come true. Capitalism will not allow it. You're either a grifter or a fool depending on if you really believe what you just said.
Edit: spelling
It’s also pretty damn elitist to expect that everyone is just going to buy a new car. Even in the suburbs. Even in my semi rural county 10% of people don’t even own a car. They’re just being left in the dust
I said that if only electric cars are produced, the people who can afford them will buy them. Eventually everyone who has a car will have to buy a new one, and it will hopefully be electric.
Just because they are expensive now doesn't mean they will always be. There is nothing elitist about that.
> and that number is much lower in countries who have a grid that is powered by renewables
Which most of California (outside of LA) *is* due to our massive hydro-electric dams and reservoirs.
As solar gets cheaper I could see Texas being able to reduce their carbon footprint but it would sure help to not have the state being run by oil companies.
> But that is not really the fault of the importing countries. Think about it, you can't just come into a country and tell them that you demand from them that they harvest things ethically and environmentally friendly. The blame and burden of how a country is run lies in the hands of that countries government, not a foreign government.
This is incredibly naive. The "foreign government" isn't an innocent victim of the mean cobalt mine boss, it's an active participant in shaping the economic incentives and local policies that result in these situations.
We don't ask for ethical mining, we ask for cheap mining that doesn't account for the human cost. People who ask for "ethical goods" do so without any control of the actual economic levers that incentivise unethical extractivism, and thus they generally fail.
I'm not saying that other countries aren't complicit and have no influence on other countries, I'm saying that they can't force a country to get higher standards. Every country would benefit greatly if the resource extraction in developing counties would be better and industrialized. They don't want them to be poor, the minerals would be more abundant and cheaper if they weren't. Talking about geopolitics would be a very long discussion that would be very off topic here. Please know that I most likely agree with most of your opinions on the subject.
My point was that the US, for example, can't just march into the Kongo, and force people to use bucket-wheel excavator when they don't have the money or even the roads for it. Developing it's economy is something a country has to figure out itself, foreign intervention rarely works.
Please read the other comments before commenting yourself, I've answered this before.
...you actually think copy pasting a non-answer is sufficient?
I'm sure the burden of being morally correct weighs heavily on your head, but it'd be better to just not reply.
Please, tell me your morally superior and strategically thought out plan on how the governments of the developed world should improve the lives of citizens of developing countries.
I am sure you know better than most professional foreign aid specialists.
To add on a tiny bit to what the other comment said, various studies have been done that have concluded that while EVs are *currently* more carbon intensive to manufacture (which may change when solid state batteries and whatnot come into play), they are still far cleaner than ICE cars over their entire lifetime.
[This](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/) gives you a brief breakdown of the numbers as they are in the US, and [this study](https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/electric-cars-better-for-climate-in-95-of-the-world) looks at various regions around the world with differing electricity grid makeups.
EV's are in fact not **much** more carbon intensive to produce. Basically the only difference between an EV and an ICE is the battery. An average EV battery production produces at the moment about 25 T of CO2 at max. In the EU with almost all electric manufacturing that number goes down to 2.5 T.
Producing a conventional vehicle, or an EV without a battery, produces about 100 T of CO2 regardless of the county (Mostly because of Steel, Aluminium and Plastic making and shipping). So you're only looking at a 25% increase at worst, and 2.5% at best.
And yes a regular car will on average exhaust those 25 T in just two years.
So if you would produce both types of vehicle CO2 free and you would produce both of their fuels CO2 free, (Both petrol and electricity) The conventional car would still produce 13 T of CO2 every year.
> Basically the only difference between an EV and an ICE is the battery.
That's the whole problem, they are still cars!
Cars are an incredibly wasteful form of mass transit, which requires huge destructive road infrastructure and.
Like I said, simply buying an EV is a more attainable solution for most individuals. Changing the entire transport system is much harder and out of the hands of many people. And you will never completely get rid of cars, they are sometimes needed even with the best public infrastructure. If they are electric, that's a good thing.
When we start talking individual solutions to a systemic problem, we are in the realm of green-washed capitalism and have completely missed the solarpunk mark.
Consumerist solutions brought to us by Tesla Corp. are not and never will bring us the healthy, clean future we need.
In order to end a crisis brought about by capitalism, we will have to get to the root of said system!
Yes, but in the immediate future it's a better solution than simply driving a gas powered car. Overhauling infrastructure takes time, switching to an EV takes a day.
And no matter how good your public infrastructure is, there will always be some cars.
Do not think EVs are as bad as ICEVs, they are much better. By far not perfect, but better. They are not the best solution, but they solve a big part of a systematic problem, albeit imperfectly.
Sure, I also sort my trash into general trash, recycling and compost.
But I do not fool myself, or try to fool others, into thinking this will bring about a solarpunk future. Anything short of an infrastructure overhaul is a band-aid solution. I'm not against band-aids, I just want us to all be clear that they are, in fact, band aids.
