• IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    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”.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      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

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Even here in a walkable town with good transit, I still need a car so an EV is what I can do.