and no this is not an invitation for oil addicts to rant about EVs

They don't address car dependancy
Some people got convinced that banning thermal personal vehicles was incompatible with the bigger picture goals. You can develop a 15min city and a public transport system while also banning thermal personal vehicles.
I don't know what's driving this misinformation campaign about electric vehicles "polluting more" or "polluting just as much" when it takes 5 minutes of googling to find 6 reputable sources disputing both these claims
Banning the sale of new thermal cars, motorcycles, vespas does help with climate change in the long run
Some people have taken it upon themselves to refuse some incremental improvements and it's only leading to doing nothing
- I agree with you here. This meme says "address" climate change like "EVs aren't a perfect solution to climate change" as if that's some big gotcha. They're a meaningful, incremental improvement away from ICE vehicles.
  Public transit and bikes are better, but electrifying everything is also a good thing.
- What is a thermal car?
  
  An internal combustion engine (ICE) car, or in other terms one that burns fuel to generate motion.
  
  Before the Red Lectroids could fly in their (badly designed) thermal pods, they used thermal cars extensively.
- Banning the sale of new thermal cars, motorcycles, vespas does help with climate change in the long run
  Friendly reminder that "thermal cars" and fossil-fuel cars aren't necessarily the same thing. I have a car that runs on 100% biodiesel and is therefore carbon-neutral, for instance. Yes, it's niche, but it does exist -- and if we eliminated the need for the vast majority of cars by fixing our cities, then carbon-neutral ICE fuels might be able to meet a bigger fraction of the remaining need.
  
  In that scenario electric or hydrogen cars would probably be better for global food supplies. Especially in a world of increasing food scarcity due to climate change, having poor people starve while rich people turn food into fuel for their cars doesn't seem fair. You can put solar panels or wind turbines on barren land and not take up valuable arable land.
  It'd be better then releasing more carbon and further exasperating the problems, but I think there are better solutions.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
- But EVs aren't even good.
  
  The carbon footprint of building an EV is larger than an ICE, no one is disputing this. But once in operation the EV catches up and through its life is a better alternative over all. So why not take that win? Why be so vehemently against a solution that reduces carbon footprint and air pollution? Because fuck cars right?
  
  Compared to ICE? Yes, they are.

They are the better alternative compared to combustion considering the carbon dioxide footprint.
Yet, of course, to really address climate change and the destruction of our planet we need to get away from cars.
- Why?
  
  Because images like this are still relevant no matter how the cars are powered.
  Running an electric car is obviously greener than running an ICE car, but producing one is most definitely not environmentally friendly. If we can reduce the number of vehicles on the road, including electric cars, that would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions.
  There's also the case to be made around the environmental impact of (sub)urban sprawl, which generally comes about as a direct result of car dependency.
  
  Because even if cars ran on pixie dust and emitted nothing but unicorn farts, they would still be catastrophic because of the way we have to ruin our cities to make space for them. Not only is car-dependent, low-density zoning the root cause of all sorts of problems, from the housing crisis, to obesity, to microplastics (most of which come from car tires), to declining social capital due to lack of "third places", the consequences of car-dependency include huge carbon emissions beyond just the cars themselves:
  Producing the concrete to build all those parking lots and widen all those roads is itself a huge and unnecessary source of emissions.
  The energy needed to heat and cool single-family homes is hugely greater than that needed for dense housing, since all six sides are exposed to the environment instead of the also-conditioned spaces of neighboring units.
  All the extra paved surface in car-dependent areas contributes to the urban heat island effect, exacerbating the problem mentioned in the previous point.
  
