this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
267 points (97.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9804 readers
16 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] suodrazah@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So you mean "Lithium is way worse" not EVs?

[–] mr_washee_washee@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

in a nutshell yea. bring up an ev that isnt dependant on rare earth metals and i would gladly embrace it, cause even the motors use rare neodymium

[–] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@mr_washee_washee @suodrazah So do wind farms. Are you opposed to them too?

[–] mr_washee_washee@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

use solar. silicium is abundant

[–] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

@mr_washee_washee How do you propose to balance the grid without wind?

Solar panels are indeed mostly silicon, but they're not entirely made of silicon. They also use "minor metals" (indium, gallium etc) in smaller quantities. They certainly use copper, steel and aluminium.

The inverter for a solar panel might contain rare earths. The big ones for long range HVDC interconnectors very likely do.

Whatever we build will involve some amount of mining.

However given the enormous cost of the status quo, renewables are a step forward.

[–] mr_washee_washee@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@mr_washee_washee Either way, the technologies already exist and need to be deployed rapidly.

The alternative is burning more fossil fuels.

Which is both more expensive and *vastly* more dangerous. We need rapid progress towards sustainability, because it's the *total* carbon emitted that matters.

Emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest (in fact they must peak as soon as possible). The UK, for instance, has agreed to reduce its emissions by 68% by 2030 (compared to 1990), a target that it will almost certainly miss according to the last CCC report.

[–] mr_washee_washee@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

alot of countries are going to miss their net 0 emission goal. there's no need to compromise one own life style if governements arent serious about radical change. might as well keep driving ur fossil fuel car; u can't stop private jets from flying or corproates from making extra revenue on the exepnse of the environement

@mr_washee_washee I've seen people argue that nuclear actually has the lowest material requirement overall. I'm not entirely convinced by that argument though!

By all means reduce the number of cars, but some of the things we will need to do to achieve that will take significant time - especially fixing housing and building more rail.

However there will still be vehicles, even if they are only buses.

[–] mr_washee_washee@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

i am no expert of the subject, but only time will prove what direction of research is sustainable, be it for renewable energy production, or 0 carbon emitting transportation.

also mr_wahsee_washee is me

@mr_washee_washee Delaying the technologies that we know work, continuing to dig up more fossil fuels, and giving it a veneer of credibility by funding more research is a classic delayer tactic. Delay being a stage of denial.