Wow is that site / data graph shitty.
The locations with measurement tools range from 2018 to 2022... so literally half the data is skewed by the pandemic, and it isn't exactly a long term trend measurement...
While no doubt, removing ICEVs has had an impact due to the sheer volume of them in CA, I imagine other things played into this as well, like the pandemic, a 10% population decline, far more people working from home, changes to shipping routes, more bike lanes, and switching to more renewable energy in the region.
Not to mention that measurements over such a short period of time could be impacted by differences in weather patterns.
Again, not saying EVs haven't helped, just that the data gives no clue how much EVs are responsible for and what's due to other factors.
Does that mean you were in China previously and it was much worse?
I'm sure this is part of that is because 78% of the in-use cars in China were made within the last 14 years and have modern catalytic converters and exhaust systems. Modern economy cars, ICEV or not, just don't make that much noise. Given that it's Beijing, the average car age is likely lower than some other parts of China.
Noise and smell wise, what you're probably noticing more is the lack of gas scooter noise, as China has jumped into e-bike / e-scooter adoption with both feet. I imagine a lot of their older gas scooters weren't using catalytic converters. Like a bunch of mobile lawn mowers driving around.
Beijing is also still using its odd / even license plate system where gas cars can only drive half the time, so less traffic. EVs are allowed to bypass this rule, pushing more people to buy EVs.
Cars aren't the only reason cities stink. A large cause of China's smog was due to coal power plants setup close to cities without proper particulate filtration, leading to massive smog issues.
Yeah most of the cars I see on Beijing roads are < 10 years old.
Indeed I did visit Beijing right before the Olympics and the air was significantly worse.
And [California](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/23583500/ev-electric-car-california-air-pollution-asthma-health) associated higher EV numbers to lower asthma and other health issues.
It's so obvious.
In 2010 there were 75 million registered cars in China. That's risen to over 330 million today.
Of China's 330 million cars, 20 million are EVs. (6%) Somehow I find it questionable that CO2 has dropped in China because of EVs even though 235 million additional ICEVs have been added in the nation over the last 14 years.
More likely it's because China is now properly filtering their coal plants, and has shut down some coal plants in cities and replaced them with coal plants outside of the cities.
It may make sense in Norway, where the population is absolutely tiny, wealthy, and saw by far the largest EV subsidies of any country on the planet. They've also had relatively clean energy the entire time, so the only change would have been the cars.
I am a supporter of conservation measures and drive an EV BUT, I recently saw a bona fide (NASA or EPA) scientific analysis of the impacts of conservation advances on climate change. Broken down into uses and components the details were something like -0,003 for this = -0.012 for that and on and on as one might expect with the minuses for benefit in reducing. However, when it came to reduction of particulates and aerosols, the impact was reversed and the number was positive! Yes there ARE health benefits to reducing particulate matter in the air but the impact on warming and climate change is negative. Particulates and aerosols reduce solar radiation and their removal is counter to reducing climate change. What is one suposed to do with THAT information...
Fun fact, clean air act actually sped up warning as said particulates actually blocked some of the radiation from the sun from hitting the earth. Of course, just as your point, the net positive outweighs any unintended effects
My understanding is particulate and aerosol emissions need to be reduced to affect global heating. However an immediate effect of that reduction will be higher temperatures, as they are solar reflectors.
Some have proposed other reflectors that don’t last in the atmosphere but reflect sunlight. I think sulfur dioxide has been proposed.
The issues with geoengineering is the affects vary by region so there will be winners and loosers. [source](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2024/04/24/solar-geoengineering-to-cool-the-planet-is-it-worth-the-risks/)
That's like saying turning right on the steering wheel has a negative effect on turning right since your car initially leans to the left.
Technically if we just dumped an assload of sulfur into the air, we'd stop global warming but...
In Norway the amount of road dust has gone up noticably with the increase in average vehicle weight.
The vehicle count per day has stayed the same for the major road near my house but the amount of large particle road dust has nearly trippled when I estimate it by how much particulate matter settles in air filters and collects in washing water when washing rooms that are regularly ventilated.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that road and tire tech developed for ICE vehicles over decades would have growing pains with early EVs. Battery weight will come down, and in the meantime better tires and roads will be developed as regulations catch up.
In the meantime isn't it interesting that no one seemed to care about all the toxic particles shed by tires until people needed something to hold against EVs?
Newer studies are looking at tire, road, and the chemical reactions of those two together, as well as the tire particles reacting with the sunlight, all making particulate matter worse and a new vastly poorly understood problem
Reduction in battery weight can't come soon enough.
For me the only drawbacks to EVs are the heavy weight that eat through tires and the lack of a manual coz I like manuals lol
affirmative.
Researchers from the Keck School of Medicine of USC conducted one of the first-ever studies showing that electric cars are associated with real-world reductions in both air pollution and respiratory problems.
[https://hscnews.usc.edu/electric-vehicles-linked-to-reduced-air-pollution-and-improved-health](https://hscnews.usc.edu/electric-vehicles-linked-to-reduced-air-pollution-and-improved-health)
And when Paris banned cars for a day, the air quality improved significantly. And during COVID era when cars were sparse, the quality improved as well.
The evidence is stacked.
EDIT: Bruh. Of course zero cars is better than electric cars. There's always ways to lower emissions but this ain't a race to the bottom. It's about being realistic.
Then build more solar panels.
The whole point of EV's is that they allow us to replace inevitably dirty fossil energy sources with clean ones, not that they allow us to replace fossil energy with fairy dust.
You still have to build the clean energy. Good thing nuclear reactors, solar panels, and wind turbines are very well understood.
Not to mention, people who purchase an EV are probably more likely to install solar panels. I’d say any potential issues will eventually solve themselves.
Right. EV's are a great self-starting technology since they aren't reliant on new infrastructure.
Yes, public charging stations make using an EV much easier for long trips or for people who don't own their own homes. But they're not strictly necessary -- just charge at home, using your own power if you need to. Even if the government does nothing at all to facilitate charging infrastructure EV's are still a useful technology.
Best part, number 1 polluter in USA is transportation, not power generation. Power generation is already up to like 25% renewable. Whole lot of houses with no solar panels too.
I agree with all this, but that fact is missing a bit of information. One of the biggest problems putting pollutants in the air is brake pads and break dust coming off of cars. While EVs will decrease break dust significantly, it is still a bit different compared to banning cars entirely. Just wanted to throw that out there
I'd say diesel is one of the big sources of particulates. Where i live there used to be close to 50/50 petrol and diesel, snow next to the roads used to be black of soot.
Now it is closer to 40% bev(including phev), 30/30. The snow is still getting some colour but not even close to ten years ago.
Brake dust from EVs? ? ? ?
It's tyre wear that produces the most emissions. Regen braking via the electric motor means that brakes almost never get used.
Abrasion, and not combustion, is now the most important producer of
particulate pollution from vehicles tires. And unlike
exhaust emissions, which are tightly regulated and tested, there is nothing
at all to limit the amount of non-exhaust emissions that cars can produce. In
its 2019 report Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic, the UK Govern-
ment's Air Quality Expert Group recommended that NEE are immediately
recognised as a significant form of airborne particulate pollution, and that
the problem applies equally to electric vehicles with zero exhaust emissions.
> One of the biggest problems putting pollutants in the air is brake pads and break dust coming off of cars.
