Teeks đŽâ¶
Ars TechnicaUS public wants climate change dealt with, but doesnât like the options
People want both action and to keep using fossil fuels.
jordan@arstechnica people in general are dumb
Demilente@arstechnica We want to have our cake and eat it too.
ferricoxide@arstechnica
I'd be happy to not use fossil fuels, but, my cars are paid for and taking on the kind of notes that come with EVs isn't doable without majorly restructuring my budget. Once my solar panels are paid off, it will free up a couple $100s/mo., but would still leave a significant gap in my budget to account for.
I'd be happy to not use fossil fuels, but, my cars are paid for and taking on the kind of notes that come with EVs isn't doable without majorly restructuring my budget. Once my solar panels are paid off, it will free up a couple $100s/mo., but would still leave a significant gap in my budget to account for.
Compuguy đ±@ferricoxide @arstechnica It doesn't help that the major car manufacturers are stopping production of *affordable* EVs either. Chevy's discontinuing the Bolt and the Bolt EUV, and Nissan is at some point discontinuing the Leaf. Car manufacturers are chasing the đ” for more expensive (and profitable) EV SUVs....
@compuguy @arstechnica
Which I freaking hate. Monstrous-weight aside, I hate large vehicles. Not having a passel of kids and living in the inner suburbs of a medium-sized city and having to find parking in that city, smaller cars are more practical.
Our two cars are an e46 BMW (bought new in late 2001 and a good size up from my prior roadster) and a Mini Countryman (bought in 2012 â we'd have bought smaller but for needing to haul bulldogs at family holidays). Part of the reason I'd never replaced either with an EV was, until a year or so ago, they were all bigger than my wife's Mini. Discontinuing the few smaller vehicles actually being made puts me back in that "nope" category.
Who knows, maybe when the next generation battery tech becomes available, small won't mean sub two-hour range (i don't need 400+ grade on a charge).
Which I freaking hate. Monstrous-weight aside, I hate large vehicles. Not having a passel of kids and living in the inner suburbs of a medium-sized city and having to find parking in that city, smaller cars are more practical.
Our two cars are an e46 BMW (bought new in late 2001 and a good size up from my prior roadster) and a Mini Countryman (bought in 2012 â we'd have bought smaller but for needing to haul bulldogs at family holidays). Part of the reason I'd never replaced either with an EV was, until a year or so ago, they were all bigger than my wife's Mini. Discontinuing the few smaller vehicles actually being made puts me back in that "nope" category.
Who knows, maybe when the next generation battery tech becomes available, small won't mean sub two-hour range (i don't need 400+ grade on a charge).
KanaMauna@arstechnica I guess they didnât understand what action meant.
Formerly disgruntled in Oregon@arstechnica đ¶ âYou canât always get what you wantâ đ¶
Rick@arstechnica absolutely do NOT want to keep using fossil fuels, but there are two places where I still need to: aviation (which might be decarbonized someday), and my backyard fire pit. If everything else were decarbonized, would that still be too much?
Billy SmithAnd fertiliser.
40% of each barrel of crude is used for fertiliser, and food transport.
While the transport can be done with EV's, the chemical energy for the fertiliser couldn't be generated using renewable electricity until 2018:
The fall in price of solar panels, along with the increase in cost of fossil fuel, means that the fossil-fuel-extraction side of the industry is obsolete, as the hydrocarbons are now cheaper to make than to dig. :D
Padjo@JetForMe @arstechnica youâre burning fossil fuels in your fire pit?!
@Padjo natural gas
Ceremus@arstechnica Wow, it sure is a good thing that a huge chunk of carbon emissions have absolutely nothing to do with choices at the individual level.
(Aside from a very limited number of the super rich who get much of their fortunes from fossil fuels.)
(Aside from a very limited number of the super rich who get much of their fortunes from fossil fuels.)
