
The electric car as a talisman of false hope - umadon
https://www.jussipasanen.com/electric-cars-promise-change-without-changing/
======
Denzel
His argument distills to: solve it all-at-once, or don’t solve it at all.

This is an uninteresting and uninspiring line of thinking that ignores the
nature of socially dynamic systems which don’t exist in a world of
instantaneous cause-and-effect.

His conclusion states that electric cars make a difference, but they don’t
make a _real_ difference: “I do think they can slightly reduce
unsustainability” but “by switching from a regular car to electric I might
think that I am making a real difference”.

I’m sorry that the author doesn’t consider a _real_ reduction in emissions a
_real_ difference.

Look, it’s simple, climate change will require a concerted effort to change in
multiple markets across multiple arenas. And the solutions are not mutually
exclusive. People that buy electric cars to help the environment or become
vegetarian, are probably _more_ likely to make additional changes in their
life, and persuade others to make changes as well, to reduce emissions.

Most people arrive at the decision to purchase an electric vehicle exactly
because they are questioning their way of life. Electric vehicles are not a
talisman of false hope, they’re a singular step in the right direction.

~~~
eptcyka
The argument isn't that doing _something_ is bad, it's that the amount of
effort people put into obtaining their shiny non-paleolithic-compost-fueled-
but-rather-battery-powered 2 tonne sledgehammers would be better spent
changing policies that operate on organizational rather than individual units.
How about we just stop buying as much shit from halfway across the world?
Global trade requires us to spend stupid amounts of fuel in engines that have
never been optimized for emissions. This of course involves making changes to
global trade, this is a lot harder, but surely all those people who are
capable of shelling out at least 30000$ (but in reality, barely anyone gets
the cheapest model because this is a luxury item) could be doing things that
make a bigger difference.

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
This is a textbook example of false dilemma fallacy. Replacing ICE cars with
electric cars doesn't preclude other environmental measures, and in fact,
people who worry about their car's emissions tend to be people who worry about
other environmental issues as well.

~~~
new2628
..it surely precludes the environmental measure of not having a car.

~~~
yellowapple
And what exactly is that impact? The author never specified; just asserted
"cars are bad because reasons" and left it at that.

------
charlesism
Alot about our system of roads and cars strikes me as crazy. Most of the
vehicles on the road have only one person in them, yet weigh as much as an
elephant. Nobody drives under the speed limit, which is typically fast enough
to result in hundreds of thousands of fatalities every year anyways. Every
neighborhood designed primarily for these idiotically heavy vehicles, that
occasionally drive over pets and children who made the mistake of wandering
off a footpath. Then there’s the pollution, of course. I can’t imagine many
people would accept the way we do things today, if we started from zero and
someone proposed it, instead of the situation slow-boiling us over a period of
a half century.

~~~
agumonkey
The worst part about it IMO is traffic light and stops. In a city, if you can
drive around 20mph (25 maybe) uninterrupted, you get in most places very fast,
very pleasantly and with fuel savings since you never slow down.

Instead of a smooth flow, you get drivers that do:

    
    
        - high accelerations
        - nervous braking
        - idle engine running between 30 - 60 seconds (120 max?)
    

Pure waste.

Maybe I'm asking for a problem too complex to solve, but a smooth oriented
traffic organization would help. Well, that is until fossil fuels are removed
from the market.

~~~
srfilipek
> high accelerations

Acceleration does not waste energy (other than speed related things like wind
resistance). This is a myth that is perpetuated without merit, but probably
because it's typically associated with overall aggressive driving, which
implies bad braking habits.

Max efficiency is typically near peak torque for internal combustion engines
[0]. For EV's, electric motors are actually most efficient at higher RPMs [1].

Fuel efficiency can be measured by breaking habits alone.

Edit: sources:

[0] [https://i.stack.imgur.com/RE4SM.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RE4SM.png)

[1] [https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-
fcf541de83bd871b9ba92d...](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-
fcf541de83bd871b9ba92ddf643fb09c)

~~~
agumonkey
true, but I'd bet a 100$ that people accelerating too fast do speed too long
and brake too much..

~~~
JeffL
I gun the shit out of my Tesla at a green light, but look far ahead and slowly
ease to a stop using regen braking only. Regen braking and one pedal driving
is a nice incentive to not waste energy with brakes, and as EV's become more
popular, I bet driving habits will become more efficient generally across the
board.

