Hacker News Reader

I think we know we can't solve the problem so we are just more interested in the optics.

If the soccer mom switches from a gas guzzling SUV to another ridiculous size and weight electric SUV, they have done their part optically.

I feel like I am doing my part by simply not having children. It doesn't matter what you drive, it doesn't even come close to the offset of not having children. Who then can't have grandchildren, grandchildren who can't have great grandchildren, etc.

It would be hard to calculate the difference between me not having children and the person driving an EV with two kids in the back seat. They have done a better job with optics than me but in reality I have probably done 10,000X more over the next 200 years because what they have done is basically nothing.

Yes, but learning how to live sustainably lowers the impact of every person. It’s worth doing.

The shift to EVs will mean less mining of resources, since we'll not be digging stuff up to burn and then releasing the results into the atmosphere to choke our children and warm the atmosphere.

EVs aren't the single sole answer to climate change either (they're in the top 20 though) but repeating climate denial factoids isn't really helping either.

> repeating climate denial factoids

Saying EVs aren't enough is climate change denial now ? lmao

I bet your top 20 is full of things to buy and replace. Too bad the only way out is to use less and do less... As long as the goal is YoY growth ad aeternam it's game over.

We can talk wishful thinking all day long, the bottom line is that we're breaking pollution (and energy usage) record every single year since as long as we cared measuring it: https://climatanthropocene.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/co...

So much "progress", so many "clean" alternatives yet it goes up at the same or higher rate year after year... EVs won't even put a dent on that graph, but it sure feels good to pat yourself on the back knowing you saved the planet by buying a $50k+ "clean" car, you did you part! great job!

> Too bad the only way out is to use less and do less...

To be clear: you're saying that "doing things more efficiently" and "using power sources other than fossil fuels to do stuff" are not parts of the solution at all?

> I bet your top 20 is full of things to buy and replace. T

And this never makes sense? I should keep burning natural gas to heat my home forever instead of moving to use more heat pumps? I shouldn't buy solar and energy storage?

> the bottom line is that we're breaking pollution (and energy usage) record every single year since as long as we cared measuring it:

That's CO2 levels, not emissions.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi...

We're getting closer to leveling off.

I agreed that EVs weren't enough, so clearly that's not one of the climate denial factoids I was referring to. (It's kind of a non statement though, nothing you or anyone else is suggesting is a silver bullet either).

Other dubious things you claimed:

More particulate emissions. False (reduced brake dust being a big factor)

More expensive. False. Already lower TCO in most of the world, lower upfront cost in China already. Generally heading downward.

Bigger. False, nothing about EVs requires them to be bigger, they scale in both directions better than ICE.

Higher maintenance/early scrapping. False, already we have enough data to show they last longer.

Mining. False, as already stated.

If you need this many false statements to back up your point, maybe it's a bad point?

What's wrong with "EVs can cut GHG by half and reduce imports of fossil fuel from unfriendly regimes, but (electric) trains, (electric) busses and (electric) bike-friendly city designs are even better than that!"

No need to sound like a Fox News talking head to promote those alternatives.

The anti climate change lobby has introduced a new tactic to their arsenal. It’s “there’s nothing we can do so might as well live life” it’s as much a lie as every other lie they’ve tried. Theres 100% something we can do. We can decide to do better.

> the absolutely insane amount of mining we'll need to do to replace 1.4 billion ICE cars with EVs

Replacing the automobiles will involve less mining than replacing the cities that depend on automobiles.

Every time I see a fossil fuel car sitting outside my son’s nursery, engine idling, spewing out huge amounts of poisonous fumes (23 shipping containers worth every five minutes), I’m thankful that we’re transitioning to EVs.

Yes, there are problems, but many of the points made in the above post are dubious to say the least. I’ve had my EV for five years and the brakes are still pristine (regenerative braking saves mechanical brake wear). So I don’t buy that particulate pollution is higher in EVs.

50 companies solving the same problem? That’s GREAT! More scope for competition and innovation. Or would you rather ever drove Soviet Lada cars? Car costs are being driven down and we’re nearly at the tipping point where EVs are cheaper than fossil fuelled cars - which is surprising as EVs are better in nearly every single way.

We have continent-wide defacto standards for chargers. Ideally it would be worldwide, but really, this is a trivial concern.

