this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
503 points (98.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5393 readers
205 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Electric cars are not THE solution.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 53 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I've been saying this for a while. Not only that, but electric cars are substantially heavier than their ICE-powered equivalents, meaning both tires and roads wear out more quickly. Plus, there's a ton of pollution and other environmental damage caused by battery production that at least partly offsets the lack of tailpipe emissions.

As loathe as I am to admit, because I'm a car enthusiast and I enjoy driving, cars cannot be the default mode of transportation everywhere indefinitely; they will always need to exist, but should mostly be for small centres with no capacity to implement transit infrastructure and last mile type of things.

Plus, there’s a ton of pollution and other environmental damage caused by battery production that at least partly offsets the lack of tailpipe emissions.

The battery production pollution is an issue, however one thing to keep in mind is that once the minerals are out of the ground they can be recycled, unlike drilling for oil. When looked at on a long timeline the battery for an electric vehicle is a lot cleaner than everything needed to power an ICE vehicle.

That said, there's always room for improvement and we should never get complacent. But we don't avoid innovation just because it isn't perfect.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 25 points 2 weeks ago

It's not just tailpipe emissions, though - there's an entire supply chain of extraction, shipping, refining, delivery that's needed to get fuel to your local gas station.

The fossil fuel industry always wants to compare the total environmental damage of an EV with just what comes out of the tailpipe of an internal combustion vehicle. Don't fall for it.

[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

This should be the definition of ‘letting perfect be the enemy of good’ Please stop using false oil lobby talking points to attack the transition to electric cars. Electric cars are an order of magnitude better for the environment than petrol/diesel, stop fighting big oils battle for them. Now let’s talk about how we can reduce road journeys through public transport, and reduce environmental impact of tires.

[–] Snoopey@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Is that true about the tires though? Electric car tires are designed to be substantially tougher because of the increase in weight, do they actually shed more material?

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's no such thing as an "electric car tire." They just use standard passenger vehicle tires rated for the appropriate weight class.

"Tougher" just means they handle more weight by holding higher air pressure, so they'll have more layers of steel, kevlar, canvas, etc. The materials that makes contact with the road still wear the same.

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There is in fact such a thing as an "electric car tire".

Fundamentally you are correct that they are in essence just tires rated for the weight class, but there's more to it than just that.

Electric car tires are usually made with a stiffer rubber than comparable combustion cars, this is mostly to handle the additional weight, but they also stagger the tread pattern, and some have foam inside them, both to improve the noise and acoustics of them. Something that wasn't a problem when there were a noisy combustion engine running. But in an electric car you don't have the engine noise, and therefore hear a lot more of the wheel noise.

None of this help with the particle emissions, but there is in fact such a thing as an electric car tire.

Engineering Explained has a great video if you are curious: https://youtu.be/8pM9o2Ifcro

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vodka@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You can't really engineer away the need for friction, and if there's friction there is going to be wear.

If EV tires were much better than normal tires with the same grip levels and somehow magically less wear, all tires would adopt that technology.

Not that I'm a materials scientist, but EV tires don't seem much different than other "economy" tires, other than a higher load rating.

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

There is actually a lot of small details that make EV tires different than regular tires. Nothing that helps with particle emissions, though:

https://youtu.be/8pM9o2Ifcro

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago

Good thing DOGE and the rest of the Trump fueled Republicans are foaming at the mouth to completely eliminate federal funding for the California high speed rail project. Thank God they're going to save us from affordable transportation for the masses in favor of continuing to murder the planet actively by distributing microplastics into every square millimeter of the Earth.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

If we had those flying cars we were promised, this wouldn't be an issue.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 48 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Given how terrible humans are at driving, I think flying cars are a horrible idea.

[–] nesc@lemmy.cafe 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Self-flying AI cars! Think about possibilities! 🫰🏾

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think it's only a matter of time until we get there with drones.

Not the military kind...the ones with four rotors that can already pilot a course and land themselves when batteries run low.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] exothermic@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’m looking forward to all the noise pollution. Drones, drones everywhere

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Yet another example of how pretty much every problem is, at its heart, a zoning problem:

  • Microplastics? Too much driving, because trip origins and destinations are too far apart to be walkable.
  • Greenhouse gas emissions from cars? Too much driving because not enough walkability.
  • Greenhouse gas emissions from housing? Poor efficiency because too many single-family homes exposed on all sides instead of high-density housing with shared walls.
  • Greenhouse gas emissions from concrete production? Using way more of it than we really need to build huge amounts of unnecessary parking (and much wider streets than we'd need for bikes + transit + only delivery vehicles).
  • High housing prices? Not enough housing density.
  • Obesity? Sedentary lifestyles, i.e., not enough gym of life.
  • Racism? Redlining.
  • Wealth inequality? (Among other things), protecting rich landowners from market forces by eliminating competition from multifamily developers that would build out the land to its highest and best use.

