To keep in line with the meme, you must acknowledge that bikes also have pollution from tire wear and replacement, require road salt many places, causes accidents which lead to wounds or death of humans and animals and causes pollution from brake wear and manifacturing.
As the post clearly implies, if you can’t fix every issue with something simultaneously, then you should’t attempt to fix anything at all. /s
I don’t even think you have to fix every issue. Human existence by nature requires us to use and change our environment and our job is to minimize that so we can continue living on this planet.
Both of those examples solve our issues to a point where they’re non-existent. Yes, they’re still produced but they’re well within our manageable amounts and would reverse much of the damage we did if we did them on mass.
I’m not even necessarily against electric cars. I just don’t want one personally, I don’t think they’re great or even the solution, but they’re certainly better than combustion. They just still aren’t great, especially when we already have the actual solutions.
Fuck no! Keep that demon substance, road salt, far away from enslipperifying my bike route!
But, aside from that, as I think that the cartoonist would agree, the issue is that there’s EV mitigation of the carbon emission problem, and then there’s the completely orthogonal set of solutions in better transit, zoning, and urban design. We could be doing both things at once, both reducing the miles everybody is forced to drive, and making those miles more efficient. Given the speed at which urban renewal can happen—compared to the lifespan of vehicles—and the fact that they are the ultimate solution, then transit, zoning, and urban design should be our priority.
Instead, it feels like EV boosters’ position is that “we can’t just eliminate cars right away,” which seems to mean in practice that we have to put off any attempts at car alternatives until the whole fleet is electric, 50 to 60 years from now, once the transit, zoning, urban design, social, and environmental problems are even more entrenched.
Furthermore, not only are we electrifying giant trucks and SUVs, the big automakers are starting to bail out of electric vehicle production plans altogether. Shutting down better solutions in favor of an EV future that may or may not even happen? Well, you can see why some of us might be a little salty about EVs.
To keep in line with the meme, you must acknowledge that bikes also have pollution from tire wear and replacement, require road salt many places, causes accidents which lead to wounds or death of humans and animals and causes pollution from brake wear and manifacturing.
As the post clearly implies, if you can’t fix every issue with something simultaneously, then you should’t attempt to fix anything at all. /s
I don’t even think you have to fix every issue. Human existence by nature requires us to use and change our environment and our job is to minimize that so we can continue living on this planet.
Both of those examples solve our issues to a point where they’re non-existent. Yes, they’re still produced but they’re well within our manageable amounts and would reverse much of the damage we did if we did them on mass.
I’m not even necessarily against electric cars. I just don’t want one personally, I don’t think they’re great or even the solution, but they’re certainly better than combustion. They just still aren’t great, especially when we already have the actual solutions.
Fuck no! Keep that demon substance, road salt, far away from enslipperifying my bike route!
But, aside from that, as I think that the cartoonist would agree, the issue is that there’s EV mitigation of the carbon emission problem, and then there’s the completely orthogonal set of solutions in better transit, zoning, and urban design. We could be doing both things at once, both reducing the miles everybody is forced to drive, and making those miles more efficient. Given the speed at which urban renewal can happen—compared to the lifespan of vehicles—and the fact that they are the ultimate solution, then transit, zoning, and urban design should be our priority.
Instead, it feels like EV boosters’ position is that “we can’t just eliminate cars right away,” which seems to mean in practice that we have to put off any attempts at car alternatives until the whole fleet is electric, 50 to 60 years from now, once the transit, zoning, urban design, social, and environmental problems are even more entrenched.
Furthermore, not only are we electrifying giant trucks and SUVs, the big automakers are starting to bail out of electric vehicle production plans altogether. Shutting down better solutions in favor of an EV future that may or may not even happen? Well, you can see why some of us might be a little salty about EVs.