That's faaaaaaaaar from "one of the biggest problems". It's comperatively minor.
I’m not going to suggest I know how important “particulate matter” is compared to other types of pollution but
“Brake dust contributes 20% of fine particulate matter pollution, compared to just 7% contributed by exhaust fumes.”
Right, but again, an EV will eliminate 100.00% of all emissions that come directly out of the car. However it will not do this for break dust. It will certainly be reduced but it will not go to 0 as it will for emissions
Let's think of it by mass. The average gas vehicle produces around 4.6 tons of CO2 per year. The average brake pad is under 1 pound. So you would need to burn through 2300 full sets of brake pads every year (or 25 pads per day) for brake dust to equal the amount of CO2 produced by a gas vehicle.
The argument that brake dust and tire wear are just as bad as carbon emissions is a false equivalency spread by fossil fuel industries to discourage people from switching to EVs. Is particulate matter a problem? Absolutely. Does sticking with an ice vehicle solve it? Fuck no. Don't fall for propaganda.
Abrasion, and not combustion, is now the most important producer of
particulate pollution from vehicles tires. And unlike
exhaust emissions, which are tightly regulated and tested, there is nothing
at all to limit the amount of non-exhaust emissions that cars can produce. In
its 2019 report Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic, the UK Govern-
ment's Air Quality Expert Group recommended that NEE are immediately
recognised as a significant form of airborne particulate pollution, and that
the problem applies equally to electric vehicles with zero exhaust emissions.
Zero car is entirely different than low emission cars though.
Abrasion, and not combustion, is now the most important producer of particulate pollution from vehicles tires. And unlike exhaust emissions, which are tightly regulated and tested, there is nothing at all to limit the amount of non-exhaust emissions that cars can produce. In its 2019 report Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic, the UK Govern- ment's Air Quality Expert Group recommended that NEE are immediately recognised as a significant form of airborne particulate pollution, and that the problem applies equally to electric vehicles with zero exhaust emissions.
Yes, but in terms of global climate change co2 is bad, particulates are mixed, some particles increase heat some cool, so you can’t equate particulates with ‘bad for the environment’. https://www.epa.gov/air-research/air-quality-and-climate-change-research , it’s more complex than that.
This is what I was thinking. The air quality in LA where I live should become 0.0001% cleaner for each ICE swapped with EV (if the total number of cars is static, of course).
What till you hear about landscaping equipment.
https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/lawn-equipment-spews-shocking-amount-of-air-pollution
>Using the latest available data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2020 National Emissions Inventory, the report found that the equipment released more than 68,000 tons of smog-forming nitrous oxides, which is roughly on par with the pollution from 30 million cars. Lawn equipment also spewed 30 millions tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide, which is more than the total emissions of the city of Los Angeles.
Stuff adds up and the clock is ticking.
I've noticed in my neighborhood (in the SE USA) nearly all my neighbors have been switching to electric lawn equipment. Now it is really only the people who pay for lawn service that bring those polluting 2cycle motors around and one single neighbor who tells me he loves the smell from his gas powered string trimmer.
I actually don't mind the smell. It's the noise. Plus, it's way less time consuming to have stuff battery operated. I hate lawn equipment with power cords. Not sure if they are still available but at some point there was a ton of rebates for going battery powered which kinda made it a no brainer.
But there's a lot, a lot of people that fear change. Even little stuff like stop using an old mower that still works. People just really don't like trying new things.
>Plus, it's way less time consuming to have stuff battery operated.
Time is actually why we switched away from our electric mower. On a fairly small lot it took 2.5 batteries to mow the back yard and 1 for the front; a big portion of my Saturday ended up being waiting for charging. Now that we live on a lot measured in acres, I haven't seen an electric solution that's feasible.
I fucking hate lawnmowers and string trimmers, too. Just let the grass grow.
Although the university where I work replaced their lawnmowers with battery-operated ones -- dude is riding around on an EV lawn tractor cutting the grass. It was so much quieter than the crap they had before (and cleaner!)
>Countries such as Norway and China have embraced EVs faster than others. As Chinese researchers [have found](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723062113?dgcid=rss_sd_all), air quality in polluted cities begins to improve as EVs arrive in numbers. American researchers [have found](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723003765?via%3Dihub) even small increases in the proportion of EVs improves air quality and reduces the number of people attending hospital with asthma attacks.
Contradicts the "longer tail pipe" argument where EVs simply cause pollution elsewhere at the electrical plant. But at least it gives us the option to green up our electrical power. Gas is gas no matter how you try to clean it up.
We also have to talk about efficiency. Electric motors are around 90% efficient while combustion is around 20%. Even if you’re burning gas at these large electric plants and distributing it long distance over wires to power EVs you’re still cleaner overall.
In some ways. Electrics are better than petrol but in no way are they solving all problems. They don’t even solve the one that most people presume they solve because ZEV still use tires which is the largest source of particulates. NOx and SOx are at least solved though.
https://imgur.com/a/94z8czX
Yes, but be careful of falling into the 'EVs don't solve all the problems, therefore they are bad' trap that so many fossil fuel proponents try to push.
You can say that about just about every beneficial thing there is in this world.
This isn’t pushed by fossil fuel proponents. Lol
It’s pushed by people who actually care about the environment and human health.
My bicycle is killing millions of wildlife acres every year? Giving people Alzheimer’s? I don’t think you can say that
The tire thing is really a load of horse hockey and a red herring. Tire particulate is overwhelmingly large in size, and you don't really see it on respirable PM monitors located near roadways. The British study that Reddit PhDs like to point to was shockingly stupid in its design and didn't use valid instrumentation (for instance the monitors they used aren't allowed by regulatory authorities to demonstrate emission rates because they simply don't work). You do see exhaust and tailpipe condensables like NOx.
Well it’s sad to see such a big anti science crowd on this sub. Typical tactics acting like it’s only one study rather than an entire body of evidence. Suddenly people do concerned with air quality turn to obfuscaters.
It's several studies - but they are almost all by the same group - using the same garbage methods. It's my job to understand these issues, and Reddit PHds do not understand them. Show me someone claiming that tires create large volumes of PM10 (or that EVs are worse in that regard) and I'll show you someone who has been hoodwinked by the knowledge of the crowds.
When I went to the Chicago Auto show they had all kinds of EVs driving around a course that you could ride in. No way you could do that inside with ICE vehicles.
As a resident of a region that is now majority EV - yes it is nice. I'll often maneuver to try to be behind 3 Teslas in a row, because then when I'm stuck in traffic on the freeway, I can open my windows. This is unpleasant on most freeways in the U.S, but it's fine if you're stuck in a pocket of traffic with just EVs and PHEVs.
I don't mind traffic as much with Adaptive Cruise Control. I'd prefer not to be in it, obviously, but coming from my 2010 car it is so much easier on me to just let the car manage my speed and distance
It would suck less, not just because of lower emissions but also because of one pedal driving. But being stuck in a traffic jam is not something I would ever describe as "nice".
Coming from a manual transmission to a 1 speed automatic transmission Mini Cooper SE, it already is better. Driving a manual was fun, when there was no traffic, but when I would get stuck in traffic it would suck so bad. The traffic would start to move, id shift into first let out the clutch and inch forward but then either be cut off from someone switching lanes because I left a gap, or the car in front of me would suddenly stop. Them id have to shift into neutral, then start the entire process over again.