  Using data I am getting from quick googles, a Tesla model S has 95 kWh of power max, with a range of 405 miles (~650 km). That gives us 4.26 miles per kWh (or 6.84 km/kWh). According to the city of LA, there are about 2.5 million cars registered to the city.
  Let's assume in this perfect future, the number of cars is not increased and they have all been converted to cars that perform identical to this Model S data. Let's also assume each of these cars are required for daily work commuting, and assuming each Angelino commute the average I found of 41 miles which is about 9.6 kWh per day per car commuting or 24 million kWh total per day just commuting.
  Assuming this data is correct and a solar panel can produce 2.4 kWh per day a daily commute requires 10 million solar panels operating at 100% every day. Assuming the average solar panel is 17.6 square feet, then the total area needed for solar panels to charge one car commute per day is 1 square km or 64ish city blocks.
  However, if we replace all of these car commuters with a train, which we can say requires 0.05 kWh/km, that comes to 8.75 million kWh for the daily commute, or 36% of the power requirement using cars only. That doesn't even factor in the amount of infrastructure for supporting cars (roads vs rails, parking, public charge stations, mechanics, less power sources, etc).
  Replacing every gas powered car with an electric powered one would reduce emissions. However, replacing car transportation with more efficient forms of transportation reduces carbon emissions even further. Again, these are spherical vehicles in a vacuum making a lot of assumptions, but I think my point stands.

Let's think then of electric VEHICLES. you know buses, trucks included.
Being against electric cars, at this moment, is being for combustion cars.
- The cool thing about electric city busses: you wouldn't even need to have them on batteries. They could be attached to electric wires
  
  My city has been stuck trying to expand its tram system for decades at this point, but whenever I mention that we could introduc trolley buses instead people look at me like I'm crazy!
  They just make so much sense for our use case. We're a hilly city, so the rubber tyres are more suitable than steel on steel, the routes they want to build on don't really have the space for separated infrastructure, so having buses that can run on the roads will be less disruptive, and by not having to install rails they're a lot cheaper too.
  
  That's a stupid idea. You'd need extremely long cables that would keep getting tangled up around the city. They would have to be disconnected and the bus would have to connect to closest socket to continue on the route. They would also need to have huge spools of cable, and soon the city would be drowning in cables. You'd have to keep rebuilding all the buildings on top of cables. Again and again. Then at some point, the city would be so high there wouldn't be enough air for people to breathe. Do this everywhere, and you may even considerably slow down Earth's rotation.
  /j
- This is more or less why I voted for Biden.

While they don't address it directly, they do provide a route to address it. The issue is a lot of governments are pushing electric cars, and washing their hands of the rest.
There are 3 issues with electric cars.
They are cars - Obvious to most here, but better public transport can vastly improve the situation, regardless of how the car is powered.
Batteries - Electric car batteries are far from perfect. Their range is reduced and they are heavier. There is also the issue of lithium, and/or other chemicals used in the batteries.
Power source - An electric car is only as clean as its energy supply. Powering it from a coal power station is far worse than using renewables.
Counter to these however.
Cars will still be needed, to some extent. Electric are the least worst option we have NOW. We no longer have time to wait for a better option, or find a perfect solution.
Lithium can be recycled; we currently don't, due to the small amounts, but this will change as economics adjust . Also, we are not actually that short of it, it's just not be economically valuable enough to mine on a larger scale. Range can be adjusted as tech improves. We can also change how we operate. E.g. Combining out of town parking and charging with public transport options is an excellent way to get people using public transport on a large scale again, in an organic manner.
Power wise, it's easy to shift an electric car from fossil fuel to renewables. It's very difficult to shift an ICE car. This is also something we should be doing far more anyhow (but no-one seems to be interested in improving the grid!). On a side note, even accounting for various losses. The sheer efficiency factor of a power station means it's still better to burn oil to run an electric car, than to run the car directly on the oil.
Don't get me wrong, the fixation on electric cars is dangerous, but they are still required as part of the solution. We just need to actually work on that solution. While the right, in politics, has a tendency to "circle the wagons" which causes a significant number of problems. The left has a tendency towards "circular firing squads". We should all be careful not to help kill ideas and projects that pull in vaguely the right direction, even if it's not exactly what we want.
- My main problems with EVs is that they don't reduce car dependency and the upfront manufacturing environmental cost of making them do not make them more eco friendly across their lifespan (especially with the trend of bigger and heavier cars). Car manufacturers are just jumping on the bandwagon to keep cars relevant in the mind of the consumer and clean their image of more obvious pollutants such as gas and oil.
  Electric cars will just perpetuate all the other problems with cars, while tricking consumer into thinking they're making an environmentally sound choice and clean their conscience. There was still a giant environmental cost to making them, children still mined lithium for them, tyre rubber will still fill the lungs of people, etc etc.
  
