“But tires”
Ban all vehicles over 5000lbs to start without a specialized license and extremely heavy fees to have them. EVs are dropping in weight daily, ICE vehicles have been increasing in weight to dodge policies. One is a means to an end, the other is a means to profit.
Profit for few vs humanity’s existance… which should we choose?
I’m not here to diss EVs or praise ICE vehicles, but I want to simply directly answer your question. There’s one simple mantra that is applicable to a lot of things in life…the dose makes the poison. Not odd to see people extrapolate to that your scenario.
In one, although the quantity is greater, you’re “diluting” the gas into the humongous atmosphere. In the other, you’re taking the gas straight up undiluted.
deleted by creator
They’re saying a 300sqft garage is going to fill up with carbon monoxide long before the planet does because the volume of space is drastically different. It’s why they tell you to spray paint in well ventilated areas versus huffing it out of a bag.
When you’re outside all the gases coming out of your car’s tailpipe go up into the sky where they turn into stars.
Duh.
Edit: was looking at the serious answers. I apologize for my sarcasm.
That doesn’t sound right, but I don’t know enough about stars to dispute it.
Plus you get a nice smokey smell.
You’re being sarcastic but for the average person it’s simply: “Garage small, atmosphere big”.
They look down their street and can see a dozen cars in their field of view and then they see the all-encompassing sky with an endless amount of fresh air available. Conclusion: not a problem.
Most people don’t think of that. Out of sight, out of mind. Our minds are better adapted to react to immediate, visceral threats (such as a garage full of exhaust that can be smelled, maybe seen). We need education to be able to understand threats that are diffuse over a large area or take long periods of time to manifest. Even with education, most won’t react as strongly to a threat which has a high chance of reducing our lifespan by five to ten years, as we will to a threat which has a small chance of killing us immediately.
People struggle to think on a global scale and if you don’t understand how the atmosphere insulates, “that’s inside and this is outside” is a convincing enough argument for a lot of folk. Throw on the fact that some of the most powerful institutions in the world have very strong interests in keeping ICEs going and it’s pretty easy to see why so many people still believe those myths
Surely we won’t wind up with another oil tycoon leading the environmental protection agencies… Oh wait, they hired someone who denied climate change who accepted more than 300 million dollars in donations from the oil companies to get his positions. Surely trustworthy when it comes to his stance on oil.
Edit: wait that was last time… So this time it is someone who defended him during his impeachment when he tried to blackmail Ukriane when Russia was lining up to invade them…
Sheesh… good people we are lining up, good people
To add onto this. I did a rough estimate (hopefully I did it correctly) and assuming one billion ice vehicles as OP stated, if you scattered them evenly across the surface of the earth there would be about 25 miles separating each car. While I believe ice cars are quite damaging, it’s not hard to think it would be okay with that in mind.
Because those have nothing to do with each other. You can also drown in your bathtub. That doesn’t mean water falling from the sky is an instant drowning. Quantity, method of exposure and context matter a lot when gauging how dangerous something can be.
ICE exhaust is poisonous, it’s significantly less poisonous when diluted by a large chunk of atmosphere. How much so isn’t a simple question, and it becomes much harder for the average person when it’s health effects are delayed for years to decades and those effects often have comorbidities with other risky behavior.
This is exactly why education is important, these things aren’t actually that apparent after we cleaned up some of the more obvious consequences from the start of the industrial revolution.
Because the human brain doesn’t intuitively count the way we’re taught in school.
Our brains are very good at understanding 1, 2, sometimes 3 and, “many”. That’s the data we get from smart chips, young children and isolated pre-literate societies.
Counting bigger numbers requires abstract systems. Our brains can do that but it’s much harder and we don’t grasp it as well.
The practical offshot of this is that while it’s intuitively obvious that a small space like a garage will quickly fill up with toxic gasses, it’s far less intuitive that a “very big” outside can get saturated by a “pretty big number” of cars.
Just start sabotaging the
manufactorumsfactories.What they think is no mystery - they think the atmosphere and ecosystem are vast enough to absorb it. As “proof” they’ll point out things like smog in Victorian London being much worse than modern Los Angeles. They can’t produce any numbers or science but they find these mental images convincing enough.
This is a bad argument. Your conclusion happens to be factual, but it doesn’t follow from the premises.
