urbanSTL

framer wrote: ↑

Mar 02, 2023

JFC, are you guys still going on about this? Seriously? I'm kidding around trying to have a light-hearted moment about a totally meaningless pet peeve, and people are genuinely worked up over it? 

Insert world's biggest eyeroll here. 

Um actually eye rolling was more often considered flirtatious in Shakespeare's time ("Into the chamber wickedly he stalks... Rolling his greedy eyeballs in his head", Rape of Lucrece), and dismissive eye rolling only became the near-exclusive usage in the past half-century or so.

Engines are generally understood to burn fuel so EVs are said to be moved by motors, but obviously the word "motor" predates the usage of electricity so it's not as though that's the only correct context to use it.

I love UrbanSTL, home of fantastic takes such as EVs are bad for the environment and gun control is regressive and anti-poor people.

kipfilet wrote: ↑

Mar 02, 2023

I love UrbanSTL, home of fantastic takes such as EVs are bad for the environment and gun control is regressive and anti-poor people.

An EV is (probably) better for the environment than a comparable gas car. However, replacing usable gas cars with new EVs is a false economy in the same way that buying clothes at a 50% sale and throwing away all your old clothes is a false economy; it's fine if you need a new car, but turning over the fleet prematurely (e.g. Cash for Clunkers) is poor policy. EVs also require resources like lithium to build, and it's an open question as to how we mine enough lithium without destroying the environment in the process (or employing child labor). Furthermore, simply switching to EVs does not do enough to address the energy waste of shuttling everyone around in personal steel cages or the various harms caused by them.

So yes, EVs are (probably) a marginal improvement, marketed to people as "buy an EV, save the environment", and uncritically accepting that framing enables the injustices hiding behind simple answers. Every effort invested in perpetuating car infrastructure is effort that could've gone toward better public transit and urban forms.

So should we reduce dependency on cars where possible? Yes! That's absolutely the best outcome. Can we eliminate vehicles entirely? Nope, not a chance, 

Even if the entire country decided to unify and decide that cars are bad and should go away it would take decades, even generations to rebuild the nation's entire infrastructure. Realistically cars are going to remain a necessary evil for the foreseeable future. The US is too vast and has spent decades building infrastructure that requires them, and in rural areas they'll likely never go away unless we revert to horse and buggy carriages.

And while EVs as a meaningful replacement of a majority of ICE vehicles is a ways off, switching from ICE vehicles to EVs is realistically a faster solution than #1 convincing folks they don't need cars and #2 building the public transportation infrastructure needed to enable that switch.

So then do two things!  Push hard to advance efforts to eliminate the need for cars in areas where that's practical, but also to switch to more environmentally responsible vehicles where it's not. 

As for the environmental impact of the EVs themselves: That depends greatly on the EV.  The GMC Hummer EV is not environmentally friendly, period*. But on the other end of the spectrum, I have watched the development of the Aptera EV with great anticipation. Caveats about startups and vaporware aside, theirs is a great (close to production!) concept that requires *much* smaller batteries and can at least partially recharge itself. Most EVs sit somewhere in the middle, realistically, and efforts to reduce the environmental impact of battery lifecycles (creation, use, disposal) are being researched.

If you have fewer vehicles needed, and the ones that remain needed cause less harm overall to the environment then you have measurable improvement.

-RBB


*But even in a 'worst case' like this, it can be argued that the genuinely profligate Hummer EV does serve a a couple legitimate purposes, namely: 

1. Serving as a technology &innovation platform/showcase
[ul]
2. New auto features often are engineered for expensive/luxury cars because their high prices can recoup the $$ needed to fund such innovations
3. Then those trickle down to more reasonable models once proven. 
[/ul] [ol] [ul]
4. For example, the same 'Ultium' platform GM developed to build the Hummer is also the basis for the much smaller and more reasonably priced Equinox EV.
[/ul]

[li]Getting guys in Bro Dozer gas guzzler trucks to consider an EV at all.[/li]

• Once they figure out EVs can be as 'awesome' as lifted F-250s - which are also 'worst case' ICE vehicles from an environmental standpoint - then it's more likely that those go away too
• This isn't solving the environmental damages by any means, but can be considered at least somewhat of a mitigation. Small win.