  EVs start their life with a higher environmental burden than ICE vehicles, but the math comes out so that the burden becomes lower after between 15k-20k miles.
  By the end of life of an EV, they are more eco friendly than an ICE vehicle of similar build.
  
  As far as I was aware, the environmental impact is still considerably less than a ICE car, even if powered from dirty power. The impacts are different, making a simple comparison difficult, but generally EV win out.
  I'm not saying electric cars are perfect, far from it. However, the change is pushing in the right direction. Think of it as a 2 front battle. Public transport Vs car, and EV vs ICE cars. Your arguments have very little bearing on the public Vs private transport argument, but heavily affect the EV Vs ICE argument.
  I'd strongly prefer cities with public transport so good that there is little need for cars etc. However, I would also rather have a city with EV cars over ICE cars. The change over from ICE to EV will also help change habits. That is a perfect time to push public transport into the mix.
  Picking a fight with EV is just going to leave both groups bloody. Big oil etc will egg it on, while laughing all the way to the bank.
  
  Lithium isn’t mined it is gathered by pumping water into salt flats so the lithium rises to the surface and it isn’t done by children. You’re repeating misinformation.
  There is an environmental cost for absolutely anything we make. Do you suggest we stop making anything and everything?
  Electric cars are the more environmentally sound choice. They are a required first step to ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Without them we cannot end our dependency.
  
  No matter how you power it, bringing 6000lbs of steel with you to go anywhere or do anything is unsustainable.
  
  do not make them more eco friendly across their lifespan
  I upvoted you despite this inaccuracy.
  The problem with electric cars is that they're only a marginal improvement over fossil-fuel cars (note: not the same as "ICE")*, when, as you said, what we need are the transformative gains from ending car-dependency. (I.e., changing the zoning code to encourage walkable density instead of prohibiting it and ending subsidies on car infrastructure.)
  (* IMO internal combustion is not the right distinction to make, since things like biodiesel and gasoline synthesized from CO2+H20+electricity could be carbon-neutral too.)
- They are cars - Obvious to most here, but better public transport can vastly improve the situation, regardless of how the car is powered.
  Zoning for walkability is vastly more important even than better public transport, as is infrastructure for biking. The "EVs" we should really be talking about are e-bikes.
  
  The big thing is that you need to plan for end to end integration.
  Walking > Bikes > E bikes > Trains > Busses > EV vehicles > ICE vehicles.
  Most will likely be needed (e.g. someone needs to stock the inner city supermarkets, and you can't do that by bus), but we should be optimising for that whole chain.
- Sir, you’re on “fuckcars”, get your measured reasonable response out of here. All that people want to hear is “cars bad”.
  
  Some of us are actually interested in the practicalities of reducing both car use, and the damage cars do.

They certainly improve noise and air pollution gigantically, Christ knows how fecked I am having to grow up around cars.
Obviously nothings perfect, but I'll take a world of EVs over a world of combustion vehicles.
- yeah, OP's shit-take is moronic. EV's propulsion can be entirely carbon offset, not something you can do with a car that has an engine spewing co2.
  NOW, if you want to talk about tires/plastic particles, that's a whole other story where EV's do not have an edge - yet.
  
  Battery powered EVs also have a greater environmental impact to manufacture than equivalent ICE vehicles, but the greater efficiency in energy conversion and the lack of emissions offsets this in less than five years of use on average. Ideally, it will continue to improve as battery technology advances as well.
- Less trying to counteract your point, or say that EVs are worse than ICE cars somehow, but there's still a significant amount of particulate matter shed from the brake pads of EVs, i.e. where the predominant harmful emissions come from in most cars, though, regenerative braking certainly helps nullify that a great deal, when it's being used.
- They barely improve noise pollution, the loudest factor on a moving car are the tires. If you use electricity out of a coal powered power plant you just outsource the air pollution. And I can't imagine that it is healthy to live around a the mines that are needed to get all the ressources to build the battery and the car itself.
  This is worse then 'nothing is perfect', this is lying to yourself to continue to fuck up the planet and fuck up people who are not you. Congratulations on your "cleaner city".
  Edit: maybe tell me where I am wrong instead of just downvoting. I think I have a valid point to diskuss.
  
