• tallwookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    the reality is that will take decades. I’m not going to stop driving my gas fueled vehicle & neither is anyone who reads this

    • concealmint@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You would be right. If the government were to never get involved. “It’ll take decades for the whole country to prepare for nuclear fallout” “It’ll take decades for the country to protect itself from HIV” etc. etc. Every public health crisis needs to the government to get involved and mediate, that’s what civilization has been since the time of the Greeks.

      • tallwookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s not in the government’s interest to royally fuck the economy back into the shitter, which is what rushing the transition from petroleum to more sustainable resources will do.

        lol you think covid shortages were bad? international shipping, domestic train shipping, and local truck shipping ALL USE DIESEL - almost exclusively. merely changing all fuel systems without significant interruption to supply (untold millions dying of starvation) will will take decades - that’s WITH the government taking action.

        • concealmint@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The government’s interest is protecting it’s own system. If their has to be loss in profits for oil companies than so be it. Also you’re implying that the first to go off Diesel would be the supply line when obviously not. It would be power grids, the army then consumer cars than the supply chain. Do you think that any one with a functioning brain would try to make the supply lines go green first? You’re just doing a strawman.

      • elihu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        EVs tend to beat internal combustion cars even when the electricity comes entirely from fossil fuels, since the big power plants tend to be able to convert heat to electricity much more efficiently than a car engine can. But we don’t get all our power from fossil fuels these days – renewables, nuclear, and hydroelectric are all producing a significant portion. Depending on where you are it might be about half fossil fuels on average, but with huge regional variation.

        We do need to transition away from fossil fuel power generation, but that’s a thing we can do in parallel to replacing our vehicle fleet.

        (We also need to drive a lot less and use smaller vehicles on average, but that’s another topic.)

      • tallwookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        corporations will always utilize the cheapest method to generate revenue - legislating for or against that isnt going to do anyone any favors. it may be beneficial to instead offer tax deductions for utilizing solar or wind over coal, that seemed to work pretty well for the individual adoption of solar power…

        for electrical generating companies, sometimes the cheapest method is coal/oil and sometimes it isnt. the infrastructure for using both already exists, after all. I think there was a headline recently that mentioned that solar power production was nearing competition levels in the USA with coal recently, or had surpassed it (in the summer months). until power storage tech has sufficiently matured you cant actually expect anyone who lives where it freezes to switch from oil/propane heat to electric heating in the winter months - and that’s well over half of the country.

          • tallwookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            no, i said that it MAY be beneficial. it may not be. I have no idea. no one does - in fact there’s nothing but supposition.

            a multiyear study will need to be performed by some impartial 3rd party and then presumably it would be another 15 to 20 years as corporations slowly switch to some alternate method (if it’s cheaper or better, but the jury is out on that one).