EU Countries Approve 2035 Phaseout of CO2-Emitting Cars (reuters.com) 113
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: European Union countries gave final approval on Tuesday to a landmark law to end sales of new CO2-emitting cars in 2035, after Germany won an exemption for cars running on e-fuels. The approval from EU countries' energy ministers means Europe's main climate policy for cars can now enter into force -- after weeks of delay caused by last-minute opposition from Germany. The EU law will require all new cars sold to have zero CO2 emissions from 2035, and 55% lower CO2 emissions from 2030, versus 2021 levels. The targets are designed to drive the rapid decarbonization of new car fleets in Europe.
"The direction of travel is clear: in 2035, new cars and vans must have zero emissions," EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans said. E-fuels are considered carbon neutral because they are made using captured CO2 emissions -- which proponents say balances out the CO2 released when the fuel is combusted in an engine. The Commission will, in autumn 2023, propose how sales of e-fuel-only cars can continue after 2035. Such cars will have to use technology to prevent them from starting when filled with petrol or diesel.
"The direction of travel is clear: in 2035, new cars and vans must have zero emissions," EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans said. E-fuels are considered carbon neutral because they are made using captured CO2 emissions -- which proponents say balances out the CO2 released when the fuel is combusted in an engine. The Commission will, in autumn 2023, propose how sales of e-fuel-only cars can continue after 2035. Such cars will have to use technology to prevent them from starting when filled with petrol or diesel.
E-fuel exemption allows for ICE cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The market for e-fuel will go to the commercial sector and strong industrial economies will provide synthetic zero-carbon fuel to the weaker industrial economies at significant cost. I can't help but to imagine that this will end up costing the poorer economies more in the long run.
As far as the EU goes that is possible. Outside of the EU however, the developing world will just continue to use traditional petroleum products unless switching is in their own economic interest.
Re:E-fuel exemption allows for ICE cars (Score:4, Interesting)
More likely most of those things that people think "need" e-fuel will go electric. For example, long distance haulage is being trialled with stuff like in-road charging and pantographs. EU rules on how long drivers can go without a break allow for stationary charging sessions anyway.
There will be some exceptions, like I expect aircraft to keep using liquid fuels, but a lot of those weaker economies actually have pretty good renewable energy resources that they can develop. Take Spain and Portugal. Lots of wind, and they have solar collectors too. They will be the ones producing the e-fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
E-fuels are just a distraction to prevent conventional fuel from actually being phased out.
Re: (Score:2)
E-Fuel, more precisely bio-fuel, has no taxes.
And most certainly does not cost $10 per liter, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
E-Fuel, more precisely bio-fuel, has no taxes.
And most certainly does not cost $10 per liter, lol.
Precisely no current bio-fuel on the market meets the definition or requirement of an e-fuel. You are not talking about what you think you're talking about. And yes estimates for e-fuels by oil majors themselves put them at being 5x the current retail cost of fuel. I was in your country about 4 hours ago and filled up my car for 1.75EUR/L. Times 5x = 8,75EUR/L which works out to being $9.5USD.
Once again you laugh at something out of ignorance. You really should stop ending your post in "lol".
Re: (Score:2)
So you confirmed: it does not cost $10 per liter.
Not really sure what your point is, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VAT is not a special fuel tax, like the tax on "ordinary fuel" or on CO2.
It is simply VAT, you pay it on (mostly) everything.
So, what was your point?
Nuclear powered cars? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
I don't know where you'll get one from but it'll be legal so long as it meets emissions standards.
Re: (Score:3)
Ford Nucleon - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This means it should be entirely legal to drive a nuclear powered car, right?
What do you think an electric car is in France?
Black Box Beater (Score:2)
The Commission will, in autumn 2023, propose how sales of e-fuel-only cars can continue after 2035. Such cars will have to use technology to prevent them from starting when filled with petrol or diesel.
I'm sure no one will develop a way to rewire or hack such technology, to allow it to start on plain gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure no one will develop a way to rewire or hack such technology, to allow it to start on plain gasoline.
Perhaps you wanted to say "non e-fuel".
