Electric cars do not address any of the main issues cars bring to our society, which are:
Pollution – Cars are responsible for a significant amount of global and local pollution (microplastic waste, brake dust, embodiment emissions, tailpipe emissions, and noise pollution). Electric cars eliminate tailpipe emissions, but the other pollution-related problems largely remain.
Infrastructure (Costs. An Unsustainable Pattern of Development) – Cars create an unwanted economic burden on their communities. The infrastructure for cars is expensive to maintain and the maintenance burden for local communities is expected to increase with the adoption of more electric and (someday) fully self-driving cars. This is partly due to the increased weight of the vehicles and also the increased traffic of autonomous vehicles.
Infrastructure (Land Usage & Induced Demand) – Cities allocate a vast amount of space to cars. This is space that could be used more effectively for other things such as parks, schools, businesses, homes, and so on. We miss out on these things and are forced to pile on additional sprawl when we build vast parking lots and widen roads and highways. This creates part of what is called induced demand. This effect means that the more capacity for cars we add, the more cars we’ll get, and then the more capacity we’ll need to add.
Independence and Community Access – Cars are not accessible to everyone. Simply put, many people either can’t drive or don’t want to drive. Car-centric city planning is an obstacle for these groups, to name a few: children and teenagers, parents who must chauffeur children to and from all forms of childhood activities, people who can’t afford a car, and many other people who are unable to drive. Imagine the challenge of giving up your car in the late stages of your life. In car-centric areas, you face a great loss of independence.
Safety – Cars are dangerous to both occupants and non-occupants, but especially the non-occupants. As time goes on cars admittedly become better at protecting the people inside them, but they remain hazardous to the people not inside them. For people walking, riding, or otherwise trying to exercise some form of car-free liberty cars are a constant threat. In car-centric areas, streets and roads are optimized to move cars fast and efficiently rather than protect other road users and pedestrians.
Social Isolation – A combination of the issues above produces the additional effect of social isolation. There are fewer opportunities for serendipitous interactions with other members of the public. Although there may be many people sharing the road with you (a public space), there are some obvious limitations to the quality of interaction one can have through metal, glass, and plastic boxes.
(Batantly copypasted from the pinned thread on r/fuckcars)
(Batantly copypasted from the pinned thread on r/fuckcars)
Please don’t do that. I have no problem with this kind of content in that echo chamber, but presenting it as objective truth calls into question huge portions of this that are either purely subjective to blatantly wrong.
Well it’s baffling to me to have “pollution” as the first point of that list. It’s just beyond my comprehension how one could state that a non-combustion car doesn’t help with pollution problems. Yes alright, there’s still microplastics… But hey, please visit a city like Beijing and tell me again that EVs don’t combat pollution on a massive scale.
It’s nice to be critical and yes, cars are shit for our society. Nevertheless our society has been built around them and people will drive cars. They might do so less in 50 years but right here right now with the way society is organised EVs do definitely play an important part in reducing emissions. Change takes time. And people like the ones protesting against the Gigafactory prefer to ignore this context. To me this line of thinking is naive to say the least and can also be seen as self-righteous and delusional by those for whom no alternative is available now. Lecturing people about their lifestyle is not going to change anything.
Car tires account for a third of microplastics emissions in Germany. Cars are a major source of pollution, especially compared with alternatives like Bikes or Public transport.
And that is purely talking about operational emissions. The production and disposal of EVs is another huge source of pollution and GHG emissions.
Car tires are literally the main contributor of micro plastics in oceans, and by an overwhelming factor. There’s also the brake dust which is a huge issue. Both of those problems are not just not going away with EVs, they’re actually increasing. It’s because the way we build EVs increases their weight to ridiculous levels, even compared to the already obese ICE cars. All while we actually know how to make EVs that would actually reduce those problems. Just because there’s places where it is worse, often also due to the lacking regulations, doesn’t mean we should accept those issues.
Nevertheless our society has been built around them and people will drive cars.
Yeah, because people constantly make those type of excuses, ultimately accepting all the bad instead of fighting back. That’s what communities like them do.
I wouldn’t be too sure about that brake dust: Electric motors make for much better brakes than ICEs, and it’s not exactly rare for the brake pedal to regen instead of applying the brakes, at least if you’re braking gently enough.
That all might be overshadowed by EVs being worse with their tyres, though. Steel on steel, if necessary mediated by sand, is definitely better for the environment as well as commuters because who wants to be stuck in traffic when you can have someone drive you.
You can try to teach people what a good consumption decision is w.r.t. global change. But it won’t work in 99% of cases. People are often emotionally attached to their way of living and many have tied a part of their identity to it.
I don’t care about what counts as excuses because there is no ethical consumption in capitalism. What I care about first and foremost is reducing GHG emissions effectively, within the system that we’re currently living in. And for everything else you have to offer people real alternatives if you want them to change their behaviour. And changing that behaviour will not come true by only making factual arguments but by understanding people’s emotions and identities and accounting for those in your argument. It’s clear that people in rural communities (and a large share of the population lives there) will drive cars for many years to come and these cars have to be EVs.
