鴉PieFedIf it is common knowledge that shutting a garage door with a running ICE vehicle inside will kill you, why do you think so many people think 1 billion ICE vehicles aren't bad in the atmosphere?
submitted by LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
"But tires"
Ban all vehicles over 5000lbs to start without a specialized license and extremely heavy fees to have them. EVs are dropping in weight daily, ICE vehicles have been increasing in weight to dodge policies. One is a means to an end, the other is a means to profit.\
Profit for few vs humanity's existance.. which should we choose?
Because if the earth doesn't want it, it has ways of shutting down that kind of thing.
To directly answer the question you asked in the title:
ICE vehicles and animals consume oxygen and produce CO2. Plants produce oxygen and consume CO2. Your car's exhaust is poisonous to the animals in your garage, not to the plants. The plants love your car.\
The problems with atmospheric CO2 have nothing to do with biological effects. The problem with atmospheric CO2 is its effect on solar insolation.
I wouldn't use this analogy in an argument with someone who does not understand anthropogenic climate change.
Also worth noting another key issue with car exhaust in a confined space is carbon monoxide, you'll feel the CO2 build up and make it difficult to breath in your environment before it does any damage, the CO on the other hand will kill you quietly. CO breaks down relatively quickly in the environment by reacting with other substances in the air, so it's not really a long term pollutant concern.
There's also other chemicals and particulates, but they're mostly going to be at lower concentrations that aren't going to kill you in a hurry, but may contribute to longer term cancer risks and such, but that's a little harder for people to wrap their heads around. You won't immediately die of cancer in your garage from breathing exhaust but it might give you cancer years or decades down the line.
So your saying there's enough plants to offest cars in the world? Or is that no longer relevant?I
up voting by the by for encouraging conversations as I feel up items should be
I am saying that the logic of your question does not accurately describe the actual problems with CO2, which are their effect on solar heating.
An anti-environmentalist would say that the number of plants on the planet is not fixed, and that a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere would increase global plant mass. They would say "Higher CO2 levels make the planet greener", and point to 4th grade biology to support their point.
I say, again, that the problems with CO2 are not the biological effects. The problems with CO2 are the effects on solar insolation. If CO2 did not affect solar insolation, we would be looking to *increase* CO2 levels, to benefit vegetation.
Makes sense, but they do affect the insolation, and thus kill life on earth.
We can't live without it, but we can't live with to much of it. So if we are pushing the upwards bounds.. which way should we go? Only one logical choice if you want our current life forms to exist.
I never said we can't live without fossil-fuel powered vehicles. We certainly can go full electric, and we can broadly adopt solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy sources. We can use the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants from biomass and leaking methane deposits instead of crude oil or coal. (Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2; we currently try to "flare" methane sources to produce CO2 rather than allow them to vent naturally. It makes far more sense to use these sources productively than to simply burn them off.)
So what your saying is we need cars powered by cow flatulence. /s
This is a bad argument. Your conclusion happens to be factual, but it doesn't follow from the premises.
Being in an enclosed space with an internal combustion engine will kill you because of the CO buildup, and no, that doesn't happen in the open air. CO does oxidise to CO2 eventually, so it doesn't just keep building up in the atmosphere.
The main harm caused by burning fossil fuels is the CO2, which is wreaking havoc on the climate and will kill billions - but not by poisoning them.
Why would it not be considered poisoning? It is a substance that is effectively killing people.
Yeah the enclosed space thing is about carbon monoxide though. Just find it to be easier for people to understand when people believe the earth is thriving because "there are more people now than ever." Not caring that everything is dying around us.
No, that's not poisoning.
If you get killed by a tsunami, that's not water poisoning for fuck's sake.
Fits the definition of poisoning.
Medical dictionary: Definition Poisoning occurs when any substance interferes with normal body functions after it is swallowed, inhaled, injected, or absorbed.
So if you drown, it would be, if you get crushed, I would say it doesn't fall into poison
Good to know we're not operating in reality. Don't feed the trolls, people.
