Re:Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching...
by jamil7 on Thursday April 08, 2021 @03:33AM
(#26736072)
> (They also last at least 10 times longer than bikes, in terms of number of miles... including tires, etc.)
What? By what metric?
Re:Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching...
by Robotbeat on Thursday April 08, 2021 @10:05AM
(#26738804)
Miles. Bike tires last 1000-3000 miles. Really good ones, maybe 5000 miles. EXTREMELY good ones 10,000 miles.
Car tires last 30,000 to 50,000 miles. Really good ones are 80,000 to 100,000 miles.
Similar for the mechanisms.
If you live in a place where you don't need a car, then sure, I guess that might work, but the VAST majority of Americans do not. They would have to move somewhere else. There isn't enough housing in such places, so new apartments (and schools and stores) would need to be built. That takes time and emits a bunch itself. We don't have the time to empty the suburbs (and no chance it'd happen politically). So the fastest solution BY FAR is electric cars as we can decarbonize people where they are.
A lot of cycling advocates massively underestimate just how good electric cars are. (They also last at least 10 times longer than bikes, in terms of number of miles... including tires, etc.)
People want climate change to force solutions to other problems. But we didn't solve ozone depletion by getting rid of refrigeration or air conditioning. We did it by developing and using non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. There's no political will to do much else, except around the edges.
Absolutely, build better biking infrastructure. There are good reasons to do it. But electric cars and trucks are WAY more relevant to actually getting most of America off of fossil fuels in a politically and economically feasible way than telling everyone they have to bike, now. Technological solutions are more feasible than social ones.
(Also, all the inputs to an electric car CAN be decarbonized as well.)