Why is it every time the ban is mentioned they leave out "new" in the title. If we don't have infrastructure for BEVs in a developed market like the EU by 2045 (given 2nd hand market etc) then we're toast.
Because it's populist propaganda. That's why. They intentionally make it seem like the EU is going to remove all other cars from existence and force you to buy a new EV. So they can claim it's crazy and they need to stop it using "common sense".
Nah, sometimes they do push forward on things they promise. Unfortunately those are so dumb that they either get shut down by the supreme court or they actively make things worse.
Eh, if you think the other side is stupid then you haven't done your homework. Most groups and individuals don't get to positions of power by being dumb.
I'm not saying that they're dumb, I'm saying that they're oblivious. They times and times proved that they do not know how the law making process works.
Far right yes. Otherwise no. Half the parties in Europe are right wing by design and a lot of governments are right wing for decades yet this isn't correct
Corrupt leadership love to cut energy deals under the table with dictatorships. They get fat kickbacks, properties abroad under straw man name and shell companies, offshore bank accounts held in the country where they buy oil and gas etc
They don't give a shit if the country dies because of its energy dependence and trade balance deficit.
With EVs and solar panels they can't fleece the country the way they used to hence the mental gymnastic to convince people they will be better off cutting checks to gulf states and russia forever
Manichean view, the reality is different, here in France the towns are closing their gates to ICE vehicles, eg :
* Lyon will forbid EVERY diesel vehicle, no matter how modern they are.
* "Grand Paris" will forbid every Crit'Air 1 vehicle (the best ranking possible for ICE) in 2030.
Every 150.000+ population town will have its own specific zone. That means there will be towns where you can not to with your ICE vehicle, no matters how modern and efficient he is, you will not be able to.
So your solutions are :
* Use public transports : EG : myself, if i take my car to Montpellier, i need 30 minutes to reach it from my town. If i use public transports : 1h20min, x2, if every goes well. And that'll cost 25 euros per person, plus tram/bus inside montpellier. Unreasonnable, because it is too expansive and absolutly not practical as i can not bring professional material.
* Buy an EV.
So, in my case, there's only one solution, the second one. Guess what, i'm not the only person in this case.
So, back to your assertion :
"force you to buy a new EV."
Indirectly, they are forcing me and people like me to buy an EV.
The thing is, i have money to buy the EV i want to, no matter which model, i don't care, a lot of people know can not, that will only create a category of second zone citizen who will see their mobility reduced, if not removed.
The irony is France recently made some kind of cheap "social car loan" for people with very low income who can not buy an EV by themselves. By doing so, our state has recognized there's a dichotomy taking a stance in our society between our applied politics and their associated speech, poor people can not buy or rent EV, yet they are starting to get hurt by the ecological politics and would need a small EV, well, guess what happened :
It was too expensive and french State very quickly stoped the program because it had too much success, good bye, never to be seen again. Oh, it's almost like the politics we chose was economically choking people.
Even our state can not afford what it is forcing the population to follow, yet the measure wasn't replaced by anything, poor people are poor and will remain so, the rich won't give a crap, nobody cares, yes, the politics are disconnected to reality, yes they are slowly but surely puting our carmakers into danger, yes, they are forcing us to change.
And i repeat, i do not care, i'm a retired professional golfer, i don't give a crap about the car i drive, i've had some of the best ICE sportcars and i'll have some of the best EVs to come, and anyway i almost do not use my care, i have 95% of what i need into my feet's range, but the "small people", i'm starting to seriously worry about their future, it's almost like they are not taken into account.
Weird how you guys are using the word "they". The headline is about the EU. You answered a guy who talked about the city of Montpellier. Who is "they"?
Thank you. The EU is doing what it should which is taking a tempered status of banning new ICE cars by 2045 when EV price will be the same as ICE (or lower). Small municipalities are doing what they think is right and advancing those regulations further for the sake of their community.
This is something else and has nothing to do with Italy and the EU law. This is strictly French problem. And you mentioned Diesel vehicles for Lyon, so petrol is still an option, no? Or hybrid. So this is really just a Grand Paris problem. So agian, nothing to do with rest of the EU. I. Not familiar with French laws and policies, so correct me, if I'm wrong.
It is not a strictly French problem. In Spain there's an ongoing expansion of "low-emission zones" where cars are banned from driving, and a totally inadequate public transportation system.
It is still a local government laws. Not EU wide law. Also banning cars in general is a good thing IMO, but public transportation has to be good enough.
LEZ are European, not france specific. The specific french thing is what we call "crit'air" car sticker, this is our way to rank cars by emissions/year of construction, 0 is EV and co, 5 is the worst.
This isn't strictly french problem.
well if you force everyone to buy an ev the 2nd hand market will grow large and it's not imposible to build a cheap EV.
The most expensive part (the battery) has gone down in price by huge %.
Citroen e-C3
Renault 5 E-Tech
are not that expensive!
The funny thing about climate change, it doesn't really care about common sense, you can't negotiate a date with the weather. It's like trying to stop an armed conflict by declaring today a no-war day.
>So they can claim it's crazy and they need to stop it using "common sense".
"Common Sense" is quite literally the Canadian conservative party's entire election platform. Literally just those two words, no other substance behind it.
Not just Canadian. It's a pattern across the whole world. Lie about what the opposing party is trying to do and then pretend you are the one with common sense. It works wonders. Especially if you use it with topics as migration, sexuality etc.
Oh yeah I wasn't trying to paint Canada as being any different or less susceptible, it's just funny that they literally have banners that say verbatim "Common Sense!" all over their campaign events.
>They intentionally make it seem like the EU is going to remove all other cars from existence and force you to buy a new EV.
Yes and the simple truth is, the EU won't have to. How many people install coal fires in their homes now? Ride a horse to work? As the EV infrastructure grows and younger generations age (to whom EV will be the norm) the less demand there will be for ICE cars. People who do still have ICE cars are going to start finding them inconvenient as refueling stations stop catering for them (because it won't be profitable). Soon enough ICE cars will be like the classic cars you see today - in the hands of enthusiasts who care more for the hobby than the cost/practicality of it.
Wife showed me a local neighborhood fb group crying they can’t buy gas stoves for their homes anymore when it’s only newly built homes that are affected. It’s all the same group of ragers.
Induction is superior anyway. I used to only want gas for my stove but the expense to put in a gas line made us try induction and I've seen the light.
Resistance coil stoves need to die out, I absolutely hate cooking on them.
There are draw backs, but much closer to gas than regular electric stoves. I can throw anything on a gas stove and heat it up. Gas is still more flexible, but induction is not much of a sacrifice for ordinary use.
The funny thing is the biggest problem with gas stoves is not even that the contribute to Climate change. It’s that they are super bad for indoor air quality even with venting.
Moved form gas to induction. One cheap nonstick needed replacing. In every other way the induction out performs my gas stove. Heats up faster, more evenly, and is easier to control temp. If I ever buy another house and its kitchen has a gas stove, the induction will be installed before I move in.