But when you used wire/hack plain gasoline for diesel: you kind of spoiled your point.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if the EU member states have no current restrictions to be overcome, and thus have to start from scratch on this arms race.
The EU is way ahead of you on this already.
Re: (Score:3)
So?
The thing about fuels is it matters what the majority do. If a small percentage go breaking the law it's pretty immaterial. And it means pollution from cars in city centres will be down to a small percent of what it is now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure no one will develop a way to rewire or hack such technology, to allow it to start on plain gasoline.
You can hack away all sorts of things. History does not favour well those who play with a fuel mix their engine isn't specifically designed for. Heck many cars didn't even tolerate a reduction in sulphur content or the addition of ethanol.
Honestly hacking away at a >20k EUR piece of gear to make it run on something it wasn't designed for and voiding the warranty would be pretty fucking stupid.
really doubt it. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and I'm sure the drop in demand for Teslas has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Elon Musk has become (or maybe he always was and has just recently shown his true colors) a massive douchnozzle and has been going far out of his way to alienate the people who used to be his best customers. /s
I don't know about the official numbers. I do still see plenty of Teslas on the roads still. But they've been joined by quite a few Ioniq 5's, ID.4s, EV6s, and Rivian's. The Leaf is still a very common
All about preserving ICE (Score:3)
Germany has a huge industry centered around the building of ICE cars, and suddenly they were looking at an awful lot of useless stranded infrastructure. The e-fuel provision is intended to hand that industry a lifeline but it is fruitless. EV's will be MUCH less expensive to buy and operate than ICE in 2035, and they will not emit noxious tailpipe fumes. Add to that the extra expense of producing the e-fuels, which surely will cost more than ordinary gasoline/diesel, and those ICE cars will make no economic sense to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
The useless stranded infrastructure will just be used to build EVs ... ...
That is a no brainer, or not? Seems not
Re: (Score:2)
There are thousands of ICE components that won't be needed in EV's. Entire assembly lines also, it was a massive investment. All soon to be in the dustbin of history.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany's car industry is mostly switching to electric cars:
https://www.volkswagenag.com/e... [volkswagenag.com]
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-... [autocar.co.uk]
I think this is more about special luxury cars such as Porsche, Ferrarri, etc. Italy also wanted this exception.
So... basically all cars (Score:2)
The reality is that no car can be made without emitting CO2 somewhere along the way.
Don't think you understand how the EU works (Score:3)
Don't think you understand how the EU works. This is the first step in backing off their 2035 target. The way it works, they will never U-turn. They will make an exception which seems small. Then the closer they get to the date the more exceptions there will be, until finally the original program vanishes.
At no point will anyone draw attention to the fact that the ban has magically vanished. Or even that it ever existed.
The wholesale move to EVs was never possible, either politically, economically, even materially in terms of battery minerals. So they are now tiptoeing into reversing themselves on it, but without admitting that's what they are doing.
Its the same with all the green goals, like moving to wind power or in the UK to heat pumps. Announce, legislate, go to sleep, wake up and postpone the date or change the conditions, proclaim victory.
Re: (Score:1)
I add 2 bitcoin to the bet (Score:2)
by 2035 those should be worth about $20 trillion each.
If not, I throw in my ugly monkey NFT.
Re: (Score:2)
Nooooooo.... not the dirty NFT's!!!
Re: (Score:2)
My bet is they will just increase the existing subsidies that exist for poorer people who want to switch to EV.
For example in France, it appears to be is 6k EUR (passenger car) or 10k (delivery truck), applicable to families earning less than 22,983 euros yearly per adult (income splitting formula), with some bonuses up to 3k in some priority areas, other bonuses for people working at more than 30 km from their main residence, or for people driving more than 12,000 km per year in their professional activity
Re: (Score:3)
So the poor will subsidize the poor? Interesting concept.
Re: (Score:2)
This programme is entirely funded by a tax on expensive polluting cars. The threshold between tax and subsidy is tuned every year. This programme has been a huge success and has been copied elsewhere. It costs zero to the government (to the general taxpayer) and has enabled to significantly shift the composition of the new cars sold -- normal people started buying the cars with lower emissions because they got a subsidy; rich people still continued to afford their polluting cars, and paid for the system. wi
Re: (Score:2)
So the have-not's are subsidizing the rich people who can afford such an EV anyway.
