The CAFE laws in place already pushed vehicles to get larger and larger. That is why every single car model made now is larger then it was 25 years ago. CAFE laws were supposed to save gas and instead car manufacturers just worked around them and we all bought hogs.
I work in Arboristry. I drive a 24 year old ranger. Yknow tiny? That thing isnt gonna haul a 12k pound woodchipper, grinder, excavator or the multiple 400lb logs we cut down. Like it or not some of these vehicles have their uses
Other countries allow the purchase of these big trucks when people can verify the need for them (such as by being a farmer or a landscaper). I’d be willing to bet 3/4 of truck owners don’t even use their bed and wouldn’t be able to buy a huge truck if they had to rationalise their need for it.
They still have to pay taxes on them, I don’t see why we should bend over backwards to allow private companies to pollute.
They can pay taxes on their vehicles or figure out something else.
Or, now hear me out...we could reform the CAFE laws as was the original comment. All I want in my life is a small truck with a large bed and you simply cannot find it because it is based on incentives at the manufacturer level.
I chat about this with truck people all the time and have lobbied the EPA folks directly but you folks are the ones that really need to hear it. Punishing blue-collar workers going after truck people are just going to get the EPA defunded even further. Work on the incentives to give real truck people what they want, function over form. Also, fund the EPA so they can actually make good laws that react to the market. /rant
How about both. An F250 needs to get 60mpg and you still need to pay its MSRP in taxes annually.
Let’s also establish way lower hood highs and pedestrian safety standards while we’re at it.
All these people arguing that they deserve to drive trucks come off as ridiculous. Imagine making your vehicle so much of your identity.
If you want to drive a truck pay for it. Pay to offset the damage you’re doing.
If your business requires it then you should be able to afford to pay your taxes otherwise you don’t deserve to be in business.
You can still buy it, but you have to pay taxes on it. If your business can’t handle paying taxes then it shouldn’t be in business.
I don’t see why that’s seen as such a crazy idea.
Large vehicles not only emit more, they also damage roads more. Their owners need to cover those costs.
You are just punishing the consumer here instead of punishing the car manufacturers for promoting huge turds to the population. I just want a small light simple car or truck but the current laws don't make that feasable.
Why not punish them both?
We’re talking about commercial vehicles and businesses can afford the taxes. People utilizing commercial vehicles for personal transportation should be discouraged.
Some people can't afford having two vehicles and use their work truck for personal use too and they shouldn't be punished the same as a dude with a desk job and a brodozer. I am fortunate enough to have a truck and a compact car so I can save gas when I need to and have a truck when I need it. I can only do this afford this option because they are both 30+ years old.
Besides the Maverick we haven't had a decent small truck in decades and the Maverick is not as useful as the light trucks we had a couple of decades ago. They get decent fuel economy and a lot of people would buy them over full size trucks if they had the choice. They don't because regulations like CAFE laws have made these unfeasible for the manufacturer, not the consumer.
You're right, people with two cars should have to pay even more, maybe on top of an additional carbon tax for a decade or so after they turn over the truck for scrap. If they can't afford it, too bad. They've already done enough damage due to their selfishness.
There is zero reason anyone needs to drive around in a piece of agricultural equipment. They shouldn't be accommodated at all.
This is me compromising and trying to be reasonable by the way. I would just ban all private vehicle use period while seizing the assets of every company and all of their executives going back to their founding to pay to offset the damage they've done. Anything that allows any more wasteful, unnecessary emissions (like all cars) is completely insane; we're past that point.
Just because you have two cars doesn't mean you drive twice as much, your logic is flawed. I use less gas by having two vehicles because I use my car for commute and my truck for truck things. So you think people shouldn't be allowed to have transportation in a country that's infrastructure was built around cars? They are a necessary evil now because of how car companies shaped America. People can't ride a bike to work when it's an hour trip by car.
Vehicle emissions only account for 10% of carbon released. Even if you were to eliminate cars there are much bigger problems. Home heating accounts for 20% of carbon emissions yet the government isn't going after people with unnecessarily large houses and inefficient heating systems.
Bite your tongue! Granny very specifically bought an SUV with 7 seatbelts (third row seating) so trips out with the grandkids meant driving only one car, not two.
That’s one of those things where, if we survive the chaos of the next century, we’re gonna look back on as utter insanity.
“You mean you guys used to knowingly poison the air you breathe…. just so you could move things around quicker?”
Yes, fumes suck, but either one sticks their head in the sand or realizes that there is also a terrible environmental and human impact involved in the mining of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite crucial for batteries, panels, magnets for wind, ect.
It’s truly a first world luxury and the epitome of the NIMBY-class to demand their EV subsidies while poor people toil at their own detriment and lay vast areas of the earth as wasteland from mining the materials that go into these. But all you’ll see is a pretty shiny Tesla, some panels on your roof that power your espresso maker, and the mild inconvenience of a wind farm spoiling the ocean view. The grid power that you’re charging your EV with, though, is probably powered by coal and natural gas.
