• Auli@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    The best car for the environment is the one you have.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That’s the thing though, no it isn’t.

      If you continue driving a gas car it continues to generate emissions, if you switch to an electric car it offsets it’s emissions (compared to switching to another gas car or keeping the same gas car) after max 80k km and after that it’s a better car for the environment than whatever gas car you would have been driving instead and that you keep driving and that keeps increasing its carbon footprint.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’re taking a useful piece of equipment, a perfectly running car, and doing what with it? Scrapping it? Reselling it? Just letting it sit? None of those make sense from a “save the planet” perspective.

        You can scrap the internal combustion car. Sure, it won’t make any more emissions itself, but it does cause demand for another EV to be manufactured RIGHT NOW, which has opportunity cost - manufacturing is expensive, monetarily and environmentally. Would this eventually even out, yeah, probably but it’d cause a lot of stress in the short term.

        Reselling it is probably the MOST environmentally friendly option, but that car is still making emissions. If the buyer of your internal combustion car already had a car, it’s the same problem as scrapping it, kicked down 1 more chain link. the emissions necessarily increase. If they didn’t already have a car, well now there’s the same combustion engine car on the road, and we made a new EV to fit demand.

        Letting the car sit is a bit of a sunk cost fallacy, I admit. The manufacturing cost of the car has already been paid, and it has useful life left in it. This is where we have to actually make a cost-benefit decision. If the car is older, yeah probably don’t drive it anymore. If it’s less than 20 years old, it probably has enough life left in it to offset the benefits of producing a new EV right now. This just feels like scrapping it, with even more junkyard requirements.

        Obviously this isn’t all on the individual level, one person doing any of these things isn’t causing any shift in demand, but if everyone suddenly started having that mentality, I don’t think it’d end well at all. Use what you have, don’t buy until you have to or comfortably can. Reuse is as important as reduce and recycle.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It makes sense to resell it only if it replaces another car that pollutes more than it does, otherwise your logic only works if you ignore the fact that the gas car has a carbon footprint they keeps increasing when the electric car doesn’t (or it increases slowly enough depending on what’s used to generate electricity that it still eventually becomes carbon negative compared to continuing to use the gas car).

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            There’s a sunk cost already spent for an ICE car that’s already been produced. There’s an opportunity cost to swapping to an EV immediately. My point is simply that the situations are complicated enough that the only reasonable “one size” approach for a heuristic to balance those costs is one along the lines of “replace your ICE car when it’s reached the end of its useful life, and replace it with an EV”.

            No, this probably won’t be the best overall. That requires individualization. Someone still clinging to a 40 year old gas guzzling truck would be better off scrapping it. Someone who bought a sedan in, like, 2017, it still has a few years of well performing life in it would do best to keep it til it dies and then replace with an EV.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Hence what I’m saying.

              From a purely environmental perspective the person who bought a car in 2017 that has the financial means to get a new EV car would be better off getting one, selling their 2017 to someone who drives a 2005 that would sell to someone that drives a 2000 that would send their car to the scrap yard or keep the chain going. Your analysis implies that the 2017 car gets replaced and doesn’t get sold to someone else, either the owner keeps it and doesn’t drive it or it gets sent to a scrap yard, which isn’t what happens in reality.

              The point is, it’s better to intentionally introduce a new car on the road that emits zero pollution (or close to) and that allows us to get rid of an old car that emits tons of CO2 every year even if it’s still drivable than to just wait for the old car to die to get the process going from the bottom up.

              I could make a complete mathematical breakdown to show it but I’ve basically already done it in another comment just with two cars instead of a long chain of cars.

              Funny you should mention sunk cost because it’s a sunk cost fallacy to say we shouldn’t get these cars off the road just because they’ve been produced already (as long as the total number of cars stays the same in either scenarios, just to be clear).

              • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I specifically mentioned sunk cost because it can be fallacious. I was aiming to get ahead of that. Not every sunk cost is fallacious, and that’s why I went into depth about sunk costs vs opportunity costs.

                And again, on an INDIVIDUAL level I agree with you. Individuals don’t have that kind of impact on demand as something like a ban of ICE engines, or broad adoption of them to the point of masses of people looking to buy at the same time does.

                Individually, buy one as soon as it makes financial sense for you, ideally when you’d be buying a car anyway.

                Systemically, buy one when your car dies, keep your running machine for as long as possible.

                Specifically the opportunity costs I’m referring to are manufacturing related. Right now, producing EVs is more costly than producing ICE cars, in terms of carbon footprint. If too many people adopt too quickly, it results in more being produced while the manufacturing process is still shitty.

                There’s a problem with the “pass down the cars” thing too. At the end of that chain is still a car being decommissioned. If it’s still usable, that’s a higher net carbon footprint. A new EV still had to be produced for that chain of used car sales to go through.

                  • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Go for it, or link me to where you did before. All I’m seeing is the math working in certain individual cases, not broadly at least not yet, and at best moving the emissions 2 or 3 steps down a chain of emissions.

                    There will be a time when, broadly speaking, it’s best to just nuke your car and get an EV. That time is not there yet. It’s probably when the manufacturing emissions are roughly equal to those of ICE cars, and/or when there’s more renewable energy than coal. Please, though, show me math.