I do not like the government trying to force them on people. They are very expensive to buy and to insure. The average person is going to have issues affording one.
Hybrids is what they should be pushing for most people.
I do not like the government trying to force them on people
Road vehicles make up a not so insignificant ~25% of all emissions. Reducing that as quickly as possible is necessary because we are out of time to transition. The free market has failed to make that transition so government needs to step in to prevent a wider disaster.
Walkable cities and robust public transit are god tier, far better than EVs. But where cars are unavoidable they should be electric to reduce impact.
Government’s role is to prevent disaster. This is part of it.
We are not out of time. It’s debatable if it’s even man made. The earth has warmed and cooled many times over the billions of years we’ve been around.
When I was a kid, we were predicted to freeze to death by now.
We need to remove all the money to see get an unbiased view of what’s causing the issue. Right now we have to much money thrown at its man made to get an unbiased opinion.
I agree the climate is changing. I’m not certain moving to electric will belay it any way and I drive an electric car.
The earth has warmed and cooled many times over the billions of years we’ve been around.
Who’s “we”? The human species is somewhere around 200,000 years old.
I was a kid when Mt. Pinatubo put so much ash and CO2 into the air that it changed the weather in Minnesota, where I was growing up. Human CO2 emissions are 100 times what that eruption emitted - per year.
If we don’t fix our shit now, we are going to sail past the 2.5° mark. That is going to risk a food chain collapse, which would be a mass extinction level event. And that’s only one of many of the disastrous effects.
It’s debatable if it’s even man made.
It isn’t. There are few sciences as close in agreement as climate science. The overwhelming consensus (97%) within the scientific community is that it is happening, and that it is man made.
When I was a kid, we were predicted to freeze to death by now.
Not really.
“Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
And here’s the thing about science, it gets more and more accurate year over year. So saying “they were wrong back then”, even if that wasn’t already outright inaccurate, it still misses the point. That point being that there is mountains of evidence showing that climate change is happening, and it is human caused.
Do you know how many climate tracking satellites we had in the 70s? The answer was basically zero, and nowhere near the tech of today’s it’s crazy what half a century of technological advancement can do.
We need to remove all the money to see get an unbiased view of what’s causing the issue. Right now we have to much money thrown at its man made to get an unbiased opinion.
That’s not how science or the peer review process works. The scientific method takes money to be able to experiment. Do you think climate monitoring satellites are just free?
I’m not certain moving to electric will belay it any way and I drive an electric car.
Any given person’s contribution is a drop in the bucket. But that’s not the point of transitioning. When people transition to better options en mass, it then has an effect.
Like I said, road vehicles account for ~25% of emissions. EVs aren’t carbon neutral by any means, but they are comparatively much better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
In a perfect world, the market would decide but right now, they are pushing EV. If they are going to push, it should be something that solves the problem.
I agree with you but in the real world the government is going to meddle in things best left to the free market. They could at least push something that makes sense for the average consumer.
I am sure what you mean by they left the train alone. The government is heavily involved with trains. Amtrak, for all intents, is government-run.
You can’t force people to use electric cars when they can’t afford them and there is limited benefit to most people. It is doubtful that it will ever do anything to assist the climate. There is zero evidence that electric cars are the answer.
I fully support electric cars but let the market figure it out.
You are aware that General Motors gobbled up a lot of the public transportation railway systems in the USA and scrapped them in favour of the fancy new accessible automobiles, yes? This took place between 1920 and 1950. THEN the government installed the interstate superhighway systems. More for the automobile.
I have said nothing for or against electric vehicles in my comment above, please don’t derail the conversation.
Nothing prevented other people from creating new rail systems. I wasn’t aware Gm bought rail systems. I thought they bought trollies and light rail systems.
Trollies and light rail systems are public transportation railways. The governments (state or otherwise) prevented other people from creating new rail systems. You can’t just decide to build a train system without approvals.
Anyways my whole point was, the government hardly ever “lets the market decide”. It always exerts pressure on the economy whether directly or indirectly. And it is nothing new.
I love electric cars. I own one and an ICE car.
