55
submitted 4 days ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.org
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 4 days ago

oh man, so little was achieved and now they are going to roll even that back. With Meloni, the RN in France and the CDU in Germany soon, we‘re completely fucked.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

Nah she is just shilling for the high end car builders of Italy. I am fine with gas engines in cars. As long as the fuels are taxed at 5 euro per liter from 2030 adding a euro per liter per year. This goes for bio fuels too.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Hopefully the composition of the EP doesn't change enough in the future to repeal it. Here in Czechia the 'Motorist' party literally won two of our 20 seats.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

This goes for bio fuels too.

That part makes considerably less sense than the rest of your comment.

[-] Rinox@feddit.it 7 points 3 days ago

Not really. Biofuels are better than normal oil-derived fuels in terms of excess CO2 being dispersed in the environment, but they are still overall bad. They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx, and they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.

Biofuels are definitely better than normal petrol or diesel, but they are still overall bad, and I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.

[-] federalreverse@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Depending on where biofuels are produced, the land use changes can make them worse for climate than fossil fuels. E.g. there was a recent study on US biofuels.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx

Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).

they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.

So don't be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!

I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.

This isn't wrong, but it's a massive strawman argument because doing that would be idiotic anyway. Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified. (In other words, they're the answer to "but what about my [insert special-snowflake reason why I can't ride a damn bike/train/electric car]?" pearl-clutching.)

There is no one solution to sustainability, and pretending there is is a fallacy.

[-] Rinox@feddit.it 1 points 3 days ago

Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).

Tell that to those dying because of those toxic emissions.

So don’t be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!

Sure, I agree, but if you want biofuels to be a significant enough part of the fuel mix, you need to make them at scale, which means you need incentives and by incentives I mean making them profitable enough so that it makes sense to invest billions into making them. At that point it becomes a race towards who can make the most at the lowest price to make the most money, and guess where that brings you. Otherwise, if you limit fuel crops, you'll get a very small production at a high price, since the scalability and possibility for growth will be limited.

Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified

This is really what I'd like to see, using the massive taxes on fuels to finance sustainable mobility like trams, rail, bikes etc

Biofuels are great and all to fill that gap, but the moment they become more profitable or cheaper than fossil fuels, it's the moment you're gonna have massive problems.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Biofuels use valuable land that can be used to feed people or be nature. No need for it to be used to allow some rich asshole to drive a car.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Only if you're stupid about it and overuse them. My diesel VW runs on 100% biodiesel made from waste fat from chicken processing that would've gotten landfilled or something otherwise.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

That's maybe fine for small scale usage. And even then I don't know if this is actually good. In any case your USA case won't scale well. I also don't know if it is even legal in my country.

I more meant large scale biofuel cultivation instead of food and nature. Cause then these companies will start eating up agro subsidies etc while keeping polluting cars on the road.

[-] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 0 points 3 days ago

That doesn't sound fair to the people that just can't afford a new car. The ban is about no new combustion cars getting into the market, not to say nobody can drive on from 2030 onwards.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Yes you are right.. maybe delay the whole ordeal by a decade or decade and a half. Then the electric second hand will be common.

[-] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 1 points 3 days ago

I don't think a absolute ban is necessary, the phase out already started, most new car models are electric and most car companies for the mass market focus their future on electric. The ban as it currently is should do the job just fine. Most people will see the new electric cars as great, they save a lot of money and the tendency is towards even more.

I think investing in public transport is the most important, especially in Germany...

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I'd love to see additional tax increases after a specific year. If you want to drive an Oldtimer or a gas powered supercar.. it should be expensive to operate.

But indeed only once full electrification has reached normal families.

[-] Don_alForno@feddit.de 15 points 3 days ago

It's not a ban. Anyway, it'd still be ideological madness to take it back.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

...and she's someone who knows a thing or two about "ideological madness" -- firsthand!

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl 12 points 4 days ago

Lol - her homeland is burning, but thats not enough! More fire!!!

[-] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 3 points 3 days ago

The fash people talking about idiological madness... Man what a time to be alive...

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago

I would like to point out that, for the most part, not even car brands want to keep selling ICE vehicles.

this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
55 points (95.1% liked)

Europe

461 readers
467 users here now

News, interesting stories, and beautiful pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

Spiritual successor to !europe@feddit.de.

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain)

Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures.

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other. (E.g., no direct insults against each other.)
  2. No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  3. No links to mis-information.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 4 days ago
MODERATORS