Well that’s not the type of emotional argument that I was referring to lol. I don’t know why you would think I’m talking about myself. I don’t own a car.
I’m just trying to understand others that don’t live like me in order to find the necessary compromises. Because that’s what needs to happen in a democracy.
I understand that you’re desperate but not much good will come out of that emotion. It’s not that people are evil and care about nothing and that this is the reason why they don’t act in a meaningful way. This line of thinking is just plain wrong for the vast majority of the population. Yes, people are also lazy but they also have many many everyday problems and can’t make changing their lifestyle right here right now their top priority. Yes we have to fight for changes, in the media, on the policy level and also make the good alternatives a good deal to choose. But that won’t happen with accusations and self-righteousness, I’m sorry.
Where do they say it represents a form of ‘objective truth’?
Well I don’t see any “/s” on it so I take it on face value that that poster is presenting it as being true. Are you saying I should assume they believe its fiction?
I’m not sure if you know what objective truth means, but why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility? It’s not their goal to be objective, but to push for change. Not saying the things they stated are wrong, but they are first and foremost moral statements.
why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility?
You and I are in full agreement on this. I have zero issue with this content in the anti car lobby sub, except that’s not where the poster is putting it anymore. They’re posting it in “worldnews”. This is why I have a problem with it here, but not there.
So instead of thinking about anything that is written there and looking it up, it is all backed by scientific research, you just attack the messenger. Great work of anti intellectualism.
I mean we’re here in the comments to exchange perspectives primarily. Never saw anyone quoting research papers. There’s no rule about forbidding comments to be biased or opinionated. So I’d say our access to any form of potential objective truth, as fundamental basis for discussion, is fairly limited. World news is not only about scientifically validated facts. It’s rather a fast paced informational feed, where you have to balance speed and factual quality.
And we had context for the anticar lobby comment, so it’s not like the person said: look, here is the irrefutable truth from an independent source. They rather said: Look here are some reasons for why XYZ is bad.
I don’t have a problem with it, besides it being a lazy and hard to read solution.
Which portions are wrong? They are all correct. EVs are still a major source of pollution, in particular microplastics and particles. The upkeep of car infrastructure is insanely expensive. For Germany it is expected that every public parking spot costs 8.000 € a year to the economy. The space battle in urban areas is blatantly clear…
Electric cars do not address any of the main issues cars bring to our society, which are:
Pollution – Cars are responsible for a significant amount of global and local pollution (microplastic waste, brake dust, embodiment emissions, tailpipe emissions, and noise pollution). Electric cars eliminate tailpipe emissions, but the other pollution-related problems largely remain.
Infrastructure (Costs. An Unsustainable Pattern of Development) – Cars create an unwanted economic burden on their communities. The infrastructure for cars is expensive to maintain and the maintenance burden for local communities is expected to increase with the adoption of more electric and (someday) fully self-driving cars. This is partly due to the increased weight of the vehicles and also the increased traffic of autonomous vehicles.
Infrastructure (Land Usage & Induced Demand) – Cities allocate a vast amount of space to cars. This is space that could be used more effectively for other things such as parks, schools, businesses, homes, and so on. We miss out on these things and are forced to pile on additional sprawl when we build vast parking lots and widen roads and highways. This creates part of what is called induced demand. This effect means that the more capacity for cars we add, the more cars we’ll get, and then the more capacity we’ll need to add.
Independence and Community Access – Cars are not accessible to everyone. Simply put, many people either can’t drive or don’t want to drive. Car-centric city planning is an obstacle for these groups, to name a few: children and teenagers, parents who must chauffeur children to and from all forms of childhood activities, people who can’t afford a car, and many other people who are unable to drive. Imagine the challenge of giving up your car in the late stages of your life. In car-centric areas, you face a great loss of independence.
Safety – Cars are dangerous to both occupants and non-occupants, but especially the non-occupants. As time goes on cars admittedly become better at protecting the people inside them, but they remain hazardous to the people not inside them. For people walking, riding, or otherwise trying to exercise some form of car-free liberty cars are a constant threat. In car-centric areas, streets and roads are optimized to move cars fast and efficiently rather than protect other road users and pedestrians.
Social Isolation – A combination of the issues above produces the additional effect of social isolation. There are fewer opportunities for serendipitous interactions with other members of the public. Although there may be many people sharing the road with you (a public space), there are some obvious limitations to the quality of interaction one can have through metal, glass, and plastic boxes.
(Batantly copypasted from the pinned thread on r/fuckcars)
Please don’t do that. I have no problem with this kind of content in that echo chamber, but presenting it as objective truth calls into question huge portions of this that are either purely subjective to blatantly wrong.
Just because you don’t like the message, doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Well it’s baffling to me to have “pollution” as the first point of that list. It’s just beyond my comprehension how one could state that a non-combustion car doesn’t help with pollution problems. Yes alright, there’s still microplastics… But hey, please visit a city like Beijing and tell me again that EVs don’t combat pollution on a massive scale.
It’s nice to be critical and yes, cars are shit for our society. Nevertheless our society has been built around them and people will drive cars. They might do so less in 50 years but right here right now with the way society is organised EVs do definitely play an important part in reducing emissions. Change takes time. And people like the ones protesting against the Gigafactory prefer to ignore this context. To me this line of thinking is naive to say the least and can also be seen as self-righteous and delusional by those for whom no alternative is available now. Lecturing people about their lifestyle is not going to change anything.
Car tires account for a third of microplastics emissions in Germany. Cars are a major source of pollution, especially compared with alternatives like Bikes or Public transport.
And that is purely talking about operational emissions. The production and disposal of EVs is another huge source of pollution and GHG emissions.
Thanks for telling me again. Very helpful but besides the point.
So your point is to ignore the total environmental impact of a product and just cherrypick the one category in which it is better?
Car tires are literally the main contributor of micro plastics in oceans, and by an overwhelming factor. There’s also the brake dust which is a huge issue. Both of those problems are not just not going away with EVs, they’re actually increasing. It’s because the way we build EVs increases their weight to ridiculous levels, even compared to the already obese ICE cars. All while we actually know how to make EVs that would actually reduce those problems. Just because there’s places where it is worse, often also due to the lacking regulations, doesn’t mean we should accept those issues.
Yeah, because people constantly make those type of excuses, ultimately accepting all the bad instead of fighting back. That’s what communities like them do.
I wouldn’t be too sure about that brake dust: Electric motors make for much better brakes than ICEs, and it’s not exactly rare for the brake pedal to regen instead of applying the brakes, at least if you’re braking gently enough.
That all might be overshadowed by EVs being worse with their tyres, though. Steel on steel, if necessary mediated by sand, is definitely better for the environment as well as commuters because who wants to be stuck in traffic when you can have someone drive you.
You can try to teach people what a good consumption decision is w.r.t. global change. But it won’t work in 99% of cases. People are often emotionally attached to their way of living and many have tied a part of their identity to it.
I don’t care about what counts as excuses because there is no ethical consumption in capitalism. What I care about first and foremost is reducing GHG emissions effectively, within the system that we’re currently living in. And for everything else you have to offer people real alternatives if you want them to change their behaviour. And changing that behaviour will not come true by only making factual arguments but by understanding people’s emotions and identities and accounting for those in your argument. It’s clear that people in rural communities (and a large share of the population lives there) will drive cars for many years to come and these cars have to be EVs.
Oh I know, hence why I also know that we’re completely fucked in regards to climate change. No one actually wants to do shit.
That being said, you still continue to make excuses, especially for yourself.
Well that’s not the type of emotional argument that I was referring to lol. I don’t know why you would think I’m talking about myself. I don’t own a car.
I’m just trying to understand others that don’t live like me in order to find the necessary compromises. Because that’s what needs to happen in a democracy.
I understand that you’re desperate but not much good will come out of that emotion. It’s not that people are evil and care about nothing and that this is the reason why they don’t act in a meaningful way. This line of thinking is just plain wrong for the vast majority of the population. Yes, people are also lazy but they also have many many everyday problems and can’t make changing their lifestyle right here right now their top priority. Yes we have to fight for changes, in the media, on the policy level and also make the good alternatives a good deal to choose. But that won’t happen with accusations and self-righteousness, I’m sorry.
So true! My agreement or disagreement is completely separate from it being (at least partial and worst mostly) wrong.
Well, good news for you; it isn’t wrong at all.
Where do they say it represents a form of ‘objective truth’?
But I agree walls of text are not nice, at least try to summarize it a bit to make it readable…
Well I don’t see any “/s” on it so I take it on face value that that poster is presenting it as being true. Are you saying I should assume they believe its fiction?
I’m not sure if you know what objective truth means, but why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility? It’s not their goal to be objective, but to push for change. Not saying the things they stated are wrong, but they are first and foremost moral statements.
You and I are in full agreement on this. I have zero issue with this content in the anti car lobby sub, except that’s not where the poster is putting it anymore. They’re posting it in “worldnews”. This is why I have a problem with it here, but not there.
So instead of thinking about anything that is written there and looking it up, it is all backed by scientific research, you just attack the messenger. Great work of anti intellectualism.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Read every single one of my posts here in this thread. There are zero attacks on the messenger.
I mean we’re here in the comments to exchange perspectives primarily. Never saw anyone quoting research papers. There’s no rule about forbidding comments to be biased or opinionated. So I’d say our access to any form of potential objective truth, as fundamental basis for discussion, is fairly limited. World news is not only about scientifically validated facts. It’s rather a fast paced informational feed, where you have to balance speed and factual quality.
And we had context for the anticar lobby comment, so it’s not like the person said: look, here is the irrefutable truth from an independent source. They rather said: Look here are some reasons for why XYZ is bad.
I don’t have a problem with it, besides it being a lazy and hard to read solution.
Which portions are wrong? They are all correct. EVs are still a major source of pollution, in particular microplastics and particles. The upkeep of car infrastructure is insanely expensive. For Germany it is expected that every public parking spot costs 8.000 € a year to the economy. The space battle in urban areas is blatantly clear…
Being against electric cars because they are cars is certainly a view you can take.