If it is not ev it is not planet friendly?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

Environmentalists don't have cars. The rest of us are fine with sacrificing the environment for mobility, and some of us do it a little less than others. We prove this every time we pick up the keys.

 

As long as I am doing better with my car than Al Gore, I figure I'm a saint.

 

IMHO, humans are not planet friendly. After all, it is Anthropocene.

An·thro·po·cene
/ˈanTHrəpəˌsēn/
Learn to pronounce

adjective

1. relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.
   "we've become a major force of nature in this new Anthropocene epoch"
   

noun

1. the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.
   "some geologists argue that the Anthropocene began with the Industrial Revolution"

 

when I get into the broken record syndrome and it's happened more than I'd like to admit in the recent past here, I now just think of that old commercial phrase " thanks captain obvious" and try to at least shorten any response accordingly.
Oh, the special interest groups rhetoric can get nauseating, yes even mine.

 

Full EV will only be environmentally friendly when its source of power is both ample and efficient. Since there's a war on some of our best forms of power, not to mention the fact that more efficient forms of energy innovation will never see the light of day, the clock is already ticking on full EVs as an eco-friendly solution. They can cover mountains in outdated solar panels and wide spans of plains with windmills all they want, but at the end of the day billions of marketing dollars will not be able to conceal the impracticality, lack of self-sufficiency, and environmental destruction they bring.

I think Toyota is right in their assessment and the fact that they're going against immense pressure across the globe is commendable. Like GM is going electric out of the goodness of their heart, lol

People with plug-in hybrids have the best of both worlds - some/many go months without ever filling their gas tank, but it's there if they need it. In extreme weather conditions, which we'll continue to see more of, we're learning you can't rely on the batteries or energy grid. The lithium supply is already in question, why wouldn't you want to stretch it across 8 cars that almost never use their engine vs a single full ev?

I remember watching 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' in theaters many years ago and I want to say they blamed everyone but the technology itself, but I think the killer of full electric cars in the coming years will be raw material costs, energy infrastructure, and general frustration bc you won't be able to count on your car when you need it most.

 

Wow.....trying to think of the last time I've seen this much "voice of reason" in one thread.....

 

Just changing your lifestyle helps too. Fur chrisakes stop driving down to Starbucks for a morning coffee every day. Get out the kettle. And switch it up, have tea.

Close to home: some of our offspring drive TO ANOTHER COUNTRY to shop at Trader Joes. I've given up trying to dissuade them.

We do what we can: only putting about 3K kms on a 12 year old Prius Hybrid, doing most of our shopping from nearby stores, on foot. Near zero take-out, lots of from scratch cooking/baking, simple fare. Using Amazon instead of driving around comparison shopping. It's not that hard.

 

If my brain and calculator are working correctly, over the 6ish years I've had this 2007 Touring (purchased used for $2500 with a failed HV battery, cracked windshield and needing tires), I've reduced my gasoline usage by an average of about 524 gallons a year. No complaints for me.

 

Well, fess up: just how far are they from this other country?

When I lived in Detroit, on the near southwest side, I could walk TO ANOTHER COUNTRY from my apartment. Up until they closed the Ambassador Bridge to pedestrians, anyway. After that I could only drive there.

 

Public transport, like high speed passenger rail between cities, would go a long way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but of course car companies won't lobby for this kind of solution.

 

Polestar is correct, using any fossil fuels in a car isn't going to help. We are past the point where just reducing usage will help.

That said, we could make renewable, carbon neutral fuels for engines to fuel car instead of an EV. Economics just gets in the way. Porsche has a factory making gasoline from wind power. Still in the demonstration phase, but they plan to sell the e-fuel for use in hobby and pleasure cars. For daily drivers, it will be far too expensive; around $10 a gallon before taxes. That may be acceptable for occasional trips in a PHEV, but it won't work as the sole source of fuel for most people.

Toyota is looking to hydrogen as a zero emission fuel for ICEs. Renewable has the same high price problem as other renewable fuels Before that, it has an infrastructure issue. It is high cost to build and maintain. It also doesn't have the backwards compatibility ability of e-gasoline.

I think the opponents include more than car companies.

 

I think it's pretty unfair to pin environmental impacts on consumers. It really pisses me off that corporations do this instead of reducing their own packaging and making efforts to reduce pollutants. Most of the time, making major positive changes is very much out of our hands. You shouldn't ever feel guilty for buying a Prius over a Model 3 because you want something more reliable and economical.

At the end of the day, consumer automotives aren't the biggest contributors to environmental pollution. Just look at the emissions on air travel (private jets?), boats, and transport trucks - this makes car pollution look like a pittance. But you don't see any media attention on this.

 

there's more to climate change than automobiles, toyota, usa, and priuschatters

ev's will come as the grid gets cleaner. it's too late to save the planet anyway, from what i've read

 

The transportation sector is tha largest source of US HGH emissions at 27%(2020), and light vehicles are 49% of that.

 

If only TJ's hadn't fought so hard to shut down Pirate Joe's, despite the fact that it didn't harm TJ, and TJ got full retail for everything PJ sold. Your kids could probably have reached PJ's by public transit or bicycle.

Unfortunately for them, the nearest Trader Joe's is 17 miles from the Aldergrove/Lynden crossing, or 22 miles from Peace Arch. And both of those crossings are still quite a ways from Dad's house.

They should go to an Edaleen Dairy store instead, within walking distance of each of those crossings. And quite well worth it.

 

I can't agree that either party is less guilty than the other.

Correct. Their homes are even greater contributors.

??

 

Most people are educated that gasoline is from dead dinosaurs but that’s just a hypothesis and highly likely a false one. I’d argue oil is renewable energy while rare-earth elements (for making EV batteries) are much harder to harvest. But what do I know?
I’d say f it and choose whatever you think is better.

 

Yes. It is much more likely to be fermented dinosaur food, than to be from actual dinosaurs.

Or fermented food for critters from a previous era.

I'd argue that its renewal rate is much too slow for the needs of long term human civilization. But an even bigger problem is, where to safely dump the exhaust.

"Rare earth" is a misnomer, they aren't rare. Just a bit expensive to harvest right now, especially since another country with cheap labor rates and weak environmental regulation captured most of the market by undercutting prices and forcing most other producers to close shop.