Tesla pause German gigafactory construction after environmentalists protest cutting trees

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

but it would eventually close gas car factories

No, it wouldn't... even if all manufacturers decided to go electric tomorrow they'd still use their current factories, they'd just repurpose them.

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

which would need numbers but all factories pollute imo somehow

Yes they do, that's the point - Musk tried to frame this as a positive for the environment but it's not and it couldn't possibly be. Again, it's possible the pros outweigh the cons in this specific instance, but let's not pretend it's good for the environment - there is a nontrivial discussion to be had here and trying to dismiss it by saying that the environment isn't affected is irresponsible.

[RonnieOP]

59 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

So each region needs to work on their transport solutions. From public transport to shared vehicles. We also need to create jobs nearer to peoples homes, and increase the number of people working from home. In just 30 years we have gone from and average 14mile per day commute to 160 miles per day commute. That needs to change. We also need to reduce the number of sub 1 mile journeys we make, which is surprisingly a large percentage of journeys made.

It should not be hard in cities to just use an app to find the nearest available car or other transport. Use it to make your journey then leave it for the next person. Well managed that could easily reduce the number of cars produced each year by a huge amount.

Tough decisions will have to be made. We have all become reliant on cars, currently I have a car, my wife has one as does my daughter. My other daughter will probably get one when she is old enough. I feel guilty about it every day, and rightly so, It needs to change, and we all have to make sacrifices.

 

If you are in a city then yes. theres potential for solutions to where you wont need a car. But not everyone lives in a city.

 

Theres never going to be a time where everyone can work from home or everyone can live in a city.

 

Im all for people in cities to use public transport. But short of having a Jetsons/Dr Who style teleport machine we are never going to get to a point where cars wont be needed.

 

Also this is all under the assumption that we cant further decrease the pollution from making cars. EV cars already take car of the pollution from the actual driving. Yes building them causes pollution but advancements could be made to cut that down without drastically reducing the number of cars on the road.

 

We are a LONG way away from getting to a o carbon production for everything we need.

 

I highly doubt we are going to get to a point where the majority of people dont have cars. At least not in the US. I cant speak for other countries.

[Fnige]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Or the other argument that is so popular on this forum,  "I can find a reason that solution isn't 100% effective therefore it shouldn't be considered".  . 

if you complain about a problem, you should provide a alternative soulution

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 

If you are in a city then yes. theres potential for solutions to where you wont need a car. But not everyone lives in a city.

 

Theres never going to be a time where everyone can work from home or everyone can live in a city.

 

Im all for people in cities to use public transport. But short of having a Jetsons/Dr Who style teleport machine we are never going to get to a point where cars wont be needed.

 

Also this is all under the assumption that we cant further decrease the pollution from making cars. EV cars already take car of the pollution from the actual driving. Yes building them causes pollution but advancements could be made to cut that down without drastically reducing the number of cars on the road.

 

We are a LONG way away from getting to a o carbon production for everything we need.

 

I highly doubt we are going to get to a point where the majority of people dont have cars. At least not in the US. I cant speak for other countries.

Yes, we are a long way off but it does need to happen. The main reason it will not in the short term is the simple fact we are all selfish and stuck I our ways, me included.

 

I have had the joy of using a car that you just use from an app, and it really is an eye opener. When we can summon a car or transport pod wherever we are things will change. That is probably 30-40 years away, but It will come. 

[RonnieOP]

3 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Yes, we are a long way off but it does need to happen. The main reason it will not in the short term is the simple fact we are all selfish and stuck I our ways, me included.

 

I have had the joy of using a car that you just use from an app, and it really is an eye opener. When we can summon a car or transport pod wherever we are things will change. That is probably 30-40 years away, but It will come. 

But why does it need to happen? Why are we more worried about getting cars off the road instead of just making it less impactful to make them?

 

If we are talking about solutions that are 40 years away we have no clue what technologies are going to be viable at that time.  I mean if we are making cars that are app based those are going to need to be built/replaced/repaired etc.

