Haranguing an EV driver for driving too many miles in their zero (tailpipe) emission car seems a bit extreme, given the general state of environmental consciousness in the US.
LeftieBiker said:Haranguing an EV driver for driving too many miles in their zero (tailpipe) emission car seems a bit extreme, given the general state of environmental consciousness in the US.
aluminumwelder said:how is suggesting reducing usage " bad mouthing" making big car batteries and then disposing of them because they were used to death is not environmentally friendly either.
cars are not some great invention. millions of people have died in them, and countless years of wasted time are spent in them. technological advancements have not brought people together they have allowed urban sprawl and 8 lane freeways contributing to climate change.
the notion that it is social acceptable to drive a lot Is not a good one. doenst' matter if the vechicle is gas or electric. I will always sjuggest reducing your millage is the best solution, the future is mass or shared transport. why have a $20,000 car which is used only a small percentage of the day and sit unused the rest of the time? very inefficient.
So in your line of thinking "to save the environment" he should move so he would be closer to his job?
Lets be real. Moving is an option that is available.... to nearly NO ONE!
Haranguing an EV driver for driving too many miles in their zero (tailpipe) emission car seems a bit extreme, given the general state of environmental consciousness in the US.
aluminumwelder said:Lets be real. Moving is an option that is available.... to nearly NO ONE!
Let's be real, people move all the time for a new job. If you dont' want to move that is your decision, but don't play the old everyone is doing it peer pressure illogical nonsense card. I can sense a fallacy a mile away.
aluminumwelder said:how is suggesting reducing usage " bad mouthing"
aluminumwelder said:excessive driving
aluminumwelder said:So in your line of thinking "to save the environment" he should move so he would be closer to his job?
WOW WHAT A CRAZY LIBERAL IDEA THAT WOULD BE. WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO BE CLOSER TO THEIR JOB AND COMMUNITE LESS. COMMON SENSE! SEEMS LIKE A RHETORICAL QUESTIONS, BUT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT prefer to waste time commuting. Normalizing this wastefull mindset is the first step towards saying NO to excess and saying Yes to reducing.
From https://oaspub.epa.gov/powpro/ept_pack.charts, from putting in the 98584 zip code where the OP works, 47.2% of electricity there comes from hydro, a non-GHG emitting source of electricity.aluminumwelder said:I guess no one sees the irony that people are saying that driving a quarter of a million miles is some great environmental accomplishment because it was done on electricity, when in fact excessive driving is ACTUALLY BAD FOR THE ENVIRONEMENT, just a little bit less so in an electric vehicle
anyways not going to argue over it anymore my point has been made.
Yes. I've been slammed similarly on another forum in a similar manner when I had 46 mpg combined Prius (almost certainly before I had a Leaf and possibly before Leaf existed). The guy suggested I essentially didn't care (much?) about the environment and should take public transit or move closer. (Not like he drove anything particularly efficient, AFAIK.)Nubo said:aluminumwelder said:how is suggesting reducing usage " bad mouthing"
It's not -- IN GENERAL. But criticizing an INDIVIDUAL when you have no idea of their situation finances constraints or obligations, is arrogant beyond belief. Who are you to demand that they get a new job, or move, or... what?
Nobody is saying that driving, in itself, is a virtue. Mostly we're applauding OP's ability to get so much more out of LEAF (despite design shortcomings) than most of us can imagine.
aluminumwelder: Have you heard of situations like this https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/pr-rep-commutes-4-hours-every-day-to-avoid-45000-dollar-san-francisco-rent.html? Crazy long commutes in the SF Bay Area happen usually amongst lower wage workers because housing prices are insane here.RonDawg said:aluminumwelder said:So in your line of thinking "to save the environment" he should move so he would be closer to his job?
WOW WHAT A CRAZY LIBERAL IDEA THAT WOULD BE. WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO BE CLOSER TO THEIR JOB AND COMMUNITE LESS. COMMON SENSE! SEEMS LIKE A RHETORICAL QUESTIONS, BUT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT prefer to waste time commuting. Normalizing this wastefull mindset is the first step towards saying NO to excess and saying Yes to reducing.
I don't think anybody really LIKES commuting far. They do it because they feel they have little choice for their particular situation.
I know my father made a hellish commute (not so much in distance, but the route) so that my mother didn't have to.
Indeed.Nubo said:aluminumwelder said:I dont' see driving long distances as an accomplishment. It's a huge waste of time. With high speed internet available in so many places, more people should work from home instead of wasting time driving to work, polluting the air with gasoline or battery by products and work smarter not harder.
Not every job consists of "playing on the computer and talking on the phone", as one of my colleague's daughters aptly described our work. And in the Puget Sound area roads can't take you as the crow flies.
Yes. While I'm single and was able to choose to live where I could walk and bike to everything local and have convenient (6 blocks) rapid mass transit for most regional destinations (at a price I could afford), that wasn't always the case. Anytime you have two or more people co-habiting who need to go different directions, odds are moving will just exchange who commutes further/longer, and as cwerdna notes, the Bay Area is going through one of its periodic housing bubbles where rents/home prices are even higher than they normally are, and public transit isn't a viable option for all. So, while I understand where aluminumwelder is coming from, and (being a proponent of New Urbanism/Smart Cities etc.) concur that the changes he suggests are the best solution from an environmental standpoint, its simply not an option for everyone. TaylorSFGuy has made a choice that works for him in his situation.DaveinOlyWA said:The main argument is based on an individual but Steve is married and his wife works North, he works South. So the total commute would be the same no matter where they moved. He simply accepted the longer commute.
This doesn't even address issues of kids in school, etc. Said it once and will say it again, moving is not a viable option MOST of the time.
Enter your email address to join: