[msbarnett]

> They are every bit the problem that ICE cars are, it's just that the full environmental costs of the switchover have not been widely-recognized.

I think you’re confusing an environmental catastrophe with devastating consequences for specific people (and animals etc) in a contained location with a completely uncontained environmental catastrophe with devastating consequences for all life on this planet.

Just reducing cars’ impact to “devastating a number of specific contained locales” would be a monumental step forward.

[wyldberry]

The funny thing about devastating a local population of flora/fauna is that it has wide ranging ripples that we are often unable to anticipate.

Saving the world by consuming more (vehicles, electronics) etc is not going to work. Eventually we will fall inline with the Nash Equilibrium as well.

[o_1]

What if cutting the rainforest down and killing all the whales stopped climate change? It's "just localized" so it will benefit us all in the long run. Let's replace ICE engines with something responsible and feasible. Hydrogen fuel cells can't be ruled out, there is still ground to be gained.

[wolfram74]

Having worked in a fuel cell lab, and remembering when the gas companies were toting fuel cell's as the red herring back in the aughts I find it very funny that we're still holding off on electrifying cars for the hope that fuel cells might finally start to be even remotely useful for personal transport.

If you want to make an argument at the grid scale, go ahead, but hydrogen's just too big a pain in the butt to work with.

[aaronblohowiak]

If I were king we’d go to methane and overbuild solar to get there. But I’m not king (yet.)

[ben-schaaf]

If that would have stopped climate change it would have been done decades ago. Cutting down rainforests and hunting animals to extinction is something we've been doing for a very long time.