We've decided to invest in squirt guns to deal with the forest fire problem - eviltoast
  • Michal@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only things EV’s solve is emissions. They reduce emissions in cities which is great, and thanks to clean power plants (renewable and nuclear) help reduce overall emissions. But they are still cars, still take up space, they are heavier so cause more wear on the road surfaces and emit tire particles. I wouldn’t say these are tiny issues.

    If we have to use cars then yes, electric are better, but it’s not the solution. The solution should aim at reducing use of the inefficient forms of transport in favor of mass transit or micro mobility.

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Better urban planning, as well. We can’t do anything about cars as long as we build entire communities to accommodate cars. We’ve gone from people owning cars to cars owning society.

    • Redrum714@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mass transit is inefficient compared to having your own car. Pretending mass transit can completely get rid of cars is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you high? Mass transit is a thousand times more efficient than cars.

        How many cars on a highway, on streets contain only 1 person? How long are people sitting on the road, idling because of traffic lights or no movement because of there being too many cars?

        How much land is taken up by highways, freeways, exit ramps, and interchanges that could be better used for homes and parks and shops?

        The point of public mass transit is not to eliminate car traffic, because there will always be a use for it, but we should try to minimize it as much as possible. Only car-brained Americans think mass transit is inefficient and “freedumb-restricting” because our mass transit systems have been massively underfunded and downright eliminated for a century.

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

          Oddly enough I think he meant that having your own car is more efficient than mass transit for the individual. And really, we’re talking about time spent traveling more so than overall energy spent.

          It takes me less time to get in my car and drive downtown than it does to wait on a bus to arrive and eventually get me to where I’m going… Which is why cars are never going away.

          You guys are both talking about different types of efficiencies.

          That said, yours is the type of efficiency that MOST people are talking about when this discussion is had.

          • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t even think it’s efficient in that way either though.

            I mean, sure, you can get in your car and start driving faster. But then you likely have to sit and wait at traffic lights, sit in traffic if you’re anywhere in a city, and find parking.

            That just seems less efficient than getting to the nearest bus stop or train station and not having to deal with any of the trouble of driving. Of course, as long as the city is designed well, which you can’t find in the US.

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

              This is so dependent on the area though.

              Yes deep in cities you may be sitting forever, but inter city and rural travel is basically non stop 60-70 mile per hour travel.