Sales targets meant to ensure automakers ramp up EV production to keep up with demand, says source

  • Pasta Dental
    link
    fedilink
    -6
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Why… EVs are literally green washing while also being more dangerous because of the added weight. Can’t we wait for a better alternative? I think hydrogen cars are already a better looking option, they fill up quickly and they don’t require a brunch of rare minerals mined by exploited children. Unless they consider hydrogen as EVs which they are…

    And even there, replacing ICE cars with EV cars will not change a thing in the long run. we need to ban cars altogether to solve the real environmental problems

    • @Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      611 months ago

      Yes a car free society should be the end goal but this will take a lot of time. We literally CANNOT wait for a better alternative, we needed to get rid of gas ten years ago.

      Daily reminder that “EVs aren’t a perfect solution yet” argument is what the oil industry is pushing, so they can maximise profits for an other decade at the detriment of all of us.

      • @FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Or we could just go straight to building functional public transit and walkable neighbourhoods and skip the decades of EV car dependancy.

        • Nik282000
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          But that only helps ‘the poors’ how will Ford make any money when they can only sell one bus per 1000 people?

        • @Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          011 months ago

          Maybe in the big cities in the East and BC. But out cities are so spread out and undense it would take a lot to change them, and no one has the will to.

          • @FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            211 months ago

            The majority of people need to travel within their city for most of their trips. Even small cities/towns should have walkable downtowns and basic public transit.

      • Hypx
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        Saying we “cannot wait” just means we have to move faster with better alternatives. We cannot just settle on a impractical and ultimately doomed idea. The oil industry is the ultimate winner if we are stuck with BEVs. It just means millions of people will have zero options for transportation, eventually leading to a political situation where governments around the world will have allow the continued existence of fossil fuel cars.

      • Pasta Dental
        link
        fedilink
        -211 months ago

        There have been advancements in e-fuel, which is basically fuel made from the CO2 in the air. It is almost carbon-neutral (because 100% efficiency does not exist). It is not really close to being a thing because of cost, but even that has gone way down from a few years ago. I am not saying that this should be prioritized, but being able to keep the existing infrastructure would also help keep polution down (not having to rebuild an entire infrastructure from scratch)

        BEVs are indeed not a perfect solution because they are simply not one rather they are a workaround. They go bad after 10 years and forces overconsumption and buying a new car when it would still suffice if it had a fuel engine. And they are made with permanent wearable parts so you cannot easily and cheaply replace the battery after its not enough for a small road trip.

        • Nik282000
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          fuel made from the CO2 in the air

          Like recycling, carbon capture based fuel is an oil industry distraction from the real problem: we are already so far into the red that we can not afford to put ANY more carbon in the air.

          Fossil fuels are literally fossil carbon, fuels made from plants that extracted their carbon from the air millions of years ago. Burning them is returning our atmosphere to a state that has not existed since long before any mammals were around, let alone 7 billion that rely on fragile agriculture.

          Even if EVs waste 3x the energy of an ICE to manufacture, that doesn’t matter if energy comes from a clean source (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar). Any use of fossil fuels at this point is too much.

          • Pasta Dental
            link
            fedilink
            011 months ago

            That’s the thing, that efuel thing takes the carbon from the air to convert it into usable fuel. It is almost neutral, so no new emissions, this basically stops new emissions from happening. This would put less carbon in the air than forcing car manufacturers to make batteries that use rare minerals and chemicals that pollute as much or more than a regular car, at least for the first few years of life of the EV. But then as the EV gets older, the battery starts to wear out, and soon enough it needs replacing, which means re-polluting that same huge amount for the initial manufacturing.

            This graph from Virta shows what I am talking about:

            It is true EVs cut émissions after a few years. But the thing is, when you need to replace your battery after 8-10 years, the ecological advantage goes to the bin!

            I am not saying EVs are not a bit better than ICE cars. They are, especially in the longer run and with clean electricity (especially if the battery is kept for longer). I am saying they are not the solution. Like at all. We need something truly better not incremental like this

    • BZ 🇨🇦OP
      link
      fedilink
      511 months ago

      Unless they consider hydrogen as EVs which they are…

      They do. It’s EVs, low-emission, and no-emission vehicles.

      Can’t we wait for a better alternative?

      Given the climate crisis, probably an irresponsible choice.

      • Pasta Dental
        link
        fedilink
        -311 months ago

        I don’t think waiting a few years for a better solution that will not involve making children work to mine rare earth materials and that will also not involve having to entirely rebuild the fuel to charging infrastructure.

    • @CalPal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      411 months ago

      If you can point me to a single hydrogen-charging station in my area, I would be impressed. As infrequent and underdeveloped as EV chargers are (assuming you aren’t able to get a charger installed in your house), I haven’t heard of a single hydrogen charger anywhere in the GTHA. Hell, I haven’t even heard of a single hydrogen car on market that people are pursuing in any noticeable numbers. Li-battery cars at least have some modicum of infrastructure now where, in certain urban settings, it is entirely possible to drive an EV around, and I know they exist.

      And there’s no putting that genie back in the bottle. Reduce the number of cars, sure, I would love to see that happen, but outright banning them? It’ll never happen.

    • Nik282000
      link
      fedilink
      011 months ago

      they don’t require a brunch of rare minerals mined by exploited children

      ROFL, how many phones PCs, laptops and consumer electronics have you owned and thrown away? “Think of the children” is such a transparently fake argument to dismiss EVs as the ONLY way for consumers to avoid the products of exploitation.

      • Pasta Dental
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I have never thrown away electronics if they are functional. I either keep them, sell them or give them away if they can have a second life. If they do not work I bring them to those electronic recycling bins