[badtension]

That's why so many people are cautious about "EVs to save us all", to put it mildly.

We are so focused on climate change and greenhouse gases that we do not see a lot of other issues and may exacerbate some of them in the process of decarbonisation.

[jayd16]

This sentiment is just contrarianism, I think. I've lived in Los Angeles my whole life and the difference that clean air standards make is obvious. The black dust isn't just tire and brake dust. It's also soot and it used to be much much worse.

Nothing is a silver bullet but I'll be much happier when we're done with ICE noise and exhaust.

[bmitc]

> This sentiment is just contrarianism, I think.

I really don't think it is. We're thrusting ourselves into just new problems. Yes, we move away from old problems that gas-powered cars have, but we move into new problems. For one, EVs perpetuate the idea of the car, which is perhaps the most dangerous part. Then, there's all sorts of new things like building out the infrastructure required for EVs and mining the new materials. For example, have you looked into the areas where lithium mining occurs? It is not a clean process and brings its own new problems, especially for the local people. You have foreign owned and operated companies move in and suck out manufactured value from the land, all the while polluting the local ecosystem. It's oil all over again.

It isn't contrarianism to point out that a solution is not the solution everyone thinks it is. Yes, we should probably switch to EVs, but we should be switching away from cars as a whole. But we're not. Cars are selling more than ever. It's not contrarianism to simply look at facts rather than hype.

[oatmeal1]

Generally agreed, but the noise from cars is mostly friction and turbulence (and honking/sirens). Switching to electric won't solve that.

[dublin]

Due to their vastly greater mass and torque, EVs produce far more tire pollution than ICE vehicles do. In addition to that, tire dust is a far larger part of the overall pollution from operating a car than even the emissions from an ICE car. "Research done by UK-based independent testing company Emissions Analytics showed that used tyres produce 36 milligrams of particles each kilometre, which is nearly 2,000 times higher than the 0.02 mg/km average from exhausts."

Article here: https://earth.org/tyre-pollution/ Research here: https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/tyre-emissions

[matsemann]

The problem is that you get what you give incentives for.

Right now, there's a big push to move to EVs. However, in the long run you might end up with more cars total. As the old cars aren't going away for a while. So you're kinda pushing a even heavier car dependence on society. All for a small net gain of reducing a few ICE vehicles.

If the same subsidies were also applied to (electric) bikes, public transit etc it would instead actually shift behavior.

EVs aren't saving society. They're saving the car industry.

[jjav]

> This sentiment is just contrarianism, I think.

Maybe some of it, but it's very valid point.

Switching everything about the country's infrastructure from gas to EVs is a huge undertaking. If we're going to do such a massive change, just to end up with something that still carries all the same problems except one, that's a missed opportunity.

If there was a will to spend that quantity of effort in making public transit practical for the long haul and heavily promoting cycling and e-bikes for the short haul we'd be much better off.

[michaelteter]

> That's why so many people are cautious about "EVs to save us all"

Certainly no, that's not why people are "cautious". They are hesitant about EVs because they fear running out of "gas" mid-trip.

Most people don't give a shit about anything except their plans and needs (and not necessarily unreasonbly so). You can just look around at what kinds of cars most people purchase to reason what their priorities are (or are not).

Reducing greenhouse gasses are not on most people's priority list.

[matsemann]

Range anxiety was solved years ago. I don't know of anyone with an EV (which is most car owners here in Norway) that actually feel this is a problem. You can charge at basically every gas station in the country, and new cars have 400km ++ range.

[arghwhat]

EV's will not save us all, but every combustion engine still running is actively killing us.

Would be better to walk, bike, take public transport or similar or course. And if your area makes that not viable, consider fixing that.

(All the famed bicycle paths in Copenhagen are relatively new - they can be added anywhere.)

[aperson_hello]

Decarbonization will have negative externalities. Yes, even environmental ones. I'd argue that those externalities are necessary and delay to mitigate them is going to be worse than fixing them later.

[tuatoru]

It sure isn't going to help with all the other things we are doing in parallel.

Soil exhaustion, poisoning, and erosion; groundwater depletion and poisoning; deforestation; wild ecosystem destruction and food web destabilization; coastal sea surface and seabed destruction; river and lake poisoning; acid rain; carting invasive species around the world willy-nilly; anoxic ocean zones; hunting fish species to extinction; the ruinous effects of mineral and sand mining... all in parallel with the effects of extra carbon in the atmosphere.

