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?

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Good luck convincing people who live outside dense population zones to bike 3 hours to work. And “just move” is not an option. Think rents and home prices are bad now? If everyone moved to cities imagine the price gouging.

    E: for the record I’m all about public transportation, it’s just unrealistic to think we completely ditch cars. They are too useful so EVs make sense going forward

    • ⲇⲅⲇ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The problem is not the people who live far from decent public transport but those people who live in the city and uses it every day, on city, all roads are always for vehicles like cars and trucks, instead to be for pedestrian and for bikes. On bad connected places a car can make sense but most of the people in city have cars when they rarely go outside, they could rent a car and would be cheaper for them for those days they need to move away. About EV, I think we still have the same problem, but the waste it generates keeps on ground instead flying on air.

      • ringwraithfish@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        You summarized perfectly the problem I see with the “fuck cars” crowd. They never acknowledge the need for cars in some cases. America’s population centers are definitely large cities where public transportation SHOULD be championed, but there has to be an acknowledgement of the rural population (around 15% in America I believe) where cars are a necessity.

        • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          They never acknowledge the need for cars in some cases.

          That’s just not true. The movement is about boosting alternative transport. It’s not about eradicating cars.

            • ZephrC@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              So no one should ever be able to have a conversation without patting you on the head for being a special boy at the end of every sentence?

                • ZephrC@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Well it’s a good thing no one is doing that then, isn’t it? Why does everyone feel the need to make up problems to whine about?

                  For crying out loud I live in a small town and need a car. Do you think I don’t deserve access to decent public transportation?

                  • howrar@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    People do do this. Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean no one else does. I’ve had discussions with multiple people trying to convince me that anyone who drives a car is evil.

    • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      No reasonable people are expecting someone that lives rural to bike into town. Going between rural homes and cities is one of the places where personal cars are unavoidable. Ideally, they drive to the edge of town and park next to a subway station that they take most of the rest of the way.

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        so few people live in rural areas (as opposed to suburban cowboys who wonder why their :rural area" has so much traffic) that it’s a rounding error. like who cares about the middle of nowhere. it’s a distraction to even bring it up. this conversation is explicitly about metropolitan areas

        • Turun@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Actually, this conversation is implicitly exclusively about metropolitan areas.

          I think some people don’t get that, because it’s never spelled out. (Some know it, but try to argue in bad faith or derail the conversation anyway)

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I agree, but people still need to get to commuter stations. Plus take towns the size of 400 people who commute 40 miles to work, they aren’t getting a train stop for decades, maybe longer. EVs are a good solution for them now.

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      So the implication here is that we can’t get rid of cars everywhere, so we shouldn’t reduce the use of cars anywhere?

      • gibmiser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nope, not at all what I said. The OP made it sound like there was no practical reason for EVs and I gave one.

        By all means humans should cut back on… well, everything.

        • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The OP said nothing at about reducing the use of cars, and what’s more, people make the same objection about rural people needing a car to get to town even in discussions explicitly about creating walkable cities. Even if we read into the question an implication that we should ditch cars, where does the idea come from that it must happen everywhere, all at once? The argument feels disingenuous.