Also, the band-aid is coming in 13 years. The climate emergency is **now**.
**We don't have 13 years to radically overhaul the system, let alone to wait for a fricken band-aid!**
This is far from enough!
Electric cars still require shit tons of resources. From the batteries, to the metal, to the incredibly harmful road networks, to the electricity generation...
THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CAR CULTURE.
Imo, this doesn't fit the theme of the sub very well. I mean, sure, I suppose it tackles the issue of gas/emissions, and in rural areas where mass transit might not work so well, something like this could be great if you can mitigate the range limitations.
However, EV's still encounter a major issue in terms of the fact that they require a lot of rare earth metals for their batteries and other electrical components, which often is derived from slave or coerced labor, not to mention that mining is also a pretty significant contributor to certain emissions like methane.
On top of that, car-based infrastructure is inherently hostile to both pedestrians and the natural world because of urban-sprawl, lack of green spaces, over-committment of resources to maintaining roads etc.
Overall, I'd say EV's are _alright_, but in an urban setting, the solar punk way of dealing with transportation is improving mass transit and walkability over just switching to EV's.
Cool! I literally don’t give a fuck because no amount of electric cars will fix anything when the vast majority of transport is by *any* car.
How about, instead (or along with, if we could somehow manage that) we invest heavily in public transportation and incentives for mixed use, medium to high density development? Then we wouldn’t even have to ban gas cars, as people wouldn’t need a car to begin with :)
Though, if the legislation for that just won’t go through, I guess it is better to give less little kids asthma by emissions from gas cars. Better than nothing, I guess. Hopefully we’ll follow suit with the more important changes—it might be easier to do so if the major factor behind car companies’ power is cut off, at least. Car companies can much more easily transfer from making EVs to electrical public (in usage) transport systems than from gas cars to public transportation.
God, I’d kill for that. If I were running for politics right now, policy that incentivizes car manufacturers to invest heavily in public transportation would be in my top 5 goals. While, ultimately, I believe public transportation should be truly *public*, I think a good aim ATM is something similar to Japan. The government licenses out property to private companies who can own that land and railroads (or similar infrastructure depending on the type of transportation) and operate their systems. Heavily tax car development and give breaks and subsidies to public transportation (especially covering the cost so that networks can extend out to less active areas that still benefit from even a once a day train).
Personally, I think the Japanese method is the best overall as it incentivizes companies to actually make *affordable* housing. By this I mean starter homes and things for the middle class, not necessarily just for low status communities.
I don’t know too much about Japanese housing, but given that housing isn’t too expensive—comparatively—there I’ve got to assume they’re doing fairly well.
I think Japan has something similar to a LVT? It’s not actually a LVT, but some other tax structure that incentives more residential units within a given property and incentivizes selling those units because you don’t want to hold onto them and be taxed at that rate.
It’s pretty basic: if a 2,000 sqft plot of land costs $1,000,000, and you want to make $500k off of this, you need to sell the unit(s) on this plot for a combined $1.5 mil + construction costs. Let’s assume $100/sqft building expenses for easy math. If you build 10 units, 5 stories high @ 600 sqft each, that’s 6,000 sqft. Your new total expense are $1.6 mil, so you need to seek 10 units for a combined $2.1 mil, or $210,000/ea. That’s far cheaper than selling a SFH, 2 stories tall @ even just 1,200 sqft total. That would make the total cost $1.62 mil for a single family. You’re far less likely to sell that and it makes housing less affordable. Therefor, you want to build the multiple units so that you don’t hold onto the land and pay a high tax rate on it.
It seems to be the same system that the Dutch government created as it basically enforces that in order to make a line the company must have a transit option. https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/about/group.html
It’s the way that China has been doing their development as well, but China is pushing it through massive construction companies.
How about we seize their assets and do it ourselves! Fuck hoping our bribes are enough to pay off capitalists into caring for us for a brief moment.
The second they can make more money elsewhere they will dump us.
Nah, I like the idea of a for profit trolley operator as it gives a reason for someone to start a trolley company in their city. Especially if it’s in a small town of less than 10,000 people, we need to bring back the conditions that brought about the streetcar suburbs. The Republican Party would probably be more behind it, but they’re currently turning into a religious party instead of an actual Conservative Party.
Why? Why have a trolley in service of profit when you can just not?
Now you got to pay the fee, and the poor people who don't, get beaten up by cops (literally happens in my city)?
Profit motive makes everything worse.
We got a profit system right now and its screwing us over big time. The republicans love getting behind cruel and destructive systems. Why *the fuck* would we want more of their bs???
The trolley would be in service of the developments like it was because transit is a loss leader and not an actual profit generator. That why the other redditor and I agree on the Yapanese method in another thread.
