I mean, yes, there is an (often unacknowledged) ecological footprint for producing electric cars. They don't just grow from magic trees planted by fairies. But are they net better for the environment, or worse? And if better, then, eco-sabotage people, which side are you on?
I hate hearing this argument. Nearly all electricity in the world is a blend of sources. Texas, a famously oil and gas state, has the highest amount of renewable energy in America.
This is being worked on in parallel. If we wait until we have clean energy everywhere it'll take another 20-30 years to migrate vehicles away from gasoline.
Lastly, a single massive oil/gas/coal/etc power plant is more efficient than millions of little generators.
Assuming the charge capacity and transmission lines were in place:
Which is easier? Converting 500,000 gasoline cars to solar/wind power, or migrating the power grid off coal/NG and into the expanding wind/solar sources?
My point is that all these people who ever say "driving EVs powered by a coal plant" completely miss the point that swapping to EV is part of the transition, not the final step.
Edit: sounds like I'm probably just wrong and spreading misinfo here, nvm
The irony here is that Germany's "green" party shut down all their nuclear powerplants and replaced them with natural gas from...drumroll...Russia, and can now only support their industry with lignite (cough, coal) which is horrible for the environment.
There are strong arguments that the greens were manipulated by FSB, for so perfectly did they sabotage their own economy and industrial base as the new Russian imperalist period has evolved.
The Greens didn't shut down the NPPs, the CDU/CSU/FDP government under Merkel did after Fukishima, screwing over the previously well done plan from the SPD/Green government.
And no, NPPs were not replaced with gas, Germany never really burned gas for electricity. They were replaced, over time since nobody shut them down over night, by a mix of renewables (mainly solar and wind) and coal (bad enough, but at a cobstabt decline regardless).
Fun fact: It was the Greens that kept the German NPPs running way beyond the plqn, as long as safely possible with the available fuel, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Everybody is shutting down plants all the time. Because guess what, those power plants have a service life, an economical and a technical one. When one is reached, the plant gets shut down. Whomever is at the helms of goverment doesn't matter, capitalism takes care of this.
More important is who set whick policy. The SPD / Green goverment defined a pretty well thought out nuclear exit strategy, one the industry supported. And then the new CDU/CSU/FDP government nixed that policy, only to hastely introduce a a shitty versiom of the previous exit after Fukushima. Under which government a plant then get shut down isn't relevant.
By the same logic, one could make the Greens the most pro-nuclear party there is, because a Green minister extended the life time of the German NPPs as much as possible. Because the Green absolutely did that, too.
I don't think Stade was past its service life. It was only around for 30 years. Obrigheim which they shut down was far older. Do you have any evidence that Stade was actually past its service life?
You mentioning the other parties is completely irrelevant since I am not saying the other parties did not also shut down nuclear, only that SPD/Greens did.
> and called Tesla owner Elon Musk a "technofascist" whose "green capitalism" is "a totalitarian technological attack on society."
This seems insane to me. Is there any justification for this whatsoever? It seems like unhinged, childish, extremist thinking. I always want to find the deeper meaning behind people's actions but here all I see is fear of the unknown. Even if one didn't agree with climate change, why is making cars a bad thing?
They do agree with climate change, these radical leftists are just very very very very anti-capitalistic, and because of that big companies are evil and mining lithium is evil and cars are evil, and Tesla is uniquely evil and anti-union, and individual motorized mobility should be forbidden. Trains and buses should be the solution for low emission future.
In fact it is more insane than the link reported. They claimed it as a „gift for international women day“ and the destruction of the Gigafactory would be a feminist win against „The Patriarchy“ (which is personified by capitalistic technofascist Daddy Elon.)
Well they're (presumably) not going after other electric car makers so I imagine the motivation has to be something somewhat unique about Tesla.
I can kinda see the fascism angle with Musk at the center because yeah you have the cult of personality thing, grandiose promises of changing the world, super anti-socialist anti-liberal (meaning political liberalism), techbro libertarian, scapegoating minorities and "wokeness" as the source of societies ailments. I don't think I agree with the analysis but it kinda fits if you squint so I see how they got there.
Green capitalism I assume they just mean as a synonym for greenwashing which I get but also Tesla isn't particularly egregious compared to other auto manufacturers.
