I say “maybe” because I’m of two minds. On one hand, phasing out internal combustion engines can significantly reduce air pollution and improve public health in urban areas. On the other hand, the …Read MoreI say “maybe” because I’m of two minds. On one hand, phasing out internal combustion engines can significantly reduce air pollution and improve public health in urban areas. On the other hand, the increased demand for lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals, used in EV batteries, raises serious environmental and ethical concerns. These resources are mainly found in regions like the southwestern United States and Latin America, but they’re largely absent in the Eastern Hemisphere. This imbalance not only creates new geopolitical dependencies but also harms industries that rely on fossil fuels, leading to job losses and market instability.Read Less
I voted maybe because global warming is a significant issue, however we also have to be realistic in that a total phase out of combustion engines is unrealistic. A better route would be investment in …Read MoreI voted maybe because global warming is a significant issue, however we also have to be realistic in that a total phase out of combustion engines is unrealistic. A better route would be investment in nuclear/solar energy and a gradual replacement of internal combustion engines in a way that is not forced.Read Less
I also voted “Maybe” on this question. While this would definitely reduce CO2 emissions, improve air quality, and combat climate change, I think that it may be hard for people to fully accept this …Read MoreI also voted “Maybe” on this question. While this would definitely reduce CO2 emissions, improve air quality, and combat climate change, I think that it may be hard for people to fully accept this transition. I feel like enforcing this on a global level would be pretty difficult, and it could have some economic consequences on the car industry in general.Read Less
Rather than implementing a global initiative to phase out internal combustion engines, it seems more realistic and beneficial to make a global effort to seek environmentally positive options: a focus …Read MoreRather than implementing a global initiative to phase out internal combustion engines, it seems more realistic and beneficial to make a global effort to seek environmentally positive options: a focus on ‘starting’ something rather than ‘stopping’ something may be more beneficial and plausible, since it will not push those who are not willing or able to switch personally and will not directly attack an existing industry that is heavily supported by financial powers. Instead of replacing those industries and financial powers, the aim would be to create new hubs that could eventually become major contenders in the market. I’m not positive that this would truly work realistically, but it seems more likely than directly attempting to uproot existing structures and their supporters.Read Less
I chose maybe for this question because I do not know enough about this topic to have an educated opinion. I do think fighting climate change is a good thing so I am leaning towards yes.
I chose maybe because I am not really educated enough on this topic to speak about it, but reducing vehicle emissions would lower air pollution, which contributes to millions of premature deaths as …Read MoreI chose maybe because I am not really educated enough on this topic to speak about it, but reducing vehicle emissions would lower air pollution, which contributes to millions of premature deaths as well as respiratory diseases all over the world. There are also many challenges to consider like developing countries lack the materials and infrastructure in order to transition to electric vehicles.Read Less
I think maybe, because I’m not entirely informed on how scientifically beneficial this would be. I do think the government should prioritize lowering air pollution.
I’m not super familiar with this particular topic, but this seems like a bad idea. At least for another century. As far as my knowledge goes, electric cars are heavy, expensive, inconvenient when …Read MoreI’m not super familiar with this particular topic, but this seems like a bad idea. At least for another century. As far as my knowledge goes, electric cars are heavy, expensive, inconvenient when they break, the batteries are inefficient, and so is the charging process, and they are often unethically produced. And, a battery-powered plane sounds like a nightmare. Additionally, we don’t have the capacity/technology to put thousands of small nuclear-powered engines (safely, at least) in cars on the road together. Though I would love that, we really don’t have a great alternative.