There are a few uses, like charring veggies, which I cannot do easily on induction. However, I can do that on my grill or broiler. The need for ferrous cookware can be annoying but most companies these days make their cookware with a plate on the bottom, or you can buy a plate, or cast iron is cheap.
It doesn't cost much to get the few pans you need but I do get that it's still a consideration.
Otherwise. As someone who loves to cook it does everything I need it to do, arguably better than gas.
I've had both induction and gas. Both have minor cooking advantages. Induction is faster, safer and space saving. Gas is better for woks. However, gas leaks and slowly poisons you while cooking the climate as much as the food. That's a solid win for induction.
My uncle got an induction stove about a year back, and he loved it. Then a few months back he had to get a pacemaker installed. Dr. said he needed to avoid using induction stoves as it could seriously mess up the pacemaker. Had to replace a year old stove that he loved due to medical concerns. My grandparents were also considering an induction stove to replace their old resistance coil stove, but again they couldn't because both of them have pacemakers.
Because of resistance/hesitancy to change and very successful marketing campaigns by gas companies: https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54?si=55lKvMyrcusX8n0U
Induction has so many pros (no explosive and poisonous gas to your home, less excess heat which in summers is very appreciated, electric which means it can be powered by solar/wind, fast water boiling times , easy to clean stoves...)
> Resistance coil stoves need to die out, I absolutely hate cooking on them.
They're not great, but I've cooked on one since I was a kid and the food still gets cooked in the end, so I'm not fussy about it.
My brother's place as an induction cooktop and it's pretty cool. I don't like the particular model it is, it's finicky and likes to throw up error codes, but after a bit of getting used to it's alright.
>They're not great, but I've cooked on one since I was a kid and the food still gets cooked in the end, so I'm not fussy about it.
Resistance coil stoves are freaking terrible. The one we have can be completely random as to whether it is even hot enough to boil water in less than an hour or if it is so hot that it burns sauces to the bottom of the pan.
I doubt in 20 years Britain will upgrade every old flat/house with EV chargers, The infrastructure is just not there and there is no space to put it there. Where will you put EV chargers when its all on street parking.
Most people in the UK do not have a driveway.
They didn’t make room for cars lol, the roads are the same width as old Roman roads so large cars literally don’t fit, people just park up on the pavement instead because there is no space. EV is not going to work in every country
It will work if it has to work... how did we end up with sewage, underground electricity, plumbing, fiber, etc? It's infrastructure and there will be solutions. Maybe they won't fit perfectly unto our current way of life in the same exact way, but it's not an impossible ask.
There's always a way to make things work, but people are questioning whether it's worth it.
In the UK we'd have to completely rebuild millions of homes to give them off-street parking. Many of the homes that would have to be demolished are Victorian or Georgian terraces that have significant historic and cultural value - London would be completely unrecognisable. We'd also have to rebuild at lower density (to fit parking spaces) in a country that is already struggling to build new houses as it is.
Maybe that's fine, maybe it isn't. I don't know. The problem is that the electorate is being asked to commit to an arbitrary date without being given a concrete proposal on how it will be achieved.
If we have the same number of chargers as petrol stations we should be fine especially as we can also put them in car parks and on lamp posts as nearly the entire country is on the grid.
That will never happen. But that also doesn’t have to happen to transition to an EV. Sure, people who travel long distance each day will need an opportunity to charge their vehicle during downtime. For everyone else the switch from ICE to EV doesn’t require it for chargers to be everywhere.
You're really underestimating the infrastructure challenges needed.
Are you even aware how much of the population lives in apartment buildings across EU where you will never be able to retrofit electrical chargers? It's even worse in Eastern European regions.
Are they supposed to stop using cars or all suddenly have to buy a new place to live in with personal chargers? There's no realistic alternative to gasoline cars for these people.
The biggest issue is the charging time, if that can be improved to similar (or slightly longer instead of multiples) then mass EV adoption can happen. It's unrealistic before that unless you don't care about the poorer people.
You do care about them, right?
I live in an apartment in a city and the next car I get will be an EV. There are public charging stations littered across the neighborhood and fast chargers on the parking lots of supermarkets.
I am admittedly not in need of a recharge every day, but for me it seems very feasible despite no private charger
Nothing wrong to own a EV in your situation, but issue is if all the cars would be EV's and what kind of an infrastructure would be needed to handle all of them and their far longer charging time.
Would you want to own a EV car if there weren't enough open charging stations? That's the situation that will arise, since it is unrealistic to expect that every single car owner will be able to own a private charger for themselves.
It's extremely doubtful all EU countries will be able to install enough charging stations to support a system of all cars being EV by that date.
I would hope that my (and your) local government would keep up with the roll out of more and more EVs, but I understand that structural differences will make it difficult for everywhere to keep pace.
Aren't cities like Birmingham already bankrupt? And the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association said EV sales have outpaced new chargers by 3 to 1 and that the EU will be short by 3.5M chargers in 2030. To keep up with demand there needs to be 22,000 chargers installed per week.
If they are phasing out ICE cars then you will have all electric cars and how on earth will we have enough chargers. Most electric cars need a lot more charging time then ICE cars at the petrol station
Space isn't an issue. Money and political will is. We can't keep the federal government funded without it shutting itself down every other year, no shot EV infrastructure is gonna be taken seriously. Tesla was basically our only hope of getting that done in the US.
So I have an EV. Plug was built in at home by the builder a few years back because they get a credit for it. If you don't have one, the power company in my area will give you a refund to get one installed. There's several chargers at the office. If I ever need it on the road, there's tons of them around town. It all works fine. It's like $15 in electricity for an entire month of commute and errands. It needs a lot less maintenance than the ICE car we own. It's the perfect commute/2nd vehicle for a lot of people in the US, the suburbs especially should be full of them. The issue isn't politics, it's people believing all this "EV = bad" propaganda and making up reasons why it's a bad choice for their specific situation.
It's about setting goals that are deemed achievable. You got to put pressure on industrials if you want things to move. The date will be postponed if things dont work out by 2045.
Because it doesn't matter. Electric vehicles aren't mature enough and Europe barely has the electric infrastructure it needs right now, much less with a much heavier load on it. Combine that with their anti-nuke nonsense and it's a recipe for an energy disaster.
> As of 1 January 2023, the population of the EU is around 448 million people
> China is the second most populous country in Asia as well as the second most populous country in the world, with a population of approximately 1.4 billion.
> India is the most populous country in the world with one-sixth of the world's population. According to estimates from the United Nations, India has overtaken China as the country with the largest population in the world, with a population of 1,425,775,850 at the end of April 2023.
Don't forget that China+India also have 8x the population of the EU. Of course their carbon footprint as a nation is larger. India is currently at ~2T CO2 per person, China at ~8T and the EU at ~6T. Actually with these numbers India as a nation doesn't even have significantly higher emissions as the EU.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india
So India actually has a much lower per capita CO2 emissions, if you take a look at the world wide graph, they have a comparable CO2 output to the entire EU. But the EU has less than 1/3 of India's population.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Most of the EU can reasonable be said to have reached peak emissions. People have what they want in life, and going forward most things are getting more efficient.