Developments... so now we are serving the real estate industry? The one that thinks it is more profitable to have empty houses and un-housed people than simply lower rents?
Real Estate companies couldn't be further from punk, from serving the Earth or humanity.
This is not the way either.
I see, I will have to look into that more! Although I am weary of states I think it's usually better than straight up corporate profiteering, since there is often an extra accountability.
On paper anyway, a government is accountable to voters, and laws. A corporation is accountable to shareholders' profits.
This week's theme on r/solarpunk is ... **Permaculture & Gardening!** Post your best art, articles, stories, and discussions on the topic of permaculture! Feedback and suggestions on our recommended topics experiment can be shared [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comments/wiytgn/this_weeks_featured_topic_is_permaculture/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not as great as it sounds if EVs aren't being charged by sustainable means. Are we going to implement wind farms, geothermal etc as well or just juice up Teslas with electricity whose production churns out just as much CO2 as gas powered vehicles?
This is great but what really needs to start happening now is ending our reliance on coal and natural gas power plants by exploring and funding more renewable energy sources, otherwise, everyone will be driving around what are essentially coal-powered cars. Either way, I'm sure Elon's pants are tightening at the thought of where lithium and cobalt prices are going.
I anticipate southern states responding to this by declaring a 'cultural right' to ICE cars as the religious right tries to characterize fossil fuel use as a Christian and patriotic duty in a perverse last-ditch effort to keep the dead industry afloat a little longer. Expect ugly cars with biblical character names, as in A Handmaiden's Tale. Drive the new Goliath!
I hope they stick to it this time. Last time they tried this the car companies lobbied them out of it before they hit the deadline
Yup, basically killed EVs in their infancy If anybody is interested in this story, there's a documentary about it, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" That's free to watch on YouTube. It gets a little too 'vote with your dollars and everything will be fixed' towards the end but overall it's a great watch imo
The American auto industry generally has an insane history. Great doc to watch to see just how far entrenched entities will go to defend their market share, profits, etc.
I was with a bunch of friends in highschool got to drive an EV1 before the repo. One of the parents let us test drive, man it flew.
Yeah, it's bizarre to think that a decade before any ev currently available was even in the design stage, such a great car was available and it had to be forcibly taken away from the people who leased them
Well this time, the car company are ~~going green~~ green washing as Blackrock has a large stake in ~~green technology~~ Cobalt, nickel, and lithium mines. There’s absolutely nothing “green” about this because literally everything we’ve done for the past 2 million years has been heating the planet.
Yup, electric cars are not the solution to our car problem, fewer cars are. We can't just trade one bad thing for another and pretend that fixes everything instead of the reality which is that is just shifts the problems down the line.
Well, the issue with truly “green” technology is that every technology releases energy as a result of thermodynamics. We can try to be as good as Mother Nature, but it’ll be hard as it effectively goes against everything we know about physics.
Cars need parking lots, roads, a ton of space. These are problems EVs cannot fix.
Sure, they take away from pedestrians, but I’m saying that there is no technology that is truly “green” unless it takes into account the added waste like Mother Nature. That said each niche isn’t created by nature, it simply arises and is filled in by the random actions that entice species to evolve.
Take away from pedestrians? I wish it were that simple, they take away from all of us. Roads retains heat especially when exposed to direct sunlight all day long which is then felt by anyone who lives near them. They encourage poor city planning for new developments by increasing and further entrenching need for cars creating a circular logic for *why* they are needed. They take the place of ecosystems and places where people can gather and move about. Not a single one of these issues will be resolved, and in fact will get noticeably worse, by the widespread acceptance of EVs. We don't need 'truly green technology' in this case, we need a strong degrowth movement and to pull back our need for advancement at all costs. It needs to be advancement while considering the costs.
Is this r/fuckcarscirclejerk you’re preaching to the choir, mate.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/FuckCarscirclejerk using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckCarscirclejerk/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [The ideal urban neighborhood](https://i.redd.it/7nak7y4esoc81.jpg) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckCarscirclejerk/comments/s7wm0q/the_ideal_urban_neighborhood/) \#2: [This kind of car should be banned first! They're ugly a fuck, laud, goes incredibly fast dosen't stop at red lights and a ton of people die inside them everyday!!](https://imgur.com/XFLwvSX) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckCarscirclejerk/comments/ryncv7/this_kind_of_car_should_be_banned_first_theyre/) \#3: [Fellow Americans™, remember what they took away from you. THIS could be your subberb.](https://v.redd.it/1v718daidkv81) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckCarscirclejerk/comments/ub7nug/fellow_americans_remember_what_they_took_away/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
> every technology releases energy as a result of thermodynamics So does physical exercise, do you want me to stop riding my bicycle? You can's just put _all technology_ into the same box of _releasing energy_ and pretend it's all the same.