Evan@arstechnica As a matter of fact, we like the option very much. The option is to place the blame for climate change on the companies and governments that knowingly caused it, and expect them to make the changes necessary to stop the process. I could ride my bike to work every day, my town could, hell, the whole country could, and that wouldnât hold back the emissions from diesel freight trucks and boats, airplanes, the military, or manufacturing.
@arstechnica The companies made gas cars, so I bought a car. The company made my electricity with natural gas, so I bought the electricity. The companies refined oil to make shampoo bottles, and I bought shampoo. Does that mean that I personally made the decision to base our countryâs infrastructure on fossil fuel products? Well then, if not, why am I even being asked if Iâd like to foot the bill? This article and the study it reports are almost maliciously poorly framed
Sandhu@arstechnica not much individuals can do while we have grow profits every quarter capitalism model. Iâm not some anti capitalist, Iâm a small business owner myself. And I cannot imagine how I can infinitely grow my profits without being unethical.
Noah Gibson@arstechnica why are you blaming human caused wildfires on climate change
Picard@noahgg @arstechnica
I will build a forest. And the Europeans are gonna pay for it. They don't know yet but they will pay. And the forest machine likes me. It likes us. It eats CO2. I will solve the climate change. Vote me 4 President.
I will build a forest. And the Europeans are gonna pay for it. They don't know yet but they will pay. And the forest machine likes me. It likes us. It eats CO2. I will solve the climate change. Vote me 4 President.
Note that it's not fossil fuels that people want, but hydrocarbon fuels.
It's now cheaper to make hydrocarbons than to dig them from the ground:
Douglas Camata@arstechnica people do not want to use fossil fuels. People want *affordable* electric cars with *good enough charging networks* that planning a trip isn't a nightmare and has literally 0 (zero) risks of being stranded out there without charge. While this isn't possible, we *need* fossil fuels, even though we hate them.
thoughts have been thinked@arstechnica false though. I donât know a single person that wants to keep using fossil fuels. Even the conservatives I know are more for nuclear than any other fuels.
Lunatech@arstechnica I am not so sure it is because they want to keep using fossil fuels as it is that the only solutions the radical left (yes there is such a thing) propose involve things that Americans simply will not accept. Such as the idea of riding a fucking bicycle to work or school in the dead of winter. Electric cars are a solution many people would accept, but the radical left doesn't like those for some reason. And it would be possible to make smaller vehicles (something akin to a fully enclosed Tuk-Tuk) that could protect people from the elements and make it possible to carry groceries and other items home without needing to try to tie them down and protect them from the weather.
But no, it is only the "solutions" that 90%+ of Americans will NEVER accept (not even in the face of certain death) that the radical left seems to want to talk about. They are their own worst enemy, and they are alienating people who really do want to see climate change reversed as long as a reasonable solution can be found.
https://mastodon.social/users/arstechnica/statuses/110624647638381135
@Lunatech @arstechnica
If I was writing a textbook and needed a good example of a strawman - this would serve well.
If I was writing a textbook and needed a good example of a strawman - this would serve well.
Seppo Helava@arstechnica I think framing it as âpeople want⊠to keep using fossil fuelsâ is incorrect. Yes, they want the benefits of using the things that currently burn fossil fuels, but if you were able to create better replacements for those things, I donât think there are a ton of folks who are gonna say, ââŠbut I wanna burn fuel!!â
That distinction matters, because solutions are to make better things that are greener. Induction is *better* than gas. EVs are for most people *better* than gas. Etc.
writermonki@arstechnica This is typical behavior with any number of issues.
People want change without changing anything. And even moderate supporters of a desired outcome will only vote for change when they see it as the only option left to them. A change in outputs without a change in inputs or processes is what most everyone wants. That's why Dem cities so often vote for moderate Republicans cosplaying as Dems
People want change without changing anything. And even moderate supporters of a desired outcome will only vote for change when they see it as the only option left to them. A change in outputs without a change in inputs or processes is what most everyone wants. That's why Dem cities so often vote for moderate Republicans cosplaying as Dems