I do not like the government trying to force them on people. They are very expensive to buy and to insure. The average person is going to have issues affording one.
Hybrids is what they should be pushing for most people.
But what about the wealthy in control? What about them!? /S
Road vehicles make up a not so insignificant ~25% of all emissions. Reducing that as quickly as possible is necessary because we are out of time to transition. The free market has failed to make that transition so government needs to step in to prevent a wider disaster.
Walkable cities and robust public transit are god tier, far better than EVs. But where cars are unavoidable they should be electric to reduce impact.
Government’s role is to prevent disaster. This is part of it.
We are not out of time. It’s debatable if it’s even man made. The earth has warmed and cooled many times over the billions of years we’ve been around.
When I was a kid, we were predicted to freeze to death by now.
We need to remove all the money to see get an unbiased view of what’s causing the issue. Right now we have to much money thrown at its man made to get an unbiased opinion.
I agree the climate is changing. I’m not certain moving to electric will belay it any way and I drive an electric car.
Who’s “we”? The human species is somewhere around 200,000 years old.
I was a kid when Mt. Pinatubo put so much ash and CO2 into the air that it changed the weather in Minnesota, where I was growing up. Human CO2 emissions are 100 times what that eruption emitted - per year.
If we don’t fix our shit now, we are going to sail past the 2.5° mark. That is going to risk a food chain collapse, which would be a mass extinction level event. And that’s only one of many of the disastrous effects.
It isn’t. There are few sciences as close in agreement as climate science. The overwhelming consensus (97%) within the scientific community is that it is happening, and that it is man made.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Not really.
“Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
And here’s the thing about science, it gets more and more accurate year over year. So saying “they were wrong back then”, even if that wasn’t already outright inaccurate, it still misses the point. That point being that there is mountains of evidence showing that climate change is happening, and it is human caused.
Do you know how many climate tracking satellites we had in the 70s? The answer was basically zero, and nowhere near the tech of today’s it’s crazy what half a century of technological advancement can do.
That’s not how science or the peer review process works. The scientific method takes money to be able to experiment. Do you think climate monitoring satellites are just free?
Any given person’s contribution is a drop in the bucket. But that’s not the point of transitioning. When people transition to better options en mass, it then has an effect.
Like I said, road vehicles account for ~25% of emissions. EVs aren’t carbon neutral by any means, but they are comparatively much better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
Imo the government shouldn’t be pushing any type of car over another. The government can rightly fuck off what people drive
In a perfect world, the market would decide but right now, they are pushing EV. If they are going to push, it should be something that solves the problem.
I agree with you but in the real world the government is going to meddle in things best left to the free market. They could at least push something that makes sense for the average consumer.
Much like they left trains alone, and let the market decide, yeah?
I am sure what you mean by they left the train alone. The government is heavily involved with trains. Amtrak, for all intents, is government-run.
You can’t force people to use electric cars when they can’t afford them and there is limited benefit to most people. It is doubtful that it will ever do anything to assist the climate. There is zero evidence that electric cars are the answer.
I fully support electric cars but let the market figure it out.
You are aware that General Motors gobbled up a lot of the public transportation railway systems in the USA and scrapped them in favour of the fancy new accessible automobiles, yes? This took place between 1920 and 1950. THEN the government installed the interstate superhighway systems. More for the automobile.
I have said nothing for or against electric vehicles in my comment above, please don’t derail the conversation.
Interstates were created for the military.
Nothing prevented other people from creating new rail systems. I wasn’t aware Gm bought rail systems. I thought they bought trollies and light rail systems.
That’s news to me, have a source for it?
Trollies and light rail systems are public transportation railways. The governments (state or otherwise) prevented other people from creating new rail systems. You can’t just decide to build a train system without approvals.
https://www.army.mil/article/198095/dwight_d_eisenhower_and_the_birth_of_the_interstate_highway_system#:~:text=Congress passed the Federal-Aid,landing strips for military aircraft.
Anyways my whole point was, the government hardly ever “lets the market decide”. It always exerts pressure on the economy whether directly or indirectly. And it is nothing new.