 

And the fact that it wont happen anytime soon isnt really because we are all selfish. Its because even this car app solution isnt viable in a lot of areas. And something like a community car introduces a shit load of risks. I honestly cant see it working in the states at all.

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

But why does it need to happen? Why are we more worried about getting cars off the road instead of just making it less impactful to make them?

 

If we are talking about solutions that are 40 years away we have no clue what technologies are going to be viable at that time.  I mean if we are making cars that are app based those are going to need to be built/replaced/repaired etc.

 

And the fact that it wont happen anytime soon isnt really because we are all selfish. Its because even this car app solution isnt viable in a lot of areas. And something like a community car introduces a shit load of risks. I honestly cant see it working in the states at all.

 

 

 

Community cars can present serious problems because they are portable privacy.  A way to get away from prying eyes of things like law enforcement.

[pas008]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

No, it wouldn't... even if all manufacturers decided to go electric tomorrow they'd still use their current factories, they'd just repurpose them.

Yes they do, that's the point - Musk tried to frame this as a positive for the environment but it's not and it couldn't possibly be. Again, it's possible the pros outweigh the cons in this specific instance, but let's not pretend it's good for the environment - there is a nontrivial discussion to be had here and trying to dismiss it by saying that the environment isn't affected is irresponsible.

Repurposed or open new

Same thing if a factory is needed its needed for whatever products

But in theory should eliminate gas cars down the road which is better right?

Cuts down of producing products that will always pollute right?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

But why does it need to happen? Why are we more worried about getting cars off the road instead of just making it less impactful to make them?

 

If we are talking about solutions that are 40 years away we have no clue what technologies are going to be viable at that time.  I mean if we are making cars that are app based those are going to need to be built/replaced/repaired etc.

 

And the fact that it wont happen anytime soon isnt really because we are all selfish. Its because even this car app solution isnt viable in a lot of areas. And something like a community car introduces a shit load of risks. I honestly cant see it working in the states at all.

 

 

 

It needs to happen because we simply cannot keep going on in the consumerist manner we are. Anyone who thinks we can just expect technology to dig us out of the hole we are rapidly burying ourselves in is sadly mistaken. 

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Community cars can present serious problems because they are portable privacy.  A way to get away from prying eyes of things like law enforcement.

That doesnt really make any sense.

 

It would be no different then your own car. Sure your car has a license plate that is tied to you. But with a community car thats app based it would be tied to you as well.

 

So not sure how that would hinder law enforcement.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, Phill104 said:

It needs to happen because we simply cannot keep going on in the consumerist manner we are. Anyone who thinks we can just expect technology to dig us out of the hole we are rapidly burying ourselves in is sadly mistaken. 

But your solution is literally technology digging us out of a hole.....

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

That doesnt really make any sense.

 

It would be no different then your own car. Sure your car has a license plate that is tied to you. But with a community car thats app based it would be tied to you as well.

 

So not sure how that would hinder law enforcement.

Yep, totally agree.

[Guest]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

But your solution is literally technology digging us out of a hole.....

Not really, it is just part of it, a massive reduction in consumption.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

That doesnt really make any sense.

 

It would be no different then your own car. Sure your car has a license plate that is tied to you. But with a community car thats app based it would be tied to you as well.

 

So not sure how that would hinder law enforcement.

Imagine for example a prostitute using a community car as a mobile cat house for an evening and what you might get to sit in later.

 

Or a shooting gallery, or any number of things.  There are ways around it of course but they involve removing the privacy aspect from community cars.

 

I hate using the “tragedy of the commons” example because it’s so often twisted and misused, but it kind of applies here.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, Phill104 said:

Not really, it is just part of it, a massive reduction in consumption.

its only a reduction of consumption of owning a car....in the city.

 

And if you take a huge city like LA with 4 million people in it. Your going to need alot of these cars. So consumption wouldnt even drastically go down.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

See the soda can example - the problem runs deeper and pretending you're offering a solution when you're not is dangerous.

Again, pointing out a few flaws with one solution doesn't mean it's not the best solution we have at the moment.

37 minutes ago, SlimyPython said:

if you complain about a problem, you should provide a alternative soulution

Especially when peoples reasoning stops at efficiency rather than consequential impact.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Imagine for example a prostitute using a community car as a mobile cat house for an evening and what you might get to sit in later.