And how exactly is a poor subsidizing a rich this way? Sorry: I simply do not get it. There is no money flowing from the poor to the rich, so how could he subsidize a rich person?
Re: (Score:2)
EVs aren't that expensive, there are economy ones already available. The old cars will also stay on the road anyway. I don't get this idea that EVs are unaffordable, maybe people are assuming every EV is a luxury brand like Tesla?
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much assuming as pretending
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, what will be needed to close the divide is a subsidy on replacing worn batteries. Lower income people generally don't buy new cars, but may need help replacing batteries on used cars. Rich people don't buy used cars until they're old enough to be classic antiques.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the batteries are lasting longer than most people anticipated, and so it's other parts of the car that are more likely to fail. A six year old EV is likely to have 95% of its original range still.
Re: (Score:2)
95% at 6 years i fine, but for people really needing affordable cars, we have to look at 10 or 12 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree re 10 or 12 years. The emerging evidence suggests EV batteries will be at about 75 to 85% of original range by that stage. But it's hard to know as batteries are bigger (and hence get fully discharged less frequently) and BMSs more sophisticated and chemistries more robust than was the case 10 years ago. So it's a moving picture.
Re: (Score:2)
It is hard to know. Even the cells themselves have improved a lot in the last few years (thankfully including getting a lot less explody). As progress continues, subsidies like that are likely to become less necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire EV thing is really a battle of class warfare. There will be cheap EVs that have maybe 100-200km of range, all things considered, like heating, having to warm up the batteries, climate control, etc. The real thing is paying for range. Want to drive more than that? Cough up 80-100k worth of Euro, or "ride a bike" as the EV pundits say.
Don't forget, this is for new vehicles sold. The existing cars are not going away anytime soon. There are 253 million cars in the EU right now and they will be able to drive for many years to come. There will be a slight uptick in the value of used ICE vehicles short term, then as the EV infrastructure matures, used cars will again follow the normal depreciation curve.
There is the same issue in CA, OR, and WA. By 2035 all new cars in those states will be zero emission. That still gives over 10 years fo
Re: (Score:3)
There will still be ICE cars, but they will be more expensive to operate as gasoline taxes increase.
Once the majority drives EVs, there will be little political resistance to higher gas taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
I think gas cars (sedans) will tank hard in only a few more years, whereas gas pickups will cling for decades, and in the movies will be driven primarily by corrupt rural white child-molesting sheriffs, etc. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this will happen in Europe. You can get from small rural villages to the major cities with a bike ride to the train station, which is affordable as well. Europe is much denser, you don't have vast areas of rural farmland without transit, ala Kansas. Yes some will still need long distance autos, and they will exist, and they won't be affordable only for the rich.
You don't _need_ personally owned autos for societies to grow and flourish.
Re:No, the poor have-not's subsidizing the rich (Score:4, Informative)
The entire EV thing is really a battle of class warfare. There will be cheap EVs that have maybe 100-200km of range, all things considered, like heating, having to warm up the batteries, climate control, etc. The real thing is paying for range. Want to drive more than that? Cough up 80-100k worth of Euro, or "ride a bike" as the EV pundits say.
That's a very exciting theory, and only ever so slightly undermined by the existence *today* of EVs that have a range of 400km -- that's twice the range of 200km you quoted, just in case the maths is a bit tough for you -- yet cost only 30k EUR -- that's less than 40% of the 80k EUR figure you quoted, again just in case the maths is tough.
So, twice your predicted max range for 40% of your predicted min cost, today, when economies of scale and learning haven't really kicked in. I think it's safe to say, understanding EVs may not be your strong suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much range do you need in Europe? There aren't the 50 mile commute via auto, instead mass transit is very good and reliable and makes America look backwards. Even small villages often have transit options to get to other places.
Automobiles are already much less common in Europe than America, and the fuel prices are higher. Automobiles are already for the rich there, and it's not uncommon for some workers to get company cars instead of owning their own. Households with multiple cars are even rarer, it's
Re: (Score:3)
My bet is they will just increase the existing subsidies that exist for poorer people who want to switch to EV.
