This column gives us hope that we don't have to disrupt everything about our live and pay zillions in taxes to overhaul every city with public transportation. Thanks for the hope!
And where exactly does the electricity to fuel electric cars come from? 80% at the low end still comes from fossil fuels, giving at best a 20% reduction in fossil fuel usage. Yes, at the current rate that number will slowly change, but not close to fast enough to do anything significant towards helping negate climate change.
Let’s ignore every single other problem that cars bring: noise pollution, massive land use, incredibly expensive infrastructure, traffic, car deaths being a leading cause of death in America, loss of community, ignore every other problem that cars cause (electric cars do not solve noise pollution as the “rolling noise” of cars becomes louder than engine noise at speeds greater than 20mph. If America magically went electric overnight, we are left with an idealistic 20% reduction in fossil fuels (just in America). This would make an incredibly small dent that would become even smaller when the environmental complications of producing a new electric car for the majority of America. It would solve nothing.
Systematic change is necessary if you actually care about the world. If you care about your comforts in the upper middle class, electric cars are a great way to pretend you are trying to make the world better.
Thank you for your comment. Reading it makes me think you didn't read the article.
My point is not "If we make every car electric we solve climate, infrastructure, and every issue America faces," rather, the negative effects a car dependent society has on America are likely to be mitigated as electric and autonomous cars are rolled out. Traffic and car deaths will go down a lot. So will pollution. So will the issue of access to transportation. The problems cars pose to the climate can be mitigated as clean energy is adopted. Out of curiosity what is the systematic change you believe we need?
I did read the article. Your language in the article was not focused on mitigating affects, but more on how Americans are "better places than Europeans." You also said Americas car dependence "might be a good thing." The language in the article is not focused on mitigating affects, but rather on how it’s a good thing that we are car dependent. America is "better placed" than Europe in the same way someone holding a match and a propane tank is in a better place to cause a massive explosion. Europe doesn’t need to transition, because they have made the right choices.
It is true that in the long run, electric cars are better than what we have now, but they are nowhere near as good as other alternatives. Systematic change in America could be as simple as investing in the right places and making public transportation easier and more accessible. There is no doubt that it is much more convenient to drive a car in most of America right now, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Preaching how car dependency in the future will only be 80% as damaging when there is another option that is infinitely better doesn’t make sense to me.
I think the worst aspects of cars will be reduced by the aforementioned technology. In isolation, riding in a car is a better experience than riding public transit. Even if public transit is faster now in a world with near zero traffic it's hard to see how a train can be a more efficient mode of transportation. Cars also offer more comfort and private space.
Land use, noise pollution, and costly infrastructure are some possible remaining issues with cars like you said. I don't find noise pollution to be that big of an issue, though I think you are correct in that land use issues will remain. Road infrastructure is costly, though I think the changes you're proposing will be incredibly expensive and aren't realistic given the power of NIMBY groups and the cost of public construction in the US.
This column gives us hope that we don't have to disrupt everything about our live and pay zillions in taxes to overhaul every city with public transportation. Thanks for the hope!
What an insightful way to view such a prevalent issue. I like the way you think!
And where exactly does the electricity to fuel electric cars come from? 80% at the low end still comes from fossil fuels, giving at best a 20% reduction in fossil fuel usage. Yes, at the current rate that number will slowly change, but not close to fast enough to do anything significant towards helping negate climate change.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4
Let’s ignore every single other problem that cars bring: noise pollution, massive land use, incredibly expensive infrastructure, traffic, car deaths being a leading cause of death in America, loss of community, ignore every other problem that cars cause (electric cars do not solve noise pollution as the “rolling noise” of cars becomes louder than engine noise at speeds greater than 20mph. If America magically went electric overnight, we are left with an idealistic 20% reduction in fossil fuels (just in America). This would make an incredibly small dent that would become even smaller when the environmental complications of producing a new electric car for the majority of America. It would solve nothing.
Systematic change is necessary if you actually care about the world. If you care about your comforts in the upper middle class, electric cars are a great way to pretend you are trying to make the world better.
Thank you for your comment. Reading it makes me think you didn't read the article.
My point is not "If we make every car electric we solve climate, infrastructure, and every issue America faces," rather, the negative effects a car dependent society has on America are likely to be mitigated as electric and autonomous cars are rolled out. Traffic and car deaths will go down a lot. So will pollution. So will the issue of access to transportation. The problems cars pose to the climate can be mitigated as clean energy is adopted. Out of curiosity what is the systematic change you believe we need?
Hope this clears things up!
I did read the article. Your language in the article was not focused on mitigating affects, but more on how Americans are "better places than Europeans." You also said Americas car dependence "might be a good thing." The language in the article is not focused on mitigating affects, but rather on how it’s a good thing that we are car dependent. America is "better placed" than Europe in the same way someone holding a match and a propane tank is in a better place to cause a massive explosion. Europe doesn’t need to transition, because they have made the right choices.
It is true that in the long run, electric cars are better than what we have now, but they are nowhere near as good as other alternatives. Systematic change in America could be as simple as investing in the right places and making public transportation easier and more accessible. There is no doubt that it is much more convenient to drive a car in most of America right now, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Preaching how car dependency in the future will only be 80% as damaging when there is another option that is infinitely better doesn’t make sense to me.
I think the worst aspects of cars will be reduced by the aforementioned technology. In isolation, riding in a car is a better experience than riding public transit. Even if public transit is faster now in a world with near zero traffic it's hard to see how a train can be a more efficient mode of transportation. Cars also offer more comfort and private space.
Land use, noise pollution, and costly infrastructure are some possible remaining issues with cars like you said. I don't find noise pollution to be that big of an issue, though I think you are correct in that land use issues will remain. Road infrastructure is costly, though I think the changes you're proposing will be incredibly expensive and aren't realistic given the power of NIMBY groups and the cost of public construction in the US.