I would really rather that these were actual examples, and not conspiracy theories. We all have our own unsubstantiated ideas about what shadowy no-gooders are doing, but I’d rather hear about things that are actually happening.

  • Idefinitelydonotknow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    I have not seen this mentioned before, but the Teslas people buy in the US isn’t helping the environment. You just are saving on fuel!

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nah, they’re an incremental improvement. EVs are more efficient at turning energy into locomotion. They get >100 mpge. The increase in tire wear isn’t nearly as significant the CO2 emissions. I’m pretty sure there are studies that show EVs are better for the environment as a whole than ICE vehicles (even accounting for things like lithium mining and fossil fuel powered grids).

      Tesla is a horrible, anti-consumer company. A lot of companies make EVs now (but a lot of those companies are pretty horrible too, I guess).

      • Idefinitelydonotknow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I disabled notifications, so sorry for the late response.

        In theory, what you’re saying is true. The problem is, these are expensive cars, meaning they’re all being bought by people with relatively deeper pockets. They just replace their relatively new cars with Teslas instead of prolonging the use of their existing ICE cars.

        The result is more vehicle turnover for “green” reasons, but that is a lie. The use of vehicles for fewer and fewer months to move to an electric car is not helping the environment in any way.

        • 31337@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Traded-in vehicles don’t go to waste. Vehicle life cycles are actually pretty efficient. If a car runs, and is street legal, it will likely be bought and used by someone. Once a vehicle does not run, it will go to a salvage yard and used for parts. After a while, whatever metals are left will be recycled.

          Edit: Yes, I don’t think everyone should just ditch their ICE cars to “help the environment.” I don’t know if anyone is arguing for that. And, all new cars are bought by wealthier people because all new cars are way too expensive and have all kinds of “features” with dubious utility. I do think this is a problem. Until a couple years ago, I’ve never bought a new car. The only reason I bought a new car is because I couldn’t find a used car that was worth the price (used car market was pretty fucked up back then). Coincidentally, I ended buying an EV, lol (a Leaf).

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      How is it not helping the environment when compared to a gas or diesel car? You’re saving on fuel but you’re also burning far less fuel to produce the energy required and are using it more efficiently. I think you got this one wrong.

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Lithium mining is quite destructive, and electric vehicles don’t have the longevity ICE cars have and more quickly turn into waste. We’ve just replace one form of ecological damage for another.

        Reducing our dependence on oil is important, but we need actual sustainable solutions, like investing in public transportation infrastructure powered by renewables, and reducing reliance on personal vehicles.

        Capitalists are seeking to profit off of the lie that your individual decisions can help save the planet from their relentless profit seeking behavior. Don’t believe them. They just end up selling their carbon credits giving another company the greenlight to pollute even more, canceling out any benefit they might be able to claim.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          The article I posted from MIT in my other comment makes the claim that what you’re saying is not true. They have similar longevity, without the waste of oil changes and other additional carbon emissions, and the majority of ecological damage comes from charging infrastructure which can be made completely green. Additionally, Lithium can be recaptured and companies like Sigma Resources are finding ways to make the sourcing and recapture even more sustainable. Unless oil-based power sources can get better while simultaneously outpacing the current growth of renewable energy forms, I think your statement can’t possibly be true.

          • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Look, if you think that replacing gas cars with another kind of car is going to save the planet, you’ve lost the plot. Less than 10% of carbon emissions come from personal vehicles, and electrification doesn’t offer significant relief.

            If you want to pretend that carbon credits don’t exist, you can do that, but they do exist and “eco-friendly” companies just sell them for profit so that someone else can pollute on their behalf.

            If electric cars offer any benefit at all, it is basically irrelevant because carbon emissions aren’t going down, and carbon credits literally cancel out the good. Those carbon credits are badly over-allocated to EV companies, because those companies overstate their impact, so its likely they are just making things worse.

            Elon Musk isn’t going to save you.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              That’s a short-sighted way to look at it. Less than 10% might come from personal vehicles but 31% comes from commercial transportation which can also be electrified. On top of that, 37% of remaining emissions come from generating energy and electricity from fossil fuels. As more of those sources become alternative sources like wind, water, solar, etc., electric vehicles (including commercial vehicles) take a huge chunk of emissions and dirty forms of energy away.

              http://climatechange.chicago.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

              We don’t need carbon credits. We need clean sources of energy that are sustainable. If we were really desperate, we could come up with nuclear sources but that would need more public support and is rife with bad waste.

              No one said anything about Elon. But you’re wrong about electric cars.

      • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        The energy cost to build the car in the first place will never be offset by the usage it will see. You personally might be saving on fuel costs but the energy it costs to refine and build those things taken together with the opportunity cost of what doesn’t get built because of the limited supply of resources needed to make those batteries and the whole thing becomes much more of a gray area.

        Electric cars aren’t here to save the planet they’re here to save the car industry.