this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
359 points (95.0% liked)

Not The Onion

11853 readers
976 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

The rule of thumb is: if your ICE car is still in working order, it's less damaging to the environment to just keep driving it. If you absolutely must buy a new car, get an electric. That being said, I don't trust that Rowan won't be "Mr. Car Guy" and promote his bias towards ICE cars due to his extreme wealth and love of exotic whips.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There are a lot of issues with his calculations.

For people driving 12,000 miles a year their mpg will be higher, more highway miles.

The 10mpg difference in new car vs old for similarly sized cars is over 20 years. The 2001 impala I used to have got 25 mpg.

People that buy new cars typically have cars less than 10 years old that they are replacing. People typically don't go from a clapped out 20 year old car to a brand new one. The "old" car most people are trading in is getting 30-35 mpg.

I'd put the number at 5-7 years for a car that's less than 5 years old.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

You can drive 6k miles a year and based on averages you'll be carbon negative after about 8 or 9 years. The sooner people switch the better, even if it means "wasting" gas cars that are still road worthy.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The thing is that cars have a huge secondhand market.

So if you buy a new car, you sell your old one to someone else, who sells their car to someone else, who sell their car to someone else, ... all the way until one of the horrible gas guzzlers at the bottom gets finally replaced.

So in a way it is improving the environment if you look at the whole picture.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah there is far more game theory than the other post implies. Supporting companies in producing EVs and are driving EV technology in a healthy way, and considering down pressure effects for the secondhand market are far more important than your individual emissions over a short period of time.

Also, not fully convinced by the rule of thumb. It works well when considering the sustainability of static things, but I think it falls apart when considering things that have active impact like cars.

Here is an article where Reuters found that you only need to drive 13500 miles before an EV is cleaner than an ICE in the US. At a certain point, it is better to push ICE cars into retirement and build EVs.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

Reduce - Reuse - Recycle. In that order.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I forgot whip was slang for a car and was thinking he had a collection of the other kind of whip.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Three orange whips.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

love of exotic whips

To be fair, Musk also had a McLaren F1 before he bought Tesla and paid people to shut their mouths about his not starting it himself