Buying a new car is not better than keeping an old one

Without electric VEHICLES* climate change cannot be addressed. Expensive new electric cars are not the solution. Electric public transport, retrofitting old vehicles, making current vehicles last, and people adopting two wheeled electric solutions will be the solution. Cars like Teslas are awful and buying one shouldn't be considered making a difference.

The things you mentioned should absolutely happen in the areas that have the population density to make these solutions practical. Let's also remember that this is not 100% of the planet.
- This is 100% of the planet. What about living rurally stops you from maintaining or retrofitting current vehicles, or going two wheels?
  
  What about living rurally stops you from
  maintaining or retrofitting current vehicles
  Cost, accessibility, and vehicles don't last forever.
  or going two wheels?
  If you're talking about motorcycles, they are basically death traps and many people aren't comfortable on them. If you're talking about bicycles, they are basically death traps and people don't always want to exercise to get where they're going and rural areas are by definition sparsely populated, bikes would take forever Neither of those offers options for families or bad weather.
  Like it or not personal vehicles are a necessity in most of America.
  
  Bikes are ok outside streets, but pretty dangerous on streets.
  Motorcycles are way faster bikes that are mainly for streets. Truly death traps
  
  So if rural people aren't maintaining their vehicles, what are they doing? Obviously they are and you're being silly. There are cars that when correctly maintained, have kept running for the entire history that cars have existed.
  Great to see you have such an informed take on two wheeled vehicles. The issue with two wheels isn't engineering, it's public perception, fuelled by dumb takes like yours. Obviously we have to change what people perceive as viable personal transport.
  The solution of two wheels in the EV space is quickly obvious. Most car journeys are a single person. You don't need a 2 ton box to carry one person places.
  When solving for the limiting factors of electric drive systems, you need to minimize resistances. Two wheels is less rolling resistance, less weight, and adding an enclosure, less air resistance. Put the rider in a recumbent riding position and place the batteries underneath, you have an incredibly stable, low friction, light, personal EV that maximizes your effective range while being simple, cheap, accessible. The enclosed nature makes the rider as safe as they would be in a car in case of an accident, and you're as weather resistant too. Obviously families, workmen etc still need 4 wheels but as I said most car journeys are for a single person. These could be made for two people also.
  
  So if rural people aren't maintaining their vehicles, what are they doing? Obviously they are and you're being silly.
  So what the fuck are you talking about then? Either you're implying that existing vehicle lifespans should be extended beyond what normal care allows through "maintenance" or it's irrelevant to the conversation.
  I won't bother quoting the rest of your comment but the same question applies. What are you even talking about? Nobody said anything about engineering hurdles or the difficulties of an electric two wheeled vehicle.
  You got so caught up in being "right" you forgot what the discussion was even about. I'll break it down.
  Two. Wheeled. Solutions. Are. Not. Universally. Practical. Quit trying to assume you know what's best for everyone.
  
  Jesus, I'm not saying they're universally practical, that's why I have given a range of options. You're missing the point that people buy new cars while their old car is perfectly good.
  Most cars will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with standard maintenance, which people neglect to do. Retrofitting electric solutions to existing cars would further extend their life, as the low work-life components are all in the drivetrain.
  I outlined what a two wheeled electric solution should be because you dismissed the entire sector as death traps, which is wrong and counter productive. A perception we need to overcome when the only economic option for a lot of people's personal transport will be motorcycles of some description.
  If there was a 25% adoption of motorcycles to commute with, traffic congestion could effectively disappear.
  I do know what's best for everyone. Its stopping climate change, removing our reliance of fossil fuels and switching to more economical forms of transport. Rural people do not need to ferry themselves around in a 2 tonne Ford F-150 doing 10 mpg with a v8 to run basic errands. Because you obviously missed it; OBVIOUSLY FAMILIES AND WORKMEN NEED MORE CARRYING CAPACITY. For those situations an electric van or low cc petrol engine could be used. However 60%+ car journeys are single occupancy errands and commuting. There is no excuse for not being on two wheels in that case.
  