And "a totalitarian technological attack" I can only assume is the fact that Tesla is the poster child for a car manufacturer retaining an iron grip on their product even after it's sold plus the 360 always on networked cameras. It's like the far-right conspiracy about "15 minute cities" but they arrived there taking the left path where it's capitalist shadow government controlling the movements of people instead of government.
Edit: From the sibling comments I can't figure out patriarchy. Elmo is publicly pretty anti-feminist and hurting his wallet hurts his political influence maybeee?
Some people just want to bring havoc and mayhem. There's no other motivation. They may babble some nonsense along the way, but that's just it. Nonsense. They want pure chaos. Nothing against that, I don't agree with them, but it's probably important to have a bit of a pure chaos in our lives to remind us what's important.
At least it's the better version of pure chaos than terrorism.
What's the unknown ? We're doing what we've been doing for 100 years, but this time "it's clean we swear"...
Run the maths on what 2b+ vehicles represent, making them electric makes it ever so slightly better but still a far cry from clean. And that's not even touching the topic of mining, processing, recycling, &c.
And yes trains and bikes are more efficent but its not Musk who created the car obcessed society. Within society as it actually is, EV are simply a necessity. On the list of bad actors, Tesla isnt anywhere remotly close to the top, I would argue they are a net positive.
That wasn't a hard line to push. I don't know many people in California that think it's a good idea. In a decade we'll have a train that is moderately faster than driving from Merced to Bakersfield. Seeing as how most people don't want to end in either endpoint, what is the plan once they get there? Rent a car? Not exactly money well spent according to most locals.
That said, the HSR rail funding is largely funded by a proposition. It would not be possible to redirect that money.
>Prop 1A funds cannot be allocated to another project/program e.g. housing,
schools, etc. due to the Bond requirements that voters approved.
Merced is at least 2 hours away from the SF Bay Area or Sacramento. Bakersfield is 2-3 hours away from LA. Not many people bike 100 miles, and a bus would be even slower travel times. These are not useful endpoints. There isn't anything better between them. California is 50% larger than Italy with 2/3 the population. It's just not a dense place.
Also, central valley is really really hot, at least by European standards. I've been in both SF and Italy during the winter, and I can imagine cycling Italy[0], but not CA, and not even if I could be sure the drivers and roads were safe (and in CA neither seemed that good, though I have no experience of Italian drivers as that trip was on public transport, which was fine).
And sometimes CA is also a bit on-fire. I was diverted by this, and even in a car that meant an extra night camping[1] though I can't remember at this point if that was because there weren't enough towns with motels, or we just couldn't find them due to no phone signal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Fire
[0] the flat bits at least, I'm not fit enough/trained for the hills; but of course, that also describes most of CA that isn't central valley…
[1] camping, in a forest that's on fire, and hoping that I was far enough away from the fire. I was, but I still have no sense of scale for the place.
Having a long term strategy for public transport makes a lot of sense, and having a backbone line to build that on, makes a lot of sense as well. Evaluation any city-to-city part doesn't really make sense.
California should have rail system that can compete with Germany or France and a high speed mainline is clearly part of that.
Part of the problem with the US is that there is very little long term unified planning on any level.
I'd agree that it would be a good thing. That's probably why it passed a statewide vote in 2008. What has actually come out as a result would have a very difficult time passing again today. The state's mismanagement of this has torched the trust.
2b vehicles can be solar+battery powered electric vehicles with improvements in tire technology. Why don't you "run the maths" on what actually happens when you disrupt EV production. Spoiler, less EV's, more ICE's, more emissions. Job well done!
Oh my.. "GigaFactory rapes the Earth, employs slave workers, Tesla's are surveillance tanks on wheels, Elon Musk is $&#^!" etc etc.
I suppose these people have a better plan to avoid climate catastrophe, one that doesn't involve lithium mining, huge battery/EV factories etc, and is somewhat compatible with most other people's livelyhoods? A better plan that can be deployed at scale, yesterday?
Because if not, Tesla's GigaFactories are among the best options in our toolbox. (not to mention: this one built with support from democratic elected government).
This framing is a concession to people who are terrorists. Many people who are optimistically working towards a better future (and here I mean broadly almost anyone) are not arguing for "infinite growth in closed systems." Everyone is and has been trying to optimize things as well as it is in their capability to improve the situation.
