this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
248 points (93.7% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3826 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Weslee@lemmy.world 91 points 1 year ago

Alternative heading; Greedy CEOs on their 5 holiday mansion refusal to pay living wages could disrupt EV rollout.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don’t think many environmentalists are like, “My dream is a car-dominated society but electric.” It’s an improvement, to be sure, but I feel like every (realistic) environmentalist would prefer trains and trolleys to planes and cars.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This seems like one of those situations where every leftist is like, “I think about unions, transportation, and housing.” and the media somehow decides the left is hellbent on forcing people to attend sensitivity training in Smart Cars.

[–] rikonium@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This reminded me of a person online talking about how they didn’t understand why tree-huggers appreciated wind power despite the bird strike numbers - well because climate change itself is a much bigger fish!

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or also because of the bird strike numbers. I believe they are quite low.

Many such complaints were based on an old wind farm in Altamont Pass that did have a serious problem. However it was a mountain pass on a migratory bird route and the towers were open framework with plenty of spots for roosting. Once we stopped those two things, bird losses dropped precipitously.

I believe people making those complaints have also lost perspective. My support for anything to further reduce the remaining bird losses is not inconsistent with the belief that we already well into a better spot.

People making those complaints also seem unable to expand their minds to the huge bird loss from the polluted air pr if we didn’t

[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Most people making those complaints at this point are bad-faith conservatives.

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (15 children)

EV cars are just a way to keep the "happy motoring" society going with a veneer of environmentalism.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] mathemachristian@lemm.ee 44 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Why should we compromise on labor rights in favor of environmentalism? The latter wouldn't be such a problem if the former had been taken care of decades ago.

[–] ElectricAirship@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

EVs don't save the environment, they save the car industry.

[–] mathemachristian@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

EV != car. And even those have a use case. Having good EVs is necessary to wean off fossil fuels.

No one thing 'saves' the environment, it's beyond fucked at this point but EVs sure as shit is part of the solution and you can piss off with your perfection being the enemy of good stance here.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Car industry isn't going anywhere, regardless. Plus, do you really think vehicles with less maintenance and longer lifespans is going to save the industry?

[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the alternative would be cutting production by 95%? Yes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I honestly don't get some people where they constantly want to pit everyone and everything against each other. Honestly it's not some stupid zero sum game here.

If everyone got along, the republican party wouldn't exist. Their power is division of the people.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Environmentalists support it because they support workers rights. Also, if you really care for the environment you know that EVs are not the solution and will never be the solution for the environment, just the car companies.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

EVs are not THE solution, there is no one solution. EVs are a PART of the solution.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

They have their part in the solution, but the more we rely on ev the less we do more important stuff like public transportation, walkable cities, proper zoning, less unnecessary office time, etc. If we remove every petrol car ever and just make them all ev we will still have an enormous problem, but while we doing that we necessarily neglect everything else. Making the society not car-centric is more important, that's where all the focus should be. Remaining cars should obviously be electric.

[–] DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're right. Something as massive as climate change requires extreme change from us. A band-aid fix like EVs is only going to give the illusion of a solution. Reducing suburban sprawl and expanding mass transit will do much more for the environment than EVs ever could.

Yes, EVs are a good step, but they're little more than a compromise, we should be pushing to reduce our reliance on cars and semis as much as possible. The focus on EVs makes some people lose sight of this. People seem to be reluctant to change, holding out for some drop-and-swap fix that will solve everything. At the end of the day though, even the greenest car is way less energy efficient than the average bus, while also consuming much more road space per person.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] mrpants@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're not though. EVs and their infrastructure are still very environmentally harmful.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 year ago

A more honest headline:

Our corporate overlords don't like unions and environmentalists, so we're gonna pit those groups against each other.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A strike means less cars period. Environmentalists would be in favor of that.

[–] Thepinyaroma@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And in a crazy perfect world maybe even infrastructure for people walking, biking, and taking public transportation.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No shit? A strike would disrupt everything. That's kind of the point. This article is pure propaganda, appealing to environmentalists, techies, or whoever fancies EVs in an attempt to weaken the union's efforts to seek reasonable wages.

Shame on politico for sneaking this through by masquerading it as a blight against improving the environment.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Strikes are caused by management.

[–] theuberwalrus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While true, management is doing the bidding of shareholders, so the ultimate responsibility lies with them.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Shareholder are disrupting EV rollout.

[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Congress repuires publicly-traded companies to do the bidding of shareholders, so it’s at least partly their fault.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Environmentalism doesn't care that much about EVs, because road infrastructure is bad, but when driving really is necessary, EVs are better. Environmentalism supports the strike, because has since long realised that workers struggle similar fights, would be a great ally and might produce popular support for environmentalism.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] oldbaldgrumpy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The UAW strike will hopefully inspire an expansion of union representation in the workforce.

[–] Alenalda@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Are they implying that these corps would stop or slow making ev because some workers want more pay? Oh yeah you plebs want to be able to survive why do I destroy the planet see how you like that /s. Like we cant do both and it's zero sum.

[–] Zummy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Auto workers want to be paid a living wage rather then having all the money going to billionaire executives? Weird, it’s almost like the workers want a roof over their head and food to eat.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right. That's why record profits have accelerated EVs. /s. Don't fall for that nonsense.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›