Its because EVs are being marketed as a green solution, not a stepping stone. If a car must exist it might as well be electric but we should be asking how do we reduce the cars that exist and their frequency of use. Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.
Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.
I highly, highly doubt it. I lived in the country with pretty good transit, but exclusively ICE cars. It was not good, not at all. Better than cars only, still not good. Good transit doesn’t eliminate cars, unfortunately, and always breathing car emissions is bad, very, very, very bad.
The only solution is to do both. Right now I live in the city with very good public transport, but still sprawling car infrastructure, the only difference is, there is a robust car emission rules, so most cars around are EVs or hybrids. It’s so, so, so much better than the first variation, it’s not even close.
I would prefer city getting rid of most of the car-centric infrastructure still, but now I have a chance to see this day, and not die of a lung cancer at a ripe age of 55
Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.
This choice you’ve presented is extremely misleading. The build out of electrified public transportation and the shift from ICE to EV cars are not in any way related choices. If the government chooses to build more public transportation, that has no effect on whether or not EVs replace ICE cars.
Which is good, but still has nothing to do with what the remaining cars are powered by. There’s no reason why it has to be “transit+ICE” instead of “transit+EV”.
My point is that we should be making the most impactful changes we can to fight climate change and environmental destruction, which means subsidies, government investments, and tax breaks are better spent on transit, density, or active transport than on EV infrastructure/incentives
Its because EVs are being marketed as a green solution, not a stepping stone. If a car must exist it might as well be electric but we should be asking how do we reduce the cars that exist and their frequency of use. Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.
I highly, highly doubt it. I lived in the country with pretty good transit, but exclusively ICE cars. It was not good, not at all. Better than cars only, still not good. Good transit doesn’t eliminate cars, unfortunately, and always breathing car emissions is bad, very, very, very bad.
The only solution is to do both. Right now I live in the city with very good public transport, but still sprawling car infrastructure, the only difference is, there is a robust car emission rules, so most cars around are EVs or hybrids. It’s so, so, so much better than the first variation, it’s not even close.
I would prefer city getting rid of most of the car-centric infrastructure still, but now I have a chance to see this day, and not die of a lung cancer at a ripe age of 55
This choice you’ve presented is extremely misleading. The build out of electrified public transportation and the shift from ICE to EV cars are not in any way related choices. If the government chooses to build more public transportation, that has no effect on whether or not EVs replace ICE cars.
The government building transit would effect the number of people who need to rely on a car.
Which is good, but still has nothing to do with what the remaining cars are powered by. There’s no reason why it has to be “transit+ICE” instead of “transit+EV”.
My point is that we should be making the most impactful changes we can to fight climate change and environmental destruction, which means subsidies, government investments, and tax breaks are better spent on transit, density, or active transport than on EV infrastructure/incentives
And the most impactful change I can make is purchasing an EV.
Since I already vote for officials who support all of those issues there is no impactful change because the alignment is already there.
There are locally impactful actions that I can participate in but none that will have the same impact as my personal choices.
The most impactful choices I could make are all illegal. The majority of them being some form of demestic terrorism.
Even here in a walkable town with good transit, I still need a car so an EV is what I can do.