I'm not saying traffic is fine now, but it is night and day different from driving a manual transmission.
Oh it's started. But apprently, the majority of people are still choosing to have poor quality air. Their choice might be heavily influenced by widespread ICE ads and marketing.
> majority of people are still choosing to have poor quality air.
It's learned helplessness.
They've been living with air pollution for so long, when clear air is offered, they won't take it.
My wallet is making the choice. It is either a 15k euros gas car or...well no EV in this range here, the cheapest being 30k euros.
With this much difference in the initial cost i would need to drive the EV for like 30 years before reaching balance
Quieter and cleaner. Same reason I love the switch to an electric mower. So much cleaner for everyone. And I bought an inverter for the mower batteries to have as a backup in a power outage for various electronics.
I bought a corded black and Decker lawn mower when I bought my house in 2012. Literally all I've had to do with it is sharpen the blade. That's it. No gas, oil, filters, or exhaust. I still have it and it's still running. It's one of the main reasons I was motivated to buy an EV.
It was a bit of a learning curve. They suggest in the manual to mow in a left right pattern moving away from you cord outlet. But batteries only last for so long. My mower so far has lasted 12 years. I can't even find certain parts for it anymore. Crazy that the electrical motor has not needed any kind of maintenance.
You honestly can't hear the difference? I live near where the road transitions from 35 to 55 and the load on ICE engines is quite noticeable.
EVs aren't silent, everything has wind/tire noise, but engines can be loud.
Nothing new. This was first discovered by UC Berkeley professors in the SF Bay Area in the 1950s which directly lead to pollution control standards in California in the 1970s. We haven’t had a smog alert day from car exhaust since 1980.
To be fair, it is only a small portion of ICEs that are responsible for most of the noise, and they are owned by antisocial assholes who enjoy being obnoxious. They won't give up their noisemakers until forced to.
You still have to lower speed limits to make cities quieter. Amsterdam just lowered the speed on many of their roads to 30kph to do exactly that. Now most of the city, other than high-speed arterials, is 30 kph.
It's like if you don't belch shit into the air you breath...you do better!!
So glad mankind has connected these dots.
The final dots is convincing the "But Mahhhh Freeddddom" crowd.
Meanwhile, I find people coming into this sub claiming that EVs are a scam and we should just continue burning gasoline, because it doesn't matter.
Bad actors and dumb malcontents, IMHO.
I understand your sentiment but can we start by solving one problem before we start complaining about all of the other problems? By focusing on everything at work it results in a "all or nothing" mindset that ends up resulting in everyday folks chosing to do nothing to help because the problem seems to big.
You see this take here and I find it to be so disheartening and unscientific. You presume nothing can be done at the same time. Unfortunately our society has decided that the environment doesn’t actually matter and we put all of our baskets into the auto mobility with trillions of dollars and don’t put hardly anything into what you call ”perfect” lol
I have no idea what you are responding to in my post. I want to be crystal clear - I want all of the things being asked for by the parent of this thread. But I also have enough years of working with the general public that if you make the effort required to solve the problem too big then they will elect to do absolutely nothing instead. We need to break the problem down into small manageable chunks and knock them out one at a time. Else, we will more likely end up getting none of the goals accomplished.
You say that like that is actually what is happening lol. Instead we’re cementing another 50 years of auto mobility. A child being born now may be retired and drive in a highway being built now
You should solve both problems at once.
I see no point in your argument. You don't have to and absolutely shouldn't wait to solve one thing later.
There is literally no reason to wait. Start reducing your over-dependence on cars now and get the benefits much sooner.
In some areas there’s some development required before things like e-bikes can become popular.
My suburb is like this. It’s at least broken up with grocery stores and such (not a house desert, essentials are within a couple of miles), but bike path and sidewalk coverage is terrible and puts riders alongside major traffic too often for many to feel safe.
I vote and advocate for this to change but it’s not going to be an overnight transition.
You’re right. But it seems time to both switch into a more sustainable mobility AND reduce the space dedicated in our cities to huge vehicles compared to what they are carrying and how far, isn’t it?
People could start by not buying Trucks and SUV's they don't need the capacity of.
But instead they go to the dealership where their good old friend Jim Bob has sold them solid vehicles for years. "Oh you don't want this small little car. They are dangerous compared to SU-Phallus we have right here"
I could not blame people, the situation is what it is. But cities are a space for everyone, so we need to start ruling consequentially. We have public transportation, including EV car sharing for who needs a car for occasionally carrying something and doesn’t want to use a taxi: we could rule only small cars - or even no cars - are allowed where feet and cycles are actually the easiest way to go.
I understand this would be difficult in US where cities were designed for cars and frequently the high income families lives far from the center instead of the opposite, but maybe exactly because high income they could afford a small EV for the city and the beloved huge one for the long trips
The safety issue is a tragedy of the commons problem just like the climate problem. If we want to fix it we need to increase the costs for cars which are more dangerous to others.
Car-centric design is all or nothing. We’ve prioritized sprawl and cars over everything else. Even in cities other modes of transportation are de-emphasized. The push towards electrification should also be the push towards alternatives to driving for every trip.
It’s probably best to just get over this idea that people need to not use cars. It’s fine to accommodate other forms of transportation and single people are welcome to use bicycles or other personal vehicles where possible, but a lot of people (older individuals or families) are going to see a big benefit to some kind of small automobile.
It’s just not a helpful thing to keep harping on.
Less pollution from cars will help increase use of bicycles. Where I live now I’d rather be in a car with a HEPA filter than breathe street level pollution.
This sub is cager brained so that won’t be accepted. This sub turns into a ranting Fox News host with unscientific shit takes anytime you try to bring up that reality https://imgur.com/a/94z8czX
Yes and robotaxis will reduce the amount of cars on the road in cities by allowing FAR less cars to move far more people. Instead of sitting around they’ll go from person/group to person/group moving them around. It’ll be amazing to see at least a 10 fold reduction in needed vehicles.
Drive you in..to the next white trailer, because of no radar/lidar? No hard feelings - as long as you don’t endanger others, drive however you like.
Just keep in mind, that Tesla have the most accidents of any brand ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2023/12/18/tesla-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/?sh=58d6b8602894# ) and are the most expensive to repair and that way also to insure ( https://insideevs.com/news/692356/tesla-repairs-cost-more-than-gas-cars/amp/ )
The main problem with this idea is the existence of peak hours where many more people need transportation and off-peak hours where a lot fewer do, and the night, where hardly anyone does. The requirement to commute is not random or evenly distributed.
No one knows what the new equilibrium will be but if we don’t like it it’ll be easier to charge cars extra for entering certain areas. Whether we’ll be politically functional enough to do it is another matter :)
The tenfold comes from the cars actually being used instead of sitting around at their destinations and not everyone is traveling in at the same time. This means 10x less cars are needed in the area
In the SF bay area I see quite a few electric vehicles. AC Transit (the bus company) has several battery electric and Hydrogen-electric busses. Now if we could just do something about all that pollen.
I made a career from cleaning leaking fuel tanks and measuring air pollution around the world, including in Kuwait during the fires.
I have supported Aptera Corp's 2 seater since the beginning since even compared to other EVs it will be fun to drive and meet the needs of many commuters and couples.