In the past, the same group that claims responsibility for this attack,
conducted arson attacks on the public transport infrastructure accusing the train company of collaborating with the military-industrial complex or some similar farfetched excuse.
It seems to me like they just like to start fires and destroy things to cause chaos (under the pretense that there is a political justification for it).
There's a VW factory making gas vehicles pretty close to Berlin. I sorta understand where they're coming from (Tesla emits ~33 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year, and is significantly less efficient than bikes, public transport, or even some motorized vehicles), but this adventurism is at best having little impact, and they didn't really choose their target well.
There's a lot of leftist disruption going on out there but it seems like the politicians only complain of a nonexistent "far right" bogeymen. Seems like endless destruction and defacement of private and public property and rioting, infrastructure sabotage, and disruption to free travel. And all of it justified through a delusional idea of justice or something.
That's just speech. There were no actions. Getting together to talk about political action if they were to get democratically elected is a lot different than blowing things up, interfering with travel, and destroying actual property, etc.
Do you sincerely not understand that planning to break the law is itself illegal? That is literally where we get the meaning of the word "conspire" — to make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act, from latin "to breathe along with".
Likewise, second link was about someone getting arrested.
And now I'm remembering Sideshow Bob: "Imprisoned for a crime I didn't even commit. Attempted murder. Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry, do they?" — that's what you sound like.
Which laws were broke? A political group had a conversation regarding policy and most attendees agreed it wouldn’t be possible with acquiring more democratically elected power. And even then it may not be viable. There’s nothing wrong with that.
The other link is a guy doing Nazi things which is fine in most places although Germany has state controlled speech so it was problematic. But it’s just speech.
Investigations are ongoing, one of the formal accusations is "high treason". You shouldn't expect them to be hasty with this, look how long the investigations of Trump are taking.
The reason I value freedom of speech, the reason it's even important to protect it, is that there's no "just" about it. All we are as a milieu, personally and globally, is from communication, from sharing ideas rather than reinventing things from scratch ourselves.
Martin Luther and Martin Luther King changed the world for the better with "'just' speech" — but it was also "'just' speech" that convinced people to give actual literal Hitler and Pol Pot any power, or even the means to spread their merely human voices more widely and control an entire nation.
There's no "just" when it comes to speech. It's what sets us apart from most other animals. It's our superpower… well, that and being able to throw things both hard and accurately. Our two main superpowers…
> Martin Luther and Martin Luther King changed the world for the better with "'just' speech
That’s your opinion. Hitler and Pol Pot had tons of speech against them which ended them. Point being the truth wins in the end. You can’t regulate it because no one knows jack.
I have to disagree. The waste majority of attacks on people are done by the far right. Its not even close. Property might be closer, but far right still likely ahead. So yes, by any rational metric 'far right' are the actual bogeymen.
Id like to know who is this genius who invented the concept of non binding referendum, like lets spend some public money to have an election, but if we don’t like the results then let’s do like nothing happened, if a referendum was not enough to let those in charge understand that the population was against this expansion, then sabotage is the only viable option, regardless of politicians trying to let them pass for some anarchists
Because democracy needs to be accounted for, despite the political servants of capital
Brexit was a theoretically non-binding referendum, the politicians proceeded with it for much the reasons you give — but it turned out that even amongst the MPs, a majority opposed each and every specific and detailed form that they could suggest for what it might look like in practice, including both "cancelling it" and "ask the people in another referendum": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_votes_on_Brexit#...
That kind of deadlock is a good reason for them to be non-binding. In this case Westminster "solved" it by replacing the Prime Minister with a pathological liar who convinced enough people that everything was good for long enough to get something done before his lies finally caught up with him, which isn't really good governance.
That was just inexperience with referendums from UK politics, if I remember correctly it was their first one in their history, right?
The referendum was very generic, while in this case it was very specific, do you want the gigafactory to extend at the cost of the forest?
Also in Italy when we do referendums they have multiple questions that divide the bigger issue in smaller problems, so that overall you can build the solution quite "representatively"
What the Brexit referendum should have been is what was voted on parliamentary votes afterwards on how to implement it
64 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadI mean, yes, there is an (often unacknowledged) ecological footprint for producing electric cars. They don't just grow from magic trees planted by fairies. But are they net better for the environment, or worse? And if better, then, eco-sabotage people, which side are you on?
