Post number #1007537, ID: 237816
|
Unsure whether I should do it in /new/ or /tech/ I personally feel like 2050 is too quickly, and 2100 seems like a better time period to adapt.
Even though they'll ban new gasoline cars in 2035, I think people might still go across it by creating an import market from America and Asia. EV's imho require too much electricity and charging time to be reliable on everyday use,
Post number #1007538, ID: 237816
|
especially if you're forced to drive a lot of distance (my friend has to go to work to town 80km away from his home. He'd probably go for train if that shit wasn't running always late)
Serviceability also sucks because EVs completely kill used cars market as batteries won't last forever and replacing them costs as much as getting a new car.
What's the point of all of this if the Americans are still going to drive their pickup trucks with V8 engines that burn 30 liters per 100km?
Post number #1007539, ID: 237816
|
What's the point of this when the Chinese keep on opening new coal mines on monthly basis?
I don't think anyone even plans to make EVs accessible for low class. Public transportation was, and will be shit if you don't live in the city.
A lot of firms that specialize in heavy equipment like bulldozers, and other trucks literally rely on hardware that's over 25 years old in some instances, because there's no point in replacing something that still works and does its job
Post number #1007540, ID: 237816
|
Why are we even having this discussion? It's so illogical to have so many advancements and now let's chain down everyone except for politicians and celebrities that need to fly their private jets for shopping which produce more carbon than I will throughout my entire life.
Post number #1007541, ID: 237816
|
Not to say that ecology isn't important. However drastic measures and immediately enforced changes and restrictions are too much
Post number #1007662, ID: 65a705
|
>what's the point in cleaning up my neighborhood if the neighborhood on the other side of the river stays dirty? if they live in shit they so should we this is you^
what a dumb take
Post number #1007664, ID: b112b5
|
>>1007662 shitty comparison (literallly)
Post number #1007710, ID: 7945e8
|
I've heard that carbon is the building block of life. Therefore no life in Europe means no carbon. Simple fix is to nuke it to save the environment.
Post number #1007712, ID: b7ac9d
|
>>1007710 Good post.
Post number #1007719, ID: e286a0
|
>>1007710 Thats my president!
Post number #1007723, ID: 08642a
|
>>1007710 finally, a good take
Post number #1007882, ID: 5aa9fd
|
We should have started this decades ago but lobbyists put a stop to that and worked on bamboozling people.
Also we need to build more nuclear power plants, fuck the scare mongering pop culture has created nuclear is clean and far better than fossil
Post number #1007919, ID: 6a57d4
|
>>1007882 what about the mining
Total number of posts: 13,
last modified on:
Sun Jan 1 00:00:00 1710255206
| Unsure whether I should do it in /new/ or /tech/
I personally feel like 2050 is too quickly, and 2100 seems like a better time period to adapt.
Even though they'll ban new gasoline cars in 2035, I think people might still go across it by creating an import market from America and Asia.
EV's imho require too much electricity and charging time to be reliable on everyday use,