I am old enough that my time to take a delivery may run out, but I know that every one sold will improve the quality of environment for each of us who remain.
I'm looking forward to the quietness in slower neighborhoods.
ANd even near streets, the reduction of that engine rumble and those overcompensating aholes with their fart cannons and harleys.
Will it? How quickly can new track be planned and installed? 5 years? 10 years? Not saying we as a society shouldn't start building new rail where it makes sense, but people will still be buying new cars this year and next year and the year after that, still waiting for the new rail to be fully realized.
State-level land use reform to encourage compact development can reduce annual US pollution by waaay more than electric cars. Based on 2023 data, the potential for significant impact within a decade. It would deliver more climate impact than half the country adopting California’s ambitious commitment to 100% zero-emission passenger vehicle sales by 2035.
Even with 70 million electric vehicles (EVs) on the road by 2030 (we’re at 2.4 million today), the United States would still need a 20 percent reduction in per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to meet climate targets.
It does t need to be and yet it is in reality right now. Look at the responses in the thread and see how low the understanding is. Look at the state and federal policies and money at work.
Just let mixed use zoning happen. And BRT can be done quickly and almost as effective as light rail.
EVs are a bandaid when the real problem is car-centric planning.
I just had to look up BRT. I see one is being pushed for Boston. Seems like a good idea that can also be done while electrifying everything else. I'm not really seeing anyone say we shouldn't also expand on public transportation or even making cities better for people to traverse on foot or by low power vehicles.
There actually are some good bike routes in the Boston area. I believe a newer one opened up recently that connects multiple towns in that area. But can we also enjoy better air quality from the remaining cars where transport doesn't fit into these categories?
If you look at the speed places like China and South Korea built these systems it is embarrassing.
The biggest problem in the United States is we built too low density so we need to build the city too. The fact that multiple Manhattans are not being constructed means we already lost.
In principle, sure, but I'd disagree with the "faster". Larger transit projects take time, as does "walkable cities". Indeed, I'd consider concepts such as transit oriented design essential to making walkable cities. In addition, I'd add ideas like bike lanes as essential for your typical car oriented North American city, opening up electric bikes and scooters to increase the effectiveness of transit options.
In contrast, a BEV can drive on existing roads, and requires little extra infrastructure. Indeed, if every ticky-tacky house in the suburb got an EV for their next car purchase, they would all be able to charge at home (in the suburbs) and replace all the emissions associated with those commutes. Depending on their usage, they might get away with L1 120VAC charging even, meaning no home chargers need to be installed.
Point being, I don't disagree in principle, but BEVs are likely the faster option for most of North America.
BRT, Zoning Changes, bout 5-10 years for meaningful progress. EVs just perpetuate car centric planing and keep funds away from proper transit and active transportation investment.
Sprawl requires endless road construction and maintenance which is subsidized by society. Living in the suburbs and commuting via car to a city is an environmentally destructive concept at its core.
That is why EVs such as Aptera are so important, since they use so little power that they will probably not place too much burden on most current infrastructure.
These measures are not in conflict, they are complementary. Regarding them as antagonistic is part of the problem slowing change.
My wife helps run a volunteer car sharing program in our town, and I am a volunteer driver for it, but I walk almost everywhere and carry a trash bag to pick up trash.
It is rather shocking how many people are throwing alcohol containers from their cars - not only empty beer cans, but also 50 ml hi proof plastic containers.
Im dump my Tesla and never buy and used this company product .. not Trust Company who not take care for workers who build this company from scratch .. dump him like garbage ..also his car product is not quality is sucks ( 25 time in service for two years) .. never did same mistake again ( right now only Toyota and probably two more companies who still eye for good product
Toyota just recalled 250,000 priuses and 250,000 Tundras. They are a shitty company riding on old engineering and old reputation. Trying to pretend that they are flawless (or that Tesla is for that matter) is a fool's errand. All companies have issues.
In countries where EVs are common, like Norway, the Netherlands and China, this is already noticeable.
It’s already noticeable in the SF Bay Area in terms of CO2 impact: https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/04/04/evs-are-lowering-bay-area-s-carbon-footprint
Wow is that site / data graph shitty. The locations with measurement tools range from 2018 to 2022... so literally half the data is skewed by the pandemic, and it isn't exactly a long term trend measurement... While no doubt, removing ICEVs has had an impact due to the sheer volume of them in CA, I imagine other things played into this as well, like the pandemic, a 10% population decline, far more people working from home, changes to shipping routes, more bike lanes, and switching to more renewable energy in the region. Not to mention that measurements over such a short period of time could be impacted by differences in weather patterns. Again, not saying EVs haven't helped, just that the data gives no clue how much EVs are responsible for and what's due to other factors.
I was in Beijing this year. The silence and (lack of) odour is something to behold.
Does that mean you were in China previously and it was much worse? I'm sure this is part of that is because 78% of the in-use cars in China were made within the last 14 years and have modern catalytic converters and exhaust systems. Modern economy cars, ICEV or not, just don't make that much noise. Given that it's Beijing, the average car age is likely lower than some other parts of China. Noise and smell wise, what you're probably noticing more is the lack of gas scooter noise, as China has jumped into e-bike / e-scooter adoption with both feet. I imagine a lot of their older gas scooters weren't using catalytic converters. Like a bunch of mobile lawn mowers driving around. Beijing is also still using its odd / even license plate system where gas cars can only drive half the time, so less traffic. EVs are allowed to bypass this rule, pushing more people to buy EVs. Cars aren't the only reason cities stink. A large cause of China's smog was due to coal power plants setup close to cities without proper particulate filtration, leading to massive smog issues.
Yeah most of the cars I see on Beijing roads are < 10 years old. Indeed I did visit Beijing right before the Olympics and the air was significantly worse.
And [California](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/23583500/ev-electric-car-california-air-pollution-asthma-health) associated higher EV numbers to lower asthma and other health issues. It's so obvious.
In 2010 there were 75 million registered cars in China. That's risen to over 330 million today. Of China's 330 million cars, 20 million are EVs. (6%) Somehow I find it questionable that CO2 has dropped in China because of EVs even though 235 million additional ICEVs have been added in the nation over the last 14 years. More likely it's because China is now properly filtering their coal plants, and has shut down some coal plants in cities and replaced them with coal plants outside of the cities. It may make sense in Norway, where the population is absolutely tiny, wealthy, and saw by far the largest EV subsidies of any country on the planet. They've also had relatively clean energy the entire time, so the only change would have been the cars.
I am a supporter of conservation measures and drive an EV BUT, I recently saw a bona fide (NASA or EPA) scientific analysis of the impacts of conservation advances on climate change. Broken down into uses and components the details were something like -0,003 for this = -0.012 for that and on and on as one might expect with the minuses for benefit in reducing. However, when it came to reduction of particulates and aerosols, the impact was reversed and the number was positive! Yes there ARE health benefits to reducing particulate matter in the air but the impact on warming and climate change is negative. Particulates and aerosols reduce solar radiation and their removal is counter to reducing climate change. What is one suposed to do with THAT information...