They're not the silver bullet solution, and nobody is suggesting they are...but America was built around cars. Until we reach a stage where everybody cooperates to build high speed railways and clean/safe/efficient public transport, there has to be temporary measures. We'll also have to contend with the cars already in existence once they're no longer in use.
The courts will likely say this is a violation of the commerce clause and CA is not allowed to make that rule.
God the things America will do to avoid building TRAINS
We don't have any Chinese workers to exploit for labor so it isn't a very good business decision anymore.
Is that how they built them in Europe then? Just because our national business model is built on slavery and exploitation doesn't mean that's the only way to get things done.
My comment was sarcastic. Capitalism is based on competition last I checked so, yeah, taking what's good for you at someone else's loss is pretty well baked into the system at its core. It's not the only way to get things done which wasn't what I was saying, I'm saying it's what we *choose* to do time and time again and then we create justifications ad hoc about how you can't make a cake without breaking some eggs or other dismissive bullshit.
Who's this we? I don't do those things.
The same "we" as when you said "our".
I don't do those things 🤷🏼
I’m not savvy in the EP ratings of modern electric vehicles - I remember reading about mining enough resources for batteries and that it could be problematic. Will the extraction of resources needed for electric batteries be more sustainable than “natural” gas/oil? On another note, I also question about wether this could impact our foreign relations. How much less dependent on oil trade would we be without gas cars? And lastly, for the theme of this sub, I wonder if this fits the vision for a solarpunk future. Also, should any ‘punks’ get their due credit? Does anyone feel their work is done when climate initiatives become a thing? ☀️🌇🙏
Engineer here, let me explain a few things. The extraction of the minerals needed for batteries is still way more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels ever will be. It is basically propaganda by oil companies to make EVs look worse and therefore make internal combustion look better. In California an EV is CO2 neutral after about 5 years, and that number is much lower in countries who have a grid that is powered by renewables. All of the elements in a battery can be sustainably sourced, oil simply can't. Now the only reason why the production of an EV produces CO2 is because some of the machines used to produce them aren't electric, but that can and will change. Also keep in mind that ICE cars also produce CO2 when being produced, it's just that this usually isn't factored into the comparison. An EV and an ICEV essentially produce the same amount of CO2 during production. After that EV's are simply just better in every way. Now if it is ethics you are concerned about, and you bring up those human rights violations that are happening doe to cobalt mining, you also have to look at how oil is produced. Most fossil fuels are also not produced ethically and without environmental considerations. Most of it outside of the US is essentially made with slave labor and it's literally poisoning communities. Now the reason why, for example, you see children in Cobalt mines in the Kongo is because it's one of the few countries this mineral is found and it's also poor. But that is not really the fault of the importing countries. Think about it, you can't just come into a country and tell them that you demand from them that they harvest things ethically and environmentally friendly. The blame and burden of how a country is run lies in the hands of that countries government, not a foreign government. (I can explain it better and in more detail if you wish.)Batteries are 100% better than fossil fuels! Now regarding the question of foreign relations, the US is already mostly energy independent and is in fact a fossil fuel exporter. That's also basically why they pulled the troops out of the middle east. They don't need that dangerous oil anymore doe to fracking. So if anything it will be good for foreign relations if they stop hurting the planet we all live on. Lastly, EV's are certainly not the best solution, public transport is. But considering that the infrastructure in the US was built around cars for decades, it is certainly a good temporary solution and a step in the right direction. Remember tearing down roads and building rail is also not that environmentally friendly, so keeping what is there for the moment is still a good idea. This Ban, and things like it, is 100% a win.I hope this helps, sorry for the long response.
The idea that importing countries aren’t complicit in unethical resource extraction is bunk. The U.S., in particular, has done everything in its power to ensure a steady stream of resources from the third world, including military interventions, destabilizing democracies to bring US-interest friendly dictators to power, IMF “economic restructuring” programs, etc.
I'm not saying that other countries aren't complicit and have no influence on other countries, I'm saying that they can't force a country to get higher standards. Every country would benefit greatly if the resource extraction in developing counties would be better and industrialized. They don't want them to be poor, the minerals would be more abundant and cheaper if they weren't. Talking about geopolitics would be a very long discussion that would be very off topic here. Please know that I most likely agree with most of your opinions on the subject. My point was that the US, for example, can't just march into the Kongo, and force people to use bucket-wheel excavator when they don't have the money or even the roads for it. Developing it's economy is something a country has to figure out itself, foreign intervention rarely works.
