this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
297 points (89.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
12321 readers
2284 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Isn't it true that once a car is built, it's basically better for the environment to drive it until its wheels fall off instead of scrapping it to buy any new one (even electric) though ? He's right that a lot of the time these schemes are thinly veiled auto industry handouts to stimulate the economy, instead of actual environmental regulations.
In terms of global warming; maybe. It depends on many factors when looking at a specific case. Another commenter already put some numbers together.
The environment, however, in this case is Dehli, a city with terrible air quality. Removing an active source of CO2, NOx, heavy metals, etc is good for that environment. Especially human lungs.
Except that i10, even an old one, is not a big source of CO2 or NOx
If the government provides safe and comfortable public transit instead.
The environmental break even period for EVs is getting shorter and shorter as the power grids get cleaner and cleaner.
It was a somewhat solid argument against buying new EVs to replace working ICE cars over 10 years ago, but now it's really not.
Every 35000 km or 21000 miles a gasoline car going on average 20km/l or 47mpg why H have produced the same amount of CO2 that it takes to make an electric car.
So if over the lifetime of the car you go less than 35000km you shouldn't be changing it with an electric. Otherwise please do 😁
How long is that offset including charging? I know that EVs are still significant better, but it's not like the moment an EV rolls out that it's carbon emissions stop.
The thing with EVs is that they get cleaner over time as cheap solar and batteries become a bigger part of the grid and old coal plants age out.
If you buy a diesel today, it'll still be burning diesel in 2045.
depends where you are i guess. if you're in a country with a high proportion of the grid being powered by renewables or nuclear then the emissions do become negligable as soon as it's delivered.
France is 70% nuclear plus renewables etc
The break even on carbon emissions from manufacture vs. daily use is somewhere between around 3 and 10 years. Big trucks on the low end.
Yes.
Better for your nerves? No.
Also you have to keep your vehicle in a state where it can drive safely, which leads to maintenance costs that rise over time. But safe for your environment as in the people around you, whether you reach your destination alive is of less importance.