  Oh boy, you clearly never had a semi truck engine breaking down a hill 30 yards from your house at 3am in the morning.
  
  Clearly you don't live near a road where V8s and muffler less cars fly by. And Coal Powered plants are going extinct everywhere except China. Even in my Oil and Gas State, the local power company is building out a solar farm.
  
  Your comment raises some valid points about the environmental impact of electric vehicles (EVs), but there are a few misconceptions that need to be addressed.
  Firstly, regarding noise pollution, while it's true that tire noise can be a significant source of noise from a moving car, especially at higher speeds, it's not accurate to say that EVs barely improve noise pollution. EVs are generally quieter than conventional vehicles, especially at lower speeds. This can significantly reduce noise pollution in urban areas, where speeds are often low.
  Secondly, the point about electricity from coal-powered plants is a common argument, but it oversimplifies the issue. Yes, if an EV is charged using electricity from a coal-powered plant, it's effectively outsourcing some of its emissions. However, the overall emissions are still typically lower than those from conventional vehicles. Furthermore, the electricity grid is getting cleaner over time as we shift towards renewable sources, which will further reduce the emissions from EVs.
  As for the environmental impact of mining for resources to build batteries and cars, this is indeed a concern. However, it's important to note that conventional vehicles also require resource extraction for their production, and the extraction and refining of oil for fuel is a major source of environmental damage. Moreover, the battery production process is becoming more efficient, and there are ongoing efforts to improve the recycling of batteries.
  Lastly, the assertion that advocating for EVs is "lying to yourself to continue to fuck up the planet and fuck up people who are not you" is a rather harsh judgement. While it's true that EVs are not a perfect solution and have their own environmental impact, they are generally considered a step in the right direction towards reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.
  Citations: [1] When we switch to electric vehicles everything is going ... https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/oqpalp/when_we_switch_to_electric_vehicles_everything_is/ [2] Noise is all around us https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36024887 [3] Electric cars noise pollution https://www.fastcompany.com/90774779/heres-what-science-says-about-electric-cars-and-their-impact-on-noise-pollution [4] Answers https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/international-schools/pdfs/ilower-secondary/exploring-science-international/ExploringScienceInternationalAnswers/int_esws_at_y7_ap_sb_answers_ttpp.pdf [5] How far do I need to be from a highway/parkway to no ... https://ask.metafilter.com/271697/How-far-do-I-need-to-be-from-a-highway-parkway-to-no-longer-hear-it [6] Answers SP1a Vectors and scalars https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1584024880/sydenhamlewishamschuk/agtqfqee1mgv0nnk165x/SP1andSP2answers.pdf
  
  Where I live I feel like I’m encountering more and more cars that have been modded to be VERY loud by replacing their exhaust pipes, adding exhaust tips, etc. Just about every time I’m driving on a highway I seem to spot cars like this…
  
  This is a fantastically ignorant response in damn near every aspect. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, fuck you, I suspect you're a shell or exxon employee.

No matter what we do or suggest, troglodytes are going to look at the step up or downstream from that and claim that nothing matters because nothing is "as good" so why bother.
Reject nihilism.

they definitely address it, they just are definitely not the ultimate solution.
- going from drilling for oil to mining for lithium is literally just problem shifting.
  It doesn't address climate change, it just misdirects the issue away from it being an oil-based climate disaster.
  The only solution is less cars, not less of X type of car.
  
  Do you have a rough idea how much oil you need for a fossil car and how much lithium for an electric?
  
  You really ought to step back and compare the amount of lithium needed to be mined vs the current fossil fuel production. There a vast difference. Then adjust it for the Lithium being infinitely reusable, vs fossil fuels not at all.
  