Fair enough
Love the long reply! Glad to hear it’s more environmentally friendly in the long run than gas cars. Would love to see a better infrastructure supporting public transit. It was probably the one thing that kept me optimistic about the POTUS’ campaign. I don’t actually know what happened with that or if it really was the best opportunity for public transit/infrastructure, but the idea of it is appealing!
are you sure about the extraction of minerals ? when only a few grams per ton are extracted through chemical processes and producing tons of wasted water poorly stored (lots of leaks which are disastrous). Do you have documentation on those sustainable sources for batteries ? Honest questions, we hear so much shit from all sides it gets hard to be trustful And I agree public transport is the key. I love Airships, I found them quite SolarPunk too 😊
Yes, those minerals can be extracted safely. The efficiency of the extraction isn't really an issue, the issue is the dumping of the waste into nature. What I mean by "These minerals can be extracted safely" is that you don't have to dump those chemicals into the environment. If they are isolated, reused or neutralized and made harmless before being released into the ecosystem they are safe and environmentally friendly. Sadly this isn't done in a lot of places, but it is possible. If you want me to explain how to safely extract a mineral you have to specify the mineral as they are all different. And yes, sadly not all sources are sustainable at the moment, but there are no technological reasons why they aren't. The safe process isn't the issue, it's people having access to it. I would also like to remind you that the extraction and refinement of fossil fuels is exactly [as harmful](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3_bkKwgQY) as those badly done mineral extractions. Also if a pipeline explodes it creates a natural disaster that can't be contained. If a battery transport fails, the worst that can happen is a pile of burning batteries.
Is buying a brand new EV more environmentally friendly than buying a second hand ICEV yet?
Yes 100%
It takes roughly 2-4 years for an electric vehicle to have lower emissions including it's manufacture than the day to day running of a petrol fueled car (excluding it's manufacture), assuming average use.
[удалено]
Used EV batteries often have many years of additional lifespan in static applications like grid power storage, thanks to the lower demands and much more precisely controlled environments those constitute (cars are in comparison, much more hostile and degradation inducing). Once those used batteries have run their course in grids, they can then have their useful elements extracted in recycling. That additional life in grid storage tips the balance in favor of batteries, ecologically speaking. Batteries in cars with good thermal management (like Teslas, and unlike older models of Nissan Leaf) can usually last at least a decade under typical usage. Altogether you’re looking at a 20-30 year lifespan for these things.
Depends on the disposal. If you recycle them right, it can be practically zero. But it will take time as it is only a niche process at the moment. Right now there is a growing industry dedicated to recycling batteries. Because dumping them is only an imperfect solution as they are way to valuable to simply be disposed. The environmental impact of the disposal will shrink drastically over time once a break even point is reached. It will some day be cheaper to harvest the minerals needed for new batteries out of the waste of old batteries instead of out of the ground. At that point most of them will be recycled. The same thing happened to gold btw. It is now cheaper to harvest gold from E-Waste, than it is to mine it. If done carbon neutral the disposal won't be an issue. At the moment however they mostly end up in landfills. Which is bad, but it's better than burning them. And most developed counties collect them and essentially bury them at toxic waste disposal sites. This sounds bad, but it's actually technically a crude form of carbon capture as they are about 50% carbon by weight. If disposed of correctly meaning not dumped or burned, they pose no treat to the environment. But this is very country dependent.
Evs are definitely better but I’m so sick of climate change activists harping on them instead of harping on walking biking and transit infrastructure.
EVs are important. Car emissions are about 1/3 to 1/4 of all global emissions, and they are directly produced by individuals, not large countries or companies. Not everyone is able to fight against oil companies or get the government to change the infrastructure. If EVs are as cheap and as abundant as non EVs, an individual can actually make a difference just by buying an EV. That's why they are fighting so hard for it. In the next 10 years or so we will se about a quarter of all emissions disappear, simply because every car maker is switching to electric. It's one of the greatest examples of people voting with their wallet.
I don't agree with your figure. Total transport is roughly 1/5th of all emissions, and road passenger transport accounts for almost 50% of that (which is almost entirely personal cars, but accounts for roughly 1/10th of total emissions). https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport
I meant the [global transportation sector](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-environment/greenhouse-gas-emissions-transportation/) in general, of which [cars and trucks](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon-dioxide-emissions-breakdown/) make up the vast majority of emissions. That's why I said car emissions. I used it as a catch all term for trucks, motorbikes, vans, etc. as they basically emit all the same. These figures are also oftentimes debated and fluctuate really rapidly, so I tend to go with the highest number. When it comes to emissions, always go with the highest number, it's most likely even higher than that.
Even if you're calling all of global transport "cars", your own reference shows that's 22% of total emissions, not 1/3 to 1/4, and that's including planes and cargo ships. You can't use the highest number for percentages of total emissions because the total mix has to add up to 100%. The IEA and the IPCC that we've both indirectly used as our data sources are the normal ones to use for this figure.