You're living in a false reality apparently my friend. That's just the definition of a word. Maybe find a different term.
Jesus Christ, the mental gymnastics and goal post moving.
Drowning is *not* water poisoning, and if you can't figure out why, that's no one's problem but your own.
Diogenes and his
chicken*man* take great offense at your definition of "poison".Yeah, most here would hate that Dickens used the term to mean distrub a function as well. To poisons ones sleep didn't mean to kill him, just to do something that interferes with an ongoing task. It's just a word. I didn't define it 🤷
People struggle to think on a global scale and if you don't understand how the atmosphere insulates, "that's inside and this is outside" is a convincing enough argument for a lot of folk. Throw on the fact that some of the most powerful institutions in the world have very strong interests in keeping ICEs going and it's pretty easy to see why so many people still believe those myths
Surely we won't wind up with another oil tycoon leading the environmental protection agencies... Oh wait, they hired someone who denied climate change who accepted more than 300 million dollars in donations from the oil companies to get his positions. Surely trustworthy when it comes to his stance on oil.
Edit: wait that was last time... So this time it is someone who defended him during his impeachment when he tried to blackmail Ukriane when Russia was lining up to invade them...
Sheesh.. good people we are lining up, good people
To add onto this. I did a rough estimate (hopefully I did it correctly) and assuming one billion ice vehicles as OP stated, if you scattered them evenly across the surface of the earth there would be about 25 miles separating each car. While I believe ice cars are quite damaging, it’s not hard to think it would be okay with that in mind.
It is also common knowledge that taking a bath with a running lamp will kill you, why do you think that has absolutely no impact in people's buying lamps?
A car running in a small enclosed space is very different from a car running in the open in the same way that a lamp running underwater is very different from a lamp running in air.
That being said I do believe we should strive to have personal vehicles and public transportation be converted to EVs as soon as possible, because the issues with running ICEs vehicles in the open (which are different from running them indoors)
The earth is very much a small enclosured space when compared to the habitability of the universe.
Yes, but comparatively to the amount of cars it is very large. The problem with ICE vehicles is not one of carbon monoxide poisoning as it is in the garage, so the comparison is pointless, the earth is large enough that you would run out of fuel before you reach that level of emissions.
Science will find a way. Hopefully we can create an engine with exponential emissions per calorie. You just need to dream bigger. Have you been to a large city with less stringent emissions regulations?
Deleted by author
The problem with having a running ICE vehicle in an enclosed space is that you reduce the oxygen levels in that space and your vehicle then starts rapidly dumping carbon monoxide out the tailpipe, which is dangerous to humans at much lower levels than carbon dioxide exposure.
This isn't related to the issue we have with carbon dioxide emissions producing global warming.
We aren't going to reduce global oxygen levels far enough that vehicles dumping carbon monoxide out their tailpipes and asphyxiating people becomes an issue.
Yes, the carbon monoxide sits in the atmosphere... Then becomes carbon dioxide after a few months, which is racking up and killing the majority of life on earth.
The garage is just step 1 of the process, yes.
Because most people are completely scientifically illiterate and do not understand the analogy you're making because they don't know what "atmosphere" is.
Reminds me of those threads "do you think you're smarter than most people" of course anyone who responds either calls themselves a dumbass or agrees. But it's always a biased question, because if you are sentient enough to understand the question you ARE smarter than most people.
I had a friend who went down the right wing rabbit hole and he said that the earth is so big we can't affect the environment that way.
Blew my mind. Trump supporter now as well.
There's actually a *lot* of people for whom this type of thinking is ingrained.
I live a somewhat isolated region in Australia and the sea food here is plentiful. We also rigidly apply very strict laws about the type, size, and number of fish you can kill.
I've seen first hand the impact over-fishing can have, with some areas now completely devoid of varieties which were prevalent a few decades ago.
It just doesn't compute to people who are not from this area. They see the laws as a draconian revenue raising measure. There's no concept that just a few people can decimate a population.