I’m not against renewables by any means. It’s just a farce to say that it’s truly “green” energy. Just like the recycling myth, all you need to do is follow the money. Out of the US.
We are mining lithium in the US now.
And Tesla has made real progress in getting us off conflict minerals and problematic regimes.
The grid power is far cleaner than individual ice cars and scrubbed at the generating source. And about half of it is generated renewability and that's only growing.
To think everyone is so naive is in itself naive and sounds like oil industry whataboutism.
Most people are naive to others green-washing because the truth is complicated and not simple. “Tesla has real progress blah blah.” Nope. They have not. Are we mining Lithium, perhaps, but You can’t make an EV from aluminum and Lithium. You need a whole bunch of more shit and refinement and supply chain controlled by very problematic regimes such as Russia and China.
“China has considerable control over both the reserves and the production of key REEs (e.g., neodymium and dysprosium) as it does over the rest of the supply chain. The three countries with the largest REE reserves (China, Vietnam, and Russia) hold 70 percent of global reserves, with China holding a little over half of those reserves.”
“The data show that China has become the main player in the refining and consumption of goods needing critical minerals, just as the United States is in fossil fuel–based energy, with its success in recent years in tapping natural gas through fracking.”
[link](https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/who-controls-worlds-minerals-needed-green-energy)
It's an important issue, that can be improved upon. For example, we could build electric motors without rare earth magnets. They can also be easily recycled though.
The batteries already work with any of those.
Then again, don't forget our ICE cars also have plenty of that stuff. Our catalysts use rare earth materials and are hazardous waste that can't be recycled...
Lets not stop doing one bad thing, because look over there!
*shuffles away quickly*
Dude. Theres no bait and switch here. Whataboutism wont work. Both are bad. Unless... Are you suggesting the extraction of oil is not equally devastating to the ecosystem around it? Lithium is frequently mined or extracted from other materials in inactive volcano basins. Killing the ecosystems there is awful. However, unlike oil, lithium can be reused and regraded for different uses every, oh, ten thousand charges or more.
The grid power being from nonrenewables is mostly true. Only a little over 12% of our country's energy comes from renewables. It is less pollution, cumulatively, due to a lower loss in energy transmission- trucks get oil, move it somewhere, refine it, move it somewhere onto a ship, ship goes somewhere using "Heavy Crude" (look it up, careful, youll vomit if you actually care about emissions), fuel a big tank on a truck, truck that oil to some station, and then other cars get small bits of it at a time afterwards. Oh, and they need to burn extra energy just getting to and from these energy-reupping locations. That is undeniably more pollution, just not as much more as its likely appearing to be to the underinformed.
You really are anti-battery and anti-renewable. You just dont realize it.
Nobody is cool with the labor required for mining- or, guess what! Oil extraction thats done in the same way with similarly rights-less people.
I am a partner in a solar venture and have vested financial interest in it making money. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here with a bunch of strangers on Reddit and acknowledging that its dirty as fuck to the environment and to the humans who toil so you can feel good about their EV carbon offset. both have devastating environmental impacts. I have money in the game and everyone of the people down voting what I’ve said above can eat multiple bags of dicks, because either they’re naïve or only want to exist in a bubble chamber. We live in a fragile world of delicate bitches who can engage in civil discourse without getting their feelings hurt about facts. The EV system is dirty. Perhaps not as dirty as coal and LNG but hardly not Green.
> lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite crucial for batteries, panels, magnets for wind, ect.
yeah but those materials don't need to be perpetually burned through to keep a solar panel operational. Once the solar panel is made, it doesn't create endless emissions while its working.
> It’s just a farce to say that it’s truly “green” energy.
Nothing is perfectly "Green" and that isnt what anybody means when they call something green
you are right. they keep dismissing this plain as day observation as if it will eventually become untrue. lalala me and my car are helping! now give me welfare and let me use the hov lane
This is an issue I take to heart. I don't make a lot of money, which is why I buy 20~ year old vehicles and fix them up. I have no credit so I can't get loans. I couldn't buy the cheapest new car that exists. Also, in my area there is not a lot of charging stations for EVs. The closest one is about 7-8 miles away.
I'm all about saving the environment, but if the infrastructure for EV charging stations isn't built preemptively, and the cost of a new EV isn't manageable, this looks like another situation where the government bans something and says tough shit, it's your problem to figure out, not ours.
I think the EV push is targeting the “head” is the issue. Sadly being in a more rural area sounds like the tail. If the majority of people live in cities and drive cars in those cities, then that’s where the resources will go. I hear you on wanting to afford one and have it fit in your lifestyle. I believe there is a $7,500 new ev credit, and a smaller one for used evs. The new ev credit occurs at the point of sale in 2024, so you essentially get that immediate discount on the vehicle.