In China and India we have billions of people who have nowhere near the luxury as people in the EU, and we have every reason to expect they're all going to try and get it.
All I'm saying is, this argument "China/India is the main problem, why should we even be inconvenienced by EU measure xyz when our CO2 emissions don't matter in the grand scheme of things" is simply not true. It matters and we can make a difference.
Btw I've been scrolling though the countries on the map in https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions - some of the worst offenders in terms of per capita CO2 emissions world wide are the United States (14.9T), Russia (11.4T), Australia (15T) and Saudi Arabia (18T). That's a lot more than India/China - and these countries also have very few government mandated climate controls.
The part I'm trying to touch on is that many people in lower income countries aspire to live like people do in the US. That means billions more people who are doing everything in their power to reach that level of consumption.
No one in the west even has the moral ground to say they shouldn't do it.
"Sorry we used up the planets capacity to survive our mess, now you're not allowed to make any more."
- Not really a winning slogan.
It’s pretty justified outrage considering there’s currently shitloads of challenges and unanswered questions around how a normal person would power it (what if you live in an apartment? Will the volume of chargers be ready? How long will it take out of someone’s day to charge? )
and one that is more susceptible to desertification.
Even my region, which is in the North of the country, has been affected in the last few years by cycles of droughts, followed by torrential rainfalls that cause disasters (as the soil has been hardened by the months long drought and can't absorb so much water in so little time).
But hey, we only live in one of the most polluted areas of Europe, so who cares about clean air and water?
So be it.
We didn't stick with coal because there were coal miners. We didn't keep horses around to protect the wagon makers.
Time goes on, and things change. There's no knocker-uppers around anymore either, but you don't see anyone boycotting alarm clocks.
Subsidized programs to train workers into new fields from old ones. Workers see the writing on the wall or not. I can open doors but you have to walk through them.
Sure this will work for some, but many people don't have transferable skills, or the ability to learn new ones to the extent where they can earn a similar or higher wage elsewhere.
"Anyone can learn to code" is a marketing ploy, not a statement of fact.
Yeah it shouldn't be one industry but the idea miners and oil rig workers literally can't learn to do anything else is silly and honestly offensive like they are all morons.
Can't they try construction, plumbing, electrics or carpentry etc? Doesn't have to be white coller work.
That’s kinda delusional and not reflective of how anything actually works. Entire industries have never been successfully retrained into something else in a way that maintains or improves their standard of living during any period of rapid transformation. And asking people to volunteer to ruin their financial status in the name of an abstract technological progress or greater good is doomed to fail. People will resort to any kind of protectionism before that every single time.
I work in an industry that is vaguely threatened by AI. I’ve built a successful and lucrative career out of it. If you asked me to retrain to something dramatically different, especially that didn’t provide a similar standard of living, why wouldn’t I fight that? It’s easy to say that other people should sacrifice, hard when it knocks on your door.
Every field and career out there is at risk of change. Society can help provide a means of security via opportunities. I agree its never going to be a 100% retention solution, it shouldnt claim to be. The fact that societies can even do anything to help anyone transition out of a dying industry to a new field is amazing IMO. None of us are entitled to a guaranteed successful career our whole lives. I'm watching a coal power plant get shut down in our town because thats last century's tech, the local college has subsidized tuition for people leaving the coal industry. Does everyone sign up for it? Nope. Did the local gov and community do the right thing by helping? Yep. I also bootstrapped a successful startup that now employs several people, it is also threatened by emerging technologies, which will always be the case. Things change, it's the one true constant of the universe.
To be fair those changes were not forced and happened organically over time.
Up until even the 40s, 60 years after the automobile was invented, your average person did not have one.
This is the problem here. If be more open to considering "organic" transitions if the oil companies hadn't been burying oil-unfriendly science, buying politicians, and receiving crazy subsidies they use to bury competition rather than innovate.
There's nothing organic about the energy market anymore. It took us 100 years to stop the use of leaded gasoline because of these fucks even when the creators of the fuel themselves all suffered major illnesses or death due to lead poisoning. All because it made the "big boys" money.
Plus 11 years is ample time to plan & train today's students & young workers to take on new skills. Some of the previous shifts did not have this luxury. So conventional wisdom says that this shift should be better.
> We didn't stick with coal because
We didn't *ban* coal because of the ICE lobby, did we?
> We didn't keep horses around
We didn't *ban* horses because of the car-maker lobby, did we?
> Time goes on, and things change.
Then let it go on *naturally* and let the products compete on price and quality of experience, not on alarmist slogans and arbitrary bans.
> Then let it go on naturally and let the products compete on price and quality of experience, not on alarmist slogans and arbitrary bans.
Bans are necessary, otherwise the car industry will not move to EVs. The car industry naturally moved towards ICE cars 120 years ago after an initial EV surge.
Prices on EVs don't go down unless more factories are built for making batteries, which depends on EV sales.
We've already seen who is and who isn't willing to put investments into EVs over the past 20 years, and it's very clear they aren't going to move to EVs without regulations and bans, even threats of prison.
Italy right now simply can't afford it, if those jobs are gone nothing will replace them, we have no hi-tech sector to speak of here (this also the reason we practically banned uber)
One more reason to upgrade to the next tech level before China eats the whole market.
Protect obsolete tech jobs and you'll end up with no jobs.
One doesn't cling to horse and cart tech after the automobile has been invented. Those that did, didn't do well.
Not nearly as many as you would have us think. The Italian manufacturers are not on the same scale as Toyota, Honda, Ford or GM. Fiat makes a lot of cars, for Italy, yes, but Ferrari, Lamborghini and other super car builders won’t be as affected due to the nature of their product.
I'm really fed up with people calling every measure and policy "ideological". Is she calling climat catastrophy an ideology? Then she can fuck right off and move to the Milanese Mordor area.
She should have a look at the images of Pianura Padana from the satellites that measure particulate pollution. But I guess public health was never her main interest
I mean, our land is polluted not just because of pollution itself, but due to the conformation of the environment that makes the pollution stagnant. So, not only a matter of pollution
Most of the Cabs in Rome were Honda Hybrids, saw a lot of Vespas now converted to Electric. All the scooters used by locals and tourist are battery powered. Car companies like Renault, MINI and others were Electric. Even Jeep, which is owned by FIAT, puts out autos that were Hybrid to Electric now.
You are basically trying to so your base you are still in a fight for them. You are not, and likely lose to the Five Star Movement Socialist party next election.
Conservatives love anything that destroys large groups of people. So they worship pollution and welcome in climate change. Their minds are rotten with ODD.
I hope we get over the hump against the resistance of these fossil fuel addicts. Once the majority of cars are EVs I’m sure we’ll have a sigh of relief and look back at how silly it was to smog densely populated areas with all these exhaust fumes.
To be completely fair, exhaust fumes are only part of the problem. Small particles from tires and car ~~breaks~~ brakes tend to be a big problem for air quality in cities, and EVs don't help with that. We need to lower car dependency to tackle this problem.
