Electric Vehicles Won’t Save Us. Why EV’s Are False Prophets in The
marker.medium.com
marker.medium.com
> Even if every car on the road were electric, these forces would remain, and perhaps get worse.
This is the bit I disagree with. Every car becoming electric would massively improve the quality of life in built up environments, across a wide range of pollutions (noise, brake dust, sulphur as well as carbon).
So "thing x is good but it won't save us" is basically true about everything, almost certainly it applies to all his ideas listed here too.
It’s expensive too, but not as eye-wateringly expensive as the train I have to go well out of my way to get on (by taxi, bike, or car because going there by bus is virtually guaranteed to make you miss the train). These trains are often cancelled without warning ten minutes after they’re supposed to have shown up for an excuse chosen apparently at random from a litany of failure that generally amounts to “the network is crap but don’t worry, the subsidy is being spent on some franchise executive’s salary instead of some government bureaucrat’s salary so it’s way better than the old service!”.
Outside of London, a lot of British public transport is utterly unfit for purpose. They’ve only just got rid of the “temporary” solution dating to the early 80s of putting train wheels on surplus British Leyland buses and pretending they’re trains in some parts of the country. Why would anyone with the means to afford a car bother with this absolutely piss-poor display of failed public services given the choice?
Not in London of course, the one area you say is actually vaguely working, and is run as some kind of centrally planned, joined up transport system. So its not "failed public services" is it, its "intentionally sabotaged for ideological reasons private services that are currently being re-nationalized in many cases because it was such an unmitigated disaster and now have to recover from decades of intentional neglect and underfunding".
But as you say, why would anyone with enough money care about having an efficent, effective transport sytem for the country. It's not like the economy relies on it as a basic piece of infrastructure to move workers and products around in addition to general improvements in quality of life of citizens.
Honestly, I think this failure runs deeper than something like whether it's privatised or nationalised. These services were mostly rubbish when they were nationalised and they're still rubbish now under privatisation. Nobody sane thinks the era of privatisation is any good in my opinion, but it's not like what it replaced was exactly well-managed. We had things like the Beeching Axe in that era which absolutely screwed over many non-metropolitan communities and continues to even today especially in Wales.
The UK for the best part of a century has never been good at public transport on a national scale. Public or private, profit or non-profit, every single attempt to make it less of a skip fire has ended in failure. I think the only way we're going to see improvement is if we start looking at the root causes rather than ideologically-motivated political solutions. This isn't a political issue, it's a geographical and an engineering issue.
Rural vs urban is a factor in things like this, but some countries just make a decision to have good trnsport (or health or internet) for everyone, and some countries decide that certain types of transport are for the poor and let them rot. Like many "that's just the way it is" arguments, it can be easily undermined by looking outside the specific country.
The UK seems to have done OK with broadband (at least compared with the US), though again politically motivated decisions in the past have hobbled early roll out of fibre-optic decades ago.
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-l...
Note I just googled up that article, which seems fairly comprehensive, but I had engineers in the family who were involved and said pretty much the same thing at the time.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Corridor...
This power demand is not insignificant and would in many cases means existing (burried) wires have to be switched out, tranformers have to be upgraded, etc.
EVs work perfectly fine if one individual decides this is the way they want to do things, but when everybody does it just doing ballpark calculations reveal that we would be biting more than we can chew. Unless we go for different ways of charging (e.g. swapping out batteries, dedicated facilities for charging in combination with self driving cars, etc).
Not only cars but everything that burns fossil fuels (industrial and domestic heating being two big ones) will need to be electrified. What misleading news sources are you following to think that no-one has planned for this?
How is this quantified?
From my lay-person’s perspective, “emissions” is a vague term that covers everything from VOC in housepaint to methane in cow farts.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...
and
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Emission is intended to be broad here to capture as much impact as possible. It should be expressed in CO2 equivalent.