Two facts:

1. The average occupancy of a car in my North American city is 1.2 people per car. This does not vary much by city.
2. Autonomous vehicles will almost certainly be worse for traffic than human driven cars. They will circle empty with no passengers and drive to pick up passengers empty (dead heading) even with a fully rideshare system. If there is widespread private ownership of autonomous vehicles (and you bet your butt that car companies will campaign for this aggressively to keep sales up), the dead heading problems only multiply. If you don’t believe me, look up any recent literature on the topic: by most accounts it will be worse, not better. Dead heading is only the tip of the iceberg of problems there.

I as pro-EV as the best of them. A cradle to grave emissions drop of 40% is a great step forward on reducing transport emissions (public transport and active transportation are a whole other aspect of this we’ll avoid here). However, characterizing the energy gap for EV charging as a non-issue is disingenuous.

You’ve correctly pointed out that peak hours are when the grid is most strained and vulnerable. Well, if most everyone who drives to work starts charging their EV when they get home from work, that is at the highest peak of the day: around 5-7pm. It’s the addition to the peak curve that’s the real concern. In most places, that means triggering on fossil fuel burning facilities to meet that peak demand. It also means increased peak loads on the transmission infrastructure that could overwhelm it.

That being said, there are some simple solutions: e.g. charge EVs on off-peak hours, smoothing out the demand on the grid. Where I live there is already an incentive to charge overnight in the form of ultra low overnight rates. I’m sure we’ll find the solutions, but please don’t pretend it’s not a problem.

Reminder to remove the ?si= and everything after in your youtube links. It’s a tracker uniquely tied to you and your watch history and the links work fine without it.

Luo Ji isn’t even introduced until book 2. Season 1 is only book 1. I hate D&D for what they did go GOT as much as anyone else, but find something real to critique.

Read the source more carefully

Tesla drivers have the highest accident rate. From Nov. 14, 2022, through Nov. 14, 2023, Tesla drivers had 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers. Ram (22.76)

Accidents only. Worst driver counts DUIs a d fines as well.

In a word, yes. Subsides to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars a year across the USA.

Great analogy with cars, I’m definitely going to steal that one.

A free market requires stringent regulation to function humanely and morally. The two are at odds with each other. My final sentence is a critique of neoliberalism, an ideology in which regulation is reduced and power is given to corporate entities and away from regulators. It’s been impossible to escape in politics since Thatcher and Reagan, and leads to some of the worst aspects of today’s society that we havr to suffer. One of which is the poor people who bought a car assuming it’d be safe, just to find that the companies saved a quick buck to their loss. I hope the people win these lawsuits, but I doubt the justice system has the teeth (or willingness) to prosecute this negligence as it should be.

You’re being downvoted because this is the attitude that got us into, and is keeping us in, this mess. Let us be precise with terms: housing is not a speculative investment. You don’t buy a house because you presume it will appreciate 100-1000% by the time you sell it. That attitude leads to the paradox that the government is unable to stop: you either build/allow affordable housing, lowering prices and crashing people’s speculative investment, or you restrict new home building through restrictive zoning and NIMBYism run wild, letting houses appreciate to the point of unaffordability.

You buy a house to live in long term: to buy it back from the bank and own it all to yourself. You have right to sell it for an equal or roughly price tracking rate with inflation. That’s a good investment. Every Canadian has the right to buy affordable housing. Saying affordable housing is affordable renting is not only reductive but downright prejudicial: people don’t rent because they’re poor. They rent because they want the freedom to move without selling a house. They rent because they are building lives as students or young families or their careers. They rent because they choose to invest their money in something other than house equity. And all the real, concrete policies which help new homeowners (ie building more housing) help renters: these two groups are not at odds with each other.

No, but it is the result of deregulation. Similar models sold in Canada don’t have this issue because (drumroll please), federal regulations require immobilizers on new cars. Free market at work folks.

Y’all really don’t read the articles. The UN already has reports on greenwashing woth pretty solid definitions and recommendations. The report was linked in the article.

Excerpt from the linked UN report:

Our report also specifically addresses the core concerns raised by citizens, consumers, environmentalists and investors around the use of net zero pledges that make greenwashing possible. Our recommendations are clear that:

• Non‑state actors cannot claim to be net zero while continuing to build or invest in new fossil fuel supply. Coal, oil and gas account for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. net zero is entirely incompatible with continued investment in fossil fuels. Similarly, deforestation and other environmentally destructive activities are disqualifying.

• Non-state actors cannot focus on reducing the intensity of their emissions rather than their absolute emissions or tackling only a part of their emissions rather than their full value chain (scopes 1, 2 and 3).

These recommendations explicitly cover the ad campaign discussed in OP’s article, as well as many other greenwashing ad campaigns.

What they’ve done is reprehensible but this is simply misinformation, that livestream has been up for weeks.

Historically, fuel regulations have been wildly effective at controlling and reducing vehicle emissions. Improving and tightening those standards is another good step forward for our climate and air quality.