“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?
Because if the earth doesn’t want it, it has ways of shutting down that kind of thing.
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.
30 people die a day just in Australia from traffic pollution.
I think it’s safe to say people literally don’t give a fcuk.
To directly answer the question you asked in the title:
ICE vehicles and animals consume oxygen and produce CO2. Plants produce oxygen and consume CO2. Your car’s exhaust is poisonous to the animals in your garage, not to the plants. The plants love your car.
The problems with atmospheric CO2 have nothing to do with biological effects. The problem with atmospheric CO2 is its effect on solar insolation.
I wouldn’t use this analogy in an argument with someone who does not understand anthropogenic climate change.
So your saying there’s enough plants to offest cars in the world? Or is that no longer relevant?I
up voting by the by for encouraging conversations as I feel up items should be
I am saying that the logic of your question does not accurately describe the actual problems with CO2, which are their effect on solar heating.
So your saying there’s enough plants to offest cars in the world?
An anti-environmentalist would say that the number of plants on the planet is not fixed, and that a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere would increase global plant mass. They would say “Higher CO2 levels make the planet greener”, and point to 4th grade biology to support their point.
I say, again, that the problems with CO2 are not the biological effects. The problems with CO2 are the effects on solar insolation. If CO2 did not affect solar insolation, we would be looking to increase CO2 levels, to benefit vegetation.
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.
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.
It is also common knowledge that taking a bath with a running lamp will kill you, why do you think that has absolutely no impact in people’s buying lamps?
A car running in a small enclosed space is very different from a car running in the open in the same way that a lamp running underwater is very different from a lamp running in air.
That being said I do believe we should strive to have personal vehicles and public transportation be converted to EVs as soon as possible, because the issues with running ICEs vehicles in the open (which are different from running them indoors)
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
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.