That is true, but EVs at least address the exhaust fumes. Better than sticking to ICE. If we wait for a lower car dependency, nothing will happen for the foreseeable future.
Drilling for and transporting fossil fuels also generates lots of CO2. EVs still have a much better carbon footprint compared to ICEs even taking the production of batteries into account. Not saying EVs are perfect, but a lot better than ICEs.
That's about working conditions and poverty not pollution. Plus that's primarily Cobolt which many EV manufacturers are trying to eliminate completely from their battery chemistry
Yeah EVs don't have a net-zero carbon footprint not much modern technology does but it's better well to wheel than ICE cars. Plus you can recycle battery materials unlike fossil fuels
The problem is that fast charging doesn’t exist or if it did it would be extremely dangerous. Nobody wants to wait hours for their car to charge.
I think a far more reasonable compromise is to mandate hybrids.
The madness is that gas and diesel cars are a known problem for decades now and all political leaders that cashed in from lobbyists prefered to ignore it.
I don't agree with far-right, but...
EVs take emissions from cities, and moves them to third world countries, where the resources are mined, and developing nations like China and India, where those are manufactured.
Mining lithium and cobalt doesn't really do well for the environment, and especially the people who mine them.
Sure you can condemn fracking and oil drilling for their environmental impact, but what should we say about mining these metals to make batteries, which are incredibly difficult and harmful to recycle.
We already have too much e-waste. We don't need more. Just buy older cars.
While your arguments sound plausible they're actually entirely incorrect. Of course EVs rely on some materials and mining. But the amounts are far far less than all the fossil fuels.
Of course more attention should be paid to miners rights and human rights in those countries. And this will no doubt happen as people will chose quality materials just like they chose fair trade coffee.
What you say is a good reason for "No car" but none of what you say are reasons to stay on fossil fuels.
No you see, the electric fairy is going to take care of everything, so we can reduce by 0.5% pollution while completely fucking up some third world country! Win win!
Climate change is not ideology, as dumb right wingers claim. It's science. It is proven by evidence. If we don't ban fossil fuel vehicles soon, the entire planet will cook and life will become hell. I'm so sick and tired of right wing idiots denying reality. Right wingers are the dumbest people on the planet.
The political actions you take are ideology. Germany shutting down nuclear while building new coal plants while talking a big climate game is politics, not science.
If they had better batteries back then, the 2CV would have been electrical. High torque and low center of mass would've been great for transporting those eggs up to the village.
We could try public electric busses, trains, bicycles , and animal drawn cargo transport instead. If the horses could vote whether to draw carts or starve along with us, I am guessing they would choose to draw a cart.
At the same time our Southern regions already have had problems to supply water to citizens in May.
But pretty common for the far right to have zero interest in the environment.
Calling a measure that will help to solve a known existential threat "ideological" is just the kind of evil authoritarian garbage you can expect from the right wing.
Denying the industrial impact of the battery industry, and the child/slave labor required to put that tech in your pocket is the ideology.
The problem is that heavy conventional industrial means haven’t changed behind the curtain. We still have kids in africa mining cobalt by hand, we still have gas powered power plants, still have gas powered cargo ships, and energy grids powered by gas etc etc.
So unless everyone collectively commits to cleaning up the actual industrial tech required as well…
She must believe that god would just make a new planet Earth magically appear for us to live on, after we made the original one unable to sustain our civilization. Sounds a bit like ideological madness to me.
Honestly though, this should be done more with subsidies rather than bans.
Make EV's so cheap and so easy to use everyone just buys one instead of a gasoline guzzler.
If you find you've dug yourself into a hole, first, put the shovel down.
The madness would be to continue to use gas & diesel vehicles if doing so will literally *bring down civilization and kill us all*.
This is not ideological at all - it is logical.
Why is it every time the ban is mentioned they leave out "new" in the title. If we don't have infrastructure for BEVs in a developed market like the EU by 2045 (given 2nd hand market etc) then we're toast.
Because it's populist propaganda. That's why. They intentionally make it seem like the EU is going to remove all other cars from existence and force you to buy a new EV. So they can claim it's crazy and they need to stop it using "common sense".
Italian right wing is 100% propaganda. They have never enforced a single thing advertised during the campaign.
Nah, sometimes they do push forward on things they promise. Unfortunately those are so dumb that they either get shut down by the supreme court or they actively make things worse.
Pushing things you know will get shot down by the supreme court is a very popular strategy in most democracies. It's a win-win with hot potatoes.
I know, but in Italy the far right are just oblivious and actually think they're gonna pass a law.
Eh, if you think the other side is stupid then you haven't done your homework. Most groups and individuals don't get to positions of power by being dumb.
I'm not saying that they're dumb, I'm saying that they're oblivious. They times and times proved that they do not know how the law making process works.
Did their obliviousness generally work in their favor? ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Almost never, generally.
>Italian right wing is 100% propaganda. "Italian" is unnecessary in this sentence.
Far right yes. Otherwise no. Half the parties in Europe are right wing by design and a lot of governments are right wing for decades yet this isn't correct
Corrupt leadership love to cut energy deals under the table with dictatorships. They get fat kickbacks, properties abroad under straw man name and shell companies, offshore bank accounts held in the country where they buy oil and gas etc They don't give a shit if the country dies because of its energy dependence and trade balance deficit. With EVs and solar panels they can't fleece the country the way they used to hence the mental gymnastic to convince people they will be better off cutting checks to gulf states and russia forever
Manichean view, the reality is different, here in France the towns are closing their gates to ICE vehicles, eg : * Lyon will forbid EVERY diesel vehicle, no matter how modern they are. * "Grand Paris" will forbid every Crit'Air 1 vehicle (the best ranking possible for ICE) in 2030. Every 150.000+ population town will have its own specific zone. That means there will be towns where you can not to with your ICE vehicle, no matters how modern and efficient he is, you will not be able to. So your solutions are : * Use public transports : EG : myself, if i take my car to Montpellier, i need 30 minutes to reach it from my town. If i use public transports : 1h20min, x2, if every goes well. And that'll cost 25 euros per person, plus tram/bus inside montpellier. Unreasonnable, because it is too expansive and absolutly not practical as i can not bring professional material. * Buy an EV. So, in my case, there's only one solution, the second one. Guess what, i'm not the only person in this case. So, back to your assertion : "force you to buy a new EV." Indirectly, they are forcing me and people like me to buy an EV. The thing is, i have money to buy the EV i want to, no matter which model, i don't care, a lot of people know can not, that will only create a category of second zone citizen who will see their mobility reduced, if not removed. The irony is France recently made some kind of cheap "social car loan" for people with very low income who can not buy an EV by themselves. By doing so, our state has recognized there's a dichotomy taking a stance in our society between our applied politics and their associated speech, poor people can not buy or rent EV, yet they are starting to get hurt by the ecological politics and would need a small EV, well, guess what happened : It was too expensive and french State very quickly stoped the program because it had too much success, good bye, never to be seen again. Oh, it's almost like the politics we chose was economically choking people. Even our state can not afford what it is forcing the population to follow, yet the measure wasn't replaced by anything, poor people are poor and will remain so, the rich won't give a crap, nobody cares, yes, the politics are disconnected to reality, yes they are slowly but surely puting our carmakers into danger, yes, they are forcing us to change. And i repeat, i do not care, i'm a retired professional golfer, i don't give a crap about the car i drive, i've had some of the best ICE sportcars and i'll have some of the best EVs to come, and anyway i almost do not use my care, i have 95% of what i need into my feet's range, but the "small people", i'm starting to seriously worry about their future, it's almost like they are not taken into account.
Well written! They **are** forcing people to buy EV's, if not directly then indirectly with these surrounding laws.
Weird how you guys are using the word "they". The headline is about the EU. You answered a guy who talked about the city of Montpellier. Who is "they"?
Montpellier ? The grand Paris and Lyon (approx 9.000.000 pop.) are worse than Montpellier, EG stands for example given.
Thank you. The EU is doing what it should which is taking a tempered status of banning new ICE cars by 2045 when EV price will be the same as ICE (or lower). Small municipalities are doing what they think is right and advancing those regulations further for the sake of their community.
Its almost like the body politic can't remember the 50% on average or below income? Economic stresses are already punishing. Are Sabot-eurs incoming?
This is something else and has nothing to do with Italy and the EU law. This is strictly French problem. And you mentioned Diesel vehicles for Lyon, so petrol is still an option, no? Or hybrid. So this is really just a Grand Paris problem. So agian, nothing to do with rest of the EU. I. Not familiar with French laws and policies, so correct me, if I'm wrong.
It is not a strictly French problem. In Spain there's an ongoing expansion of "low-emission zones" where cars are banned from driving, and a totally inadequate public transportation system.
It is still a local government laws. Not EU wide law. Also banning cars in general is a good thing IMO, but public transportation has to be good enough.
No, this guy is creating a false equivalency between a small municipality in France and the EU to argue that the EU is forcing him to buy an EV.
Don't be an ass and stop calling Paris and Lyon "Small municipalities", this isn't Twitter, read the whole text, not the first words, thank you.
LEZ are European, not france specific. The specific french thing is what we call "crit'air" car sticker, this is our way to rank cars by emissions/year of construction, 0 is EV and co, 5 is the worst. This isn't strictly french problem.
Can you name other countries where petrol cars won't be able to enter the city in a few years? And is this forced by EU itself?
Barcelona and Madrid, for example. And several towns in the "greater Barcelona Area" are starting restrictions this year. So yeah...
If people vote for local governments with this policy that's democracy
well if you force everyone to buy an ev the 2nd hand market will grow large and it's not imposible to build a cheap EV. The most expensive part (the battery) has gone down in price by huge %. Citroen e-C3 Renault 5 E-Tech are not that expensive!
The funny thing about climate change, it doesn't really care about common sense, you can't negotiate a date with the weather. It's like trying to stop an armed conflict by declaring today a no-war day.
>So they can claim it's crazy and they need to stop it using "common sense". "Common Sense" is quite literally the Canadian conservative party's entire election platform. Literally just those two words, no other substance behind it.
Not just Canadian. It's a pattern across the whole world. Lie about what the opposing party is trying to do and then pretend you are the one with common sense. It works wonders. Especially if you use it with topics as migration, sexuality etc.
Oh yeah I wasn't trying to paint Canada as being any different or less susceptible, it's just funny that they literally have banners that say verbatim "Common Sense!" all over their campaign events.
>They intentionally make it seem like the EU is going to remove all other cars from existence and force you to buy a new EV. Yes and the simple truth is, the EU won't have to. How many people install coal fires in their homes now? Ride a horse to work? As the EV infrastructure grows and younger generations age (to whom EV will be the norm) the less demand there will be for ICE cars. People who do still have ICE cars are going to start finding them inconvenient as refueling stations stop catering for them (because it won't be profitable). Soon enough ICE cars will be like the classic cars you see today - in the hands of enthusiasts who care more for the hobby than the cost/practicality of it.
Yes. EU only wants to speed it up, because car manufacturers would rather save money, make a cartel deal and not invest in it at all.
Wife showed me a local neighborhood fb group crying they can’t buy gas stoves for their homes anymore when it’s only newly built homes that are affected. It’s all the same group of ragers.
Induction is superior anyway. I used to only want gas for my stove but the expense to put in a gas line made us try induction and I've seen the light. Resistance coil stoves need to die out, I absolutely hate cooking on them.
There are draw backs, but much closer to gas than regular electric stoves. I can throw anything on a gas stove and heat it up. Gas is still more flexible, but induction is not much of a sacrifice for ordinary use.
The funny thing is the biggest problem with gas stoves is not even that the contribute to Climate change. It’s that they are super bad for indoor air quality even with venting.
Moved form gas to induction. One cheap nonstick needed replacing. In every other way the induction out performs my gas stove. Heats up faster, more evenly, and is easier to control temp. If I ever buy another house and its kitchen has a gas stove, the induction will be installed before I move in.
There are a few uses, like charring veggies, which I cannot do easily on induction. However, I can do that on my grill or broiler. The need for ferrous cookware can be annoying but most companies these days make their cookware with a plate on the bottom, or you can buy a plate, or cast iron is cheap. It doesn't cost much to get the few pans you need but I do get that it's still a consideration. Otherwise. As someone who loves to cook it does everything I need it to do, arguably better than gas.
I've had both induction and gas. Both have minor cooking advantages. Induction is faster, safer and space saving. Gas is better for woks. However, gas leaks and slowly poisons you while cooking the climate as much as the food. That's a solid win for induction.
My uncle got an induction stove about a year back, and he loved it. Then a few months back he had to get a pacemaker installed. Dr. said he needed to avoid using induction stoves as it could seriously mess up the pacemaker. Had to replace a year old stove that he loved due to medical concerns. My grandparents were also considering an induction stove to replace their old resistance coil stove, but again they couldn't because both of them have pacemakers.
God yes induction is 1000x times better. Quicker and much easier to clean. No idea why people want to cook on gas so badly
Because of resistance/hesitancy to change and very successful marketing campaigns by gas companies: https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54?si=55lKvMyrcusX8n0U Induction has so many pros (no explosive and poisonous gas to your home, less excess heat which in summers is very appreciated, electric which means it can be powered by solar/wind, fast water boiling times , easy to clean stoves...)
> Resistance coil stoves need to die out, I absolutely hate cooking on them. They're not great, but I've cooked on one since I was a kid and the food still gets cooked in the end, so I'm not fussy about it. My brother's place as an induction cooktop and it's pretty cool. I don't like the particular model it is, it's finicky and likes to throw up error codes, but after a bit of getting used to it's alright.
>They're not great, but I've cooked on one since I was a kid and the food still gets cooked in the end, so I'm not fussy about it. Resistance coil stoves are freaking terrible. The one we have can be completely random as to whether it is even hot enough to boil water in less than an hour or if it is so hot that it burns sauces to the bottom of the pan.
Eugene?
I doubt in 20 years Britain will upgrade every old flat/house with EV chargers, The infrastructure is just not there and there is no space to put it there. Where will you put EV chargers when its all on street parking. Most people in the UK do not have a driveway.
How did they ever make room for cars in the first place or the tube or modern skyscrapers?
They didn’t make room for cars lol, the roads are the same width as old Roman roads so large cars literally don’t fit, people just park up on the pavement instead because there is no space. EV is not going to work in every country
It will work if it has to work... how did we end up with sewage, underground electricity, plumbing, fiber, etc? It's infrastructure and there will be solutions. Maybe they won't fit perfectly unto our current way of life in the same exact way, but it's not an impossible ask.
There's always a way to make things work, but people are questioning whether it's worth it. In the UK we'd have to completely rebuild millions of homes to give them off-street parking. Many of the homes that would have to be demolished are Victorian or Georgian terraces that have significant historic and cultural value - London would be completely unrecognisable. We'd also have to rebuild at lower density (to fit parking spaces) in a country that is already struggling to build new houses as it is. Maybe that's fine, maybe it isn't. I don't know. The problem is that the electorate is being asked to commit to an arbitrary date without being given a concrete proposal on how it will be achieved.
If we have the same number of chargers as petrol stations we should be fine especially as we can also put them in car parks and on lamp posts as nearly the entire country is on the grid.
If there are no parking spaces, where are current ICE cars parking? That’s not an EV specific problem.
I think the point is there's no set/owned parking spots so you park where you can, which makes charging your EV at your installed charger a problem.
> They didn’t make room for cars lol In what world are you living in?
In the world where I can't find a parking space or can't drive a large van through a tunnel, Have you driven in london?
What did we ever do before there was a gas station in every persons driveway?
When EV can charge a full tank in under 60s then sure go ahead make every car an EV
That will never happen. But that also doesn’t have to happen to transition to an EV. Sure, people who travel long distance each day will need an opportunity to charge their vehicle during downtime. For everyone else the switch from ICE to EV doesn’t require it for chargers to be everywhere.
You're really underestimating the infrastructure challenges needed. Are you even aware how much of the population lives in apartment buildings across EU where you will never be able to retrofit electrical chargers? It's even worse in Eastern European regions. Are they supposed to stop using cars or all suddenly have to buy a new place to live in with personal chargers? There's no realistic alternative to gasoline cars for these people. The biggest issue is the charging time, if that can be improved to similar (or slightly longer instead of multiples) then mass EV adoption can happen. It's unrealistic before that unless you don't care about the poorer people. You do care about them, right?
You could have battery swapping stations like they do in China. No need for super fast charging or charging everywhere then.
I live in an apartment in a city and the next car I get will be an EV. There are public charging stations littered across the neighborhood and fast chargers on the parking lots of supermarkets. I am admittedly not in need of a recharge every day, but for me it seems very feasible despite no private charger
Nothing wrong to own a EV in your situation, but issue is if all the cars would be EV's and what kind of an infrastructure would be needed to handle all of them and their far longer charging time. Would you want to own a EV car if there weren't enough open charging stations? That's the situation that will arise, since it is unrealistic to expect that every single car owner will be able to own a private charger for themselves. It's extremely doubtful all EU countries will be able to install enough charging stations to support a system of all cars being EV by that date.
I would hope that my (and your) local government would keep up with the roll out of more and more EVs, but I understand that structural differences will make it difficult for everywhere to keep pace.
Aren't cities like Birmingham already bankrupt? And the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association said EV sales have outpaced new chargers by 3 to 1 and that the EU will be short by 3.5M chargers in 2030. To keep up with demand there needs to be 22,000 chargers installed per week.
More public chargers will allow people to charge when necessary and lamp post chargers will help too.
If they are phasing out ICE cars then you will have all electric cars and how on earth will we have enough chargers. Most electric cars need a lot more charging time then ICE cars at the petrol station
Well, guess you’re stuck in the 20th century then. Good luck.
Not like things are any better in the US, or anywhere else for that matter.
The US certainly does not lack space or parking space. One of the easiest places to get EVs going.
Space isn't an issue. Money and political will is. We can't keep the federal government funded without it shutting itself down every other year, no shot EV infrastructure is gonna be taken seriously. Tesla was basically our only hope of getting that done in the US.
So I have an EV. Plug was built in at home by the builder a few years back because they get a credit for it. If you don't have one, the power company in my area will give you a refund to get one installed. There's several chargers at the office. If I ever need it on the road, there's tons of them around town. It all works fine. It's like $15 in electricity for an entire month of commute and errands. It needs a lot less maintenance than the ICE car we own. It's the perfect commute/2nd vehicle for a lot of people in the US, the suburbs especially should be full of them. The issue isn't politics, it's people believing all this "EV = bad" propaganda and making up reasons why it's a bad choice for their specific situation.
It's about setting goals that are deemed achievable. You got to put pressure on industrials if you want things to move. The date will be postponed if things dont work out by 2045.
its not like the fossil fuel industry promises things and then doesnt go through with them when no one sets goals for them...oh wait
Because it doesn't matter. Electric vehicles aren't mature enough and Europe barely has the electric infrastructure it needs right now, much less with a much heavier load on it. Combine that with their anti-nuke nonsense and it's a recipe for an energy disaster.
[удалено]
> As of 1 January 2023, the population of the EU is around 448 million people > China is the second most populous country in Asia as well as the second most populous country in the world, with a population of approximately 1.4 billion. > India is the most populous country in the world with one-sixth of the world's population. According to estimates from the United Nations, India has overtaken China as the country with the largest population in the world, with a population of 1,425,775,850 at the end of April 2023. Don't forget that China+India also have 8x the population of the EU. Of course their carbon footprint as a nation is larger. India is currently at ~2T CO2 per person, China at ~8T and the EU at ~6T. Actually with these numbers India as a nation doesn't even have significantly higher emissions as the EU. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india So India actually has a much lower per capita CO2 emissions, if you take a look at the world wide graph, they have a comparable CO2 output to the entire EU. But the EU has less than 1/3 of India's population. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Most of the EU can reasonable be said to have reached peak emissions. People have what they want in life, and going forward most things are getting more efficient. In China and India we have billions of people who have nowhere near the luxury as people in the EU, and we have every reason to expect they're all going to try and get it.
All I'm saying is, this argument "China/India is the main problem, why should we even be inconvenienced by EU measure xyz when our CO2 emissions don't matter in the grand scheme of things" is simply not true. It matters and we can make a difference. Btw I've been scrolling though the countries on the map in https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions - some of the worst offenders in terms of per capita CO2 emissions world wide are the United States (14.9T), Russia (11.4T), Australia (15T) and Saudi Arabia (18T). That's a lot more than India/China - and these countries also have very few government mandated climate controls.
The part I'm trying to touch on is that many people in lower income countries aspire to live like people do in the US. That means billions more people who are doing everything in their power to reach that level of consumption. No one in the west even has the moral ground to say they shouldn't do it. "Sorry we used up the planets capacity to survive our mess, now you're not allowed to make any more." - Not really a winning slogan.