~~~
srfilipek
Just curious, do you have stats on your watts per mile efficiency you can
share? How it compares to the EPA estimates?

~~~
JeffL
244 Wh/mi over 17,000 miles in a Model 3 LR. That's really close to the rated
310 miles for the 75 kw battery. The vast majority of my miles are driving 72
mph on the freeway.

------
cmrdporcupine
Seems to me a lot of people are so attached to carculture that they can't even
read the article properly.

The author sees all sorts of good things about electric cars. I drive them
myself. I love cars. But...

The points the article makes about cars being part of a larger flawed system
of urban and rural development are spot on.

'Self-driving' cars will only make this worse.

Even just the excessive prevalence of hard-top surfaces in roads and parking
lots leads to environmental catastrophe when flooding begins.

Urban sprawl leads to farmland and natural area destruction.

The car is the ultimate symbol of entitled consumerist individualism, and it
is becoming more and more unsustainable.

The net effect of every household being in car(s) with a population as big as
we have is really bad, even if all emissions were to be eliminated.

If all the private investment money being dumped into self-driving technology
at the moment were public money being put into urban mass transit, just think
of what could be accomplished...

~~~
whenanother
urban mass transit is never used by the wealthy. the last thing people with
ill gotten gains want to do is to be around others who can identify them and
see with their own eyes how much they’ve stolen. and they don’t want to be
around their own kind as there’s no honor amongst thieves.

~~~
dragontamer
Senators use the DC Metro and Stock Market traders in NYC use their subway.

Big Subway systems in big cities are pretty famous for seeing executives in
suits and celebrities sit in the same bus as beggars.

> ill gotten gains

That's... quite an assumption you're making there. Sure, some execs are
assholes. But most true wealth is driven through cooperation.

~~~
rpmisms
I think he's making the morally dubious jump to say that corporate profits are
immoral.

~~~
whenanother
nothing wrong with corporate profits. the problem lies when a corporation is
being used as a money laundering and tax evasion scheme. and a boogie man that
wealthy people hide behind.

------
lawlessone
Electric vehicles would make a huge difference to me and many others that
suffer from asthma.

Moving the emissions away from the vehicles , away from city centres and roads
to the factories and power stations where they can be controlled would save
thousands of lives.

Our children will look at us how we look at people during the industrial
revolution. And a gradual change is better than no change at all.

~~~
growlist
Exhaust emissions are only part of the air pollution problem - brake discs and
tyres contribute around 50%, as I recall.

Depressing! But we need lighter vehicles all round, and less travelling in
general.

~~~
NullPrefix
>brake discs

Regenerative braking does not have this problem. Although the tyre problem
remain.

~~~
rootusrootus
Tires are a far more significant pollution source than brakes.

~~~
WorldMaker
But still a far less significant pollution source than diesel (especially) and
gas exhaust.

------
pif
> To have any chance of slowing down climate breakdown rather than
> accelerating it further, we need to change our entire way of life...

I agree with him. And that's why I keep saying that global warming is here to
stay. We had better to learn to cope with it rather than hoping it can be
reversed!

~~~
stuaxo
We're going to have to reverse it at some point. If we keep accelerating it
there won't be any learning to live with it.

~~~
growlist
It's self limiting, with an attenuation in global population once a threshold
is reached. I suspect we'll never reach a point where humanity disappears
entirely - they'll just hang out in higher altitudes and latitudes.

------
alexgmcm
Honestly, I hope electric cars become commonplace just because of the
reduction in noise pollution let alone PM and CO2 emissions.

Furthermore, I'm not really sure what the author thinks we should do? How can
we maintain modern civilisation without factories etc.? Reverting to some
primitive state seems neither realistic nor desirable.

~~~
PeterStuer
You are in for a cold shower. Above 35 km/h (~22 mph) tire noise becomes the
dominant factor. Besides, a large part of a modern vehicle's engine noise is
designed. Some cars even go as far as play engine noises through added
speakers.

~~~
mcot2
Source? Does this hold true for diesel trucks and buses and garbage trucks
which are very common in cities?

~~~
cowsandmilk
> Does this hold true for diesel trucks and buses and garbage trucks which are
> very common in cities?

I know from the hybrid buses in Boston that they are a massive reduction in
noise for the passengers. When you're at a stop, it is great to not have that
engine idling. Electric will only be better in that regard.

The garbage trucks though seem to make a shit load of brake noise though. And
noise from trash dumping on top of trash and being compacted.

~~~
concert-gilled
Won't electric trucks use regenerative braking?

------
kaolti
The author has a point.

Out of all the other industries dominated by massive corporations - and we
know how they go about doing business - the first priority to save the planet
is for John Doe to buy a new product! Also, let's create a culture where we
feel justified to shame people who don't do it.

Of course nothing is black and white. I love electric cars and will probably
get one. I think they're really cool and would love to do my bit in keeping
things green.

BUT at the same, you got to see a bit of irony in the whole thing don't you?

------
rebuilder
Are there examples of societies radically changing their lifestyles in order
to prevent a disaster?

~~~
adamlett
We managed to stop using freon, thereby rescuing outselves from ozone
depletion.

[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/5/100505-scienc...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/5/100505-science-
environment-ozone-hole-25-years/)

~~~
ovi256
That did not require a change in lifestyle. Substitutes were found for all
freon applications.

------
693471
I bought my EV for three reasons:

1\. Traditional car maintenance is expensive and sucks

2\. I'm betting due to natural disasters in the environment and in the Oval
Office we will see fuel prices continue to rise

3\. While I don't think it will save the planet by itself, it can certainly
save lives. Emissions are dangerous to breathe in and we are willfully
ignoring it.

~~~
ensiferum
And the energy comes without emissions? :)

~~~
srfilipek
Depends on where you live. In West Virginia? No, it's almost all coal based.

In Vermont? Yes, their grid is 100% renewable.

Source:
[https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html](https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html)

------
bryanlarsen
Two me, reading the graph in the article brings up two priorities:

1: transition to renewable energy

2: figure out how to lower the carbon emissions during

1&2 sound a _lot_ easier than completely transitioning off motorized personal
transportation.

#2 can be done with appropriate government incentives, like a $100/ton carbon
tax + equivalent tariff. Producers will use alternate energy sources and
otherwise eliminate carbon wherever it costs them less than $100/ton to do so,
and the $100 can pay for sequestration when it costs them more.

Of course #2 will significantly increase the price of a car. This will also
help to convince people to use alternatives. But cars will still be
significantly cheaper than they are in Denmark or Norway, yet those two
countries are still fairly car oriented.

~~~
acidburnNSA
Low carbon energy! The article listed pure renewable energy but if it was
biofuel, emissions would be high. We must stop talking about renewability and
focus on sustainable, low-carbon energy. They are not the same.

Further example: nuclear fusion is low carbon and sustainable but not
considered renewable. If we charged EVs with nuclear fusion power stations,
we'd all be happy.

------
esotericn
The charts on the page directly contradict the headline.

In the renewable energy case emissions are miniscule, and in fact only come
about because the chart assumes large emissions during manufacture - a lot of
the processes involved in producing an EV could be done with renewable energy,
and would be if we instituted a carbon tax or otherwise forced the issue.

------
theworld572
Electric vehicles are ranking number 26 in terms of total cost and total
atmospheric reduction of CO2:

[https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-
rank](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank)

So its not a talisman, but it is certainly a real step in the right direction.
I don't hear anybody saying that electric cars means we can just forget about
the other causes of climate change?

A very contrarian article that just argues against a straw man. I suspect
people who write articles like this are usually the ones who revel in being
smarter than everybody else.

------
growlist
We could for example:

1\. Incentivise retrofitting of electric transmissions to cars with internal
combustion engines

2\. Disincentivise the introduction of new models, visual updates etc. to
existing cars via taxation

3\. Incentivise durability and repairability - force car makers to produce
cars that are modular and easily repaired, enforced limits on pricing of spare
parts, force open-sourcing of designs etc.

Of course all of above would likely smash the car makers' current business
model to pieces - and when you get down to it this is the real problem with
the kind of genuine, general change we need to see in order to save the Earth.