Being in an enclosed space with an internal combustion engine will kill you because of the CO buildup, and no, that doesn’t happen in the open air. CO does oxidise to CO2 eventually, so it doesn’t just keep building up in the atmosphere.
The main harm caused by burning fossil fuels is the CO2, which is wreaking havoc on the climate and will kill billions - but not by poisoning them.
Why would it not be considered poisoning? It is a substance that is effectively killing people.
Yeah the enclosed space thing is about carbon monoxide though. Just find it to be easier for people to understand when people believe the earth is thriving because “there are more people now than ever.” Not caring that everything is dying around us.
No, that’s not poisoning.
If you get killed by a tsunami, that’s not water poisoning for fuck’s sake.
Fits the definition of poisoning.
Medical dictionary: Definition Poisoning occurs when any substance interferes with normal body functions after it is swallowed, inhaled, injected, or absorbed.
So if you drown, it would be, if you get crushed, I would say it doesn’t fall into poison
Good to know we’re not operating in reality. Don’t feed the trolls, people.
You’re living in a false reality apparently my friend. That’s just the definition of a word. Maybe find a different term.
Jesus Christ, the mental gymnastics and goal post moving.
Drowning is not water poisoning, and if you can’t figure out why, that’s no one’s problem but your own.
Diogenes and his
chickenman take great offense at your definition of “poison”.Yeah, most here would hate that Dickens used the term to mean distrub a function as well. To poisons ones sleep didn’t mean to kill him, just to do something that interferes with an ongoing task. It’s just a word. I didn’t define it 🤷
The dictionary doesn’t define words. Words are defined by authors and audiences. Your audience has rejected this particular definition of the word. Continue to use it at your peril.
So you’re saying it has been poisoned… Sorry, I had to. Hope your having a good day.
In theory, concentration and expose time could mean that whatever is hurting you in an enclosed garage isn’t a problem outside. Which is some what true. Carbon monoxide bonding to the hemoglobin in your blood cells is what kills you in the first scenario. The CO2 levels take a lot longer to rise to dangerous levels and there’s plenty of warning to leave the area before fixation becomes an issue and it’s still not the same issue as climate change.
In reality, it’s propaganda. But if you want to argue with people, don’t use the enclosed space as an example. Batteries can also offgas and quite frankly, I wouldn’t store some of those cheaper EVs in a garage or at least, an attached garage.
I had a friend who went down the right wing rabbit hole and he said that the earth is so big we can’t affect the environment that way.
Blew my mind. Trump supporter now as well.
There’s actually a lot of people for whom this type of thinking is ingrained.
I live a somewhat isolated region in Australia and the sea food here is plentiful. We also rigidly apply very strict laws about the type, size, and number of fish you can kill.
I’ve seen first hand the impact over-fishing can have, with some areas now completely devoid of varieties which were prevalent a few decades ago.
It just doesn’t compute to people who are not from this area. They see the laws as a draconian revenue raising measure. There’s no concept that just a few people can decimate a population.
That’s the paradox… When shit works well, ignorant people think we don’t need the shit that makes everything work well anymore.
Usually people like this start with the conclusion, and then search only for things that reinforce that (and ignore anything that conflicts). So, chances are, he wanted to believe that for whatever reason, so he sought reinforcement for that stupid idea. And found it.
Look, I hate ICE cars too.
But this is whack. Putting a running car into a garage is dangerous because the free oxygen becomes depleted and it starts producing carbon monoxide as a result. This isn’t a problem when you’re driving around outdoors.
The reason the a running ICE car in a garage is dangerous is completely different than why ICE cars are bad for the environment.
Like, shit on ICE cars all you want, I’ll support it. But this is embarrassingly bad science. This is the kind of shit I’d have made up in grade 7 trying to an edgy eco-aware statement.
it’s not that people think cars aren’t contributing, it’s that things like factories are so much of a bigger deal that the cars won’t make a difference.
Are they? Pretty sure transportation is a big part of CO2 emissions.
they do produce a lot of CO2, but other things produce so much more (and can be fixed without the cost being passed entirely onto regular people who can’t afford the car they already have) that cars are a non-issue. yes the number is big, but other numbers like factories are bigger by so much that the cars’ number is actually really small in comparison. it isn’t your fault, it is the fault of things like factories. you are being manipulated by rich people who don’t want to spend an extra 13 cents per item to save the planet, so they convince you to focus on your car instead of their factories.
