• cerevant@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    No doubt your logic is based on the carbon footprint of two cars - the old ice and the new BEV.

    Where that logic falls down is the old ICE becomes a more affordable efficient used car that can replace an older ICE that it blowing blue smoke. Further, new BEV become used BEV in a few years. Used BEV are becoming quite affordable and cost effective. They are also far outlasting their projected battery life.

    Finally, demand for BEV increases R&D on more efficient storage technologies that are cheaper and have a smaller environmental footprint.

    Yes, more and better public transport should be a thing. But the US is just too big - and in many cases too empty - for ubiquitous public transport to be cost or environmentally efficient.

    • Custoslibera@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I disagree strongly about the US not being suitable for public transport.

      There are large cities that could introduce effective metro services and that would be a vast improvement.

      Rural areas can remain ICE/BEV.

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Show me one State, just a single one, where the majority of Cities have functional mass transit across the entire City which does not take five or six times what a personal vehicle going straight there takes. I’ll wait.

        • Custoslibera@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          The fact that the implementation of public transport is poor is not a criticism of public transport.