[buran77]

> Also, how adapting to EVs is a huge pain but LITERALLY DESTROYING THE WORLD THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE is not, I don't get it.

That's a very "you-centric" view of the world. Convenience is convenience, regardless of whether it destroys the world or not, and more money is expected to bring more convenience. So very few people say "I'll suffer this winter so the world is destroyed just a little bit less". That's why they have EVs but can still have a "factory sized" carbon footprint due to their huge houses, multiple cars, etc.

Case in point, you probably get how adapting to public transport is a huge pain but LITERALLY DESTROYING THE WORLD THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE because you want a personal car is not.

[glogla]

> Case in point, you probably get how adapting to public transport is a huge pain but LITERALLY DESTROYING THE WORLD THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE because you want a personal car is not.

Oh for sure. That is why people saying "what about people living in apartments? checkmate, EVs!" annoy me so much - if you live in an apartment you probably don't need a car.

But people are used to their comforts, so saying that doesn't win any favors or votes. Nor does saying "it's good that EVs are more expensive, since fewer people will be able to afford cars".

[oblio]

> Oh for sure. That is why people saying "what about people living in apartments? checkmate, EVs!" annoy me so much - if you live in an apartment you probably don't need a car.

There are a ton of valid reasons for someone living in an apartment to still need a car. And rentals are not a solution. Rental companies are a nightmare and rental cars suck.

[lotsofpulp]

> if you live in an apartment you probably don't need a car.

This is not true for anywhere outside a few city centers in the US.