Comment by buran77 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by buran77 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

But this does highlight some hypocrisy on the part of drivers (in general).

When it's pointed out that switching from ICE to BEV has a fraction of the impact of switching to something like public transport, the response is invariably that "every little bit counts", "I'm trying to do my part".

When it's pointed out that EVs are heavier than the equivalent ICE, the response is invariably "but just by a fraction", "cars were getting bigger anyway".

Just like if you say "I can't own a BEV because [reasons]". The answer will be "you don't care enough about the environment", "you could always use [terribly inconvenient, expensive, or complicated solution]". If you suggest public transport or a bicycle instead of a car suddenly the inconvenience matters, "but the bus is crowded", "only comes every 30 minutes".

The point being that if you let drivers self-evaluate their actions they will always find the explanation that provides them, individually, with better cover. Try to propose objectively better alternatives for the stated purpose and the wave of dislike will bury you not because it's wrong but because nobody likes someone removing their cover.

Yeah, people are only "environmentally friendly" only up to the line of inconvenience, if we want to live sustainably we'd have to have the living standards of South Sudan or Benin[1].

Yeah I realize this is doomerism and "Why bother?", but, realistically, why bother? Some people have the deus-ex machina fantasy that "some technology will come along and save us all" and other than that, IMO there's only pain in the future, either most of the planet burns up, with all the human conflict along the way (fighting over water and food), or the whole planet actually commits to living like South Sudanese (hah, what was that about having fantasies?), and even then the emissions until now will still have an effect decades into the future...

[1] https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days...

You've met many people IRL who hem and haw like that? It must be in social circles where being anti-car is high status and they feel obligated to pay at least a bit of lip service.

I too was wondering where these people are that discuss the morality of their car choices with each other.

Internet discussions on divisive topics always contain morality/finger pointing. Goes for HN too. So I'm incredulous of your surprise seeing you've been around the internet for at least 7 years. For cars it's vehicle size or technology. For food it's animal or plant. There will always be a discussion and sometimes morality can't stay out of it.

Also GP moved the goal posts a bit, why "IRL"? Is our discussion here worthless or not representative because we're not "IRL"? Yes, I do have such discussions of morality of choices in real life too. It's easier to have them on the internet because separating from your identity helps make whatever case you want to make. IRL is harder because you can't just close the tab and pretend it never happened so if you have some convictions you have to really stand by them.

Am I to understand that you never, ever discuss the morality of things with anyone? Or just not cars? Not even in principle?

I specified IRL because that's what I'm curious about. You spoke about motorists in general, so you must have spoken with enough of them to have formed the opinion that they respond to your questioning in such a manner. I move in very different social circles, some people I know cycle to work not for the environment but to save money, so the thought of living, breathing humans speaking the way you described comes across as strange to me.

I worked very closely with the people who wrote the related regulation (and a lot more) and contributed to that at EU level for years and years. Yes, certainly such debates came up a lot. As for action, the people I know cycled or took the train to set an example or because they liked it. I actually don't know a single person who does this to save money but this may be a factor of the bubble I live in.

Closer to home I have the same experience. It's not limited to driving. People are always looking to justify their choice and cherry pick the arguments for it. You name it, there will be an objectively correct argument to support it. You don't need to be pro-environment to claim you are. One neighbor who owns 2 Teslas couldn't give a damn about the environment but that's not stopping him from bragging to everyone who will listen that that's why he bought the cars. Another one has a PHEV that is never driven electric, same story. And another one constantly talks about the health and environmental benefits of cycling while his bike is a permanent fixture of the living room wall. Virtue signaling can come as an afterthought.

But most of these discussions were internet discussions though, just because its so easy to take part in a lot of them. For years on most sites (HN included) posts on ICE/BEV would surface the same discussions with each "side" pumping up the arguments that supported their views while trying to downplay the others' arguments even at the cost of hypocrisy.

Thanks, I understand where you're coming from better now. It's sort of the opposite with me, I move in circles where I sometimes have to be careful about even being slightly positive about EVs since so many are rabidly against them.

I've been around the Internet for about 35 years and the WWW for about 28 years, but I've never ran across a discussion of people talking about the morality of car choices. Apparently I've been visiting the wrong forums.

Either you're reading too much into this and hanging on the word "morality" (which mind you, I haven't actually used or suggested in my original comment) just to be super pedantic, or you've actually never read the comment section on car articles on sites like HN, Reddit, or ArsTechnica just to name some more popular ones.

Yes, at least similar conversations. Among the people I can cite:

* My next door neighbour

* My Mother

* My Father

* My Nana (who doesn't even drive!)