This is being worked on in parallel. If we wait until we have clean energy everywhere it'll take another 20-30 years to migrate vehicles away from gasoline.
Lastly, a single massive oil/gas/coal/etc power plant is more efficient than millions of little generators.
Which is easier? Converting 500,000 gasoline cars to solar/wind power, or migrating the power grid off coal/NG and into the expanding wind/solar sources?
The irony here is that Germany's "green" party shut down all their nuclear powerplants and replaced them with natural gas from...drumroll...Russia, and can now only support their industry with lignite (cough, coal) which is horrible for the environment.
There are strong arguments that the greens were manipulated by FSB, for so perfectly did they sabotage their own economy and industrial base as the new Russian imperalist period has evolved.
The Greens didn't shut down the NPPs, the CDU/CSU/FDP government under Merkel did after Fukishima, screwing over the previously well done plan from the SPD/Green government.
And no, NPPs were not replaced with gas, Germany never really burned gas for electricity. They were replaced, over time since nobody shut them down over night, by a mix of renewables (mainly solar and wind) and coal (bad enough, but at a cobstabt decline regardless).
Fun fact: It was the Greens that kept the German NPPs running way beyond the plqn, as long as safely possible with the available fuel, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
As far as I know this was not "all" that the person you were responding to said, but they absolutely did shut down nuclear plants.
More important is who set whick policy. The SPD / Green goverment defined a pretty well thought out nuclear exit strategy, one the industry supported. And then the new CDU/CSU/FDP government nixed that policy, only to hastely introduce a a shitty versiom of the previous exit after Fukushima. Under which government a plant then get shut down isn't relevant.
By the same logic, one could make the Greens the most pro-nuclear party there is, because a Green minister extended the life time of the German NPPs as much as possible. Because the Green absolutely did that, too.
You mentioning the other parties is completely irrelevant since I am not saying the other parties did not also shut down nuclear, only that SPD/Greens did.
As I said, either service life or economic operational limits.
This seems insane to me. Is there any justification for this whatsoever? It seems like unhinged, childish, extremist thinking. I always want to find the deeper meaning behind people's actions but here all I see is fear of the unknown. Even if one didn't agree with climate change, why is making cars a bad thing?
In fact it is more insane than the link reported. They claimed it as a „gift for international women day“ and the destruction of the Gigafactory would be a feminist win against „The Patriarchy“ (which is personified by capitalistic technofascist Daddy Elon.)
I can kinda see the fascism angle with Musk at the center because yeah you have the cult of personality thing, grandiose promises of changing the world, super anti-socialist anti-liberal (meaning political liberalism), techbro libertarian, scapegoating minorities and "wokeness" as the source of societies ailments. I don't think I agree with the analysis but it kinda fits if you squint so I see how they got there.
Green capitalism I assume they just mean as a synonym for greenwashing which I get but also Tesla isn't particularly egregious compared to other auto manufacturers.
And "a totalitarian technological attack" I can only assume is the fact that Tesla is the poster child for a car manufacturer retaining an iron grip on their product even after it's sold plus the 360 always on networked cameras. It's like the far-right conspiracy about "15 minute cities" but they arrived there taking the left path where it's capitalist shadow government controlling the movements of people instead of government.
Edit: From the sibling comments I can't figure out patriarchy. Elmo is publicly pretty anti-feminist and hurting his wallet hurts his political influence maybeee?
And just by the way, the eco leftists also oppose expantion of the subway in Berlin. So their idea of a solution is incredibly dumb too.
At least it's the better version of pure chaos than terrorism.
What's the unknown ? We're doing what we've been doing for 100 years, but this time "it's clean we swear"...
Run the maths on what 2b+ vehicles represent, making them electric makes it ever so slightly better but still a far cry from clean. And that's not even touching the topic of mining, processing, recycling, &c.
https://eurometaux.eu/media/20ad5yza/2022-policymaker-summar...
And yes trains and bikes are more efficent but its not Musk who created the car obcessed society. Within society as it actually is, EV are simply a necessity. On the list of bad actors, Tesla isnt anywhere remotly close to the top, I would argue they are a net positive.
