Well, at least if you buy a Tesla, you’re not supporting big oil companies like Exxon — oh wait…
“Oil major Exxon Mobil (XOM.N) is in talks with Tesla (TSLA.O), Ford Motor (F.N), Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) and other automakers to supply lithium, Bloomberg Law reported on Monday citing people familiar with the matter.”
Let this be yet another reminder that the sustainable future is walkability, not electric cars. Car dependency is an absolute unsustainable catastrophe both environmentally and in a host of other ways even before you even consider the energy use of the actual cars!
That’s right: even if cars ran on pixie dust and unicorn farts, they’d still be unsustainable just because of how much space the roads and parking lots take up and (to a lesser extent) how much building materials they use.
@grue @ajsadauskas land use is a good part of the suburban problem. If a town with -say- 2 acre zoning required a mix of forest and crops, with residents required to work the land - forestry/farming - then OK.
But a lawn with poisons and power mowers that produces no community benefit? I think not.@grue @ajsadauskas Eliminating cars is perhaps possible in large cities, with neighborhoods that are self-sufficient (work and shopping need to be walkable). For most of America, alas, that will never happen. #ClimateChange
80% of the US population is urban. The other 20% doesn’t matter because even if you ignore them entirely you’ve still solved 80% of the problem, and that’s plenty good enough.
@grue I’m not sure about the 80%. I suspect this includes “sub-urban” (where I live). Suburbanites usually do not have work/shopping in walking distance.
Yes, that entire 80% can be – and needs to be – made walkable. That’s because the suburbs are unsustainable ponzi schemes that were fundamentally built wrong. Anything less dense than, say, a streetcar suburb (about 10 houses/acre) is a lost cause that we need to raze and start over.
I’m not saying that because I’m making some moral judgement about suburbanites’ lifestyle, by the way. I’m saying it because, with such an excessive amount of street frontage per dwelling unit, car-dependent, large-lot suburbs simply cost more in infrastructure upkeep than they generate in taxes. Whether the town goes bankrupt trying to subsidize them or it raises the taxes to cover the costs and the homeowners get foreclosed on, all but the richest of them are financially doomed in the long run.
When I say that cities “need” to become walkable, I say it in the same sense that people “need” food and water. It isn’t a choice.
@grue in addition to density I’d add hostility to walking. Some suburbs could easily hit streetcar or better density by allowing homeowners to do multifamily conversions or adding additional dwellings (and getting rid of those lawns would be an environmental win, too) but the ones designed around long winding roads need more fundamental changes. Around where I live it’s a stark contrast where everything built in the white flight era was designed to be frustrating for anyone but drivers.
That’s literally the whole problem the thread you’re replying to started with. The way land is wasted for cars. Stop thinking about whether or not it is possible to replace cars. What needs to change is that we build a world around cars that cannot sustain itself.
Keep in mind America was bulldozed for the car - there is precedent for large areas being massively transformed, and suburbs can absolutely be redesigned to be more walkable. A big issue with most suburbs is zoning that prohibits anything but single family residences. That means corner stores are literally illegal to build, alongside mixed use buildings, and other things that enable communities to be nicer to exist in, more friendly, and more convenient.
In addition to zoning laws, roads can be redesigned to be safer and more friendly to other modes of transit - and roads already need to be replaced every couple of decades, so theoretically within that time span every road could be improved in this way. More lanes have never reduced traffic in the long-term, but building infrastructure for denser modes of transit like busses or bikes or pedestrians does.
Lithium is a big fucking mess no matter who supplies it
There’s efforts to make Li-ion batteries recyclable and there’s also efforts to have sodium-ion batteries as an alternative to Li-ion. I’d also like to see more discussions for nickel–iron batteries for stationary storage for solar/wind buffers.
All better then burning oil.
I really hope that this has potential to be upscaled enough to be part of the solution even though I doubt it can create enough production capacities in the next 10 years
deleted by creator
I used to think this. So much so that I took a job working for a Shell subsidiary to build up their renewables business.
I’ve been there 2 years now (yes, it’s taken me this long), and I can tell you that 100% this is not how it works.
These companies buy up green companies with zero intention of scaling down their world-destroying arm. The green portfolio is there at best as an augmentation to their fossil business, at worst it’s just a greenwashing shield. Given my personal experiences thus far, I strongly believe that it’s more of the latter.
These companies will NEVER stop burning down the world until it’s no longer profitable to do so.
…and before you ask, no I quit already. Screw those guys.
@Salty @ajsadauskas @fuck_cars
We want them to stop drilling for more oil.
Throwing 1% of their profits on Lithium mining, while continuing to increase their emissions isn’t really a win.@Salty @ajsadauskas @fuck_cars
We know long-term they’ll have to adapt or fade into oblivion, so this seems a positive. We just need the transition to be swift, and merciless for any oil-drilling laggards.@Salty @ajsadauskas @fuck_cars nah, we want them to be sued in to bankruptcy.
same problem different industry. if its not drilling for oil and destroying the environment (as we know it) it’s outsourcing labor and mining to third world countries to exploit their land, resources and workforce. destroy others ability to utilize their own land for their community resource production while pushing them further into poverty and “welfare”. and killing anyone who tries to get in the way or is willing to work on systems that benefit their community by shielding it from neoliberal capitalist multinational corporations.
Remember that “We’ll coup whoever we want” tweet?
That’s why I only use my human powered rickshaw to bring me around town.
Both things are bad but you can’t just equate two wildly different problems or act like the scope of them is even remotely the same.
One is a group of people being exploited in the present day, the other is the near end of life as we know if on earth.
I’ll try that as my defense at my murder trial. “But your honor, at least I didn’t poison an entire town!”
OP is listing all those things together because they’re all unconscionable actions that should never be done. It is in fact okay to condemn them all equally.
You didn’t even read my comment.
I wouldn’t defend either. I never said one was okay. Why would I use that defense when it’s not even a defense.
But what I’m saying is if I have to buy one (which many people do), I’ll support the lesser of two evils. And one is far lesser.
@ajsadauskas @fuck_cars Oh no here we go again