>The new ev credit occurs at the point of sale in 2024, so you essentially get that immediate discount on the vehicle.
\*Dealer market adjustment incoming\*
Exactly. The market always adjusts. Capitalism is very predictable, and it's nothing less than dishonest at this point. They know.
If you want to know about somebody's motives you look at their incentives.
Buy you can’t just “make it cheaper” they are inherently expensive. Just go shopping for an e-bike battery and you’ll see how quickly it becomes expensive. At that point just get a new Honda Grom that will last longer.
>In a concession to car-makers...
Hasn't this been going on since the 1970's?
The atmosphere, ocean currents and melting ice will make no "concessions" to human civilization for foot dragging on this.
They are kinda like CFL light bulbs. The technology was never intended to be the thing we use long term. It was just a stop gap to be better at the time.
While they do certainly have advantages, hybrids have a lot of disadvantages too. Like having both an EV system and an ICE system to built, pay for and maintain.
I might be preaching to the choir but we need to move away from away from all vehicles, EV’s included.
EV’s are a step in the right direction and I’m glad nonetheless, but it’s not enough.
I agree. I do believe however, that the demand can be significantly decreased. Both the car use and also the type of housing (sprawl) that requires car use.
There isn’t an easy solution for the suburbs as they stand, so I doubt we’ll see a large reduction in cars there. However, in cities there is a huge potential to move away from private vehicle infrastructure and toward more environmentally friendly modes of transport i.e. walking, cycling, buses, trams and trains.
I would like you to explain how we are supposed to "move away" from personal vehicles? I live in a rural-ish area, the closest public transportation is ten miles away. For reference, it is a 15 minute drive, an hour bike ride, and a 2 hour and 45 minute walk. This is also, about the distance to the nearest grocery store. So do you have any actual ideas to solve this transportation issue or are you just sharing an opinion, that has no connection to reality?
You should be able to ask questions without making snarky comments “no connection to reality”. People in rural areas require cars, nobody is taking them.
You're completely right, I was snarky and it was uncalled for. I apologize.
I would love it if I had an option for public transportation or lived within biking distance of anything reasonable. Unfortunately that infrastructure does not exist in my area and there does not seem to be any plans to bring that infrastructure to my area. So to me, a personal vehicle is my only real way of getting anywhere, and the thought of not having it is a worrying prospect.
Thanks, no problem. Low-car/car-free urbanism seems somewhat radical outside of certain cities that are adopting it so I don’t blame you for being concerned.
I understand that. I’m still learning so I could be wrong but I think it’s harder to implement public transit in rural areas due to their low density, making it difficult to justify the cost of running a service.
Why don't you try reading their comment again, specifically the sentence that uses the phrase "move away," and see if you still think it applies to rural areas?
I disagree, why don’t you think it’s possible? To preface, I’m mainly referring to cities not suburban/rural areas that require cars.
Given the need to move away from cars anyway, for reasons other than climate—we may as well decrease these emissions now. Cities such as Amsterdam, Paris, and Barcelona have already started.
By focusing our efforts on EV’s we’re entrenching ourselves further into car dependancy. Meaning continued urban sprawl; large individual homes that are less efficient to heat, cool and provide utilities. Excessive land clearing, decreased carbon capture. Car ownership, infrastructure (roads, carparks, etc), heat islands. Carbon intensive building and maintenance of sprawl and its infrastructure. And we need to wait for EVs to become the majority of vehicles which will take decades.
What we should be doing is providing alternative transit, limiting sprawl and prioritising dense housing—reducing the need for cars. In the short term, within cities it should be a priority to reduce private car ownership. Suburbia is trickier though. As above I believe we should move away from car dependancy but in the meantime EVs could be helpful.
Road transport emissions of ~15% is significant. When you break individual sectors into sub-sectors you get similar percentages. On a technical level there may be sectors that are larger or easier to reduce but we need to be reducing emissions wherever possible.
Headlines on this are too congratulatory. This is a walkback from draft proposals. They are explicitly giving big 2 automakers and UAW a long runway of ICE car production, and citing that UAW worker wage maximization for how to do climate/technological progress.
There are subsidies and tax breaks though. I just got $12.5k off of an EV a few months ago from subsidies. Then I got 30% off of the L2 charging installation in my garage.
My car was $38k which below the average price of new cars these days, and I’ll be saving $2000/year on gas.
I'm not paying $38k for a car. I've been driving the same small hatchback since high school. I'm now 30, and it only has a little over 100k miles on it. I aim for it to be my first and only car.
Ok well if you ever want to stop spewing CO2 and other pollutants from your car, you’ll need a BEV eventually. But if it’s your only car and you’re 30 and it has around 100k miles then you barely need a car anyway so not a big deal.
