Man complains about the government forcing him to buy a new car so he and his wife can continue to do their 1km school run.
Man complains about the government forcing him to buy a new car so he and his wife can continue to do their 1km school run.
And I thought Americans were carbrained, holy shit.
(To be fair, he's not wrong in that this is intended to keep the auto companies and the government nice and fat -- but the obvious response to this is to agitate for better public transit, not railing against an environmentally sound policy.)
You're viewing a single thread.
Isn't it true that once a car is built, it's basically better for the environment to drive it until its wheels fall off instead of scrapping it to buy any new one (even electric) though ? He's right that a lot of the time these schemes are thinly veiled auto industry handouts to stimulate the economy, instead of actual environmental regulations.
Every 35000 km or 21000 miles a gasoline car going on average 20km/l or 47mpg have produced the same amount of CO2 that it takes to make an electric car.
So if over the lifetime of the car you go less than 35000km you shouldn't be changing it with an electric. Otherwise please do 😁
How long is that offset including charging? I know that EVs are still significant better, but it's not like the moment an EV rolls out that it's carbon emissions stop.
The thing with EVs is that they get cleaner over time as cheap solar and batteries become a bigger part of the grid and old coal plants age out.
If you buy a diesel today, it'll still be burning diesel in 2045.
depends where you are i guess. if you're in a country with a high proportion of the grid being powered by renewables or nuclear then the emissions do become negligable as soon as it's delivered.
France is 70% nuclear plus renewables etc
Isn't it true that once a car is built, it's basically better for the environment to drive it until its wheels fall off instead of scrapping it
In terms of global warming; maybe. It depends on many factors when looking at a specific case. Another commenter already put some numbers together.
The environment, however, in this case is Dehli, a city with terrible air quality. Removing an active source of CO2, NOx, heavy metals, etc is good for that environment. Especially human lungs.
If the government provides safe and comfortable public transit instead.
Except that i10, even an old one, is not a big source of CO2 or NOx
The break even on carbon emissions from manufacture vs. daily use is somewhere between around 3 and 10 years. Big trucks on the low end.
better for the environment
Yes.
Better for your nerves? No.
Also you have to keep your vehicle in a state where it can drive safely, which leads to maintenance costs that rise over time. But safe for your environment as in the people around you, whether you reach your destination alive is of less importance.
Policies like these are almost never about overall environmental health. It's to address acute problems. Delhi has a lot of smog that causes health problems. That is the specific problem they're addressing
The environmental break even period for EVs is getting shorter and shorter as the power grids get cleaner and cleaner.
It was a somewhat solid argument against buying new EVs to replace working ICE cars over 10 years ago, but now it's really not.
for one this severely depends on when it was built, old cars basically just convert 90% of the fuel into air pollution and spew it straight out the exhaust pipe, while modern cars actually use the fuel to go forward and provided the catalytic converter is in good shape they filter out some of the nastiness.