- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
You must log in or register to comment.
We all know the republicans are only pretending to care about the environment because it’s an acceptable stance. They want to pretend nothing needs to change
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The White House’s plan to boost electric vehicle adoption came under heavy fire in Congress on Wednesday.
Five Democratic Representatives joined the Republican majority to pass a bill that would prohibit the US Environmental Protection Agency from enacting stricter new corporate average fuel efficiency regulations that would require automakers to sell many more EVs by the year 2032.
But burning fewer hydrocarbons has become anathema to the modern Republican Party, and former President Donald Trump’s administration focused some of its attention on undermining the EPA’s ability to regulate tailpipe emissions or cut gasoline dependence.
A pair of Texas Democrats (Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzales), as well as Jared Golden (D-Maine), Donald Davis (D-N.C.), and Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) all voted with the Republican Party.
It says the EPA cannot “finalize, implement, or enforce” new vehicle pollution regulations that are meant to go into effect in 2027.
The White House strongly condemned the legislation, which it says would “catastrophically impair” the EPA’s ability to regulate vehicle pollution, and President Joe Biden has threatened to veto the bill should it pass the Senate and be sent to his desk.
The original article contains 356 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 48%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Question: the electricity to power EV’s still comes from fossil fuels for the most part. At least in the US. Is the net effect of getting rid of internal combustion engines significantly better for the environment, considering also the procuring of materials to make batteries and the waste batteries produce at the end of their life cycle?
A power plant has a much higher potential for better filtration systems for pollutants than an ICE automobile.
Yes, because the grid is rapidly decarbonizing, while old cars literally can’t. Remember that solar is currently the cheapest energy production infrastructure to build now, which means there’s a huge economic incentive to change to a more renewable energy grid.
Also I hate the “batteries cause waste” argument because it always conveniently ignores the fact that fossil fuel-based systems already cause similar, massive environmental destruction during mining and disposal.
I wasn’t arguing. I’m all for doing everything we can to minimize the damage we have done and continue to do. But they do cause waste. And as I’m no chemical engineer, and the technology has not been around long enough on a big enough scale that I’ve come across much about the issue, I just don’t know how bad that waste is, especially in comparison to waste produced by what we’re doing now. Hence why I asked the question. Otherwise, your explanation is helpful and I thank you.
After batteries are used up in EV’s they still have a usable lifespan in grid energy storage systems. Then after their useful life there, they can still be recycled.
The grid “not being able to handle EVs” is a farce.
EV’s aren’t going to save the planet. They’re a step in the right direction but it’s a long walk to sustainability.
Its actually more environmental friendly to use a diesel generator to load an EV, than using internal combustion engines. Their are just really inefficient.