Either that or EV prices will have dropped.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine bought a Tesla about 2 or 3 years ago (in France) - everything added up he got like $80,000 "bonus".
Re:And Then Only The Rich Will Be Able To Have One (Score:5, Insightful)
The wealthy get everything first. They got televisions, refrigerators, automobiles, air conditioners, false teeth, and fake tits all first.
As time went on the economy of scale brought costs down, and growing wealth meant more people could afford these things.
If we stop the development of something because it means the benefits will not be equally distributed then we get nothing new. As someone smarter than me put it we are already living in the future but it is just not equally distributed. Give it time and the technologies that only the wealthy can afford will work their way down to nearly everyone. It might be second hand half broken shit at first but we will get it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Give it time and the technologies that only the wealthy can afford will work their way down to nearly everyone.
I for one look forward to my own private jet.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I have a poor GF. /strike!
She is a farmer and a half assed english teacher in a private school:
No fake tits and not fake tooth.
Re: (Score:3)
If we stop the development of something because it means the benefits will not be equally distributed then we get nothing new. As someone smarter than me put it we are already living in the future but it is just not equally distributed. Give it time and the technologies that only the wealthy can afford will work their way down to nearly everyone. It might be second hand half broken shit at first but we will get it.
Communists want everybody to be equally poor and disadvantaged. This is why they are so anti-progress.
Re: (Score:1)
You won your bet. The only exception to that ban is for car produced under a 1000 units per year and those between 1000 to 10000 units can apply for a derogation (see point [21] : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/reso... [europa.eu] ). So luxury Ferrari could still be produce and sold for the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And Then Only The Rich Will Be Able To Have On (Score:1)
Luxury is not about performance but about showing your net worth.
Exception for carbon neutral ICE (Score:1)
I am willing to bet this true. I will put up 30 trillion dollars on the bet.
Didn't they already add at least one exception recently? For cars running on carbon neutral fuels? In other words liquid fuels whose carbon is extracted from the atmosphere and not from fossil fuels.
Which to be honest, is fair. The problem is really the source of the fuel, fossil fuels, sequestered carbon, not ICE itself.
And to be more honest, this is probably the first of many exceptions to come. Policies with deadlines, costs, far in the future are easy to pass. The costs are not on the current poli
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is really the source of the fuel, fossil fuels, sequestered carbon, not ICE itself.
The worst long term problem is carbon. But ICE cars are problematic for other reasons to: health risks from other exhaust pollutants (particulates, especially PM2.5s that are most harmful to health, NOXs, SOXs, etc); smell from those pollutants, building damage and dirt from those pollutants, vibration damage from the engines, and noise from the engines.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is really the source of the fuel, fossil fuels, sequestered carbon, not ICE itself.
The worst long term problem is carbon. But ICE cars are problematic for other reasons to: health risks from other exhaust pollutants (particulates, especially PM2.5s that are most harmful to health, NOXs, SOXs, etc); smell from those pollutants, building damage and dirt from those pollutants, vibration damage from the engines, and noise from the engines.
Emissions control technology has made those emissions minor problems.And technology could continue to do so. There will be a natural move from ICE to EV, but outlawing ICE is an overreaction and political.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst long term problem is carbon. But ICE cars are problematic for other reasons to: health risks from other exhaust pollutants (particulates, especially PM2.5s that are most harmful to health, NOXs, SOXs, etc); smell from those pollutants, building damage and dirt from those pollutants, vibration damage from the engines, and noise from the engines.
Emissions control technology has made those emissions minor problems.And technology could continue to do so. There will be a natural move from ICE to EV, but outlawing ICE is an overreaction and political.
1. Emissions control technology has not made "emissions minor problems".
On health: emissions are frequently associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, lung cancer and respiratory infections, as well as inducing allergic conditions. Vehicle exhaust fumes injure or kill significant proportions of the population in countries such as the US and UK. Many, many lives will be saved by removing exhaust fumes entirely. If you want to prove this for yourself, all you have to do is take a rubber hose from the exhaust of an ICE vehicle, one fitted with the very fanciest emissions control technology, and stick the end in the cabin, and see how long you last, sitting in there.