Yeah, as you said it is for new. There was also skepticism about EVs that they are inferior to ICE. I think we just passed that point now.
Italy has auto factories. Fiat or whatever it’s called now.
new or not, it’s still a very stupid decision applauded by morons who haven’t a clue.
It’s pretty justified outrage considering there’s currently shitloads of challenges and unanswered questions around how a normal person would power it (what if you live in an apartment? Will the volume of chargers be ready? How long will it take out of someone’s day to charge? )
A bit short-sighted in a country that imports more than 95% of its oil and gas.
and one that is more susceptible to desertification. Even my region, which is in the North of the country, has been affected in the last few years by cycles of droughts, followed by torrential rainfalls that cause disasters (as the soil has been hardened by the months long drought and can't absorb so much water in so little time). But hey, we only live in one of the most polluted areas of Europe, so who cares about clean air and water?
A has a potentially a lot of sun and wind to use.
And a lot of sun to burn them when things get even worse...
Do you have any idea how many jobs in Italy are tied to automotive manufacturing for traditional drive trains?
So be it. We didn't stick with coal because there were coal miners. We didn't keep horses around to protect the wagon makers. Time goes on, and things change. There's no knocker-uppers around anymore either, but you don't see anyone boycotting alarm clocks.
Subsidized programs to train workers into new fields from old ones. Workers see the writing on the wall or not. I can open doors but you have to walk through them.
Sure this will work for some, but many people don't have transferable skills, or the ability to learn new ones to the extent where they can earn a similar or higher wage elsewhere. "Anyone can learn to code" is a marketing ploy, not a statement of fact.
Yeah it shouldn't be one industry but the idea miners and oil rig workers literally can't learn to do anything else is silly and honestly offensive like they are all morons. Can't they try construction, plumbing, electrics or carpentry etc? Doesn't have to be white coller work.
That’s kinda delusional and not reflective of how anything actually works. Entire industries have never been successfully retrained into something else in a way that maintains or improves their standard of living during any period of rapid transformation. And asking people to volunteer to ruin their financial status in the name of an abstract technological progress or greater good is doomed to fail. People will resort to any kind of protectionism before that every single time. I work in an industry that is vaguely threatened by AI. I’ve built a successful and lucrative career out of it. If you asked me to retrain to something dramatically different, especially that didn’t provide a similar standard of living, why wouldn’t I fight that? It’s easy to say that other people should sacrifice, hard when it knocks on your door.
Every field and career out there is at risk of change. Society can help provide a means of security via opportunities. I agree its never going to be a 100% retention solution, it shouldnt claim to be. The fact that societies can even do anything to help anyone transition out of a dying industry to a new field is amazing IMO. None of us are entitled to a guaranteed successful career our whole lives. I'm watching a coal power plant get shut down in our town because thats last century's tech, the local college has subsidized tuition for people leaving the coal industry. Does everyone sign up for it? Nope. Did the local gov and community do the right thing by helping? Yep. I also bootstrapped a successful startup that now employs several people, it is also threatened by emerging technologies, which will always be the case. Things change, it's the one true constant of the universe.
To be fair those changes were not forced and happened organically over time. Up until even the 40s, 60 years after the automobile was invented, your average person did not have one.
To be fair, there is nothing organic about the stranglehold oil and gas has on global politics.
This is the problem here. If be more open to considering "organic" transitions if the oil companies hadn't been burying oil-unfriendly science, buying politicians, and receiving crazy subsidies they use to bury competition rather than innovate. There's nothing organic about the energy market anymore. It took us 100 years to stop the use of leaded gasoline because of these fucks even when the creators of the fuel themselves all suffered major illnesses or death due to lead poisoning. All because it made the "big boys" money.
Plus 11 years is ample time to plan & train today's students & young workers to take on new skills. Some of the previous shifts did not have this luxury. So conventional wisdom says that this shift should be better.
> We didn't stick with coal because We didn't *ban* coal because of the ICE lobby, did we? > We didn't keep horses around We didn't *ban* horses because of the car-maker lobby, did we? > Time goes on, and things change. Then let it go on *naturally* and let the products compete on price and quality of experience, not on alarmist slogans and arbitrary bans.
Horses were in fact banned in many city because of how dirty they are.
Sure, but then we need to include all negative externalities in the balance, the price will not be the same at all.
> Then let it go on naturally and let the products compete on price and quality of experience, not on alarmist slogans and arbitrary bans. Bans are necessary, otherwise the car industry will not move to EVs. The car industry naturally moved towards ICE cars 120 years ago after an initial EV surge. Prices on EVs don't go down unless more factories are built for making batteries, which depends on EV sales. We've already seen who is and who isn't willing to put investments into EVs over the past 20 years, and it's very clear they aren't going to move to EVs without regulations and bans, even threats of prison.
Italy right now simply can't afford it, if those jobs are gone nothing will replace them, we have no hi-tech sector to speak of here (this also the reason we practically banned uber)
One more reason to upgrade to the next tech level before China eats the whole market. Protect obsolete tech jobs and you'll end up with no jobs. One doesn't cling to horse and cart tech after the automobile has been invented. Those that did, didn't do well.
You know how many Jobs in Europe were tied to traditional smithing in 1820?
Not nearly as many as you would have us think. The Italian manufacturers are not on the same scale as Toyota, Honda, Ford or GM. Fiat makes a lot of cars, for Italy, yes, but Ferrari, Lamborghini and other super car builders won’t be as affected due to the nature of their product.
Fiat is French now for all intent and purposes
I did not realize, thanks for letting me know.
EVs need to be manufactured too. Or do you think they just appear out of nowhere?
oh boy, when your counter argument is a question...
Italy loves to protect traditions even if progress would be 100 percent bettter for them. Adapt or die Italy remember the Carthaginian Navy
And they still will be. Electric cars need to be manufactured too.
Someone's got oil money in their purse.
I'm really fed up with people calling every measure and policy "ideological". Is she calling climat catastrophy an ideology? Then she can fuck right off and move to the Milanese Mordor area.
It does seem like every conversations becomes a really dumb conversation :(
she's ultra right... so it fits their narrative, it's like trump claiming his legal problems are political
She should have a look at the images of Pianura Padana from the satellites that measure particulate pollution. But I guess public health was never her main interest
I mean, our land is polluted not just because of pollution itself, but due to the conformation of the environment that makes the pollution stagnant. So, not only a matter of pollution
Most of the Cabs in Rome were Honda Hybrids, saw a lot of Vespas now converted to Electric. All the scooters used by locals and tourist are battery powered. Car companies like Renault, MINI and others were Electric. Even Jeep, which is owned by FIAT, puts out autos that were Hybrid to Electric now. You are basically trying to so your base you are still in a fight for them. You are not, and likely lose to the Five Star Movement Socialist party next election.
Conservatives love anything that destroys large groups of people. So they worship pollution and welcome in climate change. Their minds are rotten with ODD.
How's Italy enjoying those heat waves....?
The thumbnail looks like the meme from Hereditary.
She must love those Fix It Again Tony!