That's the paradox... When shit works well, ignorant people think we don't need the shit that *makes* everything work well anymore.
Usually people like this start with the conclusion, and then search only for things that reinforce that (and ignore anything that conflicts). So, chances are, he wanted to believe that for whatever reason, so he sought reinforcement for that stupid idea. And found it.
im gonna hazard a really basic proposition.
The volume of the earths atmosphere is perhaps, just a little bit bigger than the volume of approximately 1 billion garages.
If you're going to shitpost about science, at least be accurate about it. Nobody thinks they "aren't bad" that's literally a fallacious argument to even propose. Sure, toxic chemicals are bad for you, but there are FDA defined limits for how much of them is considered to be safe on an annual basis.
also, "banning" larger heavier vehicles is based.
So how much carbon monoxide turning into CO2 and building up in the atmosphere and causing the earths temperature to slowly rise and threaten the ecosystems of the majority of earth does the FDA define as okay?
Cars don't typically produce carbon monoxide. It's special circumstances caused by the garage that caused the carbon monoxide
this is definitely a good point.
restricted or incomplete combustion has really negative side effects. Notably, more pollution.
Isn't the main purpose of the catalytic converter to minimize the CO (and other chemicals) being exhausted? Those illegal to take off vehicles things on every car....
It is supposed to be CO2 and water though that comes out of it.. but it doesn't work out so clean as the air going in isn't just oxygen
cats are supposed to burn off the remaining unburnt fuel in the exhaust, as ICEs don't have perfect combustion most of the time. Which helps to reduce the negative aspects. Not the CO2 though, obviously.
of course, this only works if you get significantly complete combustion within the engine itself, otherwise the cat simply can't overcome it, it's only supposed to do the last 5-10% or whatever, of emissions.
That is what they're supposed to do.
But you're talking about an operating environment way outside of what they were designed for.
ICE cars suck.
But cars aren't driving around the road and spewing out CO in such concentration that'd they'd give someone CO poisoning.
Pick a different example about why ICE cars clearly suck.
The CO becomes CO2 in the atmosphere as well eventually. I understand what you mean, which is why I was going to originally delete the post, but some people said leave it, so I did. Really it is just saying if exhaust is so obviously known to be bad in one situation, why is it so hard to understand that it can be bad in other ways. (Trapping in heat really)
im gonna hazard a little guess, and say they don't define this, because this would be like the FDA having recommended estimates for how many hurricanes you can consume within approximately a year, as that would be a rather silly statistic. They probably don't do that one.
Little known fun fact, the FDA is actually short hand for "food and drug administration" if you're concerned about like, global warming you should ask someone else like NASA. Which handles things related to the atmosphere. There would also be NOAA, which more directly handles the atmosphere, that's kind of it's job, you should probably ask them.
The FDA requires me to eat 4 hurricanes a year, with a side of has browns, haha
(I think it's the CDC that does regulations on carbon monoxide though)
im guessing OSHA probably has a few also. Most definitely some health agency, though i wouldn't be surprised if the FDA did have something pertaining to carbon monoxide, more generically. They have a lot of weird ones.
EPA I assume as well. Lots of letter factories out there
A very, very rough estimate is that the atmosphere is 6,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than a typical garage (or over 6 orders of magnitude more than OP's claim), based on a typical one-car garage being 100 cubic meters and The atmosphere being 6e9 cubic kilometers.
wow incomprehensibly large number, exactly what my shitpost predicted!
When you're outside all the gases coming out of your car's tailpipe go up into the sky where they turn into stars.
Duh.
Edit: was looking at the serious answers. I apologize for my sarcasm.
That doesn't sound right, but I don't know enough about stars to dispute it.
Plus you get a nice smokey smell.
You're being sarcastic but for the average person it's simply: "Garage small, atmosphere big".
They look down their street and can see a dozen cars in their field of view and then they see the all-encompassing sky with an endless amount of fresh air available. Conclusion: not a problem.
