184

"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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 67 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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.

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 62 points 6 months ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 50 points 6 months ago

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

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[-] Repelle@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 31 points 6 months ago

If 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?

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

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)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 20 points 6 months ago

Because most people are completely scientifically illiterate and do not understand the analogy you're making because they don't know what "atmosphere" is.

[-] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

That's the paradox... When shit works well, ignorant people think we don't need the shit that makes everything work well anymore.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] dingus@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hegar@fedia.io 8 points 6 months ago

People mostly believe whatever is in their interest to believe. No one's beliefs are 100% internally consistent.

[-] yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 6 months ago

A lot of it has to do with propaganda, both the oil and car industry have successfully convinced people that they need petroleum and a car

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] boletus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] navi@lemmy.tespia.org 3 points 6 months ago

Buy a 2016 shitbox eGulf or a Volt instead. No more gas bills.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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.

[-] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

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 lol

[-] Usernameblankface@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

If 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!

[-] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 months ago

Also, this only works in places with mild winters, or in the summer. Those scooters don't work great in the snow.

[-] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] kugel7c@feddit.org 3 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 points 6 months ago
[-] navi@lemmy.tespia.org 3 points 6 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
184 points (79.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33141 readers
737 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS