I’m not sure how you equate that first paragraph at all. Can you expound? The second one just nullifies the first lol.
My point is that if they were serious about protecting the environment, they would promote WFH (for those who can…not everyone can obviously) in addition to EVs. Instead, there seems to be a big push for return to office.
Got it. Thanks. It definitely read like you were saying EVs were some secret not as good as you thought it was issue…
When they’re pretty damn fantastic at lowering pollution over time.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016823009055
Yeah, I think he was explaining that EVs ARE more efficient, but like everything with industrial capitalism, the idea is that they’re solving for:
“How can we increase efficiency, while keeping inefficient traffic jams and pointless office commutes?”
When, if they actually cared for the environment, reducing office commutes in the first place has proven to work wonders in dropping pollution. There’s just no psychopathic control and exponential corporate real estate profits involved.
An EV is more efficient than an ICE, but industry wants never-ending constantly-exponentially-growing production and purchasing of EVs, so they can enjoy a future of EV-majority traffic jams, instead of gas and diesel traffic jams.
We’ll then get emotional-piano commercials about how they saved the planet by mass producing a product that was mass consumed.
But we could simply not have traffic jams, and everybody knows it. That would make people too happy though, and give them time to think. Like 2020, it would once again be difficult to find people who will put up with corporate nonsense.
Solving problems by putting dents in demand also has a way of making quarterly projections inconvenient. :p