  You're missing the point that people buy new cars while their old car is perfectly good.
  Edit: I see now that you are saying people buy new cars to replace a perfectly good old car. This is true, and also not your decision to make for other people. I also don't see what that has to do with anything beyond new vehicle production, which EVs don't fix.
  Most cars will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with standard maintenance, which people neglect to do.
  Irrelevant.
  Retrofitting electric solutions to existing cars would further extend their life, as the low work-life components are all in the drivetrain.
  Do you know where to get this work done in your town? I don't. I live in an enormous metropolitan area so the service is almost certainly available, but I wouldn't even know how to start looking. And what about people in rural areas? You think it's available there? Or if it is where it can be found? This would be the accessibility I was talking about earlier.
  I outlined what a two wheeled electric solution should be because you dismissed the entire sector as death traps, which is wrong and counter productive.
  A motorcyclist is 25-30 times more likely to die in a fatal accident. So you're just wrong about that. And unless you're an automotive designer your two wheeled electric solutions are just pipe-dreams until someone actually commercializes one.
  I feel like I'm coming off as being against EV when I am very much not. In fact I wish that mass transit was actually a practical solution everywhere, but it isn't. I wish that we could just leave combustions in the past but we aren't quite there yet.
  I know for certain that you're coming off as an asshole who thinks he has all the answers but clearly you don't because I don't see your two-wheeled ev wonder car being advertised.
  When people like you show up and start saying things like "the solution to climate change is for everyone else to ride bikes and use technology that doesn't exist yet", the only thing you're really doing is making the rest of the movement look more radical than it has to.
  
  I never said I had all the answers I'm saying these are the areas people should be putting in effort to future proofing transportation. Just because you're ignorant of things doesn't make them impossible Sci Fi pipe dreams. Electrom, Velomobiles, Transition One. 3 examples of MANY of commercial enterprises successfully making the technology I'm discussing. We've had electric recumbent two wheel transport since at least the 90s. The solution is there; awareness and understanding is what is lacking, as I've said it's an issue of perception and PR with the general public, as you're elegantly displaying.
  People's buying habits aren't my decision but they are all of our problems. The reason why it's relevant is because a Tesla is an incredibly environmentally damaging product to produce, and Smaller, lighter EVs that make more use of less batteries are a more environmentally efficient prospect.
  People not maintaining what they have is not irrelevant it's one facet of this massive issue of waste and environmental damage in transport. Maximizing the work-life of their vehicles is one of many things people can be doing to help environmentally.
  A motorcyclist is more likely to die on a traditional motorcycle, which while better than cars environmentally, isn't what I'm talking about, as I've said, these solutions are enclosed the crash protection is vastly superior than a normal motorcycle; two wheel transport aren't just motorcycles. I would also say the chances of a car driver dying in a fatal accident are incredibly low, and even 25 times that is still incredibly unlikely. And also the cause of motorcycle accidents are in a massive majority the fault of car drivers. Less cars, less accidents, less pollution, less traffic.
  Climate Change is a serious issue. We genuinely are fucked if we don't make massive changes. The fact you think what I'm suggesting is radical is wild. Sadly we have all of these solutions that people could be adopting, thereby limiting ICE usage massively, but no one cares. We're fucked.
  
  I went two wheels! My moto gets excellent fuel economy without the use of exotic metals like a hybrid or EV does. It was also way cheaper to buy than a car. Sometimes my parking is less of an impact, too because I can park in the landscaping islands in some parking lots if it's busy and I'm sneaky about it. One must be a very diligent and defensive rider and wear protective gear when riding. Having a different perspective about traffic flow helps with safety as well. Going slow for a bit after a stop while everyone else rushes ahead is a great way to keep traffic away from oneself. Also, having all the lights has helped everyone see me. No more cars pulling in front anymore. Don't be an arse, be extremely vigilant, and respect the machine. These rules have helped me so far. Many motorcyclists don't do that and have really skewed statistics and perception, I think.
  
