Hacker News Reader

Comment by eptcyka | Hacker News Reader

The argument isn't that doing _something_ is bad, it's that the amount of effort people put into obtaining their shiny non-paleolithic-compost-fueled-but-rather-battery-powered 2 tonne sledgehammers would be better spent changing policies that operate on organizational rather than individual units. How about we just stop buying as much shit from halfway across the world? Global trade requires us to spend stupid amounts of fuel in engines that have never been optimized for emissions. This of course involves making changes to global trade, this is a lot harder, but surely all those people who are capable of shelling out at least 30000$ (but in reality, barely anyone gets the cheapest model because this is a luxury item) could be doing things that make a bigger difference.

View on HN

This is a textbook example of false dilemma fallacy. Replacing ICE cars with electric cars doesn't preclude other environmental measures, and in fact, people who worry about their car's emissions tend to be people who worry about other environmental issues as well.

..it surely precludes the environmental measure of not having a car.

And what exactly is that impact? The author never specified; just asserted "cars are bad because reasons" and left it at that.

But continuing to have car-centric cities, and investing more into car-centric infrastructure, as many cities and states continue to do, is a real dilemma. Government funds are limited, especially in the current era, and space in cities is limited, too. We should be converting interstates to high-speed rail, and cheap/free city parking into bike lanes, but if our plan to tackle climate change is all about electric cars, none of that stuff is going to happen.

In a sense, this conversation mirrors the myopia the article talks about, because people who disagree with it are defending their individual consumption choices, while ignoring the broader social and policy connections that surround them.

You didn’t rebut any of my points.

First, can you not buy an electric car and advocate and enact organizational or systematic change? They’re not mutually exclusive.

Second, how do dynamic systems composed of many independent, self-directed agents change? Instantaneously or over some period of time? How long is that period of time? Probably much longer a period of time than it takes to purchase an electric vehicle (< 1 minute) and reduce your emissions immediately.

  They’re not mutually exclusive.

Well, you can only spend a given dollar once.

So if for example the government spends $$$$ to put an EV charging point in every street light, that's $$$$ they didn't spend making busses more appealing.

Except the government does even need to do that. The government could actually make money by leasing spaces/taking a cut of revenue to put chargers and letting private industry install them and manage them.

>Except the government does even need to do that.

And perhaps it won't, if enough of the people that make it up read articles like this to ignore the very powerful automotive lobby

The reality of many governments however is that they are handing out money to the few people who frequently buy new cars for making those cars fractionally less unsustainable, while those who don't drive get pushed aside by even heavier and wider cars (using current "3" by BMW and Tesla as a comparison sample)

There are problems there though, because adding parking spaces makes driving more desirable for both EVs and non-EVs, and parking spaces tend to compete with bike lines in US cities. And as long as US cities remain car centric, having parking be expensive enough to be a deterrent to driving (or a major revenue source) is going to be a 3rd rail for local politicians.

That assumes that the lack of appeal of buses has anything to do with money. Until buses can:

* Deliver me from point A to point G without stopping at B, C, D, E, and F along the way

* Provide room for more than a handful of cargo/luggage and park / wait around while I load/unload it

* Actually stick to a goddamn timetable (looking at you, Muni)

Then no amount of money will make buses more appealing to me than a car.

Trains have these same problems, minus the inconsistent timetables, and have the added benefit of typically going at least a little bit faster.

A lot of people already don't buy shit. At all.

I mean after about a decade I finally gave in and bought a used TV (instead of using a PC monitor). I already don't fly to useless tech conferences, and work remotely (so no mindless daily commute).

And eventually when the e-charger network will become widespread enough around here, I guess, I'll buy a used EV instead of the current car, because cities can't ban these smoke machines fast enough.

And when the choice is presented I already buy local stuff.

But.. this is a luxury for me/us, because of the enormous income inequality bonus of IT/tech.

Those who already live on the edge won't pick the local things, they will pick the cheapest one. And the way to make the GHG-friendly stuff cheap is to tax the shit out of the GHG-positive things.

And that unfortunately seems like a pretty hard challenge, thanks to our wonderful society favoring chauvinists rhetoric, trade wars, nationalist triades, and other bullshit.

So, yes, in terms of the big picture EVs don't matter much, but without even presenting an alternative, it'll be quite impossible to persuade the other half of society.

>And the way to make the GHG-friendly stuff cheap is to tax the shit out of the GHG-positive things.

Making everything more expensive is a political dead-end, and would exacerbate income inequality.

Not if it is revenue-neutral.

Who said everything?

Taxing stuff that comes from large scale industrial destruction of the environment is completely different than everything.

Plus all the carbon tax schemes start with direct rebates to the tax payers in equal parts, so those who consume more get less back than those who don't.

Which is why you'd want to combine the tax with a subsidy for "clean" products (financed by those very same taxes, perhaps).

> Global trade requires us to spend stupid amounts of fuel in engines that have never been optimized for emissions.

Whoa there! These engines are indeed not optimized for emissions like NOx and particulates, but they are impressively efficient. I believe that a good deal less CO2 is emitted shipping a container across the ocean than would be spent driving it across the country.

Anyhow, the economic solution here is clear: a carbon tax that applies to imports. The serious proposals do this.

Eco-friendly behavior does not abide to laws of matter conservation. I see no reason to suspect people who reduce carbon footprint using X would stop being vegetarians for example.

In fact, everything I know suggests the opposite - environmental engagement is always a positive feedback loop.

I paid net $22K for a new 2015 Nissan LEAF (after $10K in combined government incentives). You could have gotten the base model (with resistance heat only) for under $20K, but that’s a fairly poor choice for New England year ‘round usage.

Even at 22k, that is a lot for most people. Online it says the LEAF can go 150 miles for around $4.80. Your payment would be around $375ish a month with at least $100 for insurance (probably more).

Why would most people do that when they can get a used car cheaper or keep driving what they have. It is just expensive (i am not saying i would not like a Nissian LEAF, that would be sweet).

I guess i see people buying EV's and ask why the rest of the world is not (i know you are not asking this, but a lot of comments i read are) when we cannot afford them.

Totally agree. All our other cars have been bought used. My wife’s CR-V has been excellent and was $7500 (or maybe it was $8500) when 5-ish years old. We don’t carry collision insurance on it at this point.

I wouldn’t have bought the LEAF new either if it weren’t for the $10K in government cheese that came with it. (I can buy a $32K car; I just choose not to as it seems a waste.)

Sounds like the typical apocalyptic activist thinking where actually helping the problem /at all/ is a bad thing because it distracts from their grandiose vision and makes their crazed plan that even they can only see happening in severe conditions - often because it involves mass murder.

I have seen far too many examples of self declared communists saying things like a $20/hr minimum wage is bad thing because it distracts from overthrowing "the oppressor".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com