Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By one reckoning, the truly committed environmentalists would foreswear driving completely. They'd cycle (maybe add an electric motor to their bicycle) or take public transit. Similarly, the truly committed wouldn't be building $2M "passive houses" with the latest technology in windows or insulation. Instead they'd be living in small apartments in older unrestored buildings, putting on extra sweaters in the winter and not using the air conditioning in the summer.
In other words, there's a demonstrative image associated with being "green", and nevertheless consuming in Western-style... good acceleration, lots of square footage, delicious foods, comfortable this and sumptuous that, but in a manner that appears to be innovative, tech-savvy and so on. And then there's the actual process of reusing some old thing that's already built, not running some appliance (or not even owning it), and basically just doing-without.
By many other different reckonings...........etc.........
I do however take your point. Fact is, it's not a one size fits all equation.
The three R's are 1: Reduce, 2: Reuse, 3: Recycle in that order. A Tesla that "reduces" relative to the alternative, is better than recycling the alternative, because the Tesla can be recycled too.
By one reckoning, the truly committed environmentalists would foreswear driving completely.
In other words, there's a demonstrative image associated with being "green", and nevertheless consuming in Western-style.. .
So my 85 year old mother with her 14 year Subaru Impreza that gets 22 mpg which she drove less than 2200 miles last year (under 100 gallons of gasoline) is actually the greenest driver you know. Most people in 14 years have swapped out their automobile at least once.
Nothing is lost in the universe. Matter turns into energy, energy turns into matter. Everything is continuously changing. Life is like a river flowing on and on, ever-changing. There is continuous changes due to the law of cause and effect.
So my 85 year old mother with her 14 year Subaru Impreza that gets 22 mpg which she drove less than 2200 miles last year (under 100 gallons of gasoline) is actually the greenest driver you know. Most people in 14 years have swapped out their automobile at least once.
Nothing is lost in the universe. Matter turns into energy, energy turns into matter. Everything is continuously changing. Life is like a river flowing on and on, ever-changing. There is continuous changes due to the law of cause and effect.
You are correct . I as well have a sedan I don't drive too much and ebike to work or around town when weathers good.
Green Energy is just as profit driven and monetized as fossil energy, and company's incentives are for people to consume. Part of the problem with the environmental movement now is it's become so focused on CO2 that it clouds out other issues, so destruction from mining or agriculture gets overlooked if the end product has some sort of potential for CO2 offsetting.
Eventually EVs do make more sense, but pushing them along with massive subsidies now won't really achieve massive benefits to the environment as if that money were used in other manners.
Part of the bad advertising on green electricity is the recycling pitch. Yes wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and cars CAN be recycled, but just because they can be does not mean they are being recycled. The vast majority are ending up in landfills today, and this is silently ignored by the green media.
You are correct . I as well have a sedan I don't drive too much and ebike to work or around town when weathers good.
Green Energy is just as profit driven and monetized as fossil energy, and company's incentives are for people to consume. Part of the problem with the environmental movement now is it's become so focused on CO2 that it clouds out other issues, so destruction from mining or agriculture gets overlooked if the end product has some sort of potential for CO2 offsetting.
Eventually EVs do make more sense, but pushing them along with massive subsidies now won't really achieve massive benefits to the environment as if that money were used in other manners.
Part of the bad advertising on green electricity is the recycling pitch. Yes wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and cars CAN be recycled, but just because they can be does not mean they are being recycled. The vast majority are ending up in landfills today, and this is silently ignored by the green media.
And to achieve these massive benefits you believe are currently being squandered, you would take this subsidy money and redirect it to do what, exactly?
So my 85 year old mother with her 14 year Subaru Impreza that gets 22 mpg which she drove less than 2200 miles last year (under 100 gallons of gasoline) is actually the greenest driver you know.
In a certain sense yes. Similarly, I have a hot-rod with no catalytic converter and a 7.5 liter V8 engine. It hasn't been started since around 2017, and hasn't been driven since maybe 2012. And in the decade prior, it was driven maybe 30 miles... total. Even if it gets only 7 mpg, and pollutes 1000X more per-mile than a 2021-spec passenger sedan, its cumulative environmental impact, not to mention its cumulative energy-usage, is probably better than that of any daily-driven Prius.
Setting facetiousness aside, how we use our tools, matters more than what those tools inherently are. An AR-15 may be dangerous, but it if it's kept locked in an armored vault for 30 years, it's going to be less dangerous than a plastic spoon left on the kitchen counter, as the spoon could fracture into shards and poke some one's eye. OK, that was a tad facetious again. Sorry! The point is, that if we acquire some tool with anticipation of doing a job more efficiently, we ought to first ponder, that even more efficient might be the forgoing to the job entirely. So if our success-metric is the minimization of effort, environmental-impact, cost, energy-usage, disturbing this-or-that, or any sort of irreversibility, then the least-costly thing is to just do nothing.
In my admittedly limited circle, the appeal of a Tesla - for those who are seduced by such appeal - is (1) straight-line acceleration, (2) quiet operation, (3) cool techy gadgets, and (4) relatively understated image. Minimal environmental impact, or saving money from recharging at home vs. paying for gas (even in California), are not significant factors. Thus a car like a Mirai won't be appealing at any price point, simply because it lacks the requisite straight-line performance.
this is the truth for me. environmental factors were 0% of my decision to buy the tesla (but i reserve the right to say it was if it appeals to the person listening). i wanted an awesome car and i wanted something that didnt have too flashy of a brand name as perceived by employees and generally people looking at my car. porsche, mercedes, range rover, etc. were names i didnt want to have attached to me.
And to achieve these massive benefits you believe are currently being squandered, you would take this subsidy money and redirect it to do what, exactly?
Well, they could chop down more fire breaks in the dead tree swaths in Colorado to prevent more 200000+ acre fires; that would save lots of CO2. Or they could scrap ethanol and buy farmland in riversheds feeding into the Mississippi and Missouri river and reconvert those to beaver ponds to reduce nutrient pollution in the Gulf...
There's lots of ways to spend money that have a much better environmental impact than to give Mr Musk & Bros more cash.
To Ohio's point, following the cut usage theme to the limit means doing nothing. That's not the answer, getting rid of all humans is pretty nihilistic. Rather cutting usage in modest amounts is simply a means to buy us more time until we have better knowledge to build better tech which pollutes less and produces more.
The vast majority are ending up in landfills today, and this is silently ignored by the green media.
kind of like how all these years we have been sending our recyclables to china who was promptly dumping most of them in the ocean and the media was silent on it. they even let people believe that it was their plastic straws that made a difference.
Critics of battery operated Electric Vehicles say that they are not really cleaning up the environment, they are just shifting the environmental damage from tailpipe emissions to power plants and the manufacture of batteries. Defenders say that pollution control is better managed at plants instead of on the streets shared with people.
Now that Toyota has dropped the price of their hydrogen powered vehicle, the Mirai, so that it is comparable to most Tesla model there comes a point where we have to ask the question "Are most Tesla buyers interested in a performance vehicle that they don't have to feel guilty about, or are they truly worried about the environment?"
The Toyota Mirai drives like an ordinary automobile. It has enough power so that you can merge safely (unlike a subcompact), but nowhere near the horsepower and acceleration of a Tesla.
$46,990 Tesla Model 3 Long Range 78 kwh 353 miles of range
$55,990 Tesla Model 3 Performance 78 kwh 315
$49,990 Tesla Model Y Long Range 75 kwh 326
$60,990 Tesla Model Y Performance 75 kwh 303
$49,500 Toyota Mirai 402 miles of range (only sold in California at present)
As incentives comes with $15K of free fuel, and 21 days of rental for driving out of state that used in first three years.
Even though the Model Y doesn't pack Ludicrous Mode or a dedicated launch system, which are both exclusive to the Model S and Model X, the all-electric crossover “still continues the legend of brutally prompt Tesla acceleration".
The Model Y Performance’s real-world 0 to 60 mph time of in 3.7 seconds in MotorTrend‘s test is quicker than the Jaguar I-Pace, the BMW X3 M Competition, and the Porsche Macan Turbo outfitted with a performance package.
Or, buy used. You can get a Nissan Leaf for $8K, or a Chevy Bolt for $18K to $20K.
If you're environmentally conscious, the manufacturing is a done deal. You're not adding to the lithium mining pollution or steelmaking and transport and all that.
In terms of range, the old Leafs will go a good 100 miles. Bolts are newer and will go over 200.
If you just need a daily driver for around town, you're all set. And you can get your feet wet with EV, and enjoy some of the benefits, without shelling out $50K.
I'm actually thinking about getting one for my 16-year-old for her first car. But she wants a Honda....
Eventually EVs do make more sense, but pushing them along with massive subsidies now won't really achieve massive benefits to the environment as if that money were used in other manners.
I read a fairly detailed analysis about two decades ago when BEV were largely theoretical. The writer estimated the cost and benefit of switching all the entire private automobiles from ICE to electric. He had two conclusions:
#1) you could probably achieve the same goals by simple reductions: combining trips to do multiple tasks, turning down the central heat or central air at night and using blankets or using fans, etc.
#2) the cost / benefit analysis of building out the generation plants and remanufacturing was so high, and the final benefit was so low that there were dozens of other things that could be done to have more effect.
But there is no doubt that Manhattan, San Francisco, as the densest populated cities in the country are going to be a lot nicer.
These are media cities.
It's like light rail. In June 1981, the first light rail system began operations. It took one year to build on old rail track, the stations were basically glorified bus stops, and it connected San Ysidro where many daily Mexican workers without automobiles could go the 12 miles to downtown San Diego. It was incredibly cheap, heavily used, and fulfilled a vital need. It stimulated the imaginations of municipal politicians all over the country.
Decades later when they were trying to serve the middle class and the wealthy university students, the cost per mile had gone up a hundred fold, the stations were vast underground palaces, and elevated rails crossed over freeways. And nobody used it because people like to drive if they can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I as well have a sedan I don't drive too much and ebike to work or around town when weathers good. 
