Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

moderators

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The thing is that cars have a huge secondhand market.

So if you buy a new car, you sell your old one to someone else, who sells their car to someone else, who sell their car to someone else, ... all the way until one of the horrible gas guzzlers at the bottom gets finally replaced.

So in a way it is improving the environment if you look at the whole picture.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago*

Yeah there is far more game theory than the other post implies. Supporting companies in producing EVs and are driving EV technology in a healthy way, and considering down pressure effects for the secondhand market are far more important than your individual emissions over a short period of time.

Also, not fully convinced by the rule of thumb. It works well when considering the sustainability of static things, but I think it falls apart when considering things that have active impact like cars.

Here is an article where Reuters found that you only need to drive 13500 miles before an EV is cleaner than an ICE in the US. At a certain point, it is better to push ICE cars into retirement and build EVs.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent