this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
142 points (82.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43939 readers
673 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've seen a lot of posts here on Lemmy, specifically in the "fuck cars" communities as to how Electric Vehicles do pretty much nothing for the Climate, but I continue to see Climate activists everywhere try pushing so, so hard for Electric Vehicles.

Are they actually beneficial to the planet other than limiting exhaust, or is that it? or maybe exhaust is a way bigger problem?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Renacles@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago (3 children)

EVs are good for the environment overall but you are not going to fix climate changing by buying more things.

Most of the criticism towards EVs comes from the idea that buying the shiny new thing is a net positive when it's actually less harmful than buying a traditional car.

Tldr: if you are going to buy a car, buy an EV, but don't just buy a new car just to switch to EV if you don't need it.

[โ€“] DiagnosedADHD@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Another point is that cars, car infrastructure, and car oriented development is one of the single most wasteful ways to use land. Building smarter cities with alternative transit systems, mixed use areas, and actually using all 3 dimensions like many newer cities in China could protect so much habitat from needlessly being destroyed. There's hardly any truly wild land left on the east coast, it's hard to tell what things used to look like now that practically everything is covered in suburbs and strip malls.

[โ€“] Renacles@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

I fully agree, cars are just not needed most of the time.

[โ€“] Carighan@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Yeah that's what people being annoyed at the push towards EVs seem to always misunderstand, too. It's not about immediately throwing all your current stuff away. It's the same with heat-pumps for heating: Should you immediately throw away your gas furnace you installed 2 years ago? Of course not. Should you get a heat pump if you need to replace your heating anyways? Hell yeah!

[โ€“] rando895@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

The criticisms are also that companies use slavery to acquire the materials to make EVs. And they don't work well in the cold (see current cold snap in Canada), the lifetime of the batteries aren't great, and we still need to destroy huge swaths of land to create cars, park/store cars, and drive cars.

EVs are only going to save the car industry. To fix it requires a redesign of cities (see Strongtowns, not justbikes, city beautiful, etc.).

[โ€“] Carighan@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't there just recently a study that found that contrary to what was predicted, the lifetime of the batteries is actually exceeding even manufacturer expectations? As in, they're losing capacity less than estimated?

[โ€“] rando895@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

Maybe, it sounds familiar. But if past trends are any indication, once enough of the market is dominated by EVs, there will be a lot more money to be made by lowering quality to a bare minimum.

And the infrastructure argument still stands in that case.

[โ€“] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's only because the US and other first world countries have shied away from mining rare earth elements because it is traditionally a very dirty and polluting industry. So poor and developing countries did it their way... with slavery and incredibly ecologically damaging techniques.

New techniques are being developed in the US that solve those problems. It originally wasn't worth the effort because we had plenty of lithium to make 18V drill batteries. Since BEVs have proven to be capable and desireable over the last decade, critical material supplies just didn't keep up and those new techniques were just a twinkle in the eye of some smart people.

If you'd like to learn more about how we can completely avoid the slavery and pollution problems related to getting lithium, take a look at the Salton Sea enhanced geothermal projects. I am personally going to invest a portion of my life savings in that company if given the opportunity.

[โ€“] rando895@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago

They haven't shied away, it is just more profitable to mine outside your borders using slave labour. The fact of it is, with planned obsolescence being the best way to ensure a steady demand of a product, and the environmental destruction required to support the manufacturing and use of EVs, they still are not a solution. They are a market solution which means it is profitable, and a lateral move at best, and a back step at worst.

If EVs help the environment that is secondary.

https://miningwatch.ca/publications/2023/9/6/contemporary-forms-slavery-and-canadian-mining-industry

[โ€“] InputZero@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

EVs are only going to save the car industry. To fix it requires a redesign of cities (see Strongtowns, not justbikes, city beautiful, etc.).

Nail on the head! EVs fix one problem, but the biggest problem is the idea of the personal vehicle. Most people shouldn't have a personal vehicle, especially for people who live in medium cities or larger. There should be a sort of car share instead.