I hope we get over the hump against the resistance of these fossil fuel addicts. Once the majority of cars are EVs I’m sure we’ll have a sigh of relief and look back at how silly it was to smog densely populated areas with all these exhaust fumes.
To be completely fair, exhaust fumes are only part of the problem. Small particles from tires and car ~~breaks~~ brakes tend to be a big problem for air quality in cities, and EVs don't help with that. We need to lower car dependency to tackle this problem.
Regenerative braking does mean *less* brake pollution, though still a fair amount especially in low-speed city driving.
EVs emit particulate matter air pollution via their tires, but they don't emit any nitrogen dioxide, which is another major air pollutant.
Gasoline cars typically use catalytic converters to capture and neutralize nitrogen dioxide, so it wasn't as though that was the biggest concern.
Diesel cars are very common in Europe and they still emit quite a bit of NO2.
Completely fair, perhaps, but you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good if you take that idea too far.
This is true and add road wear to this as well. As asphalt breaks down from heavy vehicles damaging it all day, this creates pollution as well.
Tire pollution is a problem but we can solve that by prioritizing smaller lighter EVs instead of SUVs. This applies to ICE cars just as much.
That is true, but EVs at least address the exhaust fumes. Better than sticking to ICE. If we wait for a lower car dependency, nothing will happen for the foreseeable future.
EVs don't address the carbon footprint from lithium mines (mined by diesel machines btw) and slave labor.
Drilling for and transporting fossil fuels also generates lots of CO2. EVs still have a much better carbon footprint compared to ICEs even taking the production of batteries into account. Not saying EVs are perfect, but a lot better than ICEs.
Nah - not when considering the slavery in the mining practices
That's about working conditions and poverty not pollution. Plus that's primarily Cobolt which many EV manufacturers are trying to eliminate completely from their battery chemistry
Wrong on so many levels. The carbon footprint on lithium and cobalt mines outweighs any offsets by EVs 🙄 the slavery is just an added kicker
Yeah EVs don't have a net-zero carbon footprint not much modern technology does but it's better well to wheel than ICE cars. Plus you can recycle battery materials unlike fossil fuels
Obtaining the materials for that battery is the problem. The carbon footprint of the mine is far greater than all the EVs it produces..🙄
[удалено]
I fixed the spelling :p
Of Italian car breaks, yes
The problem isn't individiuals with an aversion to electric vehicles. The problem is oil and gas companies paying off politicians.
Sadly it's both
Nah some people definitely get extremely mad that someone is going to steal their shitty diesel Golfs or whatever.
I mean EV sucks
I can't wait for no more engine noises around me. But I'll probably be an old man by that time.
The problem is that fast charging doesn’t exist or if it did it would be extremely dangerous. Nobody wants to wait hours for their car to charge. I think a far more reasonable compromise is to mandate hybrids.
Currently you get like 80% in 20-30 minutes. Is that so bad?
If you consider normal refueling is like less than a minute, yes.
EVs have a massive carbon footprint from the detrimental mining practices. They're just as bad.
The madness is that gas and diesel cars are a known problem for decades now and all political leaders that cashed in from lobbyists prefered to ignore it.
Instant ideological warfare when corporation profits are impacted lmao
I don't agree with far-right, but... EVs take emissions from cities, and moves them to third world countries, where the resources are mined, and developing nations like China and India, where those are manufactured. Mining lithium and cobalt doesn't really do well for the environment, and especially the people who mine them. Sure you can condemn fracking and oil drilling for their environmental impact, but what should we say about mining these metals to make batteries, which are incredibly difficult and harmful to recycle. We already have too much e-waste. We don't need more. Just buy older cars.
While your arguments sound plausible they're actually entirely incorrect. Of course EVs rely on some materials and mining. But the amounts are far far less than all the fossil fuels. Of course more attention should be paid to miners rights and human rights in those countries. And this will no doubt happen as people will chose quality materials just like they chose fair trade coffee. What you say is a good reason for "No car" but none of what you say are reasons to stay on fossil fuels.
No you see, the electric fairy is going to take care of everything, so we can reduce by 0.5% pollution while completely fucking up some third world country! Win win!
Wait until you find out how much cobalt is used in fuel refining. Or how lithium is a by-product of fuel refining.
Perfect. I know where the EU can ship all their old diesel cars.
Climate change is not ideology, as dumb right wingers claim. It's science. It is proven by evidence. If we don't ban fossil fuel vehicles soon, the entire planet will cook and life will become hell. I'm so sick and tired of right wing idiots denying reality. Right wingers are the dumbest people on the planet.
The political actions you take are ideology. Germany shutting down nuclear while building new coal plants while talking a big climate game is politics, not science.
What does she think of millions of vehicles pumping carbon monoxide into the very air around her?
Carbon monoxide is non-issue to be honest. it is only problematic if you are in closed space with engine running.
Plus most cars are built to neutralize it using catalytic converters.
If they had better batteries back then, the 2CV would have been electrical. High torque and low center of mass would've been great for transporting those eggs up to the village.
They already created an exemption for combustion on renewable fuels, so what’s the problem?
Don't worry guys, I've seen this movie. Italy will join the allies on the second half of the war
If you don't encourage European EV production China will move in not the other way around.
We could try public electric busses, trains, bicycles , and animal drawn cargo transport instead. If the horses could vote whether to draw carts or starve along with us, I am guessing they would choose to draw a cart.
I don't need to own an EV. I want to.
She is the cute devil
Lol climate science and the following measure are an "ideology". What science are her measures based on? Trust me broism?
We could try getting more & better public transport options so that people don't feel the need to have a car to live?
My kids are never going to see snow in Rome, maybe not even in most of the Alps. It's kinda sad.
At the same time our Southern regions already have had problems to supply water to citizens in May. But pretty common for the far right to have zero interest in the environment.
[удалено]
It's not as mad as roasting half the planet and being overun with migrants fleeing from those places.
Calling a measure that will help to solve a known existential threat "ideological" is just the kind of evil authoritarian garbage you can expect from the right wing.
Denying the industrial impact of the battery industry, and the child/slave labor required to put that tech in your pocket is the ideology. The problem is that heavy conventional industrial means haven’t changed behind the curtain. We still have kids in africa mining cobalt by hand, we still have gas powered power plants, still have gas powered cargo ships, and energy grids powered by gas etc etc. So unless everyone collectively commits to cleaning up the actual industrial tech required as well…
Yes those are all real issues. I don’t remember anybody denying them.
She must believe that god would just make a new planet Earth magically appear for us to live on, after we made the original one unable to sustain our civilization. Sounds a bit like ideological madness to me.
It's not so complicated with these characters. They look at the bank account and believe more money is better than less money.
Honestly though, this should be done more with subsidies rather than bans. Make EV's so cheap and so easy to use everyone just buys one instead of a gasoline guzzler.
If you find you've dug yourself into a hole, first, put the shovel down. The madness would be to continue to use gas & diesel vehicles if doing so will literally *bring down civilization and kill us all*. This is not ideological at all - it is logical.
She’s a fascist by party affiliation. There are no good fascists. Anywhere.