I'm not here to diss EVs or praise ICE vehicles, but I want to simply directly answer your question. There's one simple mantra that is applicable to a lot of things in life...the dose makes the poison. Not odd to see people extrapolate to that your scenario.
In one, although the quantity is greater, you're "diluting" the gas into the humongous atmosphere. In the other, you're taking the gas straight up undiluted.
Deleted by author
They're saying a 300sqft garage is going to fill up with carbon monoxide long before the planet does because the volume of space is drastically different. It's why they tell you to spray paint in well ventilated areas versus huffing it out of a bag.
I have represented consumers in cases related to lung cancers, and in defending those claims, the insurance carriers always ask my clients in detail about how much time they've spent around cars.
They get really interested if you were a gas station attendant, or a valet, or especially worked at an auto garage, in which case they want to know about the size of the doors, if they were kept open or closed during work, if the garage had any kind of ventilation system, whether cieling fans or the pipes that go over an exhaust pipe.
Almost like they know something about hydrocarbon fumes that the rest of us don't.....
Insurance people are just trying to deny the claim that's the only reason they have more interest in focusing on the job specifics. They can then use big scary words in court should it come to that.
Look, I hate ICE cars too.
But this is whack. Putting a running car into a garage is dangerous because the free oxygen becomes depleted and it starts producing carbon monoxide as a result. This isn't a problem when you're driving around outdoors.
The reason the a running ICE car in a garage is dangerous is completely different than why ICE cars are bad for the environment.
Like, shit on ICE cars all you want, I'll support it. But this is embarrassingly bad science. This is the kind of shit I'd have made up in grade 7 trying to an edgy eco-aware statement.
There’s this thing called “Alert Distance”, it’s the distance at which animals perceive and begin to react to a threat.
I’ll use it as an analogue for humans’ perceptions of threat.
Say a squirrel knows a cat is a threat, and may react to it when the cat is 15 feet away, whether that reaction is turning to face the threat, making a warning call, or running away.
Now put 50 cats hiding in the bushes and surrounding area around the squirrel. Can’t see ‘em, so it isn’t a problem, even though the squirrel knows cats are a bad thing. The alert distance hasn't been triggered. The squirrels in the surrounding neighborhood are disappearing, eaten by cats, but our squirrel isn’t thinking too hard about this. More acorns for me!
Put a car in the garage and you can smell the exhaust. Your eyes probably water from the fumes. You *know* this is potentially lethal, so you do something about it. Shut off the car, leave the garage, open the garage door, whatever. Your alert distance has been triggered. The threat is right in front of you.
Now, as you say, drive that car outside with millions of other vehicles and systems consuming fossil fuels. No real smell or issues for most of us. The alert is only being triggered by what we read (if we bother to read anything that accurately portrays the threat) and maybe a rare bad storm or cluster of hot days that won’t negatively affect the vast majority of people. Negatively = inconvenience.\
I don’t know if squirrels lie to themselves about how close a cat threat might be, but humans excel at lying to each other and to themselves for a crapload of reasons. So the fact is that the threat is invisible to many, ignored by most, and actively and willfully obfuscated by a shitload more. So the figurative alert distance doesn’t even exist at all for the vast majority of humans. It’s not going to kill you *now*, next week, or even next year.
Even when the world has crumbled, plenty will still lie about what’s to blame.
What they think is no mystery - they think the atmosphere and ecosystem are vast enough to absorb it. As "proof" they'll point out things like smog in Victorian London being much worse than modern Los Angeles. They can't produce any numbers or science but they find these mental images convincing enough.
30 people die a day just in Australia from traffic pollution.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-24/air-pollution-modelling-university-of-melbourne-traffic/102015778
I think it's safe to say people literally don't give a fcuk.
It's very simple, really. Have you ever witnessed someone drop dead on the street from traffic pollution? No? Well then nobody cares because it's not immediately visible.