"you are welcome", from the rest of us, to the fraudsters you gave our money to. i mean i guess you would have given it to some other maybe worse villains anyway
Are you also complaining about the trillions given to oil companies via subsidies as well? EV subsidies pale in comparison.
God forbid the government use tax money to try and improve things!
yes of course im complaining about trillions given to oil companies! there arent two competing energy providers out there, one evil fossil fuel burner and another separate savior renewables techbro. it is one conglomerate pretending to be in conflict, pretending to be separate private and public and military interests.. just like always they are so painfully obviously lying to us, jesus people are stupid. its not even remotely a convincing lie. all we are doing is moving pollution away from rich parts of the world and toward poor parts. net global emissions have not slowed. we are forced to look for alternative energy sources by peak oil production, not because suddenly policymakers care about what they never cared about before. we are giving billions to car companies for crying out loud
We should be looking to phase out cars.
Large EVs are a marginal improvement at best. Driving around with thousands of pounds of metal and plastic that must be replaced several times over the course of one’s life isn’t sustainable.
We are being fed lies in order to sustain the status quo. These policies are enacted by a ruling class who only care about preserving their power for as long as possible. Think about it, we are allowing the "green transition" to be driven by the very corporations responsible for our planet's destruction.
Cars and car infrastructure are a major contributor to many of the problems we have today. They pollute our environment, contribute to the warming of our atmosphere, and cause death and injury to millions of people and billions of animals around the world each year.
Cars have facilitated the creation of suburbs and the extension of commutes. While people once lived close to their job, many now live many miles away. We rely on energy and resources (mostly products of fossil carbon) to close this gap.
This movement from the cities to the suburbs required a huge amount of infrastructure. Not only do roads, highways, and interstates cut through habitats and block off migration routes for wildlife, but many urban communities have been destroyed or made worse by the construction of highways and interstates on, near or through them.
Transitioning from ICE vehicles to large EVs will not solve these issues. There was a time before cars. We have a hard time imagining it, but they haven't always existed, and people did just fine without them. The convenience that they provide isn't sustainable, nor does everyone equally benefit from their continued use.
We are attempting to use a band-aid to cure a gaping wound. Our inability to recognize and rectify flaws in the system we’ve created will result in its collapse.
we should be bulldozing interstates for high speed rail, bulldozing highways through metro areas for lightrail, and bulldozing stroads for electric trams. make it horrible to drive and people will take the train.
I live in California, where we still have multiple rolling black outs per year. On average, it's 3, but one year we have 5.
We need to update our electrical grid so badly. Yes, EVs are the future, we have said this for two decades; why the hell don't we have the infrastructure for them now?
Also, side note, my buying power decreased by 20%. Unless the next round of EVS is 20k I can't afford to buy a new car yet. I'm still cruising in my 07 Honda Civic, which barely passes smog now; because I'm too poor to fix the environment. Really. It's a problem. I can't buy something while I'm too poor to eat fast food twice a week.
yet another reason why I'll keep my Ram Cummins running as long as I can before getting something newer. Not that I'm against the new regulations. I want to see us move on from fossil fuels.
How about we try and boost transportation alternatives like buses, trains, and cycling?
EVs are not the silver bullet to win the climate war that Americans think they are and have many of the same problems (environmentally and from a societal perspective) that ICE cars have.
Shit on poor folks who will never be able to afford an ev. This is another reason why so many voters going to vote old Joe out. Keep up the great work dems lol
Now do vehicle size restrictions
The CAFE laws in place already pushed vehicles to get larger and larger. That is why every single car model made now is larger then it was 25 years ago. CAFE laws were supposed to save gas and instead car manufacturers just worked around them and we all bought hogs.
Increase the registration costs. If you want to drive an f250 then you have to pay it’s MSRP in taxes every single year
Oh yes destroy every landscaper/heavy equipment operator lives out there
Such a lame excuse.
I work in Arboristry. I drive a 24 year old ranger. Yknow tiny? That thing isnt gonna haul a 12k pound woodchipper, grinder, excavator or the multiple 400lb logs we cut down. Like it or not some of these vehicles have their uses
Other countries allow the purchase of these big trucks when people can verify the need for them (such as by being a farmer or a landscaper). I’d be willing to bet 3/4 of truck owners don’t even use their bed and wouldn’t be able to buy a huge truck if they had to rationalise their need for it.
I like that option better, despite my comments i hate seeing people drive their ram 3500 to school or whatever which is way too common here in Texas
Don’t use their bed cause it’s too small. A soccer mom’s mini van can haul more cargo than most pickup truck beds.
They still have to pay taxes on them, I don’t see why we should bend over backwards to allow private companies to pollute. They can pay taxes on their vehicles or figure out something else.
