this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
138 points (82.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43916 readers
1712 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've seen a lot of posts here on Lemmy, specifically in the "fuck cars" communities as to how Electric Vehicles do pretty much nothing for the Climate, but I continue to see Climate activists everywhere try pushing so, so hard for Electric Vehicles.

Are they actually beneficial to the planet other than limiting exhaust, or is that it? or maybe exhaust is a way bigger problem?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Aradia@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The problem is not the people who live far from decent public transport but those people who live in the city and uses it every day, on city, all roads are always for vehicles like cars and trucks, instead to be for pedestrian and for bikes. On bad connected places a car can make sense but most of the people in city have cars when they rarely go outside, they could rent a car and would be cheaper for them for those days they need to move away. About EV, I think we still have the same problem, but the waste it generates keeps on ground instead flying on air.

[โ€“] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

You summarized perfectly the problem I see with the "fuck cars" crowd. They never acknowledge the need for cars in some cases. America's population centers are definitely large cities where public transportation SHOULD be championed, but there has to be an acknowledgement of the rural population (around 15% in America I believe) where cars are a necessity.

[โ€“] Kepabar@startrek.website 13 points 10 months ago

The rural population isn't the issue, it's suburbia which is where the majority of the US population lives.

It's not dense enough for public transportation to be viable and it's zoned in a way that makes pedestrian traffic a non starter.

Suburbia causes a lot of problems. I understand why it exists - owning a house with a yard is nice. I personally wouldn't want to give that up to live in an urban environment if I didn't have to

[โ€“] Uranium3006@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

but why should that 15% derail conversations about the vast majority of the rest of the country?

[โ€“] Hello_there@kbin.social -5 points 10 months ago

Because the 'founders' made the Senate and house to be anti urban

[โ€“] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz -2 points 10 months ago

They never acknowledge the need for cars in some cases.

That's just not true. The movement is about boosting alternative transport. It's not about eradicating cars.