Hacker News Reader

Comment by EVyesnoyesnoyes | Hacker News Reader

I believe that a political push is necessary.

The same reason why a lot of other things are necessary by government like getting rid of lead in wall color. Or other human rights.

The governance allows companies to push in a direction.

The interesting thing is not that someone sets a target, the interesting thing will be what happens if we don't achieve it. And its obvious that we can't enforce it if its not possible.

After all the poor people need to get to work and they are needed. I don't think anyone wants to exclude them from car ownership.

View on HN

> The governance allows companies to push in a direction.

Arguably, that's not true. Tesla who apparently pioneered the recent success in EVs started off with that development without any subsidies. If the technology is good enough to justify a switch for people, it will work in the open market without any political push or subsidy. Subsidies generally lead to warped markets and wealth transfers which is neither evaluated nor accounted for usually, hence adding to the aforementioned increase in inequality.

> The interesting thing is not that someone sets a target, the interesting thing will be what happens if we don't achieve it. And its obvious that we can't enforce it if its not possible.

Why do you think that it's necessary to control people that way? I believe everybody would want the cleanest and best car possible regardless. People would even be happy paying a bit more if it were beneficial for the environment. That's not the issue. The issue is that it still has to work for them.

> After all the poor people need to get to work and they are needed. I don't think anyone wants to exclude them from car ownership.

Then why embrace policies that are based on hard limits, restrictions and punishments?

I'm really not sure if you trolling or believing in this.

People don't act rational and plenty of people literaly don't care about the environment or other aspects.

Tesla was pushed by Elon Musk Money and he did this because he saw the market and had the money to disrupt it. Classical car manufacturer wouldn't have build EVs ever because they don't care.

Having a margin of 30% of classical build cars is nothing you spit on.

And there are plenty of market regulations which are most of the time here to protect or help us consumers. Shell, BP and co spending millions for lobbying.

From an economyical standpoint we also have an issue: Plenty of people don't know or don't care to solve the initial investment problem. Figting classical cars, were the market was optimized for 50 years is not easy to disrupt.

Basically non disruptive for consumers alone.

The punishment, hard limits and restrictions are not here to punish consumers but producers.

BMW you are not allowed to sell ICE Cars in europe 2030 vs. dear consumer you are not allowed to buy ICE cars in europe 2030.

Nonetheless in regards of our specific transition: We are actually trying to transition faster than normal because of climate change. We have a huge issue in our society regarding the relevants of this topic.

Old generations mostly ignore it or dont care, the young are frightend and we in the middle (me) im in the middle of my normal life while trying to push more for doing more.

For someone who thinks that a sudden increase in ocean temperature is a very bad sign, we can't wait until everyone has slowly and steadily transitioned. Instead the adoption curve has to be pushed.

> I'm really not sure if you trolling or believing in this.

Ok, that is the end of the discussion then. I think you are not in a position to claim that I am trolling when using a throwaway account that was created literally 3 hours ago.

If you believe that transitioning the planet from ICE cars to EVs will solve climate change, then I cannot help but say that I think this is more than unrealistic and misguided thinking. If it will make a difference at all, then it's only a very small part - not enough to reach the implied goal for sure. The entire transportation sector in the US accounts for roughly 30% of the US greenhouse gas emissions. Cars for individual transport are only a fraction of this. Swapping those over to EVs will not erase all CO2 emissions, but rather reduce them. This is because both production causes CO2 and electricity is partly generated using carbon emitting processes. We are thus talking about a small reduction of a part of a part and that needs to be put in context with the costs for that transition. Meanwhile, emissions in other places on the same planet is going up. Drastically.

We urgently need to rethink our approach to "normality" if we really aim to change anything about CO2 emissions at scale in a short period of time. Individual choices are the most important factor here. Forcing people to do something they don't want is not the solution as it simply doesn't scale unless you don't want to go full tyranny. And this is exactly what that is - one group of privileged people thinking they are better than the others and therefore believe they have the authority to tell them what to do.

If you believe you have done your part in mitigating climate change because you have switched to an EV, please think again. You are very likely making the problem worse, because you stop thinking after that and religiously attempt to convert others with your ideology without taking into account their individual situation.

And yes, I really believe that people are, in general, good. Even after discussions like this.

I really did not want offend you tbh. but i talked to a lot of people regarding EVs. Most people care somehow but not enough at all to risk anything. They are even afraid of 'new technology'.

Alone last week when i discussed with the other owners of our apartmentbuilding to put solar panels on it, my 'for co2' was basically humoring the others.

Im also on hn for 10 years, i just spend too much time on it, unfortunate creating a new account is too simple :|.

Cars make 75% of transportation co2. Electricity and heating is only double of transportation. So its definitly relevant.

I don't think that EV is enough but its one of the few big changes we as a technology based society need to do.

But i also believe heavily in economy of scale and that an EV can be cheaper and easier to make in a few years than ICEs can. I also believe that EVs are necessary to really start the sustainable supply chain: we take renewable energy to make EVs and Batteries, use the resources of EVs and Batteries later to use them longer after second use and than recycle them to 99%.

Every ICE will always consume fuel.

We also have a huge benefit of investing money today into EV than ICE due to other synergies: Bi-directinal charging will help us to stabilize the grid for renewable. Cheap batteries help us to add more storage at home to use the solar enegy longer.

And in regards to forcing anyone: Again based on the jump in ocean temperature, weather changes in germany etc. i really think we need to do A LOT more A LOT faster. But this article is about EVs not about heat pumps, geothermal, etc.

> I really did not want offend you tbh. but i talked to a lot of people regarding EVs.

You accused me of trolling when I said that I believe people are good in general and that you shouldn't force them to do anything. I think you shouldn't be surprised if that comes across as an offense.

> Most people care somehow but not enough at all to risk anything. They are even afraid of 'new technology'.

You need to make it attractive for people. Think about the risk/reward here. People are not dumb. They know that investing into new technology comes with a risk per se from experience. They also know that their investment has a slim chance of doing anything to reduce global CO2 emissions because many other factors are at play here. Then, it's not even clear how much of that makes for the current warming. So you need to give them something which is an obvious benefit with regard to their current life situation. If you have access to charging at home, solar panels, and an EV, that's a financial benefit that doesn't need much more explaining. Now you need to find a way to make that accessible to everyone. Better charging infrastructure, increasing range, and bringing down the cost of the technology is key and it takes time.

"People would even be happy paying a bit more if it were beneficial for the environment." this triggered me because i had the discussion (as i wrote in my prev comment) with 5 people in their 50s and they found it funny when i said that even if the solar panels on the roof wouldn't help us directly, at least we would save co2 (my frustration with that group of people is high)

Yes it takes time but i strongly believe that this section of the curve can be shortened a lot by forcing companies by law, pushing consumers to risk a little bit more.

Do you regularly talk to older people or people outside of a big city? Because you constantly refute my points regarding this and all of those are examples of real encounters i had.

"Its easier to just go to a fuel station" "Its cheaper" "I like the sound of an engine" "I want to be able to drive 1000km without a stop" (while driving not more than 50km per day ...) "EVs explode" . . .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com