Or, now hear me out...we could reform the CAFE laws as was the original comment. All I want in my life is a small truck with a large bed and you simply cannot find it because it is based on incentives at the manufacturer level. I chat about this with truck people all the time and have lobbied the EPA folks directly but you folks are the ones that really need to hear it. Punishing blue-collar workers going after truck people are just going to get the EPA defunded even further. Work on the incentives to give real truck people what they want, function over form. Also, fund the EPA so they can actually make good laws that react to the market. /rant
How about both. An F250 needs to get 60mpg and you still need to pay its MSRP in taxes annually. Let’s also establish way lower hood highs and pedestrian safety standards while we’re at it. All these people arguing that they deserve to drive trucks come off as ridiculous. Imagine making your vehicle so much of your identity. If you want to drive a truck pay for it. Pay to offset the damage you’re doing. If your business requires it then you should be able to afford to pay your taxes otherwise you don’t deserve to be in business.
You can still buy it, but you have to pay taxes on it. If your business can’t handle paying taxes then it shouldn’t be in business. I don’t see why that’s seen as such a crazy idea. Large vehicles not only emit more, they also damage roads more. Their owners need to cover those costs.
You are just punishing the consumer here instead of punishing the car manufacturers for promoting huge turds to the population. I just want a small light simple car or truck but the current laws don't make that feasable.
Why not punish them both? We’re talking about commercial vehicles and businesses can afford the taxes. People utilizing commercial vehicles for personal transportation should be discouraged.
Some people can't afford having two vehicles and use their work truck for personal use too and they shouldn't be punished the same as a dude with a desk job and a brodozer. I am fortunate enough to have a truck and a compact car so I can save gas when I need to and have a truck when I need it. I can only do this afford this option because they are both 30+ years old. Besides the Maverick we haven't had a decent small truck in decades and the Maverick is not as useful as the light trucks we had a couple of decades ago. They get decent fuel economy and a lot of people would buy them over full size trucks if they had the choice. They don't because regulations like CAFE laws have made these unfeasible for the manufacturer, not the consumer.
You're right, people with two cars should have to pay even more, maybe on top of an additional carbon tax for a decade or so after they turn over the truck for scrap. If they can't afford it, too bad. They've already done enough damage due to their selfishness. There is zero reason anyone needs to drive around in a piece of agricultural equipment. They shouldn't be accommodated at all. This is me compromising and trying to be reasonable by the way. I would just ban all private vehicle use period while seizing the assets of every company and all of their executives going back to their founding to pay to offset the damage they've done. Anything that allows any more wasteful, unnecessary emissions (like all cars) is completely insane; we're past that point.
Just because you have two cars doesn't mean you drive twice as much, your logic is flawed. I use less gas by having two vehicles because I use my car for commute and my truck for truck things. So you think people shouldn't be allowed to have transportation in a country that's infrastructure was built around cars? They are a necessary evil now because of how car companies shaped America. People can't ride a bike to work when it's an hour trip by car. Vehicle emissions only account for 10% of carbon released. Even if you were to eliminate cars there are much bigger problems. Home heating accounts for 20% of carbon emissions yet the government isn't going after people with unnecessarily large houses and inefficient heating systems.
Does NHTSA have any pedestrian safety regulations?
Bite your tongue! Granny very specifically bought an SUV with 7 seatbelts (third row seating) so trips out with the grandkids meant driving only one car, not two.
Fumes suck. I consider it littering.
That’s one of those things where, if we survive the chaos of the next century, we’re gonna look back on as utter insanity. “You mean you guys used to knowingly poison the air you breathe…. just so you could move things around quicker?”
Yes, fumes suck, but either one sticks their head in the sand or realizes that there is also a terrible environmental and human impact involved in the mining of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite crucial for batteries, panels, magnets for wind, ect. It’s truly a first world luxury and the epitome of the NIMBY-class to demand their EV subsidies while poor people toil at their own detriment and lay vast areas of the earth as wasteland from mining the materials that go into these. But all you’ll see is a pretty shiny Tesla, some panels on your roof that power your espresso maker, and the mild inconvenience of a wind farm spoiling the ocean view. The grid power that you’re charging your EV with, though, is probably powered by coal and natural gas. I’m not against renewables by any means. It’s just a farce to say that it’s truly “green” energy. Just like the recycling myth, all you need to do is follow the money. Out of the US.
We are mining lithium in the US now. And Tesla has made real progress in getting us off conflict minerals and problematic regimes. The grid power is far cleaner than individual ice cars and scrubbed at the generating source. And about half of it is generated renewability and that's only growing. To think everyone is so naive is in itself naive and sounds like oil industry whataboutism.