People mostly believe whatever is in their interest to believe. No one's beliefs are 100% internally consistent.
In theory, concentration and expose time could mean that whatever is hurting you in an enclosed garage isn't a problem outside. Which is some what true. Carbon monoxide bonding to the hemoglobin in your blood cells is what kills you in the first scenario. The CO2 levels take a lot longer to rise to dangerous levels and there's plenty of warning to leave the area before fixation becomes an issue and it's still not the same issue as climate change.
In reality, it's propaganda. But if you want to argue with people, don't use the enclosed space as an example. Batteries can also offgas and quite frankly, I wouldn't store some of those cheaper EVs in a garage or at least, an attached garage.
I like to think most people, at least where I live, know cars burn up the planet. Problem is most can't afford a $50k AUD EV, even on finance, but a 2011 Hyundai shit box or a 2005 Toyota hilux is less than $10k.
Oh also, cars are being made to be replaced within a few years. Cost and build quality of modern vehicles pushes me away from buying an EV. Hopefully in the future, they become more ubiquitous, cheaper, and we can solve the problem of handling old batteries and stability.
There batteries are rated to make something like 480,000 miles before getting to 80% battery life.
The costs are high right now but the median ice car is over 32,000. You aren't buying any car new for under 10 grand.
Buy a 2016 shitbox eGulf or a Volt instead. No more gas bills.
Not sure about the egulf, but the Volt in Australia is a Holden badge and I am pretty sure is a hybrid. The cheapest you can get here is a Nissan leaf, which I honestly had no idea existed until now.
Regardless, all manufacturers are adding electric to a lot of their range, as the years go, they'll be cheaper second hand and I bet that's when adoption will sky-rocket.
The sky is fucking gigantic and the thought that we could ever have a big enough impact, even collectively, to make the slightest shift in something so massive feels dead wrong, even when you know it's right.
Because the human brain doesn't intuitively count the way we're taught in school.
Our brains are very good at understanding 1, 2, sometimes 3 and, "many". That's the data we get from smart chips, young children and isolated pre-literate societies.
Counting bigger numbers requires abstract systems. Our brains can do that but it's much harder and we don't grasp it as well.
The practical offshot of this is that while it's intuitively obvious that a small space like a garage will quickly fill up with toxic gasses, it's far less intuitive that a "very big" outside can get saturated by a "pretty big number" of cars.
Actually going to delete this. To pointed of a question I believe. Just annoyed by people not giving a shit about our grandchildren
Odd for your username, but do what you believe is right.
What do you think I should do.
a. Delete
b. Let it stay
c. Party for 2025
d. Dance around a bit to work out my core, one could always use a bit more core strength
b then d and c
So now I must inquire what a Mac is.. five could be troublesome or diabetes if they have the Mc Mac trope
e. Tell me what an ICE vehicle is
Internal combustion engine.
Ooh ok. Thanks.
Well ice ice baby much like drill baby drill refers to vehicles running off fossil fuels, mainly known to be gasoline refined from crude oil
Hopefully my joke didn't cause confusion.
Basically. Start a gas powered car in closed area... You will die before morning, electric, you will be confused why there was no exhaust port because we have been programmed for so long that cars emit acceptable loss
All good, just never heard those vehicles referred to like that. My first new thing of 2025, I guess!
D while C and then B
If you wind up with a video in your dm's it's not my fault, honestly.. because I haven't a clue how to upload a video. Haha
Gotta get those abs, baby!
I just want to get to the point where I can say 'i work out" like this song haha
You also die from staying inside a single room for too long
Ban rooms!
But doors being closed is what effectively triggers death, right ? shouldn't we ban doors ?
It's not the people don't think cars are bad for the environment. It's that people consider the nebulous cost to be worth the short-term benefit of actually being able to get places.
While I understand what I think your saying and don't want to be to assumptioius, can you please explain how cars have a 'shorr term" benefit when we are looking at 60% annual possibilities of 10 month droughts annually. That's the end of crops outdoors, likely the end of life outdoors
If you can't drive to work, you won't earn any money and you'll die.
