this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
55 points (95.1% liked)

Europe

1271 readers
417 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 2 months ago (1 children)

oh man, so little was achieved and now they are going to roll even that back. With Meloni, the RN in France and the CDU in Germany soon, we‘re completely fucked.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Nah she is just shilling for the high end car builders of Italy. I am fine with gas engines in cars. As long as the fuels are taxed at 5 euro per liter from 2030 adding a euro per liter per year. This goes for bio fuels too.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Hopefully the composition of the EP doesn't change enough in the future to repeal it. Here in Czechia the 'Motorist' party literally won two of our 20 seats.

[–] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't sound fair to the people that just can't afford a new car. The ban is about no new combustion cars getting into the market, not to say nobody can drive on from 2030 onwards.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes you are right.. maybe delay the whole ordeal by a decade or decade and a half. Then the electric second hand will be common.

[–] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think a absolute ban is necessary, the phase out already started, most new car models are electric and most car companies for the mass market focus their future on electric. The ban as it currently is should do the job just fine. Most people will see the new electric cars as great, they save a lot of money and the tendency is towards even more.

I think investing in public transport is the most important, especially in Germany...

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I'd love to see additional tax increases after a specific year. If you want to drive an Oldtimer or a gas powered supercar.. it should be expensive to operate.

But indeed only once full electrification has reached normal families.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This goes for bio fuels too.

That part makes considerably less sense than the rest of your comment.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not really. Biofuels are better than normal oil-derived fuels in terms of excess CO2 being dispersed in the environment, but they are still overall bad. They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx, and they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.

Biofuels are definitely better than normal petrol or diesel, but they are still overall bad, and I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.

[–] federalreverse 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Depending on where biofuels are produced, the land use changes can make them worse for climate than fossil fuels. E.g. there was a recent study on US biofuels.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx

Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).

they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.

So don't be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!

I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.

This isn't wrong, but it's a massive strawman argument because doing that would be idiotic anyway. Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified. (In other words, they're the answer to "but what about my [insert special-snowflake reason why I can't ride a damn bike/train/electric car]?" pearl-clutching.)

There is no one solution to sustainability, and pretending there is is a fallacy.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 2 months ago

Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).

Tell that to those dying because of those toxic emissions.

So don’t be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!

Sure, I agree, but if you want biofuels to be a significant enough part of the fuel mix, you need to make them at scale, which means you need incentives and by incentives I mean making them profitable enough so that it makes sense to invest billions into making them. At that point it becomes a race towards who can make the most at the lowest price to make the most money, and guess where that brings you. Otherwise, if you limit fuel crops, you'll get a very small production at a high price, since the scalability and possibility for growth will be limited.

Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified

This is really what I'd like to see, using the massive taxes on fuels to finance sustainable mobility like trams, rail, bikes etc

Biofuels are great and all to fill that gap, but the moment they become more profitable or cheaper than fossil fuels, it's the moment you're gonna have massive problems.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Biofuels use valuable land that can be used to feed people or be nature. No need for it to be used to allow some rich asshole to drive a car.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Only if you're stupid about it and overuse them. My diesel VW runs on 100% biodiesel made from waste fat from chicken processing that would've gotten landfilled or something otherwise.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

That's maybe fine for small scale usage. And even then I don't know if this is actually good. In any case your USA case won't scale well. I also don't know if it is even legal in my country.

I more meant large scale biofuel cultivation instead of food and nature. Cause then these companies will start eating up agro subsidies etc while keeping polluting cars on the road.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

...and she's someone who knows a thing or two about "ideological madness" -- firsthand!

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.de 16 points 2 months ago

It's not a ban. Anyway, it'd still be ideological madness to take it back.

[–] Oisteink@feddit.nl 12 points 2 months ago

Lol - her homeland is burning, but thats not enough! More fire!!!

[–] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 5 points 2 months ago

The fash people talking about idiological madness... Man what a time to be alive...

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago

I would like to point out that, for the most part, not even car brands want to keep selling ICE vehicles.