Sustainable approaches simply will not deliver the kind of reduction in
consumption required. Everyone is going to have to accept a much poorer
lifestyle. The main blocker to me is the rich: how are they going to justify
their continued opulence when the companies they own (are forced to) produce
so little for the average person?

~~~
sokoloff
> Incentivise retrofitting of electric transmissions to cars with internal
> combustion engines

What would that do to help? Modern transmissions are fairly efficient
(basically anything with a lockup torque converter is now very good and any
manual or computer controlled manual transmission is excellent in terms of
efficiency). I can’t see what an electronic transmission on an ICE engine
would do that would possibly pay back.

~~~
growlist
Removal of the ICE in favour of electric I meant, in case I wasn't clear.
Massive amounts of power etc. are required to produce the chassis, bodywork
etc. - it makes sense to get a lifetime's use out of them rather than throw
away the whole thing just because the ICE has gone out of fashion.

~~~
sokoloff
Ok. The transmission is a very specific (and overly specific for your intended
meaning) assembly, so it was indeed not clear.

~~~
growlist
I apologise :)

------
Nasrudith
Looking at other articles the guy seems to be full in apocalyptic thinking - a
few in he has an article on "Collapse" and lifeboat thinking. Those are words
are downright toxic meme symptoms referring to paranoid and evil ideologirs
respectively. They are like referring to science based medicine as
"alleopathic" is a sure sign that they are off the deep ene in alternative
medicine.

To explain "collapse" briefly there is even a /r/Collapse convinced of coming
doomsdays from various sources from any fear de jure from ebola, economic
meltdowns, or global warming.

"Lifeboat ethics" refers to a rehash of Malthusians and Eugenicists arguing
helping people who are worse off is actively immoral and rapidly justifies
travesties. There is a reason I skip straight to evil when describing them -
when in power their actions can have no other end.

------
patientplatypus
One of the things I like to do when half in the bag in a bar and blagging to a
new friend is to say,

"Look - pick a direction - any direction - and tell me what you see."

And what they see is plastic and metal and bar bottles with paint on them and
more plastic and all the detritus of human society.

And every piece of it, as far as the eye can see!, will be garbage in 6 months
to 20 years and sit on the ground and leech poisons into the Earth and nothing
will grow from it.

Every.

Single.

Piece.

We, as human beans, have broken the cycle of life and death where something
grows, flowers, dies, rots and something else grows and flowers. This idea
that we can make a new shiny thing that will become more garbage to fix all
our problems so we can keep eating more isn't going to change that.

The solution is that we simply have to do with less. And people will kill each
other before they admit that.

It's already starting to happen now.

------
choeger
From my European perspective, this reads like a typical leftist pov. First of
all, _of course_ everyone has to change their way of living. This has been the
corner Stone of left ideology since forever.

And then _of course_ the attack on EV, because it is not about the climate,
but about individuality. Individual travel simply does not fit into a world
view where everyone has to change their way of living into _the_ rational way.
And offering a different solution is heresy.

------
Mvandenbergh
Why is the embodied carbon in the manufacture of the car the same in all the
energy mix scenarios? Surely quite a lot of electricity is used in
manufacturing electric vehicles.

Also, solutions that rely on substantially reconfiguring living patterns -
moving from driving-required suburbs to walkable communities also have large
embodied carbon costs. It's all well and good to say that suburbs are energy
inefficient but the US has a lot of them already built.

~~~
zzzcpan
> solutions that rely on substantially reconfiguring living patterns

Surely switching to bikes or electric bikes is not that substantial and
immediately eliminates a lot of car related problems.

~~~
Mvandenbergh
Sure but there are many houses that are surrounded by just more houses for
many, many kilometres with the nearest concentration of offices and other
places of work, stores, and transport hubs (if there even are any) very
substantial distances away. It's challenging to increase cycling when that is
the case.

------
flr03
We can imagine that the energy mix in EU will lean towards more renewable
energy, increasing the benefit of electric cars over conventional cars. If
indeed not decreasing yet, the number of cars sold seems to flatten and I can
see that Europeans cities are transforming to make life more complicated for
cars owners (ie LEZ tax in London) and easier for pedestrians and bikes.
Several reasons to be optimistic.