You talk about mining (lithium I assume) as a concern, but that’s probably better overall than the huge environmental toll of oil extraction, transport, refinement and exhaust emission.

This isn’t the time to let perfect be the enemy of good. Get onboard with the transition and we will make progress. Progress is good.

> Progress is good.

"progress" is exactly why we are where we are today... Electric cars just perpetuates the same cycle, the only way out is a complete redesign of the system. Personal ownership of 2500kg hunks of metal to transport your lazy 70kg ass isn't anywhere close to sustainable.

I bike everyday, and everyday I witness the same thing, hundreds and hundreds of cars, most are empty waiting on a parking spot, 90% of the rest are occupied by a single person, usually stuck in a traffic jam. EVs or not that's just pure madness and misallocation of resources.

You're moving the needle 0.1mm backwards when we need to go back a good 720 degrees. But of course it's much nicer to have trailing dams in a country the average american can't place on a map than having a car idle in front of _your_ school

720 degrees is spinning in circles and ending up pointed right back where you started.

It's nice that you manage to live a simple life that doesn't require a car, but I assure you it's 100% necessary for me:

  * busy family of four with two young kids, both in different childcare settings
  * the UK climate
  * bulk shopping that is impossible to transport by bike, including heavy DIY stuff etc
  * transporting relatives etc
  * hospital visits (the UK NHS Ambulance service is basically unusable at this point. They didn't even come out to pick up my elderly nan after she fell down her stairs and was in an immobile heap on the ground for hours)
  * visiting relatives that are not readily accessible by public transport

I have a driveway, so my car consumes no public space unless it's actively being driven, or parked for a short time in a car park.

I feel the cycling / "active travel" advocacy movement is currently engaging in an ideological war against motorists - this is evident in the dreadful zero-sum policy making that's going on throughout the UK at the moment - road narrowing, model filters, "low traffic neighbourhoods" etc, which aim to change people's behaviour by artificially making life harder for motorists.

However, what these ideologues don't understand is that busy families, elderly and disabled people absolutely rely on cars, and we will not be bullied into giving them up.

> I’ve had my EV for five years and the brakes are still pristine (regenerative braking saves mechanical brake wear)

What did you expect? I have original brakes with original brakepads in my 5 years old ICE van. I have original brakes (pads, rotors) in my 2016 motorhome.

> Every time I see a fossil fuel car sitting outside my son’s nursery, engine idling

Sure, so how much better do you think EVs are in that matter? 10%? 30%? The solution is to stop using individual transport, not to make it slightly better.

> The solution is to stop using individual transport, not to make it slightly better

You're saying knocking down and rebuilding millions of units of suburban housing into dense apartment buildings will emit less emissions than driving EVs?

They need to be knocked out anyway because they're using fossil fuels or high amount of electricity for heating / cooling.

You change the planning rules and things change over time. We're not destroying peoples cars to replace them with EVs.

There's no tech we have currently that would work when people need to drive every day. You not only have fuel, you got tyres, you got the roads you need to maintain. Let's fix this at the core.

> We're not destroying peoples cars to replace them with EVs.

Exactly. So what's the problem with switching to EVs as ICE cars wear out and die?

> You change the planning rules and things change over time.

And keep burning gasoline in ICEs until all the single-family homes are replaced with apartment buildings?

> You not only have fuel, you got tyres, you got the roads you need to maintain

Even in a world where most people take public transport, you'll need roads and tires. Buses and taxis and bicycles need roads and tires. Delivery trucks need roads and tires.

> I have original brakes with original brakepads in my 5 years old ICE van. I have original brakes (pads, rotors) in my 2016 motorhome.

You'll probably want to get both of those checked immediately. Unless, of course, you've done trivial mileage in both vehicles. Sometimes brake wear isn't obvious - please get it checked!

> Sure, so how much better do you think EVs are in that matter?

In terms of exhaust emission outside a childcare setting, EVs are 100% better than ICE cars.

Of course, some emissions may be released by the factories building the cars, and by the mining and refinement of lithium. Perhaps if those facilities existed next to my kid's childcare I'd feel different. But the reality is that they're probably not located in densely populated areas, and it is far better to have emissions confined to one site (where it is regulated, monitored and filtered) than have billions of cars spewing fumes throughout populated areas.