Right is possible if economy is local. Left is actual real life because of capitalism needs bigger markets in in small areas for maximing profits.

Sorry, chief. We don't do nuanced thought in this community.

They are a patch, not a solution.

I'd call them less a solution, more an attempt at harm reduction.

And the only things they'll properly resolve are tailpipe emissions and idling noise. At least one of which is of no concern when dealing with the externalities of car traffic.

If you really want to solve the environmental impact of transportation, you minimise the need for transportation. Put homes and workplaces close together, offer mass alternatives for the pairs where you really do need motorised mobility solutions, and minimise the number of situations where it's more convenient to take a car. Ban on-street parking and heavily tax off-street parking. Need to park your car in the city? Hope you can afford to pay an arm and a leg. Oh, you can't? Looks the Park & Ride at the train station two towns over is the nearest alternative. Don't worry though, the trains go six times an hour and a day ticket is, like, four quid max.

Solution to what though? Emissions are reduced but not eliminated: when accounting for greenhouse gases emitted during production, EVs start outperforming traditional cars only after 5+ years of use (depending on the type of car). And other factors like tyre dust and road maintenance (due to EVs' higher weight) or resources needed to replace/recycle old batteries are not even included in that balance.

EVs might still be a net positive when compared with traditional cars, but both pale in comparison to public transport and infrastructure oriented towards bikes and pedestrians.

Ah yes conservatism, the famous side of rational thinking and anti-bias thoughts, such as avoiding the perfect solution bias
Your comment having so many upvotes is disgusting

This is a lot like this Bors comic https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi

Do honest people really migrate to "climate change is fake and queer people are a threat" because someone was mean to them online? Probably not often.

I think both sides are lacking nuance here. If you shit on people getting electric vehicles or just thinking of getting one because that's not far enough: fuck you. But also, for people that just switched or are thinking of getting one but then see something like this and slam into reverse and say "I'm gonna support ICE cars till the day I die to spite those overly hostile woke liberals": fuck you too.

People should be able to take the information in a more nuanced way, and should stop swinging from extreme to extreme which has led to the current fucked state of politics

Oh no, some liberals were being mean to me on the internet. Guess I'll just vote against my own interests to spite them...

I think the point is that compared to public transport when transporting a large number of people, they are inefficient.

A reasonable comment in this community? Get out!

If you only have the option to drive and it looks like it will never change where you live, then yes, driving electric is better than driving an ICE car. You're not the problem for needing to live your life with the limited options you have access to. However, that does not mean the intrinsic problems with cars disappear the instant they become electric, and this meme is mainly meant to respond to the techbro people who think just because electric cars exist now it makes transit obsolete or it solves literally everything wrong with cars in general, and use that to actively resist public transportation or attempt to turn public opinion against it. I should have added additional context to make that clearer.

People are advocating for denser cities with better public transport, not for you to use the shitty bus in your suburb.

but if you don’t…

...then either you're a farmer or the area you live was built wrong and needs to be fixed.

It does, because the batteries for electric cars have a reliance on rare earth metals.

Lol the downvotes are hilarious. We will not solve climate change with electric cars. Public transit in walkable communities with niche uses for cars and trucks are the only way forward.

"Does anyone here have enough humility to understand there's a similar checklist of things an automobile solves?"

Firstly, this feels a very confrontational way of phrasing the question. It carries with it the assumption that you are right and everyone else is wrong, which I don't feel is a helpful way of approaching a discussion.

Yes, of course people realise that car ownership is the only viable solution for individuals at the current time. You have engaged with a community who are passionate about and engaged in urban planning, so they are going to be more switched onto the challenges than most.

The entire point is that on their own they are not a sustainable solution long-term. They are hugely inefficient energy and space-wise, their infrastructure causes massive damage to the communities they carve through (see this Guardian article for a breakdown of some NA case studies), and they currently cause a huge amount of environmental damage.

So, the question becomes: how can we remove the need for car ownership? There's a host of ideas, from better high speed rail links to eliminate long-distance trips, to micromobility and demand responsive transport for short-distance, to better constructing our cities to begin with to allow for amenities to be walkable. Are we going to eliminate car use in rural areas? Of course not; there's no point running a bus service for a village of 10 people and a goat. Can we eliminate 99% of car trips for those in built up areas, improving air quality, walkability, and accessibility? That should absolutely be the goal.

TL;DR: hurr durr fuck cars