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article26445107...
That said, the HSR rail funding is largely funded by a proposition. It would not be possible to redirect that money.
>Prop 1A funds cannot be allocated to another project/program e.g. housing, schools, etc. due to the Bond requirements that voters approved.
https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Prop_1A_High-L...
About the other stuff, I am Italian so not sure how it works there, I only have newspapers to somehow see what is going on
And sometimes CA is also a bit on-fire. I was diverted by this, and even in a car that meant an extra night camping[1] though I can't remember at this point if that was because there weren't enough towns with motels, or we just couldn't find them due to no phone signal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Fire
[0] the flat bits at least, I'm not fit enough/trained for the hills; but of course, that also describes most of CA that isn't central valley…
[1] camping, in a forest that's on fire, and hoping that I was far enough away from the fire. I was, but I still have no sense of scale for the place.
California should have rail system that can compete with Germany or France and a high speed mainline is clearly part of that.
Part of the problem with the US is that there is very little long term unified planning on any level.
I've been there. The other side claims that if you support A you must also support Q, or you are not serious.
Please note: I am not defending the arsonists.
https://kontrapolis.info/12465/
Oh my.. "GigaFactory rapes the Earth, employs slave workers, Tesla's are surveillance tanks on wheels, Elon Musk is $&#^!" etc etc.
I suppose these people have a better plan to avoid climate catastrophe, one that doesn't involve lithium mining, huge battery/EV factories etc, and is somewhat compatible with most other people's livelyhoods? A better plan that can be deployed at scale, yesterday?
Because if not, Tesla's GigaFactories are among the best options in our toolbox. (not to mention: this one built with support from democratic elected government).
In the past, the same group that claims responsibility for this attack, conducted arson attacks on the public transport infrastructure accusing the train company of collaborating with the military-industrial complex or some similar farfetched excuse.
It seems to me like they just like to start fires and destroy things to cause chaos (under the pretense that there is a political justification for it).
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-08/trains-in...
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-05/tests-sho...
- https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/internet-co...
They have in common being energy and tlc networks, unclear reasons for the sabotage and unclear actors.
And there I was thinking they were complaining about things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Potsdam_far-right_meeting
Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Halemba#Investigation_a...
Likewise, second link was about someone getting arrested.
And now I'm remembering Sideshow Bob: "Imprisoned for a crime I didn't even commit. Attempted murder. Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry, do they?" — that's what you sound like.
The other link is a guy doing Nazi things which is fine in most places although Germany has state controlled speech so it was problematic. But it’s just speech.
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/rechtes-treffen-in-pots...
> But it’s just speech.
The reason I value freedom of speech, the reason it's even important to protect it, is that there's no "just" about it. All we are as a milieu, personally and globally, is from communication, from sharing ideas rather than reinventing things from scratch ourselves.
Martin Luther and Martin Luther King changed the world for the better with "'just' speech" — but it was also "'just' speech" that convinced people to give actual literal Hitler and Pol Pot any power, or even the means to spread their merely human voices more widely and control an entire nation.
There's no "just" when it comes to speech. It's what sets us apart from most other animals. It's our superpower… well, that and being able to throw things both hard and accurately. Our two main superpowers…
That’s your opinion. Hitler and Pol Pot had tons of speech against them which ended them. Point being the truth wins in the end. You can’t regulate it because no one knows jack.
The specific source was: https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/26/23697746/tesla-climate-po...
Because democracy needs to be accounted for, despite the political servants of capital
That kind of deadlock is a good reason for them to be non-binding. In this case Westminster "solved" it by replacing the Prime Minister with a pathological liar who convinced enough people that everything was good for long enough to get something done before his lies finally caught up with him, which isn't really good governance.
The referendum was very generic, while in this case it was very specific, do you want the gigafactory to extend at the cost of the forest?
Also in Italy when we do referendums they have multiple questions that divide the bigger issue in smaller problems, so that overall you can build the solution quite "representatively"
What the Brexit referendum should have been is what was voted on parliamentary votes afterwards on how to implement it
Third in my lifetime, I also saw the Scottish independence referendum and the "should we replace FPTP voting with something else?" referendum.
There was also a referendum about the predecessor to the EU, a bit before my time.
> > So what are they protesting?
> Lack of attention