Just to put things in context.

[matsemann]

The point is that reducing car usage / dependency would solve both. Just switching to EVs doesn't really solve that much, except it saves the car industry.

[stcroixx]

Exactly. Moving to EVs was a huge mistake. We would have had to practically abandon personal vehicles at some point. This was that chance. Blown. These things will keep us in this same pattern for at least another 50 years leaving this problem for a new generation.

If anyone was serious about any of this, wfh for anyone that can is such an obvious solution with by far the lowest cost. Its a solved problem, we just don’t like the solution enough.

[rootusrootus]

The alternative to EVs was staying with ICEVs, not suddenly redistributing and redesigning society into your utopian ideal.

[hedora]

Many cities are laid out for cars.

Fixing that is much harder than switching to EVs and would have a massive environmental impact. Buildings have 2x more global warming footprint than transportation.

[HWR_14]

EVs don't have to be heavier. If people mostly drove a low range EV it could use significantly smaller batteries.

[lobocinza]

If a low range EV is enough 100% just buy a bike.

[dlahoda]

EV bikes sure. price and weight of good EV bike dropped for last 5 years.

[valianteffort]

I don't know where you live but everything is too far apart in American suburbs. How you would fix that without tearing it all down? And it's totally impractical for transporting a family around.

Road tripping. Visiting far away family. Day at the lake or beach. Going camping. How do you convince people to give all of that up and just be content with whatever is 15min away.

[tuatoru]

Yeah, EVs are the minimum possible change that at first glance looks like it might work, of course without disturbing the global capitalist system or our cultural values.

Wow, people are going to be pissed off in thirty years. "Why didn't that fix it all? We have to do more?"

[kibwen]

EVs could "save us all" if we got over the meme of "range anxiety" and realized that a majority of Americans (who drive more than anyone else) drive less than 40 miles a day, and sized batteries appropriately, especially in dense urban environments. https://electrek.co/2023/03/22/wink-motors-test-drive-electr...

There's no reason that an EV needs to weigh as much as a Sherman tank.

[newsclues]

I wonder if heavy EVs cause more tire and brake dust.

[rootusrootus]

Purpose-built EVs typically weigh 5-10% more than a comparable ICEV. That's not enough to make much of a difference. Go back to the usual target of anti-car hate -- pickups. Those are pretty heavy.

And EVs make almost zero brake dust. On many EVs the pads will last the life of the vehicle, unless they malfunction due to non-usage.

[vardump]

Probably nearly no brake dust. EVs are notorious for using so little brakes that they just rust due to lack of use.

[artursapek]

EVs rip through tires lol

[rootusrootus]

Eh, not really. Teslas tend to, because Tesla's slowest car is pretty fast. A typical EV driven by a normal driver gets pretty average life out of a set of tires.

[jjav]

> EVs rip through tires lol

Yes, they do. Even our lowly Fiat 500e's consumed tires much faster than any of our ICE cars.

It's not just raw power, which a Fiat 500e doesn't have much.

It's the fact that with an electric motor you have 100% torque at 0rpm starting from a standstill, which is when there is most opportunity to briefly spin the tire. Tire wear is much reduced when driving in a straight line at a constant speed.

[BowBun]

Agreed. Even solar + wind - when the buzz started it was all rainbows and butterflies because we found a silver bullet to energy!

There is no such thing as free lunch. If you start absorbing massive amounts of solar, you will have some effect on the environment that we have absolutely no clue about. Same with interfering with wind patterns and ocean currents, which would happen with energy generation at true humanity-scale.

Critical thinking left the room a long time ago.

[XorNot]

What do you think happens to solar energy which doesn't land on a solar panel currently? Say it lands on a dark coloured roof?

[seb1204]

Not sure what to make of your comment. Are you suggesting we don't use any technology? All our actions have consequences on the planet. However your comment seems to suggest that by adopting wind and solar we are buying into an issue we would not have otherwise.

[luis8]

Looks like nuclear with proper waste disposal is they way to go

[badtension]

Not sure if absorbing solar in particular has some unforeseen consequences but I saw an interesting article the other day:

Tidal Energy Is Not Renewable

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/zjl/tide.html

We really have to think this all through before jumping 100% on any particular bandwagon. Researching, testing, seeing how it goes and adjusting is a must.

[gmadsen]

with global warming, shouldn't absorbing massive amounts of solar be a good thing?