Hi all, As title says, I’d like to know if in your opinion electric vehicles are truly a sustainable solution that fits within the solarpunk vision (given the fact that a community exists here). I work in an urban agriculture association and spend time with engaged and activist people, and it’s pretty much accepted there that EVs are a big scam. What do you think and would you have any recommendations for me to form my own opinion on this topic, which I consider particularly important? Thank you!
Depends on whether they’re punk. :)
EVs can also be a solar gentification / dystopia, if they have a deadly price tag followed by “everything breaks and you can fix nothing on your own”. Many current EVs are dangerously in that direction. Accept only the simplest and most open systems. Even if you never intend to get your own hands dirty, getting cheap assistance will depend on that.
This. It’s hard to strike a good balance between making my town better and resisting gentrification that is rapidly pricing me out of the community I’ve lived in for the past 20 years.
Electric cars are better then combustion engine cars, but in many cases it would be a lot better not to use a car, but trains, cycling or walking.
Electric cars emit less CO2 emissions compared to an ICE car. The combination of electric motors easily turn 90% of the electricity into motion and batteries do not loose to much power for charging either. Combustion engines loose a lot of power due to heat and mechanical friction making them only 30% efficent in a car. It gets even worse as the petrol has to be refined, which again requires a lot of power, including electricity. That pretty much makes EVs better then ICE no matter the electricity mix, but especially with more renewables. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016823009055
The problem is that cars are incredibly inefficent themself. The car itself is heavy, so it obviously requires a lot more energy to move itself then say a bicycle. That is also true for systems like trains or busses, which carry a lot more people or cargo hence the energy per person or cargo is lower.
The other part urban planning. Cars take up a lot of space for parking and wide roads. That reduces density and meaning longer distances. Even worse they are a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Public transport usually does stop at a station or stop rather then right at the final destination, so people usually walk. In other words cars are hostile to alternative forms of transport.
That being said there are usecases for cars, but much less then today.
I always like to say that the number of cars on the road should decrease by 90%. The other 10% accounts for every Edge case you can think of because if you look at the clogged freeways you don’t see masses of Paratransit Vans or people hauling furniture taking up all the space
The car itself is heavy, so it obviously requires a lot more energy to move itself then say a bicycle.
It would help a lot if there are strict weight restrictions on cars and lower speed limits. Small cars, or also quadricycles, are much more energy efficient in construction and use. These already exist but get selling SUVs is more profitable.
Yes, but so is better urban planning to make using a car unnecessary for most trips. Solarpunk urbanism is one of the most exciting things to come out of either solarpunk or urbanism
Full disclosure, I’m a EV owner/driver. Its not going to surprise you for me to say EVs are not a scam.
The most obvious and easy to understand part of problem solving is to define the desired end goal. In that picture for what many see as the solar punk vision, most people see few if any cars. So the natural conclusion would be to say that EVs are not part of the solution.
However, what far too many people ignore when problem solving is the transitional period between the start toward the goal and reaching it. For most solarpunk visions this will require decades of changes with massive impacts all around the world. This is why I believe EVs are not a scam. They are an important part of the transition.
Most “EVs are a scam” folks immediately point to public transportation as the reason why EVs are unnecessary. In developed urban centers this is true! While New Yorker may curse the MTA when waiting on a delayed train or a Dubliner waiting for the Tram, they cannot deny that they are able to perform nearly all functions of daily life with intercity trains, metro rail, and buses. However, when we look at the land where people live there are vast vast regions that are non-urban. Most of the people that live in those regions have limited access to public transportation. If cars disappeared overnight, it would be catastrophic for those populations and all of us that rely on them for portions of our food chain (as an example). The very closest bus stop to my house is 5.4 miles away, and only runs service for 8 months out of the year. The next closest one with daily service year round is 7.3 miles away, and that one has only two stops in the morning and two in the evening. Public transportation simply doesn’t serve my area at this time.
So realistically even if we had the money and the mandate right now (and we don’t) to throw our efforts behind wider access to public transportation, it would mean accepting many decades more of burning carbon based fuels in cars and trucks. Consumers will replace their vehicles during that time, and if and EV can be a choice that is less carbon (or no carbon at all!) being emitted into our atmosphere for its operation that is only a good thing.