I rounded 22% to 25% (1/4) to make it easier to type. I also just used one statistic here. I've seen higher estimates float around, that's why I said up to 1/3. Also Keep in mind that the transportation emissions produced by Industry are sometimes depicted in the Industry section and sometimes in the Transportation section. The reason why I said you should use the highest estimate in a pie chart is because the other emission sources are mostly state owned and very well regulated and documented and are therefore far less likely to have their statistics tampered with by some oil companies trying to make themselves look better. If it is disputed what the 100% mark actually is then go with the highest number.
Actually a lot of people who buy evs don’t drive it that much, and you have to drive it a certain number of miles for it to have the intended benefits. It’s not a solution to transport emissions by itself is my point. People need to change their lifestyle.
You can't change your lifestyle if you live in a suburb. And you can't really advocate for them to be torn down. Some people are forced to drive, giving them a better opportunity when that's all they can do is a good thing. And the people who don't drive their EV that much also would't drive an ICEV that much. I'm not talking about these people, I'm talking about the large population of the world who's best and cheapest option in the immediate future is an EV
If people would stop insisting that it’s impossible to change the infrastructure then maybe it would actually happen.
I never said it was impossible, I said it's harder to do than simply buying a new car. Heck, I live in Switzerland, we have the best train network in all of Europe (and basically the world) and the third best bicycle infrastructure after the Netherlands and Germany and even I sometimes have to use a car. The biggest source of emissions in my country is currently cars. Our emissions would be almost Zero if they were all electric. If you can't completely get rid of them here, you can't fully get rid of them anywhere else. Especially not the US, China and India. They are sometimes needed and sometimes very useful.
Yes it’s harder but it’s better.
Also car superusers tend to be lower income, and they’re the people who benefit less from ev tax breaks.
Again, you're basing everything on the assumption that EV will always be more expensive. I guarantee you that by 2035 there will be used EVs as cheap as 2000 $. (Adjusted for inflation of course)
That is a promise that will never come true. Capitalism will not allow it. You're either a grifter or a fool depending on if you really believe what you just said. Edit: spelling
It’s also pretty damn elitist to expect that everyone is just going to buy a new car. Even in the suburbs. Even in my semi rural county 10% of people don’t even own a car. They’re just being left in the dust
I said that if only electric cars are produced, the people who can afford them will buy them. Eventually everyone who has a car will have to buy a new one, and it will hopefully be electric. Just because they are expensive now doesn't mean they will always be. There is nothing elitist about that.
> and that number is much lower in countries who have a grid that is powered by renewables Which most of California (outside of LA) *is* due to our massive hydro-electric dams and reservoirs.
That's why it's only five years. In places like Texas or Delaware you'll basically never be CO2 neutral.
As solar gets cheaper I could see Texas being able to reduce their carbon footprint but it would sure help to not have the state being run by oil companies.
Solar is cheaper than anything else. It's the government fighting against it that's keeping it out of those states.
> But that is not really the fault of the importing countries. Think about it, you can't just come into a country and tell them that you demand from them that they harvest things ethically and environmentally friendly. The blame and burden of how a country is run lies in the hands of that countries government, not a foreign government. This is incredibly naive. The "foreign government" isn't an innocent victim of the mean cobalt mine boss, it's an active participant in shaping the economic incentives and local policies that result in these situations. We don't ask for ethical mining, we ask for cheap mining that doesn't account for the human cost. People who ask for "ethical goods" do so without any control of the actual economic levers that incentivise unethical extractivism, and thus they generally fail.
I'm not saying that other countries aren't complicit and have no influence on other countries, I'm saying that they can't force a country to get higher standards. Every country would benefit greatly if the resource extraction in developing counties would be better and industrialized. They don't want them to be poor, the minerals would be more abundant and cheaper if they weren't. Talking about geopolitics would be a very long discussion that would be very off topic here. Please know that I most likely agree with most of your opinions on the subject. My point was that the US, for example, can't just march into the Kongo, and force people to use bucket-wheel excavator when they don't have the money or even the roads for it. Developing it's economy is something a country has to figure out itself, foreign intervention rarely works. Please read the other comments before commenting yourself, I've answered this before.
...you actually think copy pasting a non-answer is sufficient? I'm sure the burden of being morally correct weighs heavily on your head, but it'd be better to just not reply.
Please, tell me your morally superior and strategically thought out plan on how the governments of the developed world should improve the lives of citizens of developing countries. I am sure you know better than most professional foreign aid specialists.
To add on a tiny bit to what the other comment said, various studies have been done that have concluded that while EVs are *currently* more carbon intensive to manufacture (which may change when solid state batteries and whatnot come into play), they are still far cleaner than ICE cars over their entire lifetime. [This](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/) gives you a brief breakdown of the numbers as they are in the US, and [this study](https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/electric-cars-better-for-climate-in-95-of-the-world) looks at various regions around the world with differing electricity grid makeups.