  2 things here.
  First, motorcycles have a better fuel economy than cars, but they also produce more harmful emissions than a car because their smaller engines burn fuel less completely/efficiently, and there are fewer (if any) laws mandating tailpipe emissions standards for motorcycles.
  Second, with all the entitled morons on the road who consider a few seconds of inconvenience more important than your life, who can't put down their fucking cell phone, check their mirrors or use their turn signals, I consider it only a matter of time until a car accident happens. Motorcyclists lose every time they tangle with cars, and car drivers are a lot less aware of motorcycles, and more likely to get in an accident with them than other cars. Good luck.
Yeah the key is for people to understand that incremental improvements are the way.
I'm in no way saying we should run out and buy shit. I'm saying that shitting on electric cars is counterproductive
Fun fact: In the UK there is no ability (DVSA/DVLA[requirement to legally taxing/insuring a car]) for legally driving a converted ICE to Electric car. This is due to the MOT test having a test for CO2 and if the test returns null or "out of bounds" the car fails it's MOT and therefore is illegal to drive.
Such a wonderful country.
- Yep, it's a general theme with governments and companies not enabling the repairability and freedom we need for EVs. Just one look at the repairability of a Tesla should show people it's not the answer, yet. There is still hope on the continent with companies like Transition One in France forging ahead with conversion kits. Hopefully the UK follows suit once these are viable products being sold. I would recommend a letter to your MP if you haven't already I suppose.
  
  FWIW; this is not a practical problem, it's a political one. Conversion kits don't get a pass/by from the law, they are subject to the same laws just like home brew conversions.

Afraid you're wasting your breath. OP appears to be a member of fuckcars, which feels like it's coming from a good place but is mostly just short-sighted and infantile. I live in DFW and not having a vehicle is not an option, but these folk would classify me alongside the devil because I dare to use a combustion engine. If I could realistically use an electric vehicle I would.

I'm sure that in OPs mind everyone should just abandon their cars tomorrow and that will immediately solve all of the climate change as if private vehicle owners are the ones actually causing the problem in the first place.

Fuckcars is made up of people with little life experience who think they have all the answers, and people who fetishize city living and think it's normal or healthy for humans to live at a density like NYC (and fuck you if you disagree). They're oversimplifying to the point of meaninglessness, and handwaving away the problems.
- I've lived in places far less dense than NYC with robust public transit far better than NYC. Owning a car would've just been a burden 99% of the time. And it was certainly healthier than living in car-centric suburbs, both physically and mentally. Not everywhere is America where we can't fathom anything but cars and McMansions
  
  What's far less dense with better public transit than NYC? The most popular example of no-car city design I see is Amsterdam, which is 1/2 the density of NYC, but still 15x the density of where I'm from (not even close to a rural area). I think robust public transit at 1/15th the density of Amsterdam and 1/30th the density of NYC is a pipe dream.
  In these lower density places, maybe you luck out and you're walking or biking distance to work. If you change jobs do you have to move instead of hopping in the car and commuting a bit further? In circumstances like these, transit can't possibly serve every origin and destination efficiently, and personal vehicles can offer efficient point to point.
  
  I lived in Heidelberg, with a population density of 1500/km², so about 4x the density of your place. There was a robust bus system, tram system, commuter train system, and then of course Germany's regional and intercity train systems. There were also plenty of public rental bikes and bike lanes. I could go anywhere in or around the city quite easily and quickly, as well as any other city in Germany (or the EU, for that matter). Trams had a frequency of about 10-15 minutes, rapid buses about the same, the bus stops by my house had a frequency of 20 minutes. There were suburbs up the river which also had phenomenal bus and commuter train access directly to the city and elsewhere.
  The American town I live in now has a density of 900/km² and about ⅓ the population of Heidelberg. We just got our first bus last year and it runs in a loop once per hour. The train station was demolished decades ago.
  I also lived in Sejong, with a population density of about 750/km², so about 2x your place. In addition to dedicated bike lanes on every major road and very large sidewalks, there was a extensive bus system and a very efficient rapid bus loop system as well. The rapid buses had a frequency of about 10 minutes and could take me to the other side of the city in about 15 minutes. The smaller buses also had a high frequency of about 15-20 minutes, depending on the bus. The train station in sejong is still under construction but it was a ~30 min rapid bus line ride to either of two train stations in neighboring cities to take me anywhere in South Korea.
  Some of the other Korean cities with densities somewhat higher than Sejong, like Daejon which is about 2700/km², have really incredible subway/metro systems too.
  In Germany, the nearby cities of Stuttgart (3000/km²) and Frankfurt (3100/km²) also had great subway systems, in addition to the buses, trams, bike lanes, and commuter trains.
  The commuter and regional trains serve also the purpose of connecting much smaller towns and villages, which are far less dense but still served by good bus systems and such.
  I do agree that America has sprawled so much as to make the transition more difficult. But great density-appropriate public transit is possible at low density.
You should keep an eye on Edison Motors, they're developing practical hybrid heavy vocational trucks & have a side project for a pickup retrofit kit that I'm waiting for.

