this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
216 points (99.1% liked)

Comics

686 readers
144 users here now

Post your comics here. Single or multi boxed comics.

Please mark nsfw when appropriate.

Same rules as primary server, no hate.

Please warn others if there may be triggers.

Please mark if the comic is yours either in the title or description

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

No Exit from September 7, 2022

all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They also reduce noise pollution

And reduce the propping of petrostates

And can be fueled, in theory, almost anywhere there are buildings (including your own home/work)

And that fuel can also, in theory, come from fully sustainable sources

They also help normalise the usage of renewable energy (this is a factor that shouldn't be overlooked, imo)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

You don't even need buildings really, depending on your definition of a building. I've seen some really cool remote solar canopy setups, and they're not connected to any sort of infrastructure. Just a big umbrella with ~20 solar panels+micro inverters, and a couple of EVSEs on them. It's not DCFC, but it'd still get you 10-20MPH of charge when camping or something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

When you buy an EV, it does not replace the gas combustion engine. The old car is shipped to Africa where it lives on for several decades more. The avg age of a car bought in Africa is 21 years old. So the EV just adds an additional harmful planet parasite.

They also reduce noise pollution

The noise pollution is exported to Africa.

And reduce the propping of petrostates

Petrostates get propped up by consumers wherever your car ends up.

They also help normalise the usage of renewable energy (this is a factor that shouldn’t be overlooked, imo)

I don’t see how EVs are needed for that. If everyone hypothetically switched to bicycles, renewable energy would still be the goal.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not sure I get the humour? Is it "don't fix anything unless you can fix everything?"

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's meant to underline that cars in general aren't that healthy for the the environments we live in and our people, even if we switch completely to electric. I think it's to combat the notion that if everyone just buys an electric car, we'll all be fine.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

Bingo. In short, #fuckCars.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So it’s better right? Just not perfect but there are no perfect solutions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

EVs → nearly as shitty as cars with an exhaust (+ introduces lithium problems & power plant emissions). Not even close to perfect. Merely calling them “imperfect” misses the point. They’re not even good.

Public transport → significantly better than EVs, but still quite shitty on the environment.

Bicycles (e-bikes) → significantly better than public transport (but demand lithium).

Bicycles (push bikes) → nearly perfect.

Walking → perfect (if you don’t fart). But ⅓ the efficiency of cycling.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

That's the point, it's not perfect at all, but it's better, so let's take that solution for now and work on the next problem

Public transports can do a lot, but it can't do everything, same for bikes and walking. If we start rejecting every progress because it's not good enough then we won't ever progress.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

This is some im14andthisisdeep shit. None of these other problems will even matter if we don't work towards solving emissions. This is a disingenuous take from an edge lord loser.

Maybe there should be a community for lame biased political comics.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You know the solution to the other problems, such as massively investing in public transit, also significantly help reducing emissions, right?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh, I must have missed the part in this anti electric vehicle comic that argues for significant increase in public infrastructure? Or is the author going to release another comic about how trains have brakes and hit animals/people too?

It's almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Or you can Google the artist and see that he is an activist that actively supports policies for expanding bicycle infrastructure. As well as making other comics criticizing the defunding of public transit.

Like, I don't know, to me this is an obvious reading of the comic.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

to me this is an obvious reading of the comic.

Right...

It's almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Does it matter? Why do I need to know the lore behind this dude's political views to dislike this comic? It's misleading bullshit regardless of whether or not I agree with the point they failed to make.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Bruh, let me repeat your original bloody comment

Oh, I must have missed the part in this anti electric vehicle comic that argues for significant increase in public infrastructure? Or is the author going to release another comic about how trains have brakes and hit animals/people too?

It's almost as if this comic is intentionally vague so that whoever the reader is can use it to confirm their bias.

You literally talked about the author here. And you said that the comic was intentionally vague.

Well, I'm saying it wasn't, and it is you that are forcing in your own, wrong, interpretation into it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Ever heard of the death of the author? The meaning of piece of work is not determined by the author's intention, but rather by the reader's interpretation.

Sure, maybe the author left it unintentionally vague, but all I see when I look at this is misleading anti EV rhetoric, not someone arguing for bicycle lanes and public transit. Any anti EV interpretation is correct, because that's all this comic is about.