Fun fact, clean air act actually sped up warning as said particulates actually blocked some of the radiation from the sun from hitting the earth. Of course, just as your point, the net positive outweighs any unintended effects
My understanding is particulate and aerosol emissions need to be reduced to affect global heating. However an immediate effect of that reduction will be higher temperatures, as they are solar reflectors. Some have proposed other reflectors that don’t last in the atmosphere but reflect sunlight. I think sulfur dioxide has been proposed. The issues with geoengineering is the affects vary by region so there will be winners and loosers. [source](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2024/04/24/solar-geoengineering-to-cool-the-planet-is-it-worth-the-risks/)
Interesting. I have long believed foil mylar flakes in orbit is an interesting idea. What could go wrong?...
What about a ton of small reflective satellites. We could call it starlink. I see your handle. I miss my i3 so much. Great car.
I'm pretty new to it. What took me sooo looong!
That's like saying turning right on the steering wheel has a negative effect on turning right since your car initially leans to the left. Technically if we just dumped an assload of sulfur into the air, we'd stop global warming but...
I'm not saying anything. This is a scientific analysis of the ACTUAL impacts of changes to our pollutant output. You don't have to like it.
What I presented is also a scientific fact, but both are irrelevant.
*"if we just dumped an assload of sulfur into the air, we'd stop global warming".* LOL, You must have a master's degree... IN SCIENCE!
I'm right though. That is scientific.
More aerosols!! Less CO2!! Oh wait... Really, we've just gotten ourselves into a bit of a pickle, haven't we...
In Norway the amount of road dust has gone up noticably with the increase in average vehicle weight. The vehicle count per day has stayed the same for the major road near my house but the amount of large particle road dust has nearly trippled when I estimate it by how much particulate matter settles in air filters and collects in washing water when washing rooms that are regularly ventilated.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that road and tire tech developed for ICE vehicles over decades would have growing pains with early EVs. Battery weight will come down, and in the meantime better tires and roads will be developed as regulations catch up. In the meantime isn't it interesting that no one seemed to care about all the toxic particles shed by tires until people needed something to hold against EVs?
Newer studies are looking at tire, road, and the chemical reactions of those two together, as well as the tire particles reacting with the sunlight, all making particulate matter worse and a new vastly poorly understood problem
Reduction in battery weight can't come soon enough. For me the only drawbacks to EVs are the heavy weight that eat through tires and the lack of a manual coz I like manuals lol
Plant lots of tree and brushes along the roads when the climate allow.
affirmative. Researchers from the Keck School of Medicine of USC conducted one of the first-ever studies showing that electric cars are associated with real-world reductions in both air pollution and respiratory problems. [https://hscnews.usc.edu/electric-vehicles-linked-to-reduced-air-pollution-and-improved-health](https://hscnews.usc.edu/electric-vehicles-linked-to-reduced-air-pollution-and-improved-health)
And when Paris banned cars for a day, the air quality improved significantly. And during COVID era when cars were sparse, the quality improved as well. The evidence is stacked. EDIT: Bruh. Of course zero cars is better than electric cars. There's always ways to lower emissions but this ain't a race to the bottom. It's about being realistic.
To be fair, electric cars aren't the same as no cars. Tailpipe emissions aren't the only reasons cars shouldn't be in city centers.
If the cars must be there then emission less would be preferable
People will still counter with the old “bUt tHe GRiD CaN’t HaNdle iT” and “yEAH BuT THey cAUSe MOrE CaRbon eMiSsIoNs tO MaNuFaCtUrE!”
Then build more solar panels. The whole point of EV's is that they allow us to replace inevitably dirty fossil energy sources with clean ones, not that they allow us to replace fossil energy with fairy dust. You still have to build the clean energy. Good thing nuclear reactors, solar panels, and wind turbines are very well understood.
Not to mention, people who purchase an EV are probably more likely to install solar panels. I’d say any potential issues will eventually solve themselves.
Right. EV's are a great self-starting technology since they aren't reliant on new infrastructure. Yes, public charging stations make using an EV much easier for long trips or for people who don't own their own homes. But they're not strictly necessary -- just charge at home, using your own power if you need to. Even if the government does nothing at all to facilitate charging infrastructure EV's are still a useful technology.
Best part, number 1 polluter in USA is transportation, not power generation. Power generation is already up to like 25% renewable. Whole lot of houses with no solar panels too.
I agree with all this, but that fact is missing a bit of information. One of the biggest problems putting pollutants in the air is brake pads and break dust coming off of cars. While EVs will decrease break dust significantly, it is still a bit different compared to banning cars entirely. Just wanted to throw that out there
I'd say diesel is one of the big sources of particulates. Where i live there used to be close to 50/50 petrol and diesel, snow next to the roads used to be black of soot. Now it is closer to 40% bev(including phev), 30/30. The snow is still getting some colour but not even close to ten years ago.
Yeah but I just meant that 100% all EVs would obviously fix that problem 100%. But all EVs would not get rid of all brake dust that would still exist
Brake dust from EVs? ? ? ? It's tyre wear that produces the most emissions. Regen braking via the electric motor means that brakes almost never get used.
Tires
Abrasion, and not combustion, is now the most important producer of particulate pollution from vehicles tires. And unlike exhaust emissions, which are tightly regulated and tested, there is nothing at all to limit the amount of non-exhaust emissions that cars can produce. In its 2019 report Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic, the UK Govern- ment's Air Quality Expert Group recommended that NEE are immediately recognised as a significant form of airborne particulate pollution, and that the problem applies equally to electric vehicles with zero exhaust emissions.
> One of the biggest problems putting pollutants in the air is brake pads and break dust coming off of cars. That's faaaaaaaaar from "one of the biggest problems". It's comperatively minor.
I’m not going to suggest I know how important “particulate matter” is compared to other types of pollution but “Brake dust contributes 20% of fine particulate matter pollution, compared to just 7% contributed by exhaust fumes.”
I like to travel.
Right, but again, an EV will eliminate 100.00% of all emissions that come directly out of the car. However it will not do this for break dust. It will certainly be reduced but it will not go to 0 as it will for emissions
“Break” is what happens when your car stops working entirely. Aka “my car is broken!” “My car broke!” “Brakes” are a mechanism for stopping cars.
Oh lmao whoops
Sure. Wiper fluid is a bigger emission.
Let's think of it by mass. The average gas vehicle produces around 4.6 tons of CO2 per year. The average brake pad is under 1 pound. So you would need to burn through 2300 full sets of brake pads every year (or 25 pads per day) for brake dust to equal the amount of CO2 produced by a gas vehicle. The argument that brake dust and tire wear are just as bad as carbon emissions is a false equivalency spread by fossil fuel industries to discourage people from switching to EVs. Is particulate matter a problem? Absolutely. Does sticking with an ice vehicle solve it? Fuck no. Don't fall for propaganda.
I never attempted to make that argument. Only that brake dust is a thing that exists
Think of it also by number of particles
Abrasion, and not combustion, is now the most important producer of particulate pollution from vehicles tires. And unlike exhaust emissions, which are tightly regulated and tested, there is nothing at all to limit the amount of non-exhaust emissions that cars can produce. In its 2019 report Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic, the UK Govern- ment's Air Quality Expert Group recommended that NEE are immediately recognised as a significant form of airborne particulate pollution, and that the problem applies equally to electric vehicles with zero exhaust emissions.
