Hi all, As title says, I’d like to know if in your opinion electric vehicles are truly a sustainable solution that fits within the solarpunk vision (given the fact that a community exists here). I work in an urban agriculture association and spend time with engaged and activist people, and it’s pretty much accepted there that EVs are a big scam. What do you think and would you have any recommendations for me to form my own opinion on this topic, which I consider particularly important? Thank you!

  • photon_echo@slrpnk.netEnglish
    2·
    4 days ago

    First, I see your post before mine was downvoted. That wasn’t me. I share a different opinion than yours, but your opinion is equally valid in this discussion. I see nothing in your post which is insulting or takes away from the discussion to deserve a downvote.

    It seems way more sensible to act on what we know works now rather than hoping for future discoveries to save us.

    So I don’t put words in your mouth, what do we “know works now” in your opinion that could be implemented in a faster time frame than EVs that would have a positive impact on the reduction of CO2?

    • dedales@slrpnk.netEnglish
      1·
      4 days ago

      No worries, thank you for caring! I often worry about being wrong, so I don’t comment too often, but I don’t have any bad feelings. We’re all on the same side of the fight, and there’s no need to go against each other.

      Regarding transportation alone, there are multiple ways we can greatly improve the situation:

      • Remove some parking spaces in the city to plant trees instead (reducing traffic).
      • Subsidize trains and buses for long-distance travel.
      • Provide free and better public transportation in cities (more lanes/modalities, more frequent service, dedicated lanes, and priority for buses, etc.).
      • Increase the number of bike lanes (this can be done quickly in some cities by closing a car lane). All of these actions can be implemented quickly and don’t require more academic research or the setup of new and complex factories, mines, and logistics.

      Outside of transportation, there are even more impactful actions that can be taken without relying on new technology. For example, ADEME (a French organization) estimates that: “A reduction in average meat consumption of 10 grams per day per person leads to a decrease of approximately 200 square meters in land footprint, as well as a 5.2% reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions.” (Source). You can also look at projects around the Circular Economy and the Low Tech movement. Of course, some of these initiatives might involve building new software or hardware, but these things are doable now (for example, there are projects focused on tracking products precisely to improve the circular economy) and don’t rely on future discoveries.

      In fact, when considering multiple possible scenarios (like France’s Transition 2050), those that don’t rely on technosolutionism are often the most efficient and certain to work. Finally, one of the reasons I find it important to talk about this is that relying on future tech can be a great source of disengagement and indifference, leading people to believe that they don’t have a role to play in this situation.

      • photon_echo@slrpnk.netEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        Okay, I think I understand your position better, thank you.

        The biggest flaw that I see in your approach is that nearly all of those changes require the population to decide to make the changes together. If that agreement isn’t there, the only other way to implement most of those would be with authoritarian decrees. There are places in the world where that is possible, but I wouldn’t call that a recommended solution to apply. A number of your suggestions would require additional funding too. That has to come from somewhere and the origin of that funding is also likely a contentious debate. Without everyone agreeing on the need for these things, few, if any will be implemented and that means more CO2 being emitted.

        For example, ADEME (a French organization) estimates that: “A reduction in average meat consumption of 10 grams per day per person leads to a decrease of approximately 200 square meters in land footprint, as well as a 5.2% reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions.” (Source).

        This is a good one that can be done at an individual level. It requires no agreement other than the person making the choice for themselves. This definitely resonates well on the “punk” of solar punk.

        The meat reduction is the closest thing EVs for your cited solutions. Its an individual choice on the part of the consumer that can have the intended positive impact. That makes it extremely realistic as far as a component on the path to a full solution.

        • dedales@slrpnk.netEnglish
          2·
          4 days ago

          I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the discussion. In France, there are multiple scenarios and budgets that can support these initiatives. In fact, many of the ideas I’ve proposed have already been implemented quickly in places I’ve lived:

          • Removing Parking Spaces for Trees: This is currently being done in Paris.
          • Free and Better Public Transportation: Public transport is completely free for inhabitants of Montpellier.
          • Increasing Bike Lanes: In Montpellier, during the COVID-19 period, they simply used paint and cones to separate old car lanes from the rest of the traffic. The only measure that might face significant budget issues is subsidizing trains and buses. However, this could be funded by introducing or increasing taxes on plane tickets and car ownership. These policies are not authoritarian; they are similar to enforcing seatbelt use, banning smoking in public places or increasing taxes on tobacco.

          I understand your argument comparing meat reduction to EVs, but I believe it’s flawed, at least in my country. The EV sector is heavily subsidized to encourage people to switch their vehicles as soon as possible. We could even argue that the carbon footprint associated with the early replacement of functioning vehicles, driven by fear of ICE vehicle restrictions, should be considered in the total cost.

          • photon_echo@slrpnk.netEnglish
            2·
            4 days ago

            there are multiple scenarios and budgets that can support these initiatives. In fact, many of the ideas I’ve proposed have already been implemented quickly in places I’ve lived:

            All of those things still require dense urban environments. There’s a whole bunch of the world that doesn’t apply to that ICE vehicles rule. EV replacement of any of those ICE vehicles is a net gain for the CO2 reduction movement.

            We could even argue that the carbon footprint associated with the early replacement of functioning vehicles, driven by fear of ICE vehicle restrictions, should be considered in the total cost.

            That would be a valid argument if the replaced ICE vehicles were immediately going to the scrapyard, but I think you’d agree with me that isn’t what is happening with a replaced ICE vehicle. Further, I stipulated that I wasn’t advocating for people with nearly new ICE vehicles to immediately got out and buy an EV, but instead when they are planning on replacing their ICE with another ICE, and EV would be a better choice for the environment.

            Here’s some data. 6.8% of new cars in the USA are EVs. That 6.8% replaced otherwise ICE vehicle purchases. I think if you’d ask most climate scientists if nearly 7% of new cars no longer running on fossil fuels they would say thats a substantial improvement.