My problem with the author isn't their political views, it's their misleading content.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

The comic criticize both EV's and gas cars, bc y'know car bad and while it doesn't pose a solution it's pretty clear it's against cars in general.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah, it's framed horribly. But if the comic specified that it was something like a hummer (the EV form weighing x1.9 what a gas hummer does... it's 9063lbs without any cargo) it would make more sense. All the issues scale with size and weight, and there is also personal cost.

If electric Kei cars were normal it would be a much better situation, though people are going to rightfully feel less safe with the idea of being in a small vehicle while on the same road with the increasing popularity of large trucks/SUVs (that is if Kei-class vehicles aren't banned/restricted for that very reason).

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I feel like a lot of these are still relevant even if primary travel is switched to trains or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Except for that the environmental cost per head goes way down compared to cars.

[–] KairuByte 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’ll still fall into the problem the comic fell into. No solution to assisted travel is perfect. Even horseback has a negative effect since they can trample humans and animals, and oft traveled paths would still be plant free.

Point being, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Point being, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

What are you calling good? If you’re worried about horses trampling animals (incl. human), that would sound like letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Cycling is nearly perfect by comparison and I’m happy to make EVs and public transport the enemy of cycling.

[–] KairuByte 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Are bikes made from locally sourced materials, which are environmentally friendly to collect?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If you mean to ask does globalization exist, of course.

Given that globalization exists, bicycles are the winner in this context as well because there are many more manufacturers and bikes are orders of magnitude less complex (thus fewer components to import). Unlike cars which are complex enough to have components that are big and/or heavy shipped all over the globe. Bicycles are made on your continent with minimal shipping weight. The simplicity of bikes also means fewer components that can break.

The most significant problem with bicycles is the Chinese are making copious bikes with non-standard low-quality components not built to last. Cheap Chinese-made bikes have a shorter lifetime than others and the components have compatibility problems so the whole bike gets scrapped.

These issues are not inherent in bicycles themselves. Buy a sustainable domestically made bike with standard parts, not a cheap €100 Chinese import.

[–] KairuByte 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How are those bikes being transported? Hundreds of miles on the back of other bikes?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This answer would vary for every warehouse-retail shop pair. I pulled my current bike out of the trash and restored it. My previous one was designed locally in my city & manufactured in Poland. Likely shipped by rail.

[–] KairuByte 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sounds like a non-perfect solution then.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Unlike cars, there are both imperfect solutions and perfect (or near perfect) solutions among your choices of bicycles. Don’t import one from another continent. If you want perfect you have the option of living in the same city as a bicycle factory.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Fair point. Every time I sit through rush hour traffic, I think "thousands of people are all headed in the same direction every day, and we can't build a more optimal system?"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

This reached out so far it came back to being funny

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Just love how the dead bodies under car are considered mere “imperfections” by car-advocates in this thread.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The problem is America is built assuming the use of cars. Most Americans cannot simply trade their car for a bicycle, because they live too far away from goods and services. And even if they could ride the bike the 5 or 10 or 20 miles to the nearest grocery store, good luck getting little Timmy and Suzie to their soccer practice or scout meeting.

So at least an electric car stops the tailpipe emissions while we think about changing where people live and where their services are located.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Everyone loves this "we can't just tear up infrastructure for public transit" argument but ignore that it's EXACTLY what we did for cars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm referring to the millions of people who live where there is no possibility of public transit because the population density is way too low. I'm all in favor of making cities car-free zones, but outside of major population centers, the quickest way to help the environment is to switch to electric vehicles.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

the quickest way to help the environment is to switch to electric vehicles.

When you buy an EV, it’s not a replacement. Your old car is shipped to Africa where it runs for several more decades. So you’re just adding another harmful car to the planet.

The only wise move AFAICT is to convert your car to an EV & then perhaps use the engine to build a backup power generator for your home. But this won’t happen because suburban car drivers are addicted to convenience and nice new things. They are happy to have this false ecology excuse to buy a new car.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

You choose where you live and where you work. If you select a home-workplace pair that is not cyclable, you fucked up. The fix is not buy another car. The fix is to move.