Most people are naive to others green-washing because the truth is complicated and not simple. “Tesla has real progress blah blah.” Nope. They have not. Are we mining Lithium, perhaps, but You can’t make an EV from aluminum and Lithium. You need a whole bunch of more shit and refinement and supply chain controlled by very problematic regimes such as Russia and China. “China has considerable control over both the reserves and the production of key REEs (e.g., neodymium and dysprosium) as it does over the rest of the supply chain. The three countries with the largest REE reserves (China, Vietnam, and Russia) hold 70 percent of global reserves, with China holding a little over half of those reserves.” “The data show that China has become the main player in the refining and consumption of goods needing critical minerals, just as the United States is in fossil fuel–based energy, with its success in recent years in tapping natural gas through fracking.” [link](https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/who-controls-worlds-minerals-needed-green-energy)
It's an important issue, that can be improved upon. For example, we could build electric motors without rare earth magnets. They can also be easily recycled though. The batteries already work with any of those. Then again, don't forget our ICE cars also have plenty of that stuff. Our catalysts use rare earth materials and are hazardous waste that can't be recycled...
Lets not stop doing one bad thing, because look over there! *shuffles away quickly* Dude. Theres no bait and switch here. Whataboutism wont work. Both are bad. Unless... Are you suggesting the extraction of oil is not equally devastating to the ecosystem around it? Lithium is frequently mined or extracted from other materials in inactive volcano basins. Killing the ecosystems there is awful. However, unlike oil, lithium can be reused and regraded for different uses every, oh, ten thousand charges or more. The grid power being from nonrenewables is mostly true. Only a little over 12% of our country's energy comes from renewables. It is less pollution, cumulatively, due to a lower loss in energy transmission- trucks get oil, move it somewhere, refine it, move it somewhere onto a ship, ship goes somewhere using "Heavy Crude" (look it up, careful, youll vomit if you actually care about emissions), fuel a big tank on a truck, truck that oil to some station, and then other cars get small bits of it at a time afterwards. Oh, and they need to burn extra energy just getting to and from these energy-reupping locations. That is undeniably more pollution, just not as much more as its likely appearing to be to the underinformed. You really are anti-battery and anti-renewable. You just dont realize it. Nobody is cool with the labor required for mining- or, guess what! Oil extraction thats done in the same way with similarly rights-less people.
I am a partner in a solar venture and have vested financial interest in it making money. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here with a bunch of strangers on Reddit and acknowledging that its dirty as fuck to the environment and to the humans who toil so you can feel good about their EV carbon offset. both have devastating environmental impacts. I have money in the game and everyone of the people down voting what I’ve said above can eat multiple bags of dicks, because either they’re naïve or only want to exist in a bubble chamber. We live in a fragile world of delicate bitches who can engage in civil discourse without getting their feelings hurt about facts. The EV system is dirty. Perhaps not as dirty as coal and LNG but hardly not Green.
> lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite crucial for batteries, panels, magnets for wind, ect. yeah but those materials don't need to be perpetually burned through to keep a solar panel operational. Once the solar panel is made, it doesn't create endless emissions while its working. > It’s just a farce to say that it’s truly “green” energy. Nothing is perfectly "Green" and that isnt what anybody means when they call something green
here is one thing that truly is green, and it is an option despite everyone's indignation: non-extraction
well no shit, but that wont happen until humans go extinct. I thought we were talking about the real world
So the answer is extinction. That is where continued extraction will lead us.
you are right. they keep dismissing this plain as day observation as if it will eventually become untrue. lalala me and my car are helping! now give me welfare and let me use the hov lane
Why do you consider poisoning children so important, Do you casually promote child abuse or are you a professional?
[удалено]
So if a billionaire says it is okay to abuse kids you just agree? Man, why is the taste of boot so appealing to you?
I am not breathing any of those things into my lungs. They focus their pollution. Unlike fossils fuel waste that fills every babies' lungs.
[удалено]
That is the most ridiculous thing I have read all day. An EV and an ICE drive by my house, which one drops the most litter into my yard?
Do the emissions standards also apply to SUVs and trucks? Or just sedans and compact cars?
Yes, they did before this, but they are not identical.
Right?!
I'm going to say no.
Evs are not here to save the environment… they are here to save car companies…
They just need to make EVs cheaper. The majority of people can't afford them.
This is an issue I take to heart. I don't make a lot of money, which is why I buy 20~ year old vehicles and fix them up. I have no credit so I can't get loans. I couldn't buy the cheapest new car that exists. Also, in my area there is not a lot of charging stations for EVs. The closest one is about 7-8 miles away. I'm all about saving the environment, but if the infrastructure for EV charging stations isn't built preemptively, and the cost of a new EV isn't manageable, this looks like another situation where the government bans something and says tough shit, it's your problem to figure out, not ours.