------
ptah
reminds me of slavoj zizek's point of how corporations use problems caused by
consumption and come up with a solution that increases consumption, like the
"2% of profits goes towards planting trees" type of scenario

------
bjourne
The numbers are somewhat contested. See potholer54's well-sourced video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMPFDqyfrA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMPFDqyfrA)
He cites ghg savings of about 20-30% for a common mix of electricity
production sources.

Of course, Jussi Pasanen is still completely right. The only solution is to
stop driving cars.

~~~
phtrivier
Fine. Which rural neighborhood do we nuke first ?

Big cities can definitely phase cars put, and should electrify their public
transportations for the people who can't bike.

Some form of "small number of passengers, not short but not long range" trips
are going to have to be done ouside of cities, unless you displace people.

If "displacing people to cities" is your advocated policy, or "preventing
people from traveling _at all_ ", that's a legitimate point to argue, but be
prepared for fierce resistance from well meaning people (who're not going to
massively vote for you...)

------
acd
Electric batteries gives the most effect in shared transport such as buses and
taxis. If I remember correctly it’s 50x more efficient with batteries in such
public vehicles. This is due to higher utilization they buses drive all day vs
private cars mostly are parked.

This we should electrify public transport first for maximum carbon reduction.

~~~
PeterStuer
Smart Grids touted as 'the future' in the energy distribution sector are
counting on all those parked batteries for their network balance.

------
mcot2
“Still, in most cases an electric car is slightly less bad for the living
planet than a comparable car with an internal combustion engine – if you can
afford to buy one.”

Bad article all around. There is bias in that statement alone referencing the
price of EV’s after an admission that they are actually better for the
environment already. This article also references almost every negative trope
about BEV’s.

What many of these articles fail to explore is any future advancements in
technology that can solve some of the issues listed. Nothing in BEV technology
is static, almost everything is improving from motor efficiency all the way to
removing things like cobalt from batteries. It’s also possible that we will
see a lot more localized solar and wind power for charging stations over time.

Lastly, autonomy is coming which will be a game changer when paired with BEV
technology.

------
jmpman
I have an electric car because it lets me get in the carpool lane. I
understand that investing the delta between an electric car and an ICE into
some sort of carbon capture technology would likely be better for the
environment, but then I wouldn’t be home for dinner 15min earlier.

------
buboard
It's much more impactful for the tech community to push for remote work
everywhere except where it's physically necessary than to convince everyone to
buy a battery car. Where i live it's impossible to use one anyway due to non-
robust electicity network. Despite being an island that is sunny year round,
its not possible to incorporate more renewables into the system, so the main
source of electricity remains oil. I bet the main buyers of battery cars live
in big cities anyway.

[https://image.slidesharecdn.com/emissionsfromdrivingtowork-1...](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/emissionsfromdrivingtowork-1213018860684874-9/95/emissions-
from-driving-to-work-4-728.jpg?cb=1212993525)

------
bryanlarsen
This is an extremely counter-productive line of thinking. Slowing climate
change to manageable levels requires massive costs and sacrifice, but not
insane levels. In terms of cost, single figure trillions.

IOW, similar to the Apollo project or the Iraq war. A heck of a lot cheaper
than WWII.

------
PeterStuer
"Electric cars give us a sense that we can have change without having to
change at all. They are a talisman of false hope."

On a tangent issue: it going to get even worse. The automotive industry
predicts total annual miles driven to go up by 300% when autonomous driving
comes through.

~~~
stuaxo
As an asthmatic I'm looking forward to a drastic reduction in the pollution in
our cities.

We still need to move to car free cities at the same time though.

~~~
PeterStuer
I agree with you that the very idea that it is somehow acceptable to have an
'exhaust' on a car that just belches out toxins is just as crazy as dumping
your nightpot out the top floor window into the middle of the street. There
was also a time in which that was deemed 'normal'.