See also, this video: The Housing Crisis is the Everything Crisis. He almost gets it, but fails to connect that very last dot, which is that the housing crisis is itself caused by bad, density-restricting zoning!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 3ntranced@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

We just need to swap all roads out with big orange hot wheels tracks. I don't know if it'd solve the problem but at least it's a suggestion and it'd be sick as hell.

[–] darthsid@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago

Omg can you imagine? Instead of traffic lights we’d have boosters throwing us into loop de loops 😍

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can I yell vrrrrrrrooooommmmmmmm on the loops?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 28 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Does anyone know of another efficient mode of transportation that has near-zero surface friction?

Because that would be a gamechanger

[–] Droechai@lemm.ee 33 points 2 weeks ago

There are some vehicles that go on iron wheels, on a special kind of iron road that are very efficient. Only bad parts are costly initial investment and difficulties to scale up if the existing network gets overloaded (such as the Swedish rail system who has been over "maximum" capacity for a long time which has put needed maintenance on hold at many places)

[–] moonbunny@sh.itjust.works 25 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe there’s some kind of a wheel, like a metal wheel that could just glide across narrow metal surfaces that could follow a set path….

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

imagine if it had a flange, so around turns the wheels could hook into the the metal surfaces so they wouldn't go off them, that would sure be neat

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Actually the flanges are only an additional safe guard. The train wheels are actually a bit cone shaped which makes then self-centering on their own, even without the flange: https://youtu.be/Nteyw40i9So

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

'Train'? What is this 'Train' you speak of?

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh! You must be from the land of the free! I'm sorry...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 27 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The solution is fewer and lighter vehicles. Everyone purchasing oversized EVs is the exact opposite of the solution.

Mass Transit (trains and light rail) Pushbikes, e-bikes, Subcompact, and micro/Kei cars are the answer.

[–] darthsid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Let’s bring back post world war 2 motorbikes, affordable, reliable, unbeatable.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Polluting, inefficient, unsafe, noisy.

If you go to South East Asian countries where the main form of transport is post WW2 motorbikes, you will notice that they aren’t the safest or most comfortable places to live.

If you have a western budget, however, you can transcend the day-to-day hazards and live in a resort for a pittance.

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Polluting - I don't think so, except they're 2 stroke engines, which are rare, nowadays. These days you see even more and more electric bikes.

Inefficient - People often go 2, 3, 4 people on a bike that uses maybe 3 l/100km (78 MPG) or pull trailers wich stuff loaded, while using less space than a car.

Unsafe - totally less safe for the people on the vehicle. I don't know about pedestrians. However, a lot of the accidents happen, because poor education to get the license, if any; hardly any law enforcement and poor vehicle maintenance.

Noisy - not more than a ICE car. Some motorbikes here have broken exhausts, which make them noisy, but that again is a lacking law enforcement and maintenance issue.

I am aware, however, that driving 2 wheel vehicles in ice and snow is not a wise idea, so while it works in SEA, it would be different in colder climates.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

There is no alternative suggested. The purpose of this movement is to tax heavy EVs. I think that makes it distraction.

The smaller the EV the more range per kwh, and so smaller batteries are needed which makes them more affordable. It is not unreasonable to tax heavy vehicles, but the punch line that motivates this piece is "EV's bad". They could have recommended micromobility for example.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Electric cars are not THE solution.

This is why I raised the topic of airless tires a while back. They're not the solution, but they last longer than traditional tires. Initially they were rated to last a lifetime, but that's not profitable so they put an end to that.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 33 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

That does not address the issue at all. The problem is that tires wear, and the particles of tire rubber that are shed are the microplastics.

[–] kinkles@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

A tire that lasts a lifetime would shed less particles than ~~one that needs replacing every so many miles~~ all the tires used in the same timeframe, would it not?

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 26 points 2 weeks ago

Here's the problem with tires.

If you want long treadwear, you use harder material. But then you get worse traction.

If you want good traction, you use softer material. But then you get worse treadwear.

If you want a car to perform safely on public roads, its tires necessarily need to wear away as they are used. Electric vehicles are presently even worse on tires, as they weigh so much more than ICE vehicles.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The reason tires need replacing is because they're relatively thin. Airless tires aren't wear-less tires.

Not to mention that airless tires make for a horrible ride.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

whatever happened to the green tire technologies that get announced by the big mfg and then never come to market.. like the mushroom based materials

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Usually stuff like that is just a distraction so companies can do greenwashing while delaying the implementation of real solutions. I’m going to guess that’s the case but, I haven’t really looked into it.

[–] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago
[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Ban tires!

The American auto industry

Lobbyists

Conservatives

The existence of hundreds of thousands of miles of asphalt paid for by the American taxpayer

Oh, right. Well, I'll just wave my finger once a year and... die, eventually.

[–] darthsid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

The other day I was wondering how miraculous tires are - fucking balloons lifting the heaviest vehicles on land.

load more comments
view more: next ›