 

Or a shooting gallery, or any number of things.  There are ways around it of course but they involve removing the privacy aspect from community cars.

 

I hate using the “tragedy of the commons” example because it’s so often twisted and misused, but it kind of applies here.

 

But there is no additional privacy from a community car then a car you own.

 

Thats what I am asking about. The amount of privacy you have in a community car is the same as your personal car. Actually it would be less since the community car would have GPS on at all times, and youd be telling them your route before hand id imagine. Tbh I wouldnt be surprised if they put cameras in them like they do on buses.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

its only a reduction of consumption of owning a car....in the city.

 

 

it is already happening in rural areas in countries such as Norway. 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

And if you take a huge city like LA with 4 million people in it. Your going to need alot of these cars. So consumption wouldnt even drastically go down.

Even in LA, most cars are parked over 90% of the time. So you could in theory reduce the number of cars massively. While it would be unreasonable to expect a 90% drop, a 50% reduction in cars would make a massive difference and is quite achievable. So that is half the cars, less tarmac, less pollution, noise and so many other benefits. Capitalism will probably be a big barrier. The fossil fuel and automotive industry want to see more, not less.

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again, pointing out a few flaws with one solution doesn't mean it's not the best solution we have at the moment.

It's not a solution, because it doesn't solve the problem. If pursuing that """solution""" causes more harm than what it potentially mitigates then it's not worth it.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 

But there is no additional privacy from a community car then a car you own.

 

Thats what I am asking about. The amount of privacy you have in a community car is the same as your personal car. Actually it would be less since the community car would have GPS on at all times, and youd be telling them your route before hand id imagine. Tbh I wouldnt be surprised if they put cameras in them like they do on buses.

Yep.  Except you’re the one that owns your car. You’re the only one who uses it and gets it dirty.  Taken a crap in your car lately?  No?  Me either.  It’s my car.

[RonnieOP]

2 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

it is already happening in rural areas in countries such as Norway. 

Even in LA, most cars are parked over 90% of the time. So you could in theory reduce the number of cars massively. While it would be unreasonable to expect a 90% drop, a 50% reduction in cars would make a massive difference and is quite achievable. So that is half the cars, less tarmac, less pollution, noise and so many other benefits. Capitalism will probably be a big barrier. The fossil fuel and automotive industry want to see more, not less.

I mean norways population is only like 5 million and the actual land mass is pretty small. So it working there doesnt mean its viable in a lot of areas.

 

Yes cars will be parked for long period of time (during work and what not). but that still doesnt answer how having community cars would work for a population of 4 million in just one city. Your going to need a shit load of these community cars. Millions of them. Is that really any better then a family having their own car?

 

is me renting a car for myself all day going to be any better then me just owning my own car? If I live out in the country area and i rent one to go home and nobody in my neighborhood is going back into the city then the cars just going to be parked the same as if I had my own.

[RonnieOP]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Yep.  Except you’re the one that owns your car. You’re the only one who uses it and gets it dirty.  Taken a crap in your car lately?  No?  Me either.  It’s my car.

So your talking about sanitary issues? Yes i agree that would be another huge issue.

 

I mean they keep the community bathrooms downtown here locked up 90% of the time because of what people do to it.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It's not a solution, because it doesn't solve the problem. If pursuing that """solution""" causes more harm than what it potentially mitigates then it's not worth it.

Citation that recycling cans causes more damage than using any other form of liquid transport. 

EDIT: Or better yet, just show how recycling is worse than not recycling.

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Who cares if it's "natural" or not? Just because humans planted the trees doesn't mean those trees aren't important to the local wildlife and the environment as a whole. Remember the Team Trees thing? Do you think those trees don't matter just because someone went and planted them?

 

And Musk is full of shit when he says this will have an overall positive environmental impact - electric cars are not sustainable despite being more energy efficient than their gas counterparts. A factory like this can only have a negative impact, whether that impact is acceptable or not depends on the circumstances but it's certainly not what Musk would have you believe. The only positive impact this would have would be for his pockets. At this point Elon is the CEO of faux environmentalism - the kind of environmentalism that only serves as a selling point or as a popularity boost rather than a call for a much needed systematic change.

