• MammyWhammy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see them as “diet” cars. Similar to if someone is trying to cut back on sodas, switching to diet sodas is a net benefit. That’s not to say diet sodas are good for you or remotely healthy, they’re just less bad than the alternative.

      • McSudds_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, except the sweeteners they use to make diet sodas “diet” make those sodas just as bad, if not worse, than the originals. Which also works for the car analogy given the source of the energy most EVs use :/

        • Lysol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Source? Because from what I’ve learned, they’ve studied aspartame so much now it’s almost silly, and it has never been proven to be “worse than sugar”. Though the sugar industry is really happy you believe otherwise.

        • tigerhawkvok@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          given the source of the energy most EVs use :/

          What? This is hilariously wrong.

          A profoundly filthy coal power plant has multimillion dollar filtration the size of your damn apartment. That gross coal is scrubbed more than the gasoline from any vehicle possibly could be.

          In a first world country it’s not possible to have an electric car as dirty per joule as a gas vehicle.

          Further, the powertrain is direct and therefore dramatically more efficient, so on a distance basis you get an additional multiplier. That’s where the EPA MPGe comes from - total energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline, converted to range on the electric vehicle.

          That’s about 33 kWh in one gallon, which is about half the total storage capacity of my Bolt EUV 2023 (65 kWh) which has about 240mi of range on a full charge, which is why the MPGe is ~120mi/gal, which for an equally polluting power source as a personal gas vehicle, is 5-6x cleaner. Public DC fast chargers are frequently exclusively renewably powered.

          It’s impressive because literally every possible angle of your statement is hilariously incorrect.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t say prioritizing rather than worth practicing. Corporations do much more damage than all the automobile drivers.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

        Transportation (28% of 2021 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 94% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.2

        To further break it down:

        The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector.

        So the idea that transportation emissions from regular people is totally negligible compared to corporate excesses isn’t actually realistic. It’s a major chunk of it.

        • KaleDaddy@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. Corporations ABSOLUTELY are a problem we NEED to fight. But its also not an excuse to pretend we’re all completely blameless. People get furious when you tell them we cant sit around and wait for climate change to magically fix itself or billionaires to magically become good and stop. But that WE are going to have to actually make changes and put our money where our mouths are

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            To be clear this isn’t quite my own argument; even though I am saying that transportation emissions are too substantial to be ignored, I am skeptical of “personal responsibility” type solutions. I think it would be better to approach this with stuff like taxing companies based on employee commutes, taxing oil, urban planning and improved public transportation.

            • KaleDaddy@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Even those require individuals to do something though. Since the government and basically every corporation is entirely opposed to this. You still have to march and protest and call your representatives and fight for it. There’s no reality where this ever changes with no one doing anything beyond an occasional Facebook post. However, even if suddenly our politicians and billionaires all had a change of heart, the necessary changes to effectively combat this environmental catastrophy would mean a complete upheaval of our lives. Cars and animal products either cease to be made or are so expensive barely anyone can afford them. We’ll be using public transportation and bikes and eating mostly vegan diets and bringing our reusable bags to our zero waste grocery stores. Itd force people to do all the things that various groups are already trying to get everyone to do (and to be clear im not sitting on my high horse claiming i already do all that, because i dont) There’s no way through this where we solve the problem and it doesnt require all of us to change our own habits

              • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                the necessary changes to effectively combat this environmental catastrophy would mean a complete upheaval of our lives

                Yes. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to frame things as being about who is ‘good’ and who is to be blamed, or that the impetus for change should be personal initiative to adjust away from unsustainable lifestyles. What’s needed is uncompromising policy solutions, and ones that are designed by experts to actually have a direct impact. People often get confused about what matters and what doesn’t, and proportionality. For instance restrictions on plastic bags at grocery stores is totally negligible for climate change, and arguably makes the situation slightly worse. Meat consumption has a significant impact globally, but in a first world context is relatively insignificant compared to the other things we do to create emissions. The problem isn’t that people aren’t choosing to live virtuously, since even if they did many attractive definitions of virtuous would not produce the needed results, and realistically that is not a viable way for human behavior to be adjusted anyway. The problem is that the circumstances around us shape our lives, and impel us to live in an unsustainable way, and that is what has to change.

                Basically I think it just has to be more things like, accepting that deliberately high gas prices are a necessary sacrifice for the wellbeing of humanity, rather than asking everyone to choose to drive less and pat themselves on the back when they manage it and feel shame when they do not.

      • HerbSolo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Corporations. Ok, so that’s out of my responsibility then, since I don’t buy anything from corporations. Good to know.