To me, a better use of time, money, and effort would be 1., trying to research and create a clean and renewable source of combustible fuel (we don’t have this at all yet, obviously, but probably should be a little more zealous about researching), 2., shifting the energy grid that powers basically everything else to nuclear, 3., increasing reliance on greener forms of transportation (high-speed rails! Yay!) and 4. increasing restrictions on corporations in terms of energy use and pollutive output. Read Less
I say “maybe” because I’m of two minds. On one hand, phasing out internal combustion engines can significantly reduce air pollution and improve public health in urban areas. On the other hand, the …Read MoreI say “maybe” because I’m of two minds. On one hand, phasing out internal combustion engines can significantly reduce air pollution and improve public health in urban areas. On the other hand, the increased demand for lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals, used in EV batteries, raises serious environmental and ethical concerns. These resources are mainly found in regions like the southwestern United States and Latin America, but they’re largely absent in the Eastern Hemisphere. This imbalance not only creates new geopolitical dependencies but also harms industries that rely on fossil fuels, leading to job losses and market instability. Read Less
I voted maybe because global warming is a significant issue, however we also have to be realistic in that a total phase out of combustion engines is unrealistic. A better route would be investment in …Read MoreI voted maybe because global warming is a significant issue, however we also have to be realistic in that a total phase out of combustion engines is unrealistic. A better route would be investment in nuclear/solar energy and a gradual replacement of internal combustion engines in a way that is not forced. Read Less
I also voted “Maybe” on this question. While this would definitely reduce CO2 emissions, improve air quality, and combat climate change, I think that it may be hard for people to fully accept this …Read MoreI also voted “Maybe” on this question. While this would definitely reduce CO2 emissions, improve air quality, and combat climate change, I think that it may be hard for people to fully accept this transition. I feel like enforcing this on a global level would be pretty difficult, and it could have some economic consequences on the car industry in general. Read Less
Maybe, I don’t know enough about it.
Rather than implementing a global initiative to phase out internal combustion engines, it seems more realistic and beneficial to make a global effort to seek environmentally positive options: a focus …Read MoreRather than implementing a global initiative to phase out internal combustion engines, it seems more realistic and beneficial to make a global effort to seek environmentally positive options: a focus on ‘starting’ something rather than ‘stopping’ something may be more beneficial and plausible, since it will not push those who are not willing or able to switch personally and will not directly attack an existing industry that is heavily supported by financial powers. Instead of replacing those industries and financial powers, the aim would be to create new hubs that could eventually become major contenders in the market. I’m not positive that this would truly work realistically, but it seems more likely than directly attempting to uproot existing structures and their supporters. Read Less
I chose maybe for this question because I do not know enough about this topic to have an educated opinion. I do think fighting climate change is a good thing so I am leaning towards yes.
I chose maybe because I am not really educated enough on this topic to speak about it, but reducing vehicle emissions would lower air pollution, which contributes to millions of premature deaths as …Read MoreI chose maybe because I am not really educated enough on this topic to speak about it, but reducing vehicle emissions would lower air pollution, which contributes to millions of premature deaths as well as respiratory diseases all over the world. There are also many challenges to consider like developing countries lack the materials and infrastructure in order to transition to electric vehicles. Read Less
I think maybe, because I’m not entirely informed on how scientifically beneficial this would be. I do think the government should prioritize lowering air pollution.
I’m not super familiar with this particular topic, but this seems like a bad idea. At least for another century. As far as my knowledge goes, electric cars are heavy, expensive, inconvenient when …Read MoreI’m not super familiar with this particular topic, but this seems like a bad idea. At least for another century. As far as my knowledge goes, electric cars are heavy, expensive, inconvenient when they break, the batteries are inefficient, and so is the charging process, and they are often unethically produced. And, a battery-powered plane sounds like a nightmare. Additionally, we don’t have the capacity/technology to put thousands of small nuclear-powered engines (safely, at least) in cars on the road together. Though I would love that, we really don’t have a great alternative.
To me, a better use of time, money, and effort would be 1., trying to research and create a clean and renewable source of combustible fuel (we don’t have this at all yet, obviously, but probably should be a little more zealous about researching), 2., shifting the energy grid that powers basically everything else to nuclear, 3., increasing reliance on greener forms of transportation (high-speed rails! Yay!) and 4. increasing restrictions on corporations in terms of energy use and pollutive output. Read Less
It would certainly help in the fight against climate change, but I don’t think it should be the number one priority.