  This is just no true lmao

Cars itself are actually only a small part of climate change. The major part of it is form construction, planes, and electricity. We can fix electricity with sustainable energy, fixing planes is a lot harder as of now. Fixing construction seems impossible for now.
We'll run out of time before we we hit zero. We are already too fast to break before the cliff. All we can hope for is a soft landing, and we need everything for that. Even nuclear energy (go 100% on nuclear!)
- From the EPA, on US emissions:
  Transportation (28% of 2021 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 94% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.
  The largest sources of transportation greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 were light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (37%); medium- and heavy-duty trucks (23%); passenger cars (21%); commercial aircraft (7%); other aircraft (2%); pipelines (4%); ships and boats (3%); and rail (2%).
  Driving accounts for a larger percentage of emissions than you'd think - something like 14% of emissions are gasoline alone.
  Electric cars have about half the lifecycle emissions of gas cars, so that's equivalent to a ~7% reduction in emissions - more if the grid goes solar.
  That said, replacing suburban sprawl with traditional denser streetcar suburbs like you see in the Netherlands would be a much bigger reduction in emissions.
- Wdym, in terms of construction? Do you mean emissions from concrete, emissions from steel manufacture of rebar, environmental impacts of deforestation for wooden housing? As far as I understand it, there are a couple of thrown around solutions to that, like adobe, superadobe, rammed earth, cob, compressed earth blocks, and mixed concrete compressed earth blocks, going kind of order from what I've seen of hotter to colder climates, roughly. And none of those even really include the use of straight stone or wood, either. Surely, if you're moving away from cars, as is the MO of this sub, you need less huge bridges and shit, less superstructures, skyscrapers, and that also cuts down on the use of concrete and steel. Most of the reason why people don't like those materials is just as a result of higher labor costs, which is mostly as a result of them being unusual in the modern day, which means they'll remain unusual, because everything has to be minmaxxed to shit on this god damn rock.

First step is REDUCE. Then RE-USE, then Recycle. Tesla cars do none of this. Muskrat is a capitalist who is exploiting the electric care concept.

EVs can also act as a battery for the home and a back up generator. A lot more useful than just a car. Now I know this sublulemmy is urbanist, but the sorts of people to buy a car don't live in a city.
- Throw some solar panels on your roof and you've got a stew, baby! Erm, well, you have a low grade solar and battery system, same thing.
  
  Useful for natural disasters.

There's no alternative to a working public transport. Period.
Ok bikes. 😁
- Bikes don't work well in places like where I live when you can easily get 1-2 feet of snow in the winter. Or very icy roads. They definitely should be used more, but they aren't a panacea.
  
  Some nations that experience harsh winters have well maintained bicycle infrastructure year round. Access to effecient, maintained, and safe bicycle infrastructure is the biggest factor preventing or enabling cycling.
  
  My family lives in a rural town of 1600, my wife works 800m from home and I commute 50km to the nearest city for work. Most days she walks to work for 7:30 or takes the ebike. I take our EV to arrive at 9am. My daughter takes the school bus , which arrives at my home at 8:17am.
  There is a bus that comes to my town and goes to the city each day at 7AM and 8AM. Unfortunately, I cannot take the bus, or I would have to leave my daughter unattended. I don't think I need to explain why taking my bike 120km a day round trip by the bike path won't work.
  By taking the EV, I make my life work and I save a good amount of CO2 in the process. My old hatchback would have burned 7.7l fuel to make the commute , or 7.7 * 19.6 lbs CO2 = 150lb CO2 per day. My EV gets 16kwh/100km generating between 3/4 lb and 5lb CO2 for the trip, based on local energy mix.
  
  They also don't work well in places like I live, where we reach 120°F for about one to one-and-a-half months of the year.
  
  Neither do cars work well in those conditions.
  If you clear and salt the bike paths in a timely manner, like we also expect for other roads, then bikes are a perfectly viable option even in winter.
  
  We've invented means to clear roads of snow, that's how we manage to make cars go on them during winter
  
  Oslo, Norway, is a great cycling city and all the kids ride their bikes to school in the winter. In Norway.
  