On smell: ICE cars' exhausts still stink. No matter what tech they use, they smell. Again, you can test this by driving a car into a garage, leaving it on for half an hour, and going back into the garage at that point and sniffing. It'l stink.
On building damage and dirt: commercial building owners have to reserve funds for cleaning and repairing facades due to NOx, SOx and particulates from vehicle exhausts. They don't do that out of being soft-headed. They do it because it's needed.
2. Emissions control technology does not prevent vibration damage.
3. Emissions control technology does not lessen engine noise. Noise causes a significant proportion of all ischaemic heart disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Pig ignorance on your part. Go argue the epidemiology with the NIH, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
Pig ignorance on your part. Go argue the epidemiology with the NIH, not me.
The ignorance is on your part. I've lived long enough to have witnessed when it was bad. We have made tremendous progress, and will likely continue to do so. And again, when most people transition to EV, the few applications where ICE and jets will be better options will literally be a drop in the bucket. So we have less use and greater emissions controls. You offer nothing other than political hysteria.
Re:For those unaware (Score:5, Informative)
I rarely reply, but this is ridiculous.
This is straight out of conspiracy theory material. 15 minute cities are an AWESOME idea, aimed at stopping the sprawling madness. They were being talked about years and years and years ago.
You should try and live in a small, self-contained town in Italy or Spain, and actually understand how fucking gorgeous it is, not having to drive 45 minutes to do ANYTHING.
Electric cars will soon have more range than petrol ones. 120KWh batteries will become the norm. And please don't start with the bullshit about Cobalt (which is ALSO USED in ICE cars, AND is not even used in modern batteries) or conspiracy bullshit about how polluting it is to make power.
Really, get a grip.
Re: (Score:1)
15 minute cities are an AWESOME idea, aimed at stopping the sprawling madness.
You mean everybody can get to Costco, Walmart, Ikea, Lowes and Cabelas in 15 minutes? Awesome idea!
Oh, wait...
Re:For those unaware (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually: yes.
But: why would you, if ordinary stores are just around all over the place?
There is a reason why there are no Wallmarts in Europe: the stupid idea to drive 2h to get "some random ting" $1 cheaper does not work here. The fuel alone costs you $20 - $30 .... you have to buy stuff for $500 to get that compensated.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually: yes.
You must have a lot of them then. My city of 800,000 only has one Ikea, one Cabelas, and two Costcos.
There is a reason why there are no Wallmarts in Europe: the stupid idea to drive 2h to get "some random ting" $1 cheaper does not work here. The fuel alone costs you $20 - $30
That is why they invented Amazon.
Re: (Score:1)
Germany controls wind and there are no more https://lempaala.ideapark.fi/
A massive retail park removed from city limits due to taxation and zoning issues, specifically designed to attract people on the Walmart style business model, just spread over several businesses rather than a single chain. But it also includes the biggest national hypermarket chain, Prisma within it, because that's one of the big attractions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't do "Walmart"....but Costco...now THAT is my favorite store in the whole world!!
Where do you live where you have to drive 2 hours to hit a Walmart? Hell, those things are on almost ever other block these days it seems....
Re: (Score:2)
I answered to "Wallmart".
If you are in France you have kind of "out let centers", not sure if that is the correct term. An area where you have half a dozen super markets at a spot.
Depending where you live, it is still minimum a 30 minutes drive from the center of your town out to there.
In Paris: I actually have no clue at all where the next one would be from my place of living. I walk along the main road - yes walk - and just shop at my leisure.
https://www.google.com/maps/pl... [google.com]énilmontant,+Paris,
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of many places in the US where a Walmart is 2 hours away. I think they even carpet bombed Alaska with them. It would be great if local small town stores existed again instead of being driven out of business by Walmart super stores
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Before pointing out that assumption of a stupid yankee talking to a Finn who does indeed live in a 200k city with one of the best public mass transit systems in the world to move to a much worse "15 minute city" model, because that's all that a dumb yankee knows, I would point out that pretty much everyone in this city still has to have at least one car per family.