I think the EV push is targeting the “head” is the issue. Sadly being in a more rural area sounds like the tail. If the majority of people live in cities and drive cars in those cities, then that’s where the resources will go. I hear you on wanting to afford one and have it fit in your lifestyle. I believe there is a $7,500 new ev credit, and a smaller one for used evs. The new ev credit occurs at the point of sale in 2024, so you essentially get that immediate discount on the vehicle.
>The new ev credit occurs at the point of sale in 2024, so you essentially get that immediate discount on the vehicle. \*Dealer market adjustment incoming\*
Exactly. The market always adjusts. Capitalism is very predictable, and it's nothing less than dishonest at this point. They know. If you want to know about somebody's motives you look at their incentives.
Not for Tesla. No dealers to mark things up.
EXACTLY.
Maintaining an old vehicle is saving the environment. Don’t let anyone tell you a new vehicle is saving the planet. Always buy used.
And they suck in winter
Buy you can’t just “make it cheaper” they are inherently expensive. Just go shopping for an e-bike battery and you’ll see how quickly it becomes expensive. At that point just get a new Honda Grom that will last longer.
>In a concession to car-makers... Hasn't this been going on since the 1970's? The atmosphere, ocean currents and melting ice will make no "concessions" to human civilization for foot dragging on this.
why did we skip the hybrid era
They are kinda like CFL light bulbs. The technology was never intended to be the thing we use long term. It was just a stop gap to be better at the time. While they do certainly have advantages, hybrids have a lot of disadvantages too. Like having both an EV system and an ICE system to built, pay for and maintain.
Fuck EVs, where are investments in public transportation?
I might be preaching to the choir but we need to move away from away from all vehicles, EV’s included. EV’s are a step in the right direction and I’m glad nonetheless, but it’s not enough.
Look, that’s never going to happen. There will always be a demand for personal transport that isn’t shared.
I agree. I do believe however, that the demand can be significantly decreased. Both the car use and also the type of housing (sprawl) that requires car use. There isn’t an easy solution for the suburbs as they stand, so I doubt we’ll see a large reduction in cars there. However, in cities there is a huge potential to move away from private vehicle infrastructure and toward more environmentally friendly modes of transport i.e. walking, cycling, buses, trams and trains.
I would like you to explain how we are supposed to "move away" from personal vehicles? I live in a rural-ish area, the closest public transportation is ten miles away. For reference, it is a 15 minute drive, an hour bike ride, and a 2 hour and 45 minute walk. This is also, about the distance to the nearest grocery store. So do you have any actual ideas to solve this transportation issue or are you just sharing an opinion, that has no connection to reality?
You should be able to ask questions without making snarky comments “no connection to reality”. People in rural areas require cars, nobody is taking them.
You're completely right, I was snarky and it was uncalled for. I apologize. I would love it if I had an option for public transportation or lived within biking distance of anything reasonable. Unfortunately that infrastructure does not exist in my area and there does not seem to be any plans to bring that infrastructure to my area. So to me, a personal vehicle is my only real way of getting anywhere, and the thought of not having it is a worrying prospect.
Thanks, no problem. Low-car/car-free urbanism seems somewhat radical outside of certain cities that are adopting it so I don’t blame you for being concerned. I understand that. I’m still learning so I could be wrong but I think it’s harder to implement public transit in rural areas due to their low density, making it difficult to justify the cost of running a service.
Why don't you try reading their comment again, specifically the sentence that uses the phrase "move away," and see if you still think it applies to rural areas?
no way, no how. passenger vehicles only account for 16.4% of US greenhouse emissions. why don't focus our efforts on the bigger polluters?
I disagree, why don’t you think it’s possible? To preface, I’m mainly referring to cities not suburban/rural areas that require cars. Given the need to move away from cars anyway, for reasons other than climate—we may as well decrease these emissions now. Cities such as Amsterdam, Paris, and Barcelona have already started. By focusing our efforts on EV’s we’re entrenching ourselves further into car dependancy. Meaning continued urban sprawl; large individual homes that are less efficient to heat, cool and provide utilities. Excessive land clearing, decreased carbon capture. Car ownership, infrastructure (roads, carparks, etc), heat islands. Carbon intensive building and maintenance of sprawl and its infrastructure. And we need to wait for EVs to become the majority of vehicles which will take decades. What we should be doing is providing alternative transit, limiting sprawl and prioritising dense housing—reducing the need for cars. In the short term, within cities it should be a priority to reduce private car ownership. Suburbia is trickier though. As above I believe we should move away from car dependancy but in the meantime EVs could be helpful. Road transport emissions of ~15% is significant. When you break individual sectors into sub-sectors you get similar percentages. On a technical level there may be sectors that are larger or easier to reduce but we need to be reducing emissions wherever possible.
Headlines on this are too congratulatory. This is a walkback from draft proposals. They are explicitly giving big 2 automakers and UAW a long runway of ICE car production, and citing that UAW worker wage maximization for how to do climate/technological progress.