That said, a very large part of small particle dust produced by cars comes
from wear, especially brakes, tires, road surface and crushed stuff by the
weight of the car driving over. If there is a significant uptick in traffic,
electric will be better than the equivalent traffic if it were all diesel, but
the aggregate amount of micro dust might still go up compared to today's
volume.

~~~
mcot2
Again, technology is not static. There are lots of folks working on the brake
dust and tire wear issue. You should be happy to know that regenerative
breaking on BEVs results in a lot less brake dust, although currently more
tire wear due to more initial torque.

------
g8oz
Some perspective on EVs: Project Drawdown lists CO2 reduction by adoption of
better cars as #49 in it's ranked list of of climate change solutions. #1 and
#2 are refrigerant management and onshore wind turbines respectively.

------
upofadown
You can see this false hope expressed all the time in media articles that
assume that we will just electrify all the cars with no other changes to how
we do transportation. That hope is why we are told how important it is to get
chargers absolutely everywhere, that charging needs to be fast and how
important it is that electric cars have the same range as petroleum cars.

The thing is, cities don't want _any_ sort of cars these days. So in most
cases the type of energy used to propel a car is beside the point and a lot of
this discussion doesn't matter any more.

------
blendo
About 300,000 cars cross the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge every day.

I think the author's point is that if they were all electric, there would
_still_ be 300,000 cars crossing the bridge each day, and the problems of road
maintenance costs, pedestrian safety, and soul-deadening commute times remain.
Fewer GHG emissions, to be sure.

A good next step would be to focus on reducing the total energy of the system.
Minimizing 1/2 m v^2 is your friend here -- reduce weight and reduce speed.

------
lm28469
Have anyone seriously studied the impact of switching to all-electric cars on
a global scale ?

I read that there are over a billion passenger cars right now, let's say we
manage to shift them all to electric by 2050 (not saying this is realistic),
sure it'll move the air pollution out of the city, but what about long term
pollution, manufacturing, recycling, &c. ? Would it really solve the problem
or simply move it out of our sight for a few decades ?

------
lucas_membrane
More inconvenient truth in TFA. Note that the market price of electricity hit
$9.00/kwh in Texas last week. IICC, that would be maybe a couple of Benjamins
to charge an electric car, suggesting that there will have to be bigger
changes than electric cars if we really want to keep things the way they are.

------
JeffL
Once we get self driving, there could be far fewer cars per person. If you
amortize that part of the bar chart of emissions which comes from producing
the vehicle and divide it by, say, 20, and continue to develop new solar and
wind farms, the BEV looks really amazing compared to current non-self driving
ICE cars.

~~~
JKCalhoun
I tell people who are waiting for self-driving cars to take the bus.

------
alkonaut
So we transition to EV's _and_ we change power to non-fossil fuels. It's not
hard it just costs money and requires some sacrifice. I'm on 100% renewable
now. If I wasn't already, I'd happily pay twice what I pay now to ensure I was
at least on non-fossil if not on renewable.

------
wffurr
I made this same point on an article about "where will apartment dwellers and
city dwellers with street parking charge their EVs".
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20678842](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20678842)

It was a question that was completely missing the forest for the trees. Just
like this article is claiming all the EV boosterism is doing.

An EV car is still a car. It's still three tons of steel that goes way too
fast and gets used in all manner of inappropriate ways. As an EV owner, you
are still part of the problem. Not to mention that you just bought a
fantastically expensive vehicle to signal how much you "care" about the
environment, but not enough to give up any creature comforts. And how many
anti-malaria bednets could you have bought instead if you got a used fuel
efficient ICE or, gasp, no car at all?

Much higher impact would be accelerating retrofitting our cities and towns for
other modes of transportation: bikes and scooters, massively expanded public
transit, and walking.

------
La-ang
Too little too late? That's the best the writer could say? Pessimism is not
what we yearn for.

------
jaimex2
What an absolute garbage piece.

Solving environmental impact is extremely political and is fought every step
of the way by those with vested interests.

This adds nothing to help improve things, it actually does the opposite.

Yes, we know if we went back to pre-industrial revolution we'd stop impacting
the planet. Good luck with that.

------
sunkenvicar
Everyone can drive an electric car with the Green Nuclear Deal.

------
abhi152
Ok, so the author suggests nothing.. He fails to describe the solution(if
any). May be the solution is population control.

~~~
jaimex2
Pretty much. He doesn't seem to grasp the reality that solving the problem is
political and like gun laws in the US there are those that will oppose every
change no matter how small every step of the way for money regardless of the
human or planetary cost.

------
RickJWagner
"Tesla sales are up seven-fold from Q3 2015 to Q3 2018"

Wow. I consider that a good sign. Electric cars _are_ progress.