Replacing an ICE car with an EV actually (for those that don’t have public transit options) moves the needle in the positive direction if the other choice is yet another ICE car.
Further, specifically for solar punk visions, the “punk” part for my understanding is a sense of independence or self reliance. A “do it yourself” or “don’t simple accept what is force upon you”. So an EV actually fits that well. That doesn’t mean a rejection of public transportation, but it does recognize that there’s more than one way to do something and sometimes that way is doing it yourself.
In my mind, EVs are a critical part of the transition to a solar punk future. We don’t get the luxury of skipping right to the end goal. We have to go through the long, messy, and less efficient transition. EVs are an important part of that.
Mopeds and small cars, sure. American-style cars need to GTFO.
E–bikes definitely do and all other kinds of electrified micromobility
I would say that the scam around EVs is that it is not an improvement for the environment if one just replaces classic SUVs with electric ones. We need to move away from the car centered life. EV though can be a building block for a cleaner public transportation system or a personal vehicle for people in remote areas
How is it not an improvement for the environment? They are far more efficient at energy use and have the potential to run on renewables, which will never be the case for ICE vehicles. This is true even for SUV sized EVs.
Sure it’s not the perfect solution, but it’s incorrect to say they are the same.
Thank you for your question!
As I said in my message, EVs are not an improvement in my opinion if you just use them as replacements for current cars without any significant changes in our current usage of personal transportation. They are not the same, but they both present higher emissions profiles than public transportation when considering lifecycle analysis studies. EVs do offset a lot of their emissions in the manufacturing and end-of-life parts of their lifecycle. It also relies on the assumption that we will one day be able to produce enough renewable energy to power every vehicle, we do not have this capacity yet. You should also take into account for your analysis that sustaining a world with EVs as a drop-in replacement for ICE vehicles would require extracting significantly more rare earth metals than we currently do, requiring new mines that are known to impact biodiversity through significant earth and water pollution (not all environmental impacts are CO2-based). I think you will find that Philippe Bihouix’s book “The Age of Low Tech” or Guillaume Pitron’s “The Rare Metals War” explain this concept very well.
I think I do understand your point, but I maintain that technology alone will not bring a sustainable world; it is our behaviors and societies that need to be changed. Technological improvements are also often subject to Jevons paradox (or the rebound effect), which needs to be factored in before stating that switching to EVs will bring long-term and sustainable improvement. That is why I think it would be a lie to say that EVs are a sustainable alternative to maintain the same car-centric lifestyle, as we have no such certainty.
I hope this clarifies my point of view!
You should also take into account for your analysis that sustaining a world with EVs as a drop-in replacement for ICE vehicles would require extracting significantly more rare earth metals than we currently do, requiring new mines that are known to impact biodiversity through significant earth and water pollution (not all environmental impacts are CO2-based).
Does this analysis work under the assumption that technology remains static and unchanging? Does it account for the efforts to decouple from exotic materials? We’ve already seen two very large steps that are in place commercially in EV consumer products, so this isn’t simply theoretical:
- Cobalt and Nickel used to be required for any usefully sized EV battery. Many current EVs now ship with zero Cobalt or Nickel in their batteries with the wide adoption of LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate).
- Lithium is another element that is pointed out as a downside for EVs because the environmental impacts from its extraction from nature. However, there are EVs in China on roads with zero lithium and instead use Sodium based batteries.
Considering how short a time it has taken industry to not only identify cleaner alternatives and get them into use, it suggests that an assumption in analysis that EV technology of one day projected over an infinite future may be flawed logic.
I get your point, and it’s great to see such fast improvements. But we shouldn’t bet the future of the planet on potential breakthroughs. It seems way more sensible to act on what we know works now rather than hoping for future discoveries to save us. It’s like counting on nuclear fusion to fix everything.
Given how urgent the situation is, we need to hit 2 tons of CO2 equivalent per person per year by 2050, and we’re not even close, it makes more sense, in my opinion, to focus on what we can do right now.
