"Hippy", "green", "woke": as time goes on, names change, but the battles of us vs them don't. There's a lot of partisan discussion around the idea of pushing back and "reopening" the spigot of oil and pushing back on EVs, for example.
I would argue that they weren't, as a movement, about either, but more inward-directed self-discovery. They were contemporaries with both movements for social inclusion (the civil rights movement) and the beginnings of environmentalism as a mass social movement, and were distinct from both of those kinds of activist movements. They had more in common and probably more overlap with the environmentalist movement (like the hippies, a predominantly white, middle-class movement.)
“Wokism” isn’t an actual movement, its just a replacement name for “political correctness” used as a label for same right-wing general-purpose boogeyman that PC served as a label for from the late 1970s until the recent replacement with first and briefly “critical race theory” and, when that proved a bit cumbersome as a generic label, “wokism”.
When phrased this way it sounds pretty darn easy of a choice, but reality never phrases it that way and that person had money to bribe politicians.
And so we struggle. Because those with wealth do not want to give up their wealth.
If nothing else, I'd think the "red-blooded" crowd would love the speed that EVs give you.
It's not that simple. Ideology is more important.
Few Ford dealer workers I know have been Talking about the buildup of stock of f150 lightning and mache at dealerships.
People are turning down the purchases from preorder due to issues with battery or otherwise that is plaguing their full electric.
6 months ago you had to be on a long waiting list, now you can find one at alot of lots.
Cycling has more benefits than replacing cars. It connects us with joyful movement. And the infrastructure is cheaper to build and extend compared to railways.
This means nothing.
Ideally we'd return back to the 1890s-1910s with public transport consisting of fixed line trolleys or light rail covering distances larger than five or six blocks while walking or bicycling covers distances less than that. That's where EV technology would be ideal because you could run a combination of overhead, third rail, and battery power depending on available infrastructure and space, all using the same cars city or town wide.
Cobalt isn't necessary to build li-ion batteries, considering that there are mainstream chemistries like LFP which eschew cobalt entirely.
People don't necessarily want to live in a big city, go only where the buses and trains go, and never have the chance to go on road trips or vacations to the mountains or the beach. Better for the climate to do this via battery power and not fossil fuels, because it's going to happen.
Is this actually doable? I thought in modern EVs, the battery takes up half the chassis. In a "retrofitted" EV, you'll have lots of space (and therefore battery capacity) taken up by mechanical systems which are essential for a central motor, but relatively useless if you could just use multiple electric motors.
[1] https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/choosing/electric-...
IMO, we're going to need a lot of different approaches to solve climate. EVs, PHEVs, reduction of use of single-occupant vehicles, more transit, more biking, more e-bikes, blah blah blah.