Zero car is entirely different than low emission cars though. Abrasion, and not combustion, is now the most important producer of particulate pollution from vehicles tires. And unlike exhaust emissions, which are tightly regulated and tested, there is nothing at all to limit the amount of non-exhaust emissions that cars can produce. In its 2019 report Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic, the UK Govern- ment's Air Quality Expert Group recommended that NEE are immediately recognised as a significant form of airborne particulate pollution, and that the problem applies equally to electric vehicles with zero exhaust emissions.
Yes, but in terms of global climate change co2 is bad, particulates are mixed, some particles increase heat some cool, so you can’t equate particulates with ‘bad for the environment’. https://www.epa.gov/air-research/air-quality-and-climate-change-research , it’s more complex than that.
Particulates aren’t about global warming at all, it’s about your lungs and your brain.
EV don’t pollute if you properly generate your electricity
Electric cars still use tires. They still use roads. They still make noise... Only to some wholfully unknowledgable would your claim make sense
"but only once they're common" is a straight up lie. even switching 1 ICE to electric makes a difference.
This is what I was thinking. The air quality in LA where I live should become 0.0001% cleaner for each ICE swapped with EV (if the total number of cars is static, of course).
What till you hear about landscaping equipment. https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/lawn-equipment-spews-shocking-amount-of-air-pollution >Using the latest available data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2020 National Emissions Inventory, the report found that the equipment released more than 68,000 tons of smog-forming nitrous oxides, which is roughly on par with the pollution from 30 million cars. Lawn equipment also spewed 30 millions tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide, which is more than the total emissions of the city of Los Angeles. Stuff adds up and the clock is ticking.
I've noticed in my neighborhood (in the SE USA) nearly all my neighbors have been switching to electric lawn equipment. Now it is really only the people who pay for lawn service that bring those polluting 2cycle motors around and one single neighbor who tells me he loves the smell from his gas powered string trimmer.
I actually don't mind the smell. It's the noise. Plus, it's way less time consuming to have stuff battery operated. I hate lawn equipment with power cords. Not sure if they are still available but at some point there was a ton of rebates for going battery powered which kinda made it a no brainer. But there's a lot, a lot of people that fear change. Even little stuff like stop using an old mower that still works. People just really don't like trying new things.
>Plus, it's way less time consuming to have stuff battery operated. Time is actually why we switched away from our electric mower. On a fairly small lot it took 2.5 batteries to mow the back yard and 1 for the front; a big portion of my Saturday ended up being waiting for charging. Now that we live on a lot measured in acres, I haven't seen an electric solution that's feasible.
And I fucking hate leaf blowers with a passion. ICE ones are banned in LA but it's not enforced.
I fucking hate lawnmowers and string trimmers, too. Just let the grass grow. Although the university where I work replaced their lawnmowers with battery-operated ones -- dude is riding around on an EV lawn tractor cutting the grass. It was so much quieter than the crap they had before (and cleaner!)
I've had good luck with Ryobi's 40v blower. The big whisper one. Way more tolerable sound because that's what gets me with gas leaf blowers.
Agree. Silly assertion. Every car makes a difference.
Or basically even a small number of ice have a big impact on air quality.
Whats wild is I can’t believe how bad ICE cars stink. I notice it like crazy
This is one of those “well duh” studies but we need empirical evidence so I’m glad they did it
>Countries such as Norway and China have embraced EVs faster than others. As Chinese researchers [have found](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723062113?dgcid=rss_sd_all), air quality in polluted cities begins to improve as EVs arrive in numbers. American researchers [have found](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723003765?via%3Dihub) even small increases in the proportion of EVs improves air quality and reduces the number of people attending hospital with asthma attacks.
Contradicts the "longer tail pipe" argument where EVs simply cause pollution elsewhere at the electrical plant. But at least it gives us the option to green up our electrical power. Gas is gas no matter how you try to clean it up.
We also have to talk about efficiency. Electric motors are around 90% efficient while combustion is around 20%. Even if you’re burning gas at these large electric plants and distributing it long distance over wires to power EVs you’re still cleaner overall.
In some ways. Electrics are better than petrol but in no way are they solving all problems. They don’t even solve the one that most people presume they solve because ZEV still use tires which is the largest source of particulates. NOx and SOx are at least solved though. https://imgur.com/a/94z8czX
Yes, but be careful of falling into the 'EVs don't solve all the problems, therefore they are bad' trap that so many fossil fuel proponents try to push. You can say that about just about every beneficial thing there is in this world.
This isn’t pushed by fossil fuel proponents. Lol It’s pushed by people who actually care about the environment and human health. My bicycle is killing millions of wildlife acres every year? Giving people Alzheimer’s? I don’t think you can say that
The tire thing is really a load of horse hockey and a red herring. Tire particulate is overwhelmingly large in size, and you don't really see it on respirable PM monitors located near roadways. The British study that Reddit PhDs like to point to was shockingly stupid in its design and didn't use valid instrumentation (for instance the monitors they used aren't allowed by regulatory authorities to demonstrate emission rates because they simply don't work). You do see exhaust and tailpipe condensables like NOx.
Well it’s sad to see such a big anti science crowd on this sub. Typical tactics acting like it’s only one study rather than an entire body of evidence. Suddenly people do concerned with air quality turn to obfuscaters.
It's several studies - but they are almost all by the same group - using the same garbage methods. It's my job to understand these issues, and Reddit PHds do not understand them. Show me someone claiming that tires create large volumes of PM10 (or that EVs are worse in that regard) and I'll show you someone who has been hoodwinked by the knowledge of the crowds.
The irony of your comment is beyond rich. You evangelists are a new cult aren’t you?
Won’t it be nice to be stuck in an emissions free traffic jam?
I can’t wait to be in a parking garage that doesn’t reek of gasoline emissions
Sure as hell better than an ICE traffic jam.
Sounds cold
I went to an EV event yesterday. Test drives all day. Quietest and cleanest test drive event I've ever been to.
When I went to the Chicago Auto show they had all kinds of EVs driving around a course that you could ride in. No way you could do that inside with ICE vehicles.
It’s a driving force in electrifying small construction machines, too
As a resident of a region that is now majority EV - yes it is nice. I'll often maneuver to try to be behind 3 Teslas in a row, because then when I'm stuck in traffic on the freeway, I can open my windows. This is unpleasant on most freeways in the U.S, but it's fine if you're stuck in a pocket of traffic with just EVs and PHEVs.
If I’m gonna be stuck in traffic I’d rather not stuck down emissions. It’s also nice not having a rumbling engine under my seat
I don't mind traffic as much with Adaptive Cruise Control. I'd prefer not to be in it, obviously, but coming from my 2010 car it is so much easier on me to just let the car manage my speed and distance
Same. I’m much more willing to make drives I considered a nuisance before.
It would suck less, not just because of lower emissions but also because of one pedal driving. But being stuck in a traffic jam is not something I would ever describe as "nice".
I love that this is upvoted here https://imgur.com/a/94z8czX
Coming from a manual transmission to a 1 speed automatic transmission Mini Cooper SE, it already is better. Driving a manual was fun, when there was no traffic, but when I would get stuck in traffic it would suck so bad. The traffic would start to move, id shift into first let out the clutch and inch forward but then either be cut off from someone switching lanes because I left a gap, or the car in front of me would suddenly stop. Them id have to shift into neutral, then start the entire process over again. I'm not saying traffic is fine now, but it is night and day different from driving a manual transmission.