[/ol]

Excellent nuance, @rbb

The best solution to car dependency would be to have never built the expanses of car dependent suburbia surrounding every major US city. Now that they are built we as a society are unfortunately locked into using cars. We can improve transit, walkability and density in our urban cores and even the suburbs to an extent, but it's unrealistic to expect that places like Ballwin or Dardenne Prairie to ever achieve the density and connectivity to reasonably live a car free lifestyle.

Places like that exist everywhere and they are largely unfixable

Wish the urban renewal ghouls gave up that easily.

rbb wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

So then do two things!  Push hard to advance efforts to eliminate the need for cars in areas where that's practical, but also to switch to more environmentally responsible vehicles where it's not.

The problem with this sort of argument is that in reality the result is always "do the part that makes money for corporations and not the part that fundamentally addresses the issue." The government will happily take the Environmentalism credit for installing some EV chargers or giving a tax credit to buy more EVs but will never seriously consider comprehensive zoning changes to reduce car dependency. Everyone involved will agreeably swear up and down that "of course EVs aren't the entire solution to climate change" before they subsidize EVs and pat themselves on the back for solving climate change.

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

The best solution to car dependency would be to have never built the expanses of car dependent suburbia surrounding every major US city. Now that they are built we as a society are unfortunately locked into using cars. We can improve transit, walkability and density in our urban cores and even the suburbs to an extent, but it's unrealistic to expect that places like Ballwin or Dardenne Prairie to ever achieve the density and connectivity to reasonably live a car free lifestyle.

Places like that exist everywhere and they are largely unfixable

A counterpoint to this is that actually public transportation in Canadian suburbs is pretty good, even with land uses and densities that are pretty similar to US suburbs. Several years ago I stayed in a suburb of Montreal which looked very similar to a US suburb (spread out, car oriented, lawns and garages, etc) and there was a bus nearby that came every 10-15 minutes that went to the nearest Metro stop (which was relatively far away in a more urban location). 

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

The best solution to car dependency would be to have never built the expanses of car dependent suburbia surrounding every major US city. Now that they are built we as a society are unfortunately locked into using cars. We can improve transit, walkability and density in our urban cores and even the suburbs to an extent, but it's unrealistic to expect that places like Ballwin or Dardenne Prairie to ever achieve the density and connectivity to reasonably live a car free lifestyle.

Places like that exist everywhere and they are largely unfixable

A counterpoint to this is that actually public transportation in Canadian suburbs is pretty good, even with land uses and densities that are pretty similar to US suburbs. Several years ago I stayed in a suburb of Montreal which looked very similar to a US suburb (spread out, car oriented, lawns and garages, etc) and there was a bus nearby that came every 10-15 minutes that went to the nearest Metro stop (which was relatively far away in a more urban location). 

But then someone can critique how inefficient it is to run busses out to the suburbs every 10-15 minutes instead of one person driving an EV and how much material it takes to build and maintain metro tracks, and how many trees were cut down to lay those tracks and, actually, the wires in the electric cables is worse than fuel consumption.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

rbb wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

So then do two things!  Push hard to advance efforts to eliminate the need for cars in areas where that's practical, but also to switch to more environmentally responsible vehicles where it's not.

The problem with this sort of argument is that in reality the result is always "do the part that makes money for corporations and not the part that fundamentally addresses the issue." The government will happily take the Environmentalism credit for installing some EV chargers or giving a tax credit to buy more EVs but will never seriously consider comprehensive zoning changes to reduce car dependency. Everyone involved will agreeably swear up and down that "of course EVs aren't the entire solution to climate change" before they subsidize EVs and pat themselves on the back for solving climate change.