This post is fucking idiotic. Without electric cars climate change CANNOT be addressed

I mean, that's not true at all..... America would just have to build actual public transportation. We just attach a feeling of personal freedom to cars that's so prevalent that Americans cannot fathom the idea of expanding public transportation.

And yes, of course public transportation isn't going to reach everyone in rural America. However, if a significant portion of the urban/suburban population switched to electric rail, it would curb climate change faster than everyone slowly replacing their personal vehicles.

I'm just being realistic. I actually hate cars but I'm under no illusion they'll go away any time soon. We have to make progress in many forms and car reduction is one of them
- Crawl -> Walk -> Run.
  We're in the crawl phase. Let's leverage less-harmful technology to reduce our impact on the environment while simultaneously investing in ideal solutions like public transportion and walkable/bikeable cities. It will be a slow transition and we need to embrace every step in the process.
  
  Which is what I'm saying.
  
  Yes, I was agreeing with you. That was the point of my reply.
- I'm just being realistic. I actually hate cars but I'm under no illusion they'll go away any time soon.
  I honestly don't know which idea is honestly more "realistic". I think either halting climate change in time is probably a long shot, but which is actually feasible......
  The largest problem with electric cars is that we more than likely aren't going to be able to force people to stop driving with gas. Which means we will still be reliant on a fossil fuel industry, and when there is demand, there will be supply. Unless we quickly curb demand to a significant degree, fossil fuel companies will do anything they can to keep those cars on the road.
  The second largest problem with EVs is that they have a much larger production carbon footprint than traditional vehicles. This gap in the carbon footprint is closed within a year or two of driving, which normally would be fine..... but with the time constraints of climate change, that initial production carbon is a pretty big hurdle.
  And I agree that we have to make progress in several forms, but some of those forms are just going to be a fossil fuel company's attempt to preserve their profit model disguised with a green sashe.
This is questionably accurate.
It's not just a matter of building the rail, it's also redesigning the urban sprawl. That's a LOT of new construction of buildings needed, too. That comes with new utilities, etc. And cement is a huge carbon source.
There is a time scale over which that's more carbon efficient than replacing all personal vehicles and their replacement lifecycles, but it's very unclear if that's actually faster with regards to climate change timelines.

Honestly, cars are polluters, but they're not our big polluters.

There are way more effective ways to address climate change.

Cars are probably one of the more effective things that are accessible to single users.

Oh I’m reasonably confident if we got rid of cars that’d be a good thing for the climate.

If there was plentiful mass transit the need for electric cars is reduced greatly.

Cars are terrible forms of mass transport and societies need to deprioritise them in city planning.

The idea that we can just keep doing what we’re doing and replace all ICEs with BEVs and it’ll solve climate change is not really the full story.

Now if you’ll excuse me I’ll go back to my mouth breathing.

Look into going vegan, it's an even more impactful step that someone can personally make.
- Look into going vegan, it’s an even more impactful step
  going vegan has no impact at all
  
  Do you have any sources for that? Literally have no idea how you come to that conclusion
  
  can you tell me what year you went vegan? feel free to point to it on this chart.
  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-meat-production
  
  I'm not sure what you think that proves. World population has grown and people eat more animal products than ever, which is part of my argument that we should be cutting back on animal products and eat more humane and more efficient food sources.
  Thanks for linking to proof of my point.
  
  whatever your excuse is, being vegan hasn't helped any animals
  
  How do you figure? Genuinely don't know how you could come to that conclusion.
  Also, why are you arguing so aggressively about me being vegan? Sounds like denial or guilt for killing animals that you don't have to tbh
  
  How do you figure?
  no fewer animals are killed than before you became vegan.
  
  If everyone went vegan, do you think the number of animals killed would stay the same? This is like a blend of "voting doesn't matter" and "abolitionists have no effect since the slave population has grown every year."
  
  I don't care if you are vegan, but don't lie to yourself or others about whether it makes any difference