Because normal life involved more that corporate slavery and daily commute that it requires. Shocking, I know.
That said, 15 minutes city is in ma
Re:For those unaware (Score:4, Insightful)
You should try and live in a small, self-contained town in Italy or Spain, and actually understand how fucking gorgeous it is, not having to drive 45 minutes to do ANYTHING.
Londoner here. The town is not small. But yes, it is awesome.
There's good pubs and restaurants within walking distance, and many more a short train ride away.
I can, and do, walk to a variety of local shops to get food, groceries and other supplies. I have a pull-along trolley if I want to buy more and I can order a delivery if I want loads. Because of the density, supermarket deliveries are a strong market with many competitors and aggressive competition so they are very good.
Is shopping more expensive per unit than shopping at a huge out of town megashop? Yep! But I get to offset that cost against (a) fuel, (b) depreciation of a car, (c) cost of servicing a car, which are huge. And that doesn't cover intangibles lie not wasting time in a car driving.
I drive a few times per year. If I want to go somewhere inaccessible by car, I hire one and drive. Or if I want to collect something that's too hard to carry, I grab one from a car club and drive.
The funny thing is that America did used to have compact, walkable cities, because car ownership and good roads do not in fact predate a large amount of America. In many cases these were torn down to make way for more cars, after an astonishing amount of lobbying from the motor vehicle industry. In fact they invented an entire new crime and lobbied to get it passed into law, just to push the supremacy of cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars used to be a status symbol too, having more than one was for the rich. Today it seems like everyone in family gets their own car once old enough to drive. And also no one has massively huge autos - sure the wide body style in the 60s (with wings!) but those went away and you couldn't park them easily anyway - there weren't SUVs, and you only had a big truck you used it for working not as a commute vehicle.
I think it changed alot in America with freeways - although Germany's autobahn is much like the U
Re: (Score:3)
and you only had a big truck you used it for working not as a commute vehicle.
You say big, but actually compare a 1960s ford pickup to a 2023 F150 Raptor SUPERCREW [boom. explosion sounds. flames. eagles swoop by]. The new ones are substantially longer with substantially less bed space. The old trucks hold more but are tiny by comparison.
Re:For those unaware (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a lot of new trucks (can't really bear to call them "pickup" as they're too large) are essentially just (virtue) signalling that "hey, I'm a country boy/girl too!"
Re: (Score:3)
Japan already has a lot of 15 minute cities because of the way zoning laws work there, and they are indeed great. Public transport is excellent, so if you want to travel further you can, cheaply and quickly. You don't need to for the basics though, like routine shopping, laundry, restaurants, postal services, clinics and so forth.
As for EV batteries, I think most people will end up around the 50-60kWh mark. It just doesn't make sense for most people to pay for bigger capacity batteries, only to save minutes
Re:For those unaware (Score:4, Interesting)
I rarely reply, but this is ridiculous.
This is straight out of conspiracy theory material. 15 minute cities are an AWESOME idea, aimed at stopping the sprawling madness. They were being talked about years and years and years ago.
It's more than that. 15 minute cities people in the communities interact with each other more and form stronger connections, strongly connected communities are communities that can organize and resist action by other levels of governance.
These folks who are allegedly afraid of big government are actually fighting something that would weaken big government.
Re: (Score:2)
people in the communities interact with each other more and form stronger connections, strongly connected communities
LOL. That is exactly what the ruling class does NOT want. France is experiencing troubles right now exactly because of stronger connections within the unwashed masses. You think that everyone who is intelligent should be excited about "15 minute communities" when you couldn't be further from the truth. A lot of the people who are intelligent do not want what is best for everyone, they want what is best for themselves... and a tight knit community interferes with taking everything from them.
Not opposed to EVs at all, but ... (Score:2, Redundant)
There really is an "elephant in the room" they keep trying to conveniently hide behind a curtain and hope you don't pay attention to it. And that elephant is the issue of how the power is generated to charge the vehicles.
