[dylandrop]

Will they fix the problem? Certainly not. Are they a step in the right direction? Almost certainly yes.

The main problem with cars I see is that they're inefficient as opposed to mass transport (as Rees seems to suggest in the first article). Additionally, by suggesting that they are the solution, this creates a false sense of security in people having "done their part" to save the planet. For example, if I recycle, that's good, but it hardly means I've eliminated my carbon footprint.

However, where I disagree is that I believe developing these technologies -- engines that can run more efficiently on electricity -- are inherently useful to us building a more sustainable future. If we're able to build electric tractors, boats, ambulances, ATVs, etc. built on top of this technology, then that is no doubt useful.

[valtih1978]

I had to come up with the aspect of sustainablity because it is of utmost importantance in the postoil we have entered whereas it remains outside the mainstream, as opposed with the topic (the electric car), which are deceptevly sold as a synonym of sustainablility, whereas it is opposite because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

There is also one problem with your recycling analogy. Recycling is always a good thing (after Reduce and Reuse, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy#How_the_hierar..., of course), no matter what. But, relaying on automobiles is not. The automobile is the source of evil - itproduces antisustaibale environment, aka "urban sprawl" www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPS1y81b1Bw

[dylandrop]

You could make the same argument about recycling. Making unnecessary packaging is a source of evil, in that it uses tons of unnecessary energy and resources. Recycling makes this system incrementally better. Additionally, recycling in some cases uses more carbon than it saves (through transportation, processing, etc.) -- I've heard this figure in relation to NYC's recycling program, in particular (although I don't have a source offhand).

I see what you mean about the idea of efficiency vs. consumption (Jevon's Paradox), although this still ignores the idea that certain automobiles will continue to be used (such as ambulances, construction vehicles, etc. as I mentioned before), and also ignores resources should be eventually used in as much of a closed loop as possible (i.e. solar power to charge your Tesla). For the time being, we don't have the infrastructure to support solely public transportation, so in the meantime it is reasonable to use electric vehicles.

[valtih1978]

> For the time being, we don't have the infrastructure to support solely public transportation, so in the meantime it is reasonable to use electric vehicles.

You put everything upside down. You do not have the efficient infrastructure _because of automobiles_ and, by representing automobiles as something recycled, your perpetuate this wasteful infrastructure.

[toomuchtodo]

"Sprawl" is sustainable when materials are recycled in a closed loop (as aluminum is close to being) and energy is sourced from clean, renewable sources.