Chosing a safer way to get there is the point. If we got rid of all the traffic lights you'll get to work and not die. More people would die on the way to work, but that's the same concept is it not? Right now we have an "acceptable" death rate from car accidents that's Increasing since about 2008ish. One of the reasons why is that we decided to make vehicles taller and larger for no reason other than to avoid regulations that were set on vehicles for environmental safety.
Basically we said "cars should have higher mileage to minimize damage to the environment" and someone said.. well that's unreasonable for larger vehicles, and then companies started making larger vehicles to fall into a category that would omit them from the higher mpg requirements. Also a 4" higher grill is associated over 20% increase on killing pedestrians.\
Example: A 4 door Jeep Cherokee in 1994 was plenty big enough to carry a family of 4 and a load of groceries in the back.
1994 Dimensions: Length: 165.3" Width 70.5" Height: 63.2' Weight: 3,357 pounds
2024 Dimensions: Length: 193.5" Width: 77.5" Height 70.8". Weight: 4,238 pounds
A more efficient engine would fit in the old Jeep.. yet it is now more than 2 foot longer. More than half a foot wider and half a foot taller.
So now you need wider roads to fit wider lanes, and space houses out further to fit these cars as they build new areas. Larger parking lots, meaning more room between businesses, making it all inaccessible more and more, and the only reasonable way to get anywhere is by getting in a car.
I think
$1000$600 flat one time is definitely worth being able to get places via escooter. No gas, no insurance, no loans or leases (with the exception of Unagi scooters which are like $80 a month). Oh and riding boosts coordination while also not trapping you in a stressful metal box. One costs way less, is better for your physical and mental health, is easy to park in crowded places, but everyone prefers the opposite lolIf I could ride one without risking my life even more than I already do in a car, I'd love to get to work and back on one of those. But there are no bike paths, sidewalks, or any other scooter friendly options for me.
If you can ride while protected from the local traffic, absolutely consider this option!
Also, this only works in places with mild winters, or in the summer. Those scooters don't work great in the snow.
*blankly stares in commuting to an amazon warehouse in a snowy ass mario kart hellscape on a scooter*
It really depends on the brand. Same with bikes.
The snow absolutely pelting my face is one of the best things I've ever experienced
It's common knowledge that biking down the everest will kill you. Why do so many people think 1 billion bikes won't destroy our mountains?
OP, banning cars over 5000lbs will quickly bring you back to the medieval age. Your supermarket will only have 2 types of bread, from the 2 closest bakeries. There will be no meats or vegetables other than what your neighbors are planting. You will wear clothes made from the wool of the sheep you're raising, because there's no fucking way in hell anyone will get cotton from point A where it's being farmed to point B where it's being processed to point C where it's being made into clothes to point D where it's sold to you, not without a car. Your economy would shit itself and implode within days. Stock market would crash and depression would follow.
But yeah, sure, just ban cars over 5000lbs. What can go wrong?
OP suggested mandating special permits for heavy vehicles. I think it's a good idea.
It's not like there is no precedent either. In most places you can own a shotgun but must be a special case to own a guided missile.
Oh no only 2 types of bread. And the stock market would crash I don't want to live in that world lol.
Deleted by moderator
Deleted by moderator
Deleted by author
Just start sabotaging the
manufactorumsfactories.Both are primarily a means for profit, as most tasks accomplished with a car are more reasonably done a different way. The efficiency of road based motorised transport is so abysmal that it almost doesn't make sense.
The only reason we rely on it currently to such an extend is because our entire economy is highly irrational, except if seen from a supremely privileged point of view.
Most people don't think of that. Out of sight, out of mind. Our minds are better adapted to react to immediate, visceral threats (such as a garage full of exhaust that can be smelled, maybe seen). We need education to be able to understand threats that are diffuse over a large area or take long periods of time to manifest. Even with education, most won't react as strongly to a threat which has a high chance of reducing our lifespan by five to ten years, as we will to a threat which has a small chance of killing us immediately.
