They don't address car dependancy

Some people got convinced that banning thermal personal vehicles was incompatible with the bigger picture goals. You can develop a 15min city and a public transport system while also banning thermal personal vehicles.

I don't know what's driving this misinformation campaign about electric vehicles "polluting more" or "polluting just as much" when it takes 5 minutes of googling to find 6 reputable sources disputing both these claims

Banning the sale of new thermal cars, motorcycles, vespas does help with climate change in the long run

Some people have taken it upon themselves to refuse some incremental improvements and it's only leading to doing nothing

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

They are the better alternative compared to combustion considering the carbon dioxide footprint.

Yet, of course, to really address climate change and the destruction of our planet we need to get away from cars.

Let's think then of electric VEHICLES. you know buses, trucks included.

Being against electric cars, at this moment, is being for combustion cars.

They certainly improve noise and air pollution gigantically, Christ knows how fecked I am having to grow up around cars.

Obviously nothings perfect, but I'll take a world of EVs over a world of combustion vehicles.

While they don't address it directly, they do provide a route to address it. The issue is a lot of governments are pushing electric cars, and washing their hands of the rest.

There are 3 issues with electric cars.

• They are cars - Obvious to most here, but better public transport can vastly improve the situation, regardless of how the car is powered.

• Batteries - Electric car batteries are far from perfect. Their range is reduced and they are heavier. There is also the issue of lithium, and/or other chemicals used in the batteries.

• Power source - An electric car is only as clean as its energy supply. Powering it from a coal power station is far worse than using renewables.

Counter to these however.

• Cars will still be needed, to some extent. Electric are the least worst option we have NOW. We no longer have time to wait for a better option, or find a perfect solution.

• Lithium can be recycled; we currently don't, due to the small amounts, but this will change as economics adjust . Also, we are not actually that short of it, it's just not be economically valuable enough to mine on a larger scale. Range can be adjusted as tech improves. We can also change how we operate. E.g. Combining out of town parking and charging with public transport options is an excellent way to get people using public transport on a large scale again, in an organic manner.

• Power wise, it's easy to shift an electric car from fossil fuel to renewables. It's very difficult to shift an ICE car. This is also something we should be doing far more anyhow (but no-one seems to be interested in improving the grid!). On a side note, even accounting for various losses. The sheer efficiency factor of a power station means it's still better to burn oil to run an electric car, than to run the car directly on the oil.

Don't get me wrong, the fixation on electric cars is dangerous, but they are still required as part of the solution. We just need to actually work on that solution. While the right, in politics, has a tendency to "circle the wagons" which causes a significant number of problems. The left has a tendency towards "circular firing squads". We should all be careful not to help kill ideas and projects that pull in vaguely the right direction, even if it's not exactly what we want.

No matter what we do or suggest, troglodytes are going to look at the step up or downstream from that and claim that nothing matters because nothing is "as good" so why bother.

Reject nihilism.

they definitely address it, they just are definitely not the ultimate solution.

There's no alternative to a working public transport. Period.

Ok bikes. 😁

I have a sustainable vehicle powered by ramen and tofu. It's called a bicycle, and it's one of our best weapons against climate change.

First step is REDUCE. Then RE-USE, then Recycle. Tesla cars do none of this. Muskrat is a capitalist who is exploiting the electric care concept.

EVs can also act as a battery for the home and a back up generator. A lot more useful than just a car. Now I know this sublulemmy is urbanist, but the sorts of people to buy a car don't live in a city.

Cars itself are actually only a small part of climate change. The major part of it is form construction, planes, and electricity. We can fix electricity with sustainable energy, fixing planes is a lot harder as of now. Fixing construction seems impossible for now.

We'll run out of time before we we hit zero. We are already too fast to break before the cliff. All we can hope for is a soft landing, and we need everything for that. Even nuclear energy (go 100% on nuclear!)

They have a lower emissions after a few years even with higher initial manufacturing emissions even in areas with coal as the source of power, just takes longer to recoup. https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM?si=ythLgdv93D6zC3WM

They allow for government to control the means of electricity production that powers these vehicles

While not perfect it is a decent step to remove the individual citizen's direct pollution and leave control In the hands of government. This is where the change needs to happen for manufacturing and other large scale polluters.