 

Oh, and 92 hectares (or 920000 m^2) aren't a small area. That's almost a million trees being cleared going by the average of trees per square metre. And that's only part of the environmental impact - the water necessary for a car factory of that size ("not much" according to Elon) is so much that a single source won't be enough beyond the first few batches of cars.

 

Now, is that the worst environmental impact a factory has ever had? Of course not. Does that mean it's irrelevant and people shouldn't care? No. There are real concerns with things like this and we need to stop dismissing protests by saying "it's just a few more trees and a couple of endangered species".

Imagine that, not letting corporations get their way in everything might mean they'll invest less in your country! Well tough luck, maybe when you need to put the interests of a single megacorporation ahead of those of millions of people to make your economy function it's a sign that something needs to change.

I think you are missing a key point. When businesses succeed it helps the economy and that helps the people. If businesses don't want to be located in an area that means less jobs and a weaker economy resulting in worse conditions for the people in that area. So giving good conditions for companies is not putting the company before the people but doing something that will help the people. mean one of the great things about big companies is that they employ alot of people which is good thing. I honestly don't get what all the hate is for companies that objective have made huge positive impacts in the world and people. 

[Unixsystem]

2 hours ago, Phill104 said:

It would and is possible. In many places here you can simply use an app to locate the nearest free car. The app unlocks the car and you use it until it either needs recharging or you have finished. When you are done you get out, and in some cases plug it in, and you get charged for that use. The car then becomes available for the next person. Does it make sense to invest in a car you are leaving parked for over 90% of the time, or just pay for the usage? You still get all the freedom but without the ownership or the wastefulness of not using a car to its full potential. Sure, the designs of cars for this kind of use will be very different from what we use now. There will be none of the keeping up with the Jones’s, none of the look at me in my expensive metal box crap. Cars will simply be transport and nothing more.

 

Again you're arguing from a perspective of a city dweller. Even if you dump thousands of community cara into the suburbs, there's no guarantee that one is going to be within convenient distance. Can I walk a mile to pick up a community car? Sure, but why would I?

 

In response to your "does it make sense to invest in a car that sits idle most of the time" - yes, absolutely, for me and millions of others. Even if a community car is a 5 minute walk away, why would I bother with that when I can have one in my own garage ready to go at a moments notice? I know my car is reliable and well maintained, I know my car is clean and doesn't stink, I know that it's fueled up and I know that in an emergency or a rush it will be exactly where I left it. That piece of mind is absolutely worth a monthly car payment for me. For others, maybe not, but if you try to push a future that fucks with the personal preferences of a huge number of people all you're going to do is push people away from it. 

 

Now once we get fully self driving cars that can come and pick you up from your front door, the value proposition tilts much closer to being viable for most people. That said I personally would still be more likely to pay the upfront cost to purchase my own car and then perhaps rent it out to a ride sharing service to make back some of that cost on the side when I know I don't need it. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

I mean norways population is only like 5 million and the actual land mass is pretty small. So it working there doesnt mean its viable in a lot of areas.

 

Yes cars will be parked for long period of time (during work and what not). but that still doesnt answer how having community cars would work for a population of 4 million in just one city. Your going to need a shit load of these community cars. Millions of them. Is that really any better then a family having their own car?

 

is me renting a car for myself all day going to be any better then me just owning my own car? If I live out in the country area and i rent one to go home and nobody in my neighborhood is going back into the city then the cars just going to be parked the same as if I had my own.

The maths have been done by people far more qualified than I. This is why there is huge investment in the community car industry. Nobody will ever use a car 24/7, so the rest of the time it is free for others to use, and that includes for deliveries etc. One company is planning on pods that can latch onto these cars for instance, dropping deliveries off as it goes. Peoples patterns of use can be built up and the system could do a lot to reduce overall miles per year substantially. The technology is in its infancy, but literally hundreds of big companies are investing billions into research to achieve this.