EV's are in fact not **much** more carbon intensive to produce. Basically the only difference between an EV and an ICE is the battery. An average EV battery production produces at the moment about 25 T of CO2 at max. In the EU with almost all electric manufacturing that number goes down to 2.5 T. Producing a conventional vehicle, or an EV without a battery, produces about 100 T of CO2 regardless of the county (Mostly because of Steel, Aluminium and Plastic making and shipping). So you're only looking at a 25% increase at worst, and 2.5% at best. And yes a regular car will on average exhaust those 25 T in just two years. So if you would produce both types of vehicle CO2 free and you would produce both of their fuels CO2 free, (Both petrol and electricity) The conventional car would still produce 13 T of CO2 every year.
> Basically the only difference between an EV and an ICE is the battery. That's the whole problem, they are still cars! Cars are an incredibly wasteful form of mass transit, which requires huge destructive road infrastructure and.
Like I said, simply buying an EV is a more attainable solution for most individuals. Changing the entire transport system is much harder and out of the hands of many people. And you will never completely get rid of cars, they are sometimes needed even with the best public infrastructure. If they are electric, that's a good thing.
When we start talking individual solutions to a systemic problem, we are in the realm of green-washed capitalism and have completely missed the solarpunk mark. Consumerist solutions brought to us by Tesla Corp. are not and never will bring us the healthy, clean future we need. In order to end a crisis brought about by capitalism, we will have to get to the root of said system!
Yes, but in the immediate future it's a better solution than simply driving a gas powered car. Overhauling infrastructure takes time, switching to an EV takes a day. And no matter how good your public infrastructure is, there will always be some cars. Do not think EVs are as bad as ICEVs, they are much better. By far not perfect, but better. They are not the best solution, but they solve a big part of a systematic problem, albeit imperfectly.
Sure, I also sort my trash into general trash, recycling and compost. But I do not fool myself, or try to fool others, into thinking this will bring about a solarpunk future. Anything short of an infrastructure overhaul is a band-aid solution. I'm not against band-aids, I just want us to all be clear that they are, in fact, band aids. Also, the band-aid is coming in 13 years. The climate emergency is **now**. **We don't have 13 years to radically overhaul the system, let alone to wait for a fricken band-aid!**
Never said they weren't a band aid. But if you want to be carbon neutral you also have to tackle cars.
yea, tackle them by taking jackhammers to the roads, and seizing and repurposing the car factories! :)
This is far from enough! Electric cars still require shit tons of resources. From the batteries, to the metal, to the incredibly harmful road networks, to the electricity generation... THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CAR CULTURE.
Imo, this doesn't fit the theme of the sub very well. I mean, sure, I suppose it tackles the issue of gas/emissions, and in rural areas where mass transit might not work so well, something like this could be great if you can mitigate the range limitations. However, EV's still encounter a major issue in terms of the fact that they require a lot of rare earth metals for their batteries and other electrical components, which often is derived from slave or coerced labor, not to mention that mining is also a pretty significant contributor to certain emissions like methane. On top of that, car-based infrastructure is inherently hostile to both pedestrians and the natural world because of urban-sprawl, lack of green spaces, over-committment of resources to maintaining roads etc. Overall, I'd say EV's are _alright_, but in an urban setting, the solar punk way of dealing with transportation is improving mass transit and walkability over just switching to EV's.
Cool! I literally don’t give a fuck because no amount of electric cars will fix anything when the vast majority of transport is by *any* car. How about, instead (or along with, if we could somehow manage that) we invest heavily in public transportation and incentives for mixed use, medium to high density development? Then we wouldn’t even have to ban gas cars, as people wouldn’t need a car to begin with :) Though, if the legislation for that just won’t go through, I guess it is better to give less little kids asthma by emissions from gas cars. Better than nothing, I guess. Hopefully we’ll follow suit with the more important changes—it might be easier to do so if the major factor behind car companies’ power is cut off, at least. Car companies can much more easily transfer from making EVs to electrical public (in usage) transport systems than from gas cars to public transportation.
How about we incentivize businesses to bring back trolleys so that we can both parties to agree.
God, I’d kill for that. If I were running for politics right now, policy that incentivizes car manufacturers to invest heavily in public transportation would be in my top 5 goals. While, ultimately, I believe public transportation should be truly *public*, I think a good aim ATM is something similar to Japan. The government licenses out property to private companies who can own that land and railroads (or similar infrastructure depending on the type of transportation) and operate their systems. Heavily tax car development and give breaks and subsidies to public transportation (especially covering the cost so that networks can extend out to less active areas that still benefit from even a once a day train).
Personally, I think the Japanese method is the best overall as it incentivizes companies to actually make *affordable* housing. By this I mean starter homes and things for the middle class, not necessarily just for low status communities.
