Researchers achieve EV battery breakthrough with silicon-based materials and gel electrolytes, moving closer to a 1,000-kilometer range on a single charge.
“Save the planet? Sure, but only if it doesn’t slightly inconvenience my leisure activities or make me wait a bit longer.” This mindset perfectly encapsulates why we’re in such a mess: an astounding commitment to personal comfort at the expense of the planet’s future. It’s like saying, “I’ll help fight climate change, but only if it’s on my terms and doesn’t affect my ski trips.” Because, obviously, ensuring our convenience is far more critical than addressing a global crisis. It’s this precise “me first, planet later” attitude that’s steering us towards an ecological disaster, yet here we are…
Sorry, but if your argument is “here’s a shit product. It’s also more expensive, but you should still buy it because it’s marginally better for the planet,” it’s going to fail to achieve mass adoption. I care very much about environmental sustainability, but I’ve been around the sun enough times to know that the way to achieve that is with better and cheaper products. We should use technology to reduce environmental impact and improve our lives. It’s not one or the other.
So… if the technology isn’t improving your life you continue to use the one that’s making everyone else’s life worse? Even if you have the means to switch to the marginally less damaging one, that’s marginally more annoying? Sounds like serious entitlement to me. The idea that no downgrade is acceptable is niave AF.
So… if the technology isn’t improving your life you continue to use the one that’s making everyone else’s life worse?
It depends on the cost/benefit analysis. It was part of my decision to buy a Tesla but I am deeply disappointed with the experience. It’s so bad that I want to sell it and buy another ICE. Most people aren’t willing to pay more for a significant downgrade. That’s just reality.
i guess this a pertinent example of why we’ve got basically zero chance of stopping climate collapse. I’ve no doubt your position is very much the norm. We’re all required to make massive sacrifice to solve this, but very few are willing to make even small concessions)like less convenient driving practices).
Oh well it’s gunna be exciting to watch the ship sink at the very least.
At least you acknowledge your shitty position. it’s more than most seem to do.
If you already have a car with a combustion engine and it runs fine, you shouldn’t just buy an EV because “it’s better for the environment”. If you’re doing that, it’s actually worse for the environment.
I’m fine with only being able to buy EVs in 10 or 20 years, once batteries are better and the vehicles are actually affordable. Until then, we need better and more hybrids.
To be fair… Electric cars have many of the same planet-damaging properties of gasoline powered ones. They’re a step in the right direction and necessary for the cases where we can’t replace cars, but they’re still an incredibly energy-intensive means of transportation that release enormous amounts of particulate pollution from the tyres and take up huge amounts of land. When combined with other changes we’ve made to our built environment to accommodate cars, they also leave many people in a catch-22 where they’re forced to pay hundreds of dollars every month for car ownership because we’ve demolished and rebuilt our cities in a way that makes not owning a car impractical.
“Save the planet? Sure, but only if it doesn’t slightly inconvenience my leisure activities or make me wait a bit longer.” This mindset perfectly encapsulates why we’re in such a mess: an astounding commitment to personal comfort at the expense of the planet’s future. It’s like saying, “I’ll help fight climate change, but only if it’s on my terms and doesn’t affect my ski trips.” Because, obviously, ensuring our convenience is far more critical than addressing a global crisis. It’s this precise “me first, planet later” attitude that’s steering us towards an ecological disaster, yet here we are…
Sorry, but if your argument is “here’s a shit product. It’s also more expensive, but you should still buy it because it’s marginally better for the planet,” it’s going to fail to achieve mass adoption. I care very much about environmental sustainability, but I’ve been around the sun enough times to know that the way to achieve that is with better and cheaper products. We should use technology to reduce environmental impact and improve our lives. It’s not one or the other.
So… if the technology isn’t improving your life you continue to use the one that’s making everyone else’s life worse? Even if you have the means to switch to the marginally less damaging one, that’s marginally more annoying? Sounds like serious entitlement to me. The idea that no downgrade is acceptable is niave AF.
It depends on the cost/benefit analysis. It was part of my decision to buy a Tesla but I am deeply disappointed with the experience. It’s so bad that I want to sell it and buy another ICE. Most people aren’t willing to pay more for a significant downgrade. That’s just reality.
i guess this a pertinent example of why we’ve got basically zero chance of stopping climate collapse. I’ve no doubt your position is very much the norm. We’re all required to make massive sacrifice to solve this, but very few are willing to make even small concessions)like less convenient driving practices).
Oh well it’s gunna be exciting to watch the ship sink at the very least.
At least you acknowledge your shitty position. it’s more than most seem to do.
If you already have a car with a combustion engine and it runs fine, you shouldn’t just buy an EV because “it’s better for the environment”. If you’re doing that, it’s actually worse for the environment.
I’m fine with only being able to buy EVs in 10 or 20 years, once batteries are better and the vehicles are actually affordable. Until then, we need better and more hybrids.
thanksCEO of Toyota.
20-30 years lol it’s cute you think society will still exist then.
To be fair… Electric cars have many of the same planet-damaging properties of gasoline powered ones. They’re a step in the right direction and necessary for the cases where we can’t replace cars, but they’re still an incredibly energy-intensive means of transportation that release enormous amounts of particulate pollution from the tyres and take up huge amounts of land. When combined with other changes we’ve made to our built environment to accommodate cars, they also leave many people in a catch-22 where they’re forced to pay hundreds of dollars every month for car ownership because we’ve demolished and rebuilt our cities in a way that makes not owning a car impractical.