this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
555 points (94.0% liked)
Technology
59207 readers
3007 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Change needs to be made somewhere. Gas isn't the answer, so sticking with it... Kinda stupid. The "saves on maintenance" part is actually a really big deal that was just glossed over. You don't need oil changes. You don't have a transmission. You don't need radiator fluid. With regenerative braking, you're not wearing down brake pads anywhere near as much. Not to mention the gas emissions reduction. These are all highly toxic materials that are not being consumed and distributed into the atmosphere. And which mines are being operated in third world countries? If you're referring to lithium, the largest producers are Australia, the USA, Chile and China. You know, some of the wealthiest countries on the planet.... And Chile.
Understandably, hand waving "public transit" as the answer does make sense. Designing urban centres in such a way to make public transit preferable makes sense. The problem is that these changes are slow. In 20 years, you'll have a few new suburbs built with these practices in mind. The majority of everything else will still be the same, because it's not feasible to bulldoze existing infrastructure to replace it. It'll need to be aged out, and climate change isn't gonna stop for 100 years and wait for us to get our road placement juuuuuust right. Further, adding more public transit is expensive, with a high up front cost, plus a high maintenance cost ongoing. Unless you dump enough money into it such that it completely replaces the need for private vehicles, there will always be private vehicles regardless.
But the greatest benefit to EV is the pollution is centralized. Making vehicles will always suck for the environment, full stop, but EVs allow the production and majority of the pollution to occur at a relatively small number of places, which can be contained much easier.
To be absolutely clear, I don't disagree with your point, but the answer won't come overnight, and we're on a time crunch. We need lots of innovation, and early adoption of incremental gains. One day, public transit and better cities will be part of the solution. But until then, we need solutions, and this is the direction to progress.
I'm not against change, and I encourage it. But We also can't put all of our eggs in one basket. I am glad people are buying EVs, but we can't let a market for an inherently disposable item dominate over another option (ICE vehicles) that will outlast an EV a substantial proportion of the time. The automotive producers are licking their lips at the thought of getting us all into vehicles that will be be effectively unusable in 10 or 15 years--batteries age with use and also time, unlike steel and aluminum.
I am an environmental engineer and I have worked on remediation projects for oil and gas, as well as other types of natural resource exploitation such as mines. The damage caused by mining metals from the ground is extreme, and it will last decades, if not forever. "Centralizing" pollution isn't a good thing--we're best off distributing our pollution so that the Earth can have a fighting chance of repairing it piece by piece, which may never happen in areas that have undergone certain types of mining and other industry. Look at an old oil and gas site, and you would never even know it was there after 10 or 50 years. CO2 is a problem, for sure, and so is methane, but methane degrades in the atmosphere after just over a decade. Mining causes damage to the air, ground water and surface water, and to the nearby wildlife. Look up Tar Creek in Oklahoma, the Questa Moly Mine in New Mexico, and do you remember what happened in Colorado when the EPA accidentally released an entire mine full of acid drainage into the nearby river? Nothing but dead marine life for miles and miles. Mines take some of our most beautiful natural areas and destroy them.
If you think modern mines are going to circumvent all of these issues, they aren't. They're going to have accidents and cause damage just the same as the fossil fuel industry--some ways, even worse.
I see it like that too. The enshittification of the automobile. I am not putting my money down to bet against that just yet.
If this take was true the headline would be the opposite. They're not living their lips, they're trying to not sell any because they want money from expensive ICE maintenance.
That's on the dealer end. The manufacturer end wants to keep selling cars. They can both be happening at the same time.