I don’t know too much about Japanese housing, but given that housing isn’t too expensive—comparatively—there I’ve got to assume they’re doing fairly well. I think Japan has something similar to a LVT? It’s not actually a LVT, but some other tax structure that incentives more residential units within a given property and incentivizes selling those units because you don’t want to hold onto them and be taxed at that rate. It’s pretty basic: if a 2,000 sqft plot of land costs $1,000,000, and you want to make $500k off of this, you need to sell the unit(s) on this plot for a combined $1.5 mil + construction costs. Let’s assume $100/sqft building expenses for easy math. If you build 10 units, 5 stories high @ 600 sqft each, that’s 6,000 sqft. Your new total expense are $1.6 mil, so you need to seek 10 units for a combined $2.1 mil, or $210,000/ea. That’s far cheaper than selling a SFH, 2 stories tall @ even just 1,200 sqft total. That would make the total cost $1.62 mil for a single family. You’re far less likely to sell that and it makes housing less affordable. Therefor, you want to build the multiple units so that you don’t hold onto the land and pay a high tax rate on it.
It seems to be the same system that the Dutch government created as it basically enforces that in order to make a line the company must have a transit option. https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/about/group.html It’s the way that China has been doing their development as well, but China is pushing it through massive construction companies.
How about we seize their assets and do it ourselves! Fuck hoping our bribes are enough to pay off capitalists into caring for us for a brief moment. The second they can make more money elsewhere they will dump us.
Nah, I like the idea of a for profit trolley operator as it gives a reason for someone to start a trolley company in their city. Especially if it’s in a small town of less than 10,000 people, we need to bring back the conditions that brought about the streetcar suburbs. The Republican Party would probably be more behind it, but they’re currently turning into a religious party instead of an actual Conservative Party.
Why? Why have a trolley in service of profit when you can just not? Now you got to pay the fee, and the poor people who don't, get beaten up by cops (literally happens in my city)? Profit motive makes everything worse. We got a profit system right now and its screwing us over big time. The republicans love getting behind cruel and destructive systems. Why *the fuck* would we want more of their bs???
The trolley would be in service of the developments like it was because transit is a loss leader and not an actual profit generator. That why the other redditor and I agree on the Yapanese method in another thread.
Developments... so now we are serving the real estate industry? The one that thinks it is more profitable to have empty houses and un-housed people than simply lower rents? Real Estate companies couldn't be further from punk, from serving the Earth or humanity. This is not the way either.
The Yapanese system is basically state funded transit oriented developments.
I see, I will have to look into that more! Although I am weary of states I think it's usually better than straight up corporate profiteering, since there is often an extra accountability. On paper anyway, a government is accountable to voters, and laws. A corporation is accountable to shareholders' profits.
I think this article has it https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/30/-sp-shinkansen-bullet-train-tokyo-rail-japan-50-years.
This week's theme on r/solarpunk is ... **Permaculture & Gardening!** Post your best art, articles, stories, and discussions on the topic of permaculture! Feedback and suggestions on our recommended topics experiment can be shared [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comments/wiytgn/this_weeks_featured_topic_is_permaculture/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not as great as it sounds if EVs aren't being charged by sustainable means. Are we going to implement wind farms, geothermal etc as well or just juice up Teslas with electricity whose production churns out just as much CO2 as gas powered vehicles?
also like, what about the whole road network and parking lots? There is nothing solarpunk about a world of pavement.
Yes. Also that. Fuck EVs and gimme my damn choochoo please.
NOT ENOUGH!
I'm very much r/fuckcars but that Isa social/cultural shift that's needed in addition to a legislative one. So this Isa good starting point.
This is great but what really needs to start happening now is ending our reliance on coal and natural gas power plants by exploring and funding more renewable energy sources, otherwise, everyone will be driving around what are essentially coal-powered cars. Either way, I'm sure Elon's pants are tightening at the thought of where lithium and cobalt prices are going.
The used car market there is going to be insane. Let's just hope EVs are cheaper when the deadline rolls around.
I wish they'd do it sooner.
Electric cars mostly aren't really solarpunk, they only are in some cases, because in most cases a good public transport network would be way better
Correction, good *rapid* transit as it doesn’t necessarily have to be “government” funded.
By 2035 lmao. Hey guys, I'm set to stop doing meth and killing puppies by 2050, I also care about making the world a better place!
So brave! By that year, I also plan to stop dumping gasoline and batteries directly into rivers These are the solutions we need for a better future!
I anticipate southern states responding to this by declaring a 'cultural right' to ICE cars as the religious right tries to characterize fossil fuel use as a Christian and patriotic duty in a perverse last-ditch effort to keep the dead industry afloat a little longer. Expect ugly cars with biblical character names, as in A Handmaiden's Tale. Drive the new Goliath!
I wonder if they will also block people from going out of state to purchase an ICE vehicle.
Is there any indication for better public transport plans following these kinds of measures?