Okay here’s the data on it. Factories are definitely guilty as fuck, but cars aren’t guilt-free, which is why many parts of the world need to get on with public transport. I can focus on more than one thing, including how car transportation is definitely not a non-problem.
So would you agree no car sold beyond 2030 in the U.S. should weight over 5 thousand pounds or be taxed and registered (another form of tax) at a high rate the pushes users towards lighter emissions?
I would not support weight limits or size limits, simply because per-passenger mileage increases as vehicle occupancy increases. Per-ton mileage increases in cargo vehicles as load increases.
I would not support the idea that only a transit authority can have a bus.
That being said, I do support reducing emissions by transitioning to EV infrastructure, and suppressing fossil fuels in the ground transportation industry.
With passangers it wouldn’t matter for weight. The car would register, and people would ride. That’s all that would matter. We can make an 8 person car under that weight limit with great safety ratings. We just were driving away from those requirements.
How about a 15-passenger van? Can you make a 15-passenger van under 5000lbs?
That van will be around 7200lbs minimum, but will have higher passenger-mile economy than anything under 5000lbs. Why are we banning the more efficient vehicle?
Again, I reject the arbitrary restrictions on vehicle size and weight.
Instead, we push EV infrastructure.
We can mandate manufacturers produce an EV equivalent (with minimum 100 mile range) for every gasoline vehicle they offer. We can mandate the 100-mile EV variant has the same (or lower) price as the lowest-priced ICE equivalent. If they want to jack up the price of EVs, they have to either increase the range, or drop the ICE equivalent.
We can require gas stations to install and maintain one EV charging point for every gasoline or diesel pump on site.
We can restore and expand government rebates for EV purchases, charging point installation, renewable energy generation and storage, etc.
No that van would be classified as commercial or public access. But it should be taxed to no hell of it wasn’t company owned. Companies will have to jump through expensive processes as well. (Otherwise we simply won’t change anything)
Note < this comment was edited to fix spelling and replace a few words. Not trying to change the premise on anyone
If you go that route, I’ll setup shop in a car dealership, helping people file the paperwork needed to register an LLC and justify their car purchase.
Vehicle size and weight is a red herring. It’s a distraction from EV adoption, which is far more important to reducing emissions. Any political capital we might spend on limiting vehicle sizes would achieve greater results on promoting EV adoption. I’d rather see the industry produce a giant EV truck called “The Compensator 9000” than to put arbitrary restrictions on size and weight.
The reason people drive so far to work… Is because of cars. We are compensating for them simply by having them around. The compensator 9000 just means further distances to work, grocery stores, etc. wider roads, more gaps between businesses and continuous outward growth while creating an environment where it makes it more and more impossible to simply walk anywhere…
I want to get a sandwich, shouldn’t be situation that requires we drive 15 miles. Granted yes we reduced the number of times we do it by stashing ingredients in the fridge, but the point still stands.
A lot of people dread having to walk to the mailbox… And dread having to mow the lawn between them and the mailbox. The number of people paying someone else to mow the lawn between there front door and the mailbox is staggering. Yet that is step on of them going on a trip.
The sky is fucking gigantic and the thought that we could ever have a big enough impact, even collectively, to make the slightest shift in something so massive feels dead wrong, even when you know it’s right.
Actually going to delete this. To pointed of a question I believe. Just annoyed by people not giving a shit about our grandchildren
Odd for your username, but do what you believe is right.
What do you think I should do.
a. Delete
b. Let it stay
c. Party for 2025
d. Dance around a bit to work out my core, one could always use a bit more core strength
Gotta get those abs, baby!
I just want to get to the point where I can say 'i work out" like this song haha
D while C and then B
If you wind up with a video in your dm’s it’s not my fault, honestly… because I haven’t a clue how to upload a video. Haha
e. Tell me what an ICE vehicle is
Internal combustion engine.
Ooh ok. Thanks.
Well ice ice baby much like drill baby drill refers to vehicles running off fossil fuels, mainly known to be gasoline refined from crude oil
Hopefully my joke didn’t cause confusion.
Basically. Start a gas powered car in closed area… You will die before morning, electric, you will be confused why there was no exhaust port because we have been programmed for so long that cars emit acceptable loss
All good, just never heard those vehicles referred to like that. My first new thing of 2025, I guess!
b then d and c
So now I must inquire what a Mac is… five could be troublesome or diabetes if they have the Mc Mac trope