In the current state of things, there is no infinite future to consider, just an increasingly dangerous and potentially irreversible one.
First, I see your post before mine was downvoted. That wasn’t me. I share a different opinion than yours, but your opinion is equally valid in this discussion. I see nothing in your post which is insulting or takes away from the discussion to deserve a downvote.
It seems way more sensible to act on what we know works now rather than hoping for future discoveries to save us.
So I don’t put words in your mouth, what do we “know works now” in your opinion that could be implemented in a faster time frame than EVs that would have a positive impact on the reduction of CO2?
No worries, thank you for caring! I often worry about being wrong, so I don’t comment too often, but I don’t have any bad feelings. We’re all on the same side of the fight, and there’s no need to go against each other.
Regarding transportation alone, there are multiple ways we can greatly improve the situation:
- Remove some parking spaces in the city to plant trees instead (reducing traffic).
- Subsidize trains and buses for long-distance travel.
- Provide free and better public transportation in cities (more lanes/modalities, more frequent service, dedicated lanes, and priority for buses, etc.).
- Increase the number of bike lanes (this can be done quickly in some cities by closing a car lane). All of these actions can be implemented quickly and don’t require more academic research or the setup of new and complex factories, mines, and logistics.
Outside of transportation, there are even more impactful actions that can be taken without relying on new technology. For example, ADEME (a French organization) estimates that: “A reduction in average meat consumption of 10 grams per day per person leads to a decrease of approximately 200 square meters in land footprint, as well as a 5.2% reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions.” (Source). You can also look at projects around the Circular Economy and the Low Tech movement. Of course, some of these initiatives might involve building new software or hardware, but these things are doable now (for example, there are projects focused on tracking products precisely to improve the circular economy) and don’t rely on future discoveries.
In fact, when considering multiple possible scenarios (like France’s Transition 2050), those that don’t rely on technosolutionism are often the most efficient and certain to work. Finally, one of the reasons I find it important to talk about this is that relying on future tech can be a great source of disengagement and indifference, leading people to believe that they don’t have a role to play in this situation.
Okay, I think I understand your position better, thank you.
The biggest flaw that I see in your approach is that nearly all of those changes require the population to decide to make the changes together. If that agreement isn’t there, the only other way to implement most of those would be with authoritarian decrees. There are places in the world where that is possible, but I wouldn’t call that a recommended solution to apply. A number of your suggestions would require additional funding too. That has to come from somewhere and the origin of that funding is also likely a contentious debate. Without everyone agreeing on the need for these things, few, if any will be implemented and that means more CO2 being emitted.
For example, ADEME (a French organization) estimates that: “A reduction in average meat consumption of 10 grams per day per person leads to a decrease of approximately 200 square meters in land footprint, as well as a 5.2% reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions.” (Source).
This is a good one that can be done at an individual level. It requires no agreement other than the person making the choice for themselves. This definitely resonates well on the “punk” of solar punk.
The meat reduction is the closest thing EVs for your cited solutions. Its an individual choice on the part of the consumer that can have the intended positive impact. That makes it extremely realistic as far as a component on the path to a full solution.
If interested, some answers given on same post i shared on Reddit : (just moved from Reddit to Lemmy but) https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/s/ZG7bbQhVBv
imo, i dont think theyre a “scam” exactly, but i do think the attitude that theyre an ecologically viable solution for human transportation is formed from propaganda. on a small scale it doesnt look so bad. when you consider the other amount of resources it takes to create them, theyre not a very eco conscious product at all. is it a sustainable solution? i would argue that they are not. if all cars were replaced with EVs we would have to mine that much more, which is destructive in a multitude of ways. the amount of electricity and infrastructure to facilitate all of the charging…i mean the texas grid melts down from peoples HVAC usage…there are much more sustainable solutions for travel, but in places like the US, its just not gonna happen without a full flip on the infrastructure in most places. and that costs tax dollars that could be better spent bailing out some corporation…im not sure what exactly defines solarpunk vision, but in a self sufficient and sustainable society, there should be more shared resources (electric public transit), infrastructure for bicycles/human powered travel, decentralized power grids, etc.