What's a "butt tire"?
One of the main reasons people use to say EVs are bad is that they currently weigh more than ICE vehicles. (Slowly being fixed transitioning to solid state batteries and finding ways to safely minimize weight). The extra weight means tires would wear out faster and tires put plastics into the environment.\
Putting weight restrictions on vehicles would curb this and accelerate people transitioning to lighter vehicles.
Tires are a big pollutant (from wearing them down) and anti-EV people often day EVs weigh More, thus wear tires more, cancelling out any environmental benefits.
A bit forced and hogwash IMO.
Tire wear is a huge cause of particle pollution, but the wear depends on the driver right foot.
it's not that people think cars aren't contributing, it's that things like factories are so much of a bigger deal that the cars won't make a difference.
So would you agree no car sold beyond 2030 in the U.S. should weight over 5 thousand pounds or be taxed and registered (another form of tax) at a high rate the pushes users towards lighter emissions?
I would not support weight limits or size limits, simply because per-passenger mileage increases as vehicle occupancy increases. Per-ton mileage increases in cargo vehicles as load increases.
I would not support the idea that only a transit authority can have a bus.\
That being said, I do support reducing emissions by transitioning to EV infrastructure, and suppressing fossil fuels in the ground transportation industry.
With passangers it wouldn't matter for weight. The car would register, and people would ride. That's all that would matter. We can make an 8 person car under that weight limit with great safety ratings. We just were driving away from those requirements.
How about a 15-passenger van? Can you make a 15-passenger van under 5000lbs?
That van will be around 7200lbs minimum, but will have higher passenger-mile economy than anything under 5000lbs. Why are we banning the more efficient vehicle?
Again, I reject the arbitrary restrictions on vehicle size and weight.
Instead, we push EV infrastructure.
We can mandate manufacturers produce an EV equivalent (with minimum 100 mile range) for every gasoline vehicle they offer. We can mandate the 100-mile EV variant has the same (or lower) price as the lowest-priced ICE equivalent. If they want to jack up the price of EVs, they have to either increase the range, or drop the ICE equivalent.
We can require gas stations to install and maintain one EV charging point for every gasoline or diesel pump on site.\
We can restore and expand government rebates for EV purchases, charging point installation, renewable energy generation and storage, etc.
No that van would be classified as commercial or public access. But it should be taxed to no hell of it wasn't company owned. Companies will have to jump through expensive processes as well. (Otherwise we simply won't change anything)
Note < this comment was edited to fix spelling and replace a few words. Not trying to change the premise on anyone
Are they? Pretty sure transportation is a big part of CO2 emissions.
they do produce a lot of CO2, but other things produce so much more (and can be fixed without the cost being passed entirely onto regular people who can't afford the car they already have) that cars are a non-issue. yes the number is big, but other numbers like factories are bigger by so much that the cars' number is actually really small in comparison. it isn't your fault, it is the fault of things like factories. you are being manipulated by rich people who don't want to spend an extra 13 cents per item to save the planet, so they convince you to focus on your car instead of their factories.
Okay here's the data on it. Factories are definitely guilty as fuck, but cars aren't guilt-free, which is why many parts of the world need to get on with public transport. I can focus on more than one thing, including how car transportation is definitely not a non-problem.
Because those have nothing to do with each other. You can also drown in your bathtub. That doesn't mean water falling from the sky is an instant drowning. Quantity, method of exposure and context matter a lot when gauging how dangerous something can be.
ICE exhaust is poisonous, it's significantly less poisonous when diluted by a large chunk of atmosphere. How much so isn't a simple question, and it becomes much harder for the average person when it's health effects are delayed for years to decades and those effects often have comorbidities with other risky behavior.\
This is exactly why education is important, these things aren't actually that apparent after we cleaned up some of the more obvious consequences from the start of the industrial revolution.