Where I live (midwestern USA), most of our energy was produced by coal fired plants. All of the recent "clean air" legislation has caused them to shut down one already, with others scheduled for shutdown in the near future. Our electric bills have doubled from the cost 2 years ago, because
Re: (Score:2)
What "they" actually want is for the little people to have to ration their energy usage tightly, while the wealthy and politically connected get various ways to be exempt from any shortages.
Re: (Score:2)
1. The EU is decarbonising electricity much faster than the US, with Putin having pushed this along even faster thanks to his strategic genius
2. Moving from tailpipe to powerplant emissions is always a big win, because powerplants don't spew exhaust fumes into the middle of cities and specifically don't spew exhaust at the height of children's mouths
3. Your EV gets cleaner over time as grids everywhere decarbonise. No ICE vehicle will ever learn that particular trick
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
15 minute cities are an AWESOME idea, aimed at stopping the sprawling madness.
15-minute cities is just normalizing ghetto slums, nothing more. You'll be tied by routine to your ONLY grocery shop, your ONLY childcare, etc. Sure, you _can_, in theory, choose another childcare, but without a car that would mean losing 30-50 minutes every day to walk there. The same for grocery store. You _can_ go to that nice Asian supermarket, but that's 45 minutes by transit and you only can carry just a couple of bags (so no bulky or heavy items).
not having to drive 45 minutes to do ANYTHING.
And here comes the agitprop of slum pushers. The avera
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really? You'll still have a car, you just won't have to use it for every single thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll still have a car
LOL, no. You won't. 15-minute cities are _designed_ to make car use basically impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're designed so that you don't have to use your car to get to everything, not to make car use harder. Having a store a short walk away doesn't make it any harder to use your car, it just means you can walk to the store.
Since there'll be fewer cars on the road, if anything it makes car use easier.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, theoretically you can have a car and even use them for occasional trips, but certainly not daily.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just theoretical. You can have a car and you can use it for trips daily. The idea is that you'll have services close enough that you won't need to use the car to get to them, not that you can't have a car or go further away if you want to.
Our current cities are designed to force you into cars for every single trip. 15-minute cities aren't the direct opposite of that; they aren't designed to force you out of cars, they're designed to give you the option of taking a car or not.
We're already suffering
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that you'll have services close enough that you won't need to use the car to get to them, not that you can't have a car or go further away if you want to.
Sorry. Nope. This doesn't work unless you're in a low enough density to allow cars. Even for mid-rise neighborhoods, daily car use makes it impossible to have 15-minute services for all of the residents.
Our current cities are designed to force you into cars for every single trip.
Not quite. You can usually walk to _some_ destinations, but not all of them.
We're already suffering from traffic issues today. Reducing the need for car trips will make that situation better, not worse.
It's counter-intuitive, but that's not true. Additional transit options make traffic _worse_, except in some very narrow cases.
What we need is to double down on car infrastructure, promote lower density, and treat office space den
Re: (Score:1)
He didn't say that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he might be woefully misinformed.
But if you think otherwise: you are an proven idiot
Re: For those unaware (Score:5, Insightful)
And the issue with 15 minute cities is what exactly? Not having to drive everywhere (or really anywhere) is a wonderful thing. Children become more independent, adults become more healthy. Even the very rich understand this - it is why it costs about 3x in my town to live in a single family home in the walkable core vs. the outskirts.
And seriously, just because some people are addicted to driving, havenâ(TM)t been exposed to anything else for 50 years, and think suburban sprawl is the only way to go does not mean it is right or economically sustainable. Car addicted people have been lied to their whole lives and are forcing the rest of us to pay for their nonsense.
Re: For those unaware (Score:2)
We should be shooting for 5 minute cities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the BBC and DW do the EU's bidding?
There goes your conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
A place I can live with without needing a car? Sounds amazing!
It's hilarious that you nutjobs think freedom means owning a car. Real freedom means not needing to.
Re: (Score:2)
ECE's are in places where the pollution is less of a problem, are large and much more efficient, and so produce less waste CO2, and because of economy of scale can economically do CO2 capture ... and will eventually be replaced by renewables or nuclear ..
EV's are cheaper to run, and cheaper to maintain ... so why is this impoverishing?
Re: (Score:2)