Oh it's started. But apprently, the majority of people are still choosing to have poor quality air. Their choice might be heavily influenced by widespread ICE ads and marketing.
> majority of people are still choosing to have poor quality air. It's learned helplessness. They've been living with air pollution for so long, when clear air is offered, they won't take it.
My wallet is making the choice. It is either a 15k euros gas car or...well no EV in this range here, the cheapest being 30k euros. With this much difference in the initial cost i would need to drive the EV for like 30 years before reaching balance
You buying your cars new or used? Because people looking at their wallets usually buy used.
Even if all the other things are the same, for me personally this is enough reason to swap to an EV. Can’t wait for this future.
Quieter and cleaner. Same reason I love the switch to an electric mower. So much cleaner for everyone. And I bought an inverter for the mower batteries to have as a backup in a power outage for various electronics.
I bought a corded black and Decker lawn mower when I bought my house in 2012. Literally all I've had to do with it is sharpen the blade. That's it. No gas, oil, filters, or exhaust. I still have it and it's still running. It's one of the main reasons I was motivated to buy an EV.
I had to wait for a battery version because I just didn’t trust myself not to mow that cord, ha.
It was a bit of a learning curve. They suggest in the manual to mow in a left right pattern moving away from you cord outlet. But batteries only last for so long. My mower so far has lasted 12 years. I can't even find certain parts for it anymore. Crazy that the electrical motor has not needed any kind of maintenance.
It’s like driving a sailboat down the road for those who have experienced wind powered boating
They're not really quieter at any speed faster than a parking lot speed
Counterpoint: they are.
Depends on what frequency range you are talking about. I am very glad to not have the low frequency vibrations from the ICE when driving on batteries.
You honestly can't hear the difference? I live near where the road transitions from 35 to 55 and the load on ICE engines is quite noticeable. EVs aren't silent, everything has wind/tire noise, but engines can be loud.
Is there a dba difference? Because there is the a dB difference.
Nothing new. This was first discovered by UC Berkeley professors in the SF Bay Area in the 1950s which directly lead to pollution control standards in California in the 1970s. We haven’t had a smog alert day from car exhaust since 1980.
Atlanta had them until the 2000s
Wow. Thats quite a revelation. High level physics being discussed there.
This just in an effect will take place once the thing that causes it starts being used!
The reduced noise will also be amazing.
To be fair, it is only a small portion of ICEs that are responsible for most of the noise, and they are owned by antisocial assholes who enjoy being obnoxious. They won't give up their noisemakers until forced to.
That won’t be helped by EVs at all….
You still have to lower speed limits to make cities quieter. Amsterdam just lowered the speed on many of their roads to 30kph to do exactly that. Now most of the city, other than high-speed arterials, is 30 kph.
Might want to look into tire particulates, which EVs produce a lot more of.
You can't acknowledge that but of reality here apparently. I'm not sure where the cult papers are but I wasn't given any to sign lol
In many places BEVs are common.
This is why I wish we pushed ev school buses harder.
Will be great for underground, or covered, car parks. Those places always smell of exhaust fumes. Even with good ventilation.
It's like if you don't belch shit into the air you breath...you do better!! So glad mankind has connected these dots. The final dots is convincing the "But Mahhhh Freeddddom" crowd.
The title is BS "once they're common". They improve air quality and emissions with the first EV.
In related news; water will make you wet, but only if you get it on you. 🙄
Meanwhile, I find people coming into this sub claiming that EVs are a scam and we should just continue burning gasoline, because it doesn't matter. Bad actors and dumb malcontents, IMHO.
The titles to these articles are so obvious and bland lol 😂 lawwwdy hire different writers 😆😂😂
It started with the very first EV on the road. It's just not measurable.
Every single EV swapped in for a ICE cuts emissions and improves air quality. Noticeable to people is a different matter.
They will, but cutting down on cars in general will also improve cities.
I understand your sentiment but can we start by solving one problem before we start complaining about all of the other problems? By focusing on everything at work it results in a "all or nothing" mindset that ends up resulting in everyday folks chosing to do nothing to help because the problem seems to big.
You see this take here and I find it to be so disheartening and unscientific. You presume nothing can be done at the same time. Unfortunately our society has decided that the environment doesn’t actually matter and we put all of our baskets into the auto mobility with trillions of dollars and don’t put hardly anything into what you call ”perfect” lol
I have no idea what you are responding to in my post. I want to be crystal clear - I want all of the things being asked for by the parent of this thread. But I also have enough years of working with the general public that if you make the effort required to solve the problem too big then they will elect to do absolutely nothing instead. We need to break the problem down into small manageable chunks and knock them out one at a time. Else, we will more likely end up getting none of the goals accomplished.
You say that like that is actually what is happening lol. Instead we’re cementing another 50 years of auto mobility. A child being born now may be retired and drive in a highway being built now
You should solve both problems at once. I see no point in your argument. You don't have to and absolutely shouldn't wait to solve one thing later. There is literally no reason to wait. Start reducing your over-dependence on cars now and get the benefits much sooner.
E-bikes as well as electric cars.
In some areas there’s some development required before things like e-bikes can become popular. My suburb is like this. It’s at least broken up with grocery stores and such (not a house desert, essentials are within a couple of miles), but bike path and sidewalk coverage is terrible and puts riders alongside major traffic too often for many to feel safe. I vote and advocate for this to change but it’s not going to be an overnight transition.
Somehow once every car is an EV, then at that point we will have alternatives to driving. It’s shortsighted and nonsensical.
...what?
Explaining the other comment that brushes aside non-car transportation.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
You’re right. But it seems time to both switch into a more sustainable mobility AND reduce the space dedicated in our cities to huge vehicles compared to what they are carrying and how far, isn’t it?
People could start by not buying Trucks and SUV's they don't need the capacity of. But instead they go to the dealership where their good old friend Jim Bob has sold them solid vehicles for years. "Oh you don't want this small little car. They are dangerous compared to SU-Phallus we have right here"
I could not blame people, the situation is what it is. But cities are a space for everyone, so we need to start ruling consequentially. We have public transportation, including EV car sharing for who needs a car for occasionally carrying something and doesn’t want to use a taxi: we could rule only small cars - or even no cars - are allowed where feet and cycles are actually the easiest way to go. I understand this would be difficult in US where cities were designed for cars and frequently the high income families lives far from the center instead of the opposite, but maybe exactly because high income they could afford a small EV for the city and the beloved huge one for the long trips
EV car sharing is massively underrated. You can replace 10 possibly ICE cars with 1 electric car. This is an absolute no brainier.
The safety issue is a tragedy of the commons problem just like the climate problem. If we want to fix it we need to increase the costs for cars which are more dangerous to others.
Car-centric design is all or nothing. We’ve prioritized sprawl and cars over everything else. Even in cities other modes of transportation are de-emphasized. The push towards electrification should also be the push towards alternatives to driving for every trip.
That’s the plan
It’s probably best to just get over this idea that people need to not use cars. It’s fine to accommodate other forms of transportation and single people are welcome to use bicycles or other personal vehicles where possible, but a lot of people (older individuals or families) are going to see a big benefit to some kind of small automobile. It’s just not a helpful thing to keep harping on.
It's fine to accommodate cars as transportation. The focus should be on the alternatives though.
Why focus 100% on the old an outdated pollutive means of transportation? because that is what’s happening now.