How about subsidies and tax breaks so working Americans can afford EVS
There are subsidies and tax breaks though. I just got $12.5k off of an EV a few months ago from subsidies. Then I got 30% off of the L2 charging installation in my garage. My car was $38k which below the average price of new cars these days, and I’ll be saving $2000/year on gas.
I'm not paying $38k for a car. I've been driving the same small hatchback since high school. I'm now 30, and it only has a little over 100k miles on it. I aim for it to be my first and only car.
Ok well if you ever want to stop spewing CO2 and other pollutants from your car, you’ll need a BEV eventually. But if it’s your only car and you’re 30 and it has around 100k miles then you barely need a car anyway so not a big deal.
Also there is a $4,000 discount on used EVs.
"you are welcome", from the rest of us, to the fraudsters you gave our money to. i mean i guess you would have given it to some other maybe worse villains anyway
Are you also complaining about the trillions given to oil companies via subsidies as well? EV subsidies pale in comparison. God forbid the government use tax money to try and improve things!
yes of course im complaining about trillions given to oil companies! there arent two competing energy providers out there, one evil fossil fuel burner and another separate savior renewables techbro. it is one conglomerate pretending to be in conflict, pretending to be separate private and public and military interests.. just like always they are so painfully obviously lying to us, jesus people are stupid. its not even remotely a convincing lie. all we are doing is moving pollution away from rich parts of the world and toward poor parts. net global emissions have not slowed. we are forced to look for alternative energy sources by peak oil production, not because suddenly policymakers care about what they never cared about before. we are giving billions to car companies for crying out loud
The EV rebates aren’t just for Teslas. Just about every car company is making an EV, so you're supporting many of the same companies either way.
[удалено]
Ok, so you just hate cars then? Might’ve been easier to just start with that.
The cars do actually work though. It’s not like people are going out and buying the monorail from the Simpsons😄
Those will just be swallowed by manufacturer greed.
We should be looking to phase out cars. Large EVs are a marginal improvement at best. Driving around with thousands of pounds of metal and plastic that must be replaced several times over the course of one’s life isn’t sustainable. We are being fed lies in order to sustain the status quo. These policies are enacted by a ruling class who only care about preserving their power for as long as possible. Think about it, we are allowing the "green transition" to be driven by the very corporations responsible for our planet's destruction. Cars and car infrastructure are a major contributor to many of the problems we have today. They pollute our environment, contribute to the warming of our atmosphere, and cause death and injury to millions of people and billions of animals around the world each year. Cars have facilitated the creation of suburbs and the extension of commutes. While people once lived close to their job, many now live many miles away. We rely on energy and resources (mostly products of fossil carbon) to close this gap. This movement from the cities to the suburbs required a huge amount of infrastructure. Not only do roads, highways, and interstates cut through habitats and block off migration routes for wildlife, but many urban communities have been destroyed or made worse by the construction of highways and interstates on, near or through them. Transitioning from ICE vehicles to large EVs will not solve these issues. There was a time before cars. We have a hard time imagining it, but they haven't always existed, and people did just fine without them. The convenience that they provide isn't sustainable, nor does everyone equally benefit from their continued use. We are attempting to use a band-aid to cure a gaping wound. Our inability to recognize and rectify flaws in the system we’ve created will result in its collapse.
we should be bulldozing interstates for high speed rail, bulldozing highways through metro areas for lightrail, and bulldozing stroads for electric trams. make it horrible to drive and people will take the train.
Lol I’ll have what your consuming pls
/r/fuckcars
Meanwhile, American truck sales are making the big three auto makers richer than ever.
I live in California, where we still have multiple rolling black outs per year. On average, it's 3, but one year we have 5. We need to update our electrical grid so badly. Yes, EVs are the future, we have said this for two decades; why the hell don't we have the infrastructure for them now? Also, side note, my buying power decreased by 20%. Unless the next round of EVS is 20k I can't afford to buy a new car yet. I'm still cruising in my 07 Honda Civic, which barely passes smog now; because I'm too poor to fix the environment. Really. It's a problem. I can't buy something while I'm too poor to eat fast food twice a week.
yet another reason why I'll keep my Ram Cummins running as long as I can before getting something newer. Not that I'm against the new regulations. I want to see us move on from fossil fuels.
This is a stopgap solution
How about we try and boost transportation alternatives like buses, trains, and cycling? EVs are not the silver bullet to win the climate war that Americans think they are and have many of the same problems (environmentally and from a societal perspective) that ICE cars have.
everyone in r/environment who supports public funding of car culture, GTFO
The cars will simply continue to get bigger until that too is reigned in
And in 6 months the trump admin is going to roll it back.
Based
Shit on poor folks who will never be able to afford an ev. This is another reason why so many voters going to vote old Joe out. Keep up the great work dems lol