Yep, people are self-interested and will often do what's easiest and what makes them feel and/or look good at the expense of anyone who's not them. Which is why I said it will be necessary to "push hard" to do the other thing too.

All I'm saying is EVs are a portion of the solution - not the whole thing.  If we're not *also* pursuing migration from gas power to electric power (as well as battery lifecycle improvements in parallel) then we're not doing all we can.

-RBB

rbb wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

rbb wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2023

So then do two things!  Push hard to advance efforts to eliminate the need for cars in areas where that's practical, but also to switch to more environmentally responsible vehicles where it's not.

The problem with this sort of argument is that in reality the result is always "do the part that makes money for corporations and not the part that fundamentally addresses the issue." The government will happily take the Environmentalism credit for installing some EV chargers or giving a tax credit to buy more EVs but will never seriously consider comprehensive zoning changes to reduce car dependency. Everyone involved will agreeably swear up and down that "of course EVs aren't the entire solution to climate change" before they subsidize EVs and pat themselves on the back for solving climate change.

Yep, people are self-interested and will often do what's easiest and what makes them feel and/or look good at the expense of anyone who's not them. Which is why I said it will be necessary to "push hard" to do the other thing too.

All I'm saying is EVs are a portion of the solution - not the whole thing.  If we're not *also* pursuing migration from gas power to electric power (as well as battery lifecycle improvements in parallel) then we're not doing all we can.

-RBB

It's not just a matter of not doing all we can. If EVs are used to "greenwash" car culture then broadly speaking it's actively worsening the environment. Which is basically what's happening.

The Tesla Model Y is now the world's best selling car. Pretty amazing, really. 

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/2373 ... r-electric

framer wrote: ↑

May 27, 2023

The Tesla Model Y is now the world's best selling car. Pretty amazing, really. 

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/2373 ... r-electric

I hope they manage to avoid giving this car a firmware update that murders people or intentionally breaks the law.

The EV revolution will end being one of the greatest boondoggles in history.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-AA1d6gDF

Native Americans and environmentalists block (for now) Nevada lithium mine that would be worlds largest.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireSto ... -100424347

How does that compare to the money wasted on AVs and clean coal?

leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑

Jun 28, 2023

The EV revolution will end being one of the greatest boondoggles in history.

bc the trump admin went full stupid with Lordstown?  

GSA is buying literally millions of EVs from light duty now to medium duty by 2030 and heavy by 2035 for all the military installations and other Gov agencies.  Ford Lighting is replacing all other ICE trucks since its the only option right now. 

The new electric Amazon delivery vans would make an awesome campervan. I look forward to when they move to gen 2 and start selling off gen 1 fleet. I'll be first in line

Wait, how can a company file for bankruptcy when it has "significant cash on hand and is debt-free"?

Wonder how many car companies with gasoline engines went bankrupt when Henry Ford started mass producing with the Model T assembly line?

I guess my point is that there will be an incentive for EVs to be here to stay based on among other things

- Less parts, less moving parts and therefore cheaper to build
- Less parts, less moving parts and therefore more automation, think Henry Ford and his Model T.   
- Finally, Telsa has shown that the Automakers can have a play in delivering the energy for powering such vehicles over its lifetime.   Wonder if Henry Ford ever regretted that Ford wasn't in the energy business and make no mistake it is a big reason why they cut a deal with Telsa to get access to their charging platform.   Heck, Ford can get say 10% cut of the charging fee it is still huge versus the 0% cut they get every time I stop by my local Chevron station everytime I fill my Ford Fusion or Explorer

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jun 28, 2023

How does that compare to the money wasted on AVs and clean coal?

ACAB (all cars are bad)

EVs are a boondoggle in the sense that society is doubling-down on an unsustainable mode of transportation. But everyone involved at the top will still be rich.