FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbc5d1q wrote
Reply to comment by upL8N8 in New data shows 1 in 7 cars sold globally is an EV, and combustion engine car sales have decreased by 25% since 2017 by FarmhouseFan
Are EV's better for the environment in the long term than traditional ICE cars?
Yes or no.
mrchaotica t1_jbcejpp wrote
If by "the environment" you mean the place where humans live, EVs are not better because they take up just as much space and therefore ruin cities with excessive highways and parking lots just as much as ICE cars do.
In the long term, cities have to be made walkable -- not just for fixing global warming, but also for fixing things like obesity, the housing crisis, the fact that the suburbs are financially insolvent, etc. too.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbceu1e wrote
Ok now pretend there are places that aren't cities.
mrchaotica t1_jbcncoz wrote
What, you think rural folks are buying EVs?
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbcouct wrote
upL8N8 t1_jbh6o3h wrote
I suggest you do some actual research...
There's a reason your article didn't show absolute sales figures and only showed sales growth. Start with a tiny number in 2021 and triple it in 2022, and while the percentage growth will show 200%... there are still only a tiny number of sales in that state.
Your link suggests Mississippi saw a "HUGE" increase in Hybrid and EV adoption. Note that they didn't break out the Hybrids from the EVs.. and most people would consider "EVs" to represent the plug-in variety. Why is that?
Most EV sales in the US are in the wealthiest states in the US, as can be seen in my link above. California, Washington, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and other wealthy coastal states. It also just so happens that most of these states are participating in the ZEV tradable credit program, and also offer state EV tax credits. The states with the most sales have also benefited the most from federal EV tax credit programs over the years; essentially transferring wealth from the entire US taxpayer base to those specific states.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh6yli wrote
You said yes, I get it.
upL8N8 t1_jbh74w7 wrote
Do research and stop talking out of your backside. It's good for ya.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh7v7f wrote
You're going to be ok, just take some deep breathes before you launch into another unnecessarily long diatribe about how you always need to find the bad in the good rather than just be happy that at least we are transitioning to a world where we might have clean air and water eventually. What will you do then?
upL8N8 t1_jbkfuev wrote
Facts vs confirmation bias. You were sure your point made sense and you even found an article written by an EV media writer (the bottom of the barrel in terms of journalism) that you believed backed it up. With scrutiny of the data in that article, it's quickly evident that it's not proving high take up rates of EVs in rural areas. Growing take up rates... sure... but if you sold one car last year and 3 this year, it's an amazing 200% growth rate... which is barely a scratch on the surface.
You seem upset that I called you out... ? 🤣 Heaven forbid I write more than a short one liner to show my intellectual superiority to others, and instead show actual thoughtful evidence and consideration to a topic.
Tthis is why misinformation spreads. People are so stinking lazy and refuse to look past their own biases and do actual research and fact checking before posting shit as if it's a fact.
upL8N8 t1_jbh4quh wrote
It's a bit of a silly question isn't it?
Yes or no.
😉
Trying to sum up a complex situation with a single yes or no question isn't doing anyone favors. I never stated EVs weren't a better solution than doing literally nothing. I went into the details and grey areas that no one likes to think or talk about. I know... thinking hard... details hard. Me drive car fast. Me save / me don't care about environment.
When you delve into the details about where we need to go, and where we're going with the goal of reducing emissions, we're taking pretty much the worst and slowest direction we could possibly consider. And who are the main beneficiaries? Humanity, the planet, or a few corporations; including the oil and mining industries, and primarily one specific car company who's leading the way towards a subpar solution and being rewarded handsomely for it?
This is what happens when the corrupt government picks technological and corporate winners, rather than simply taxing that which is bad and letting the market resolve the issue. If long range BEVs are the best solution, the market will push for it. If PHEVs / HEVs are the best solution, the market will push for it. If bikes, working from home, and 4 day work weeks are the best solution, then the market will push for it.
But then what do you expect from government representatives whose campaigns are financed by corporations, who are constantly lobbied by those corporations who treat them as if they're 'great friends', who are allowed to freely trade stock on insider information, and who may be promised lucrative positions once they're out of office.
As if it wasn't obvious, corporate campaign financing and lobbyists have far more money in their coffers than organizations fighting for the environment and the little guys.
FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh5023 wrote
So yes, got it.
upL8N8 t1_jbh72sh wrote
>It's a bit of a silly question isn't it?
So yes... got it. At least you didn't back down from your silliness I guess.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments