this is what pisses me off about every net zero by 2050 or whenever plan, they will do nothing until 2045 and then just give up or kick the can again.
“We didn’t put in any effort until the last minute and now we can’t easily do it. It’s not fair to our shareholders”
If I tried to use that bs as a a reason for being late ate work I wouldn’t have a job there anymore
Or expelled with the same attitude towards rent
Or a presentation or an essay or exercise or utility bills or...
Or what?
Yes, a habitable planet for humanity would be nice, but have you considered the portfolios of a few selfish assholes?
But have you considered that those assholes lobbied very hard to protect their interest? Shouldn't their money and time investment be rewarded?
/s just in case
It's only fair!
The great thing is that it won't matter. EVs are going to become extremely cheaper and more efficient, making them the clear choice over the next couple years.
Cheaper for the industry to manufacture, certainly. Cheaper for the consumer to purchase, I have my suspicions.
I would love to see a return to smaller cars - sedans even - but the shareholders might not like lower profits per unit, so I'm not sure we're going to see prices plateau let alone decline.
I don't drive but I'd like to see a return to cars that aren't Orwellian spying devices.
Cheaper for the consumer to purchase, I have my suspicions.
Why would it be cheaper to produce, but more expensive to purchase? Because of bullshit rules that will not be long lived.
I wish I could share in your optimism.
They're already very cheap as long as you only want two wheels and aren't fussed about having a roof.
Yeah, this whole thing sounds a lot like a section of horse-drawn carriage industry going down the route of committing suicide by using crooked politicians to try and stop the march of evolution via legislation rather that the route of adapting to an unstoppable change and thus surviving.
In 20 years time most of the companies pushing for this will be either be gone or become cottage shops and this shit will almost certainly also have negatively impacted the rest of the industry in Europe.
I think this is the difference between opening doors to the future vs closing doors to the past. When China funded EVs and battery research, they opened the door to the future. When the EU and US try to ban gas engines, they are trying to close the door to the past. Guess which one works.
We are going extinct.
We're finally hitting the brakes...
Regarding environmental protection.
... Again
So from 2035 it was supposed to be possible to only sell cars with 100% reduction in CO2 emissions. They want to change it to 90% reduction and still allow to sell plug-in-hybrids which is bullshit because recent analysis of real life usage show that plug-in hybrids run on gas most of the time and are not nearly as efficient as estimated. They should focus on building charging infrastructure instead. German car industry is dying anyway.
I wonder how plug-in hybrids are that bad in terms of gas-to-electric ratio. Might need a proper source on that. Most usage should be from work-home travel, and that should be reachable with just electric power.
Maybe the solution is not simply to block hybrids, but to solve the reasons they don't drive electric. This could be putting more chargers at home/workplace or something else entirely (idk what the analysis pointed out as reason)
"27% of driving was done in electric mode" - this is how. It doesn't point at any reason for that. And yes, there may be a solution to this but we don't know if it even exists. We should first try to make plug-ins more efficient and then consider excluding them from the ban. Of course this decision has nothing to do with efficiency, it's just Germany desperately trying to save their weakening economy.
The thing is, if only 27% drive in electric mode, that indicates deeper problems. If it was possible for people to easily charge their vehicles, most would use electricity, it's way cheaper. The fact they aren't indicates that the infrastructure just isn't there. Most people don't live in the suburbs, and I don't know for other countries but here like 70% of parking is done on the street or on open parking lots. Even in larger garages, I don't think there's a single one here with more than a token 4-5 charging stations. We have to first fix that before electric cars become viable for the majority of people. If this bans normal ICE cars but leaves plug-in hybrids I think that's actually fine, since as infrastructure improves these cars will become more and more like full EVs.
That's not the point. EU wanted to go for 100% reduction in CO2 emissions from cars sold after 2035. Now car manufacturers are pushing for 90% reduction because they failed to adapt in time. In reality there's only 30% reduction in hybrids. Even if the infrastructure is there and we reach 90% of battery driving for plug-ins that's still less than the initial plan. But there are no plans to actually achieve the 90% battery usage so it's all bullshit. They simply want to keep selling gas engines and plug-in hybrids are just the latest lie they want to use to avoid the ban. The first lie was e-fuels but I guess they realized now this is not going to work.
They want to keep making money on polluting technology and it's up to us to figure out how to create the infrastructure to make it less polluting. It's plastic recycling all over again.
In Madrid there are several car sharing services. One of them is a joint venture between a major oil company (Repsol) and Kia. I use them sometimes. I have never seen one charging, or used one with an electrical charge. They always run on the ICE engine.
"Opens new tab" ? Is this written by AI?
No, it's just an artifact of copying reuters
What reset? This sounds made up.
Complete switch to electric will not happen until governments make it possible to essentially get one basic electric vehicle for pennies by trading your old ICE vehicle.
Otherwise guess what, the vast majority of people don't have 30.000 to drop on a new buy just because maa environment. Saying that, I am all in for a complete switch when there will be affordable cars that can do at least 700km on a charge.
The ban was only on the sale of new cars, not the existing cars on the road.
Yall missing the point!
EVs have many flaws. They are not the future.
What all this means is enforced :
. Slavery
. Poverty
. Complete loss of privacy
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Just because something has flaws doesn't make it bad.
Things are relative. They are better than ICE counterparts for the environment, saying any different is ignoring a mountain of data and evidence to push propaganda.
All of which has nothing to do with what engine is in the car.
Opens new tab?
had to hide the porn one
Okay, but give us better public transport options instead!
Data is the new oil, where you will be poor and have no privacy.
https://apnews.com/article/auto-car-privacy-3674ce59c9b30f2861d29178a31e6ab7
It would only allow cars emitting 90%less vs 2021 level. It’s not much of a change and it leaves room for innovation. It’s not that bad.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/