An EV will consume fewer fossil fuel resources than an infernal-combusted equivalent over its perhaps 10 to 20 year lifetime.
But most of the roughly 4 tonnes of CO2 it will generate just to come to market will be in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And this bit matters more than the first.
Somewhat less fossil fuel is better than nothing. But we need to be heading towards *radically* less.
How shall we do that?
https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/116294326872514865
…FWIW, here are some thoughts:
Massively invest in electrified public transport and distribution systems, especially those for food. Use human power as much as possible for ‘last mile(s)’ delivery*.
Do this ahead of radically disincentivising private vehicle ownership. Make it progressively punitively expensive over relatively few years.
Massively incentivise producing the lightest vehicles possible.
*Other than our own bodies, the lightest, most efficient vehicle known to us is the bicycle
…At the same time, massively incentivise fewer food miles. Ramp up that pricing structure over as few years as possible at the same time as radically investing in community farming.
Somewhere in this mix commission content creators and broadcasters to produce rigorous but fun educational content that is honest about where we are…
…The massive reduction in private vehicle ownership will put millions of tonnes of steel and other precious resources into scrap supply chains.
Anticipate this. Build out the lowest carbon means of pushing those refactored resources into electrification and decarbonisation pathways heavily weighted towards community-owned power generation
…Help the public understand that, given where are, this work will not be done in our lifetimes. There will be a lower rung on the energy ladder we must go to for centuries.
But that this will bring timeless sustainable rewards. More conviviality, better tasting and more nutritious food, more music, more art. Things that don’t require fossil fuels at all and never have
…Of course, a public hooked on energy-blind convenience (yes that includes me) is not ready for such thoughts.
But one re-educated by intermittency and high prices may come to better understand that the game is up
@mpospese @urlyman Yes, like I said - heavy-transport vehicles. Anything weighing more than ~800kg, so you're looking at golf buggy sizes of vehicle, or a (Leyland) Mini.
There are good arguments for their being available, not least of which would be improving access generally for disabled people and those with limited mobility (long COVID and ME sufferers among others).
I think it's insane that a vehicle weighing 1700kg can be considered a "small" vehicle.
Agreed.
Reminds me of the ‘Use Less guide to transport’: https://www.uselessgroup.org/about-us/our-vision/use-less-live-well/transport
To a first approximation, all modes of transport lead to approximately the same greenhouse emissions for each kilogramme-kilometre (see Figure 1). This unfamiliar unit is important – the energy required to move people and things, and the consequent emissions is a function of two main variables – the weight and the distance, and of course the weight includes the weight of the
And to build those electrified public transport systems to last 50-100 or more years instead of 10 or 20. The systems part is important: maintenance is important but is often cut as an operating expense, while capital expenses are magically depreciated away. We can't afford this wastefulness.
Jonathan Schofield
bewilderbeast23
Kim Spence-Jones 🇬🇧😷
Mark Pospesel 
Brad Macpherson
tivasyk
Jen
Hamish Buchanan
EF