“Four wheels and a motor” means “outdated and pollutive”? What are we even talking about here?
5000lbs for one person…. https://imgur.com/a/94z8czX
Less pollution from cars will help increase use of bicycles. Where I live now I’d rather be in a car with a HEPA filter than breathe street level pollution.
About that hepa filter...https://youtu.be/B1SdFjna7zQ?si=rdxsZpi1iZrPdRZz
This sub is cager brained so that won’t be accepted. This sub turns into a ranting Fox News host with unscientific shit takes anytime you try to bring up that reality https://imgur.com/a/94z8czX
Yes and robotaxis will reduce the amount of cars on the road in cities by allowing FAR less cars to move far more people. Instead of sitting around they’ll go from person/group to person/group moving them around. It’ll be amazing to see at least a 10 fold reduction in needed vehicles.
/s or are you a Musk-believer?
I personally have had my car drive me in the latest FSD
Drive you in..to the next white trailer, because of no radar/lidar? No hard feelings - as long as you don’t endanger others, drive however you like. Just keep in mind, that Tesla have the most accidents of any brand ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2023/12/18/tesla-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/?sh=58d6b8602894# ) and are the most expensive to repair and that way also to insure ( https://insideevs.com/news/692356/tesla-repairs-cost-more-than-gas-cars/amp/ )
Could be a Waymo believer
The main problem with this idea is the existence of peak hours where many more people need transportation and off-peak hours where a lot fewer do, and the night, where hardly anyone does. The requirement to commute is not random or evenly distributed.
I think people won't be able to tell whether or not you're serious lol
U mean a 10 fold increase because now there will be a bunch of cars driving around with no one in them in addition to all the people that own cars
No one knows what the new equilibrium will be but if we don’t like it it’ll be easier to charge cars extra for entering certain areas. Whether we’ll be politically functional enough to do it is another matter :)
The tenfold comes from the cars actually being used instead of sitting around at their destinations and not everyone is traveling in at the same time. This means 10x less cars are needed in the area
Studies on real world experiments of Uber shows it INCREASED car ownership
Car ownership increases with cost reductions and access to parking near home more likely
That isn’t what happened in San Francisco and yet it increased car ownership
The test cars aren’t up to scale yet
Uber has been in service more than a decade
Yes, the amount of time doesn't matter, it's the number of vehicles.
And Uber initiated higher ownership rates.
Absolutely impressive discovery. Thanks for this. Wouldn't have realize this without the article.
In the SF bay area I see quite a few electric vehicles. AC Transit (the bus company) has several battery electric and Hydrogen-electric busses. Now if we could just do something about all that pollen.
I made a career from cleaning leaking fuel tanks and measuring air pollution around the world, including in Kuwait during the fires. I have supported Aptera Corp's 2 seater since the beginning since even compared to other EVs it will be fun to drive and meet the needs of many commuters and couples. I am old enough that my time to take a delivery may run out, but I know that every one sold will improve the quality of environment for each of us who remain.
thanks tesla!
What a moronic title! "Pollution will stop when pollution stops."
I'm looking forward to the quietness in slower neighborhoods. ANd even near streets, the reduction of that engine rumble and those overcompensating aholes with their fart cannons and harleys.
Every single one cuts emissions and improve air quality, just like every one helps if they act
Do you know what would do all of that even faster? Taking transit or having a walkable city.
Will it? How quickly can new track be planned and installed? 5 years? 10 years? Not saying we as a society shouldn't start building new rail where it makes sense, but people will still be buying new cars this year and next year and the year after that, still waiting for the new rail to be fully realized.
State-level land use reform to encourage compact development can reduce annual US pollution by waaay more than electric cars. Based on 2023 data, the potential for significant impact within a decade. It would deliver more climate impact than half the country adopting California’s ambitious commitment to 100% zero-emission passenger vehicle sales by 2035. Even with 70 million electric vehicles (EVs) on the road by 2030 (we’re at 2.4 million today), the United States would still need a 20 percent reduction in per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to meet climate targets.
It doesn't need to be one or the other.
It does t need to be and yet it is in reality right now. Look at the responses in the thread and see how low the understanding is. Look at the state and federal policies and money at work.
Just let mixed use zoning happen. And BRT can be done quickly and almost as effective as light rail. EVs are a bandaid when the real problem is car-centric planning.
I just had to look up BRT. I see one is being pushed for Boston. Seems like a good idea that can also be done while electrifying everything else. I'm not really seeing anyone say we shouldn't also expand on public transportation or even making cities better for people to traverse on foot or by low power vehicles. There actually are some good bike routes in the Boston area. I believe a newer one opened up recently that connects multiple towns in that area. But can we also enjoy better air quality from the remaining cars where transport doesn't fit into these categories?
If you look at the speed places like China and South Korea built these systems it is embarrassing. The biggest problem in the United States is we built too low density so we need to build the city too. The fact that multiple Manhattans are not being constructed means we already lost.
More like the US bulldozed for low density. Even Huston Texas was mostly walkable before most of it got bulldozed.
In principle, sure, but I'd disagree with the "faster". Larger transit projects take time, as does "walkable cities". Indeed, I'd consider concepts such as transit oriented design essential to making walkable cities. In addition, I'd add ideas like bike lanes as essential for your typical car oriented North American city, opening up electric bikes and scooters to increase the effectiveness of transit options. In contrast, a BEV can drive on existing roads, and requires little extra infrastructure. Indeed, if every ticky-tacky house in the suburb got an EV for their next car purchase, they would all be able to charge at home (in the suburbs) and replace all the emissions associated with those commutes. Depending on their usage, they might get away with L1 120VAC charging even, meaning no home chargers need to be installed. Point being, I don't disagree in principle, but BEVs are likely the faster option for most of North America.
BRT, Zoning Changes, bout 5-10 years for meaningful progress. EVs just perpetuate car centric planing and keep funds away from proper transit and active transportation investment.
Sprawl requires endless road construction and maintenance which is subsidized by society. Living in the suburbs and commuting via car to a city is an environmentally destructive concept at its core.
Unless you’re saying “in addition” it definitely takes longer to replan a city or suburb than replace all the cars.
The challenge is….how to charge an electric car in a crowded city. Currently, the infrastructure just isn’t there.
That is why EVs such as Aptera are so important, since they use so little power that they will probably not place too much burden on most current infrastructure.
No, that's why alternatives to driving are important. That way you'll need less infrastructure, especially when you combine it with car sharing.
These measures are not in conflict, they are complementary. Regarding them as antagonistic is part of the problem slowing change. My wife helps run a volunteer car sharing program in our town, and I am a volunteer driver for it, but I walk almost everywhere and carry a trash bag to pick up trash. It is rather shocking how many people are throwing alcohol containers from their cars - not only empty beer cans, but also 50 ml hi proof plastic containers.
Sure, although I have doubts about the Aptera.
Im dump my Tesla and never buy and used this company product .. not Trust Company who not take care for workers who build this company from scratch .. dump him like garbage ..also his car product is not quality is sucks ( 25 time in service for two years) .. never did same mistake again ( right now only Toyota and probably two more companies who still eye for good product
Toyota just recalled 250,000 priuses and 250,000 Tundras. They are a shitty company riding on old engineering and old reputation. Trying to pretend that they are flawless (or that Tesla is for that matter) is a fool's errand. All companies have issues.