And there's not a particular "anti-car is high status" issue (I'm not even sure what that means). It's a simple reality of being in the UK where a lot of column inches are dedicated to pushing a heavy pro-car, pro-pollution narrative.

I should have perhaps written "acutely environmentally aware" instead, where cars are a necessary evil at best, and an unforgivable sin at worst.

Writing that would not have changed my response. The people I’ve cited have a similar level of awareness of climate issues as your average British person.

Ok I’ll bite. I’m a “driver” and I live in a place where it is impossible to goto work without driving. When my ICE car finally stopped working I bought a heavy EV car because I care about climate change (not environment, but GHG emissions). Would you agree that in my case it was not hypocritical and probably not all EV drivers are hypocritical?

Not speaking for OP here, just giving my own 2 cents.

As a strong believer that we need major change to fight climate change, and a believer that switching to EVs isn't even close to good enough, I can't blame someone in your position. The blunt truth is that this challenge is far too great for individuals making choices to tackle. This is exactly the type of challenge that requires government intervention. I'm aware that the USA is particularly bad but I can attest that the UK isn't far behind in being in total disarray.

An example from my own life: I needed to travel between two cities in Northern England with my partner. I calculated that the train ticket for 1 person was the same as the cost of diesel. Factoring in the disgracefully unreliable train infrastructure, I'd have paid twice as much to have a worse travel experience (buses to/from stations, train probably being delayed/cancelled). Who in their right mind chooses the train under these conditions?

Government has the power to change this calculation by funding public transit, adding costs to driving, among other things.

It's weird to single out EVs though. They can be heavy sure; but they don't have to be. Just like ICE cars. People buying hummers, big SUVs, muscle cars, heavy trucks, has been a constant in the US for decades. That has never been an issue. It's only when they are electric that certain people start caring very selectively and only about those EVs.

And for all the talk about parking garages collapsing, there seems to be a distinct lack of collapsing parking garages. It's all hypotheticals and maybes.

It kind of is a non issue. Sure, there probably are a few old parking garages with a bit dubious construction and maintenance issues. The issue there is not heavy cars but people cutting corners when it comes to building codes, concrete quality, inspections, etc. Plenty of that going around. The apartment complex that collapsed in Florida was a good example. Usually there are plenty of signs when buildings or bridges aren't in a good state. It's only when that is ignored for years on end that bad things start happening.

But mostly parking garages aren't telling people with trucks and suvs to turn around just yet. Because it's perfectly safe as far as they know and they've been hosting people with pointlessly heavy ICE cars for decades. A few more aren't going to tip the scales.

This is a non issue. And it's repeatedly in the news because ICE car manufacturers and fossil fuel companies are trying to slow down the coming double digit percentage dips in their market share; all the way down to net zero eventually. We're going from millions of EVs to tens of millions of EVs in the next few years. Most of those won't be trucks or suvs. Or particularly heavy.

There are plenty of good reasons to start taxing heavy vehicles and polluting vehicles and I'm all for that. But I'm guessing that's not the solution these people are advertising here. This is more of a FUD thing and less of a call for actual policy changes to happen.

Different people make different arguments. I am keeping my ICE vehicle because I drive dramatically less than the average person, so selling it and buying an EV means it ends up with someone who drives more.

That said, 1 person going from ICE to EV is better for the environment than 1 person going from EV to public transportation. Manufacturing and transporting gasoline produces roughly the same emissions as producing the electricity to charge an EV in the US.

> That said, 1 person going from ICE to EV is better for the environment than 1 person going from EV to public transportation

How could that be? 50 people driving in 50 cars can't possibly be more efficient then them riding in a single electric bus. That's before you consider the infrastructure dedicated to personal cars. It's the first time I hear that personal transport could be more environmentally friendly than public transport.

Once a price drops by 50% no matter the discount you can only save the other 50%.

Put another way suppose ICE = 100%, EV’s = 49%, public transportation = 1%. If you start with 1 person in an ICE and 1 person in a EV that’s 149%, moving to 1 ICE and one public is 101%, where moving to 2 EV’s is 98%. Yes, 2 public is hypothetically much better at 2% but that wasn’t one of the options considered.

> That said, 1 person going from ICE to EV is better for the environment than 1 person going from EV to public transportation.

50 people going from EV to public transit is much better for the environment than 50 people going from ICE to EV.

Welcome to hypocrisy of techbro virtue signaling. The very same people will say with straight faces that BEVs are cheaper to operate calculating battery->motor consumption, ignoring charging/auxiliary losses and multiplying that by residential grid prices and/or completely ignore fuel excise and other road taxes that BEVs are exempt from.

"The awful thing about life is this: Everybody has their reasons."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com