zlacker

No, that's dumb. These are largely orthogonal problems.

Not having EV's wouldn't have made everyone suddenly switch to public transit and bikes, as cool as that might be. They'd just keep driving gas and diesel vehicles.

And realistically, you can't get rid of cars and trucks entirely. Even super dense areas with strong public transit still use plenty of cars and trucks, because they're useful. You think Singapore and Tokyo and Seoul could run on no cars or trucks whatsoever?

>>Tulliu+(OP)
Car-free living doesn't imply the total eradication of all cars. It just means reducing dependency on them to a bare minimum: ie. those uses which cannot possibly be replaced. The former is something that literally nobody has ever proposed. The latter is something which is a serious policy option.

Also you are making a logical fallacy by assuming I am saying that -EV's- (sorry: "EV industry", different thing) are singularly responsible for the lack of decent climate policies. I just said they were an attack on the objective. One of many.

FYI: I live in Seoul and there's certainly a lot that could be done to reduce the insane amount of cars from current nightmare levels. Korea has a very powerful auto industry, one thing they could do is stop subsidizing it. Switching to EV's will undermine any effort to do that "bEcaUsE EV's aRe grEeN!"

>>scaram+Ke
> Car-free living doesn't imply the total eradication of all cars.

Yeah no shit. That's why EV's are super useful, even if you wish we had a lot less cars, like me.

> I just said they were an attack on the objective. One of many.

Doesn't matter. EV's still help the climate relative to keeping gas and diesel vehicles around. Blaming them is stupid.

> Switching to EV's will undermine any effort to do that "bEcaUsE EV's aRe grEeN!"

Nah. The problems preventing greater uptake of public transit are largely unrelated.