  Bikes don’t work well in places like where I live when you can easily get 1-2 feet of snow in the winter.
  Neither do cars, unless the streets are plowed. And guess what could be done to bike lanes too, if the government in question gave a shit?
- Hilly areas, long-distances, accessibility, there are many reasons for passenger rail.
- eVTOL craft? Basically flying dronecopters that can carry people in it. Closest we'll get to flying cars in our lifetime.

yup. no one thing will.

They have a lower emissions after a few years even with higher initial manufacturing emissions even in areas with coal as the source of power, just takes longer to recoup. https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM?si=ythLgdv93D6zC3WM
They allow for government to control the means of electricity production that powers these vehicles
While not perfect it is a decent step to remove the individual citizen's direct pollution and leave control In the hands of government. This is where the change needs to happen for manufacturing and other large scale polluters.
- On the second part: That's just because for some reason most governments don't care that it would be much more profitable to everyone if state corporations took care of petrol exploitation instead of private companies that profit few investors...

Where are these people who both care about climate change and also think that there is one magic solution to it?
I've been trying to ignore this annoying ass post for days but it just keeps showing on my feed for some reason. Really hope we get a feature to hide individual posts in the future.
After re-reading the phrasing, I realize it says "does not address climate change" which is fucking stupid because of course if I replace my gas engine car after it dies with an electric one then drive it for many years, I will have prevented a lot of emissions. If millions of people do that over the years, of course it does something to address climate change.
And yes I know coal is still being burned. Maybe people who care about climate change could not be fucking morons who think in terms of gotchas and only focusing on the one thing they individually care about? Climate change requires many solutions, and I'd think we'd all know this by now.

I drive an EV (not a tesla) and I agree. I have it primarily because its cheaper to run.. My ancient previous car didn't owe me anything, I ran it into the ground.
- Yep, I got an EV purely for the savings.

Electric cars driving up the price of lithium 400% thanks elon can't even afford last-mile transportation anymore

And they shed even more microplastics into the environment because they're heavier so the tires wear down faster :(
- This is an obvious bad faith argument.
  “Let’s keep burning fossil fuels as we go extinct from climate change cause I’m worried about the 0.00001% micro plastics that MIGHT be shed from an EV”
  
  There's no might, tires shed microplastic particles and EVs wear out their tires faster, that's two facts.
  
  That strawman is the bad faith argument. They never said they want to keep burning fossil fuels.
  
  I did not say that, lol.
  
  Uhh, you say .00001% that MIGHT? I think you mean: nearly twice as much because EV's go through tires nearly twice as fast, and ABSOLUTELY ARE. Microplastics are shed from tires, I don't know what makes you think they aren't. All that tire tread that is now gone on your tires when they go "bald" didn't just disappear, they shed into the air and the rain washes them down into streams.
  Also fun fact, EV tire particles are even more toxic than regular tires. And regular tire particles are already one of the most toxic microplastics studied.
  I work in a nano particle toxicology lab that has a pretty big focus on micro and nanoplaatics.

You're going to see a pivot in ICE vehicles. Full EVs are a pain in the ass for most and have too many issues. PHEV are what will become popular for folks with money over the next 5-10 years.
- The issues are only with cheaper vehicles. If you've money to burn, then there are EVs now with both the range and performance to suit the middle class rich. Super charging stations of various types mean you can pump power in at a rate almost comparable to a petrol station.
  PHEV will have their niche for a while, but that will shrink rapidly.
  
  Infrastructure isn't there, and if you don't own a home on 240v its even more expensive. And I'll be damned if I'm going to pull up and wait 30 extra minutes on top of my charge time if a charger isn't free. PHEV will get most folks around on zero or very little gas and you leave behind any range anxiety or worries about finding a charger every single night. It's doable on 120v breakers as well. Most the peers I know in the upper middle class range are all eyeing up PHEV and have little reason to go full EV. Hell, I'm going to buy an f150 and the only time I'll need to fill it is because the gas is going to go stale or I'm towing.