This was a property crime against private citizens, and not even the kind of private citizens that are likely to be enemies of the cause. Dumb “activism”.
I’m all for drawing attention to the crisis in various ways. I had more empathy for the “attacks” on publicly displayed art works behind glass. Civil disobedience, maybe. But deflating tires, while not destructive, is morally wrong - someone else’s property.
Decades ago, a family member at an Ivy League graduation got a fake ticket on their SUV, about pollution. The current activists should have stuck to that M.O.
And I’ve lived in places where an SUV is a must- have.
I don’t mean to be critical of EV owners, or the eco-conscious as a group. I am only pointing out the unfounded self-righteousness of the people that deflated tires in Beacon Hill, which was an act of violence IMO, not just a property crime.
I am very familiar and sensitive to the tendency for people to project the acts of a few onto a broader population, and I try to avoid doing the same. I live in KY, where at least one other state has banned travel because it is “unsafe” here (?!).
I would also probably own an EV or PHEV if I could afford one. Although, owning an EV would probably be detrimental to the environment, anyway, because I live in coal country, which is a sore point between myself and the politicians I typically support.
Driving with low tire pressure can lead to sudden blowouts, and imminent risk of death. Remember the hundreds of people that died in the 90’s when their Ford Explorer tires blew up? The cause was tire tread separation, not low pressure, but the end result is the same.
Here was my worst case scenario nightmare in reading this thread - family member having life-threatening allergic reaction, we’re about drive to ED, four deflated tires. Calling ambulance will delay care…
I know that sounds extreme, but it’s what my mind went to when I started the thread last night. And I’m very green-leaning, have had 2 EVs…
Still not an “act of violence”. And I’m sure the courts would not call it that. The press called it vandalism, not violence.
@UnsentDementor Calling an ambulance should not delay care. The EMTs can go faster through traffic with their sirens and being allowed to go over the speed limit than you would be able to. They can give immediate aid when they get to you. Please don’t try to drive your loved one to the hospital if they are in a life-threatening situation at home.
For the record I am in favor of EVs and clean energy, but not in favor of deflating tires. I don’t think that is a good way to advocate for EVs or clean energy. I would never do that. I do like some of the Drive Electric car shows that groups have where EV owners take folks for a ride in their private vehicles. I come down on the positive side of advocating for EVs.
Then why are you defending these little cowardly punks who prowled in the middle of the night so they wouldn’t be caught? Stand up for your cause, little punks. At least the art defacers had the courage to do their act of vandalism in broad daylight (I know museums are closed at night, but they could have chosen a statute or something, defaced it at night, and left a flyer).
I’m not defending them. Where have I said anything on this thread that defended them? I have only refuted things like ‘EVs pollute as much as gas SUVs’ and ‘deflating tires is an act of violence’ neither of which is true! Go back and read my posts. They are all along the lines of ‘EVs yes, but I would never deflate someone’s tires’.
“O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is cheap as beast’s.”
It is part of being human to have superfluous things. I’m sure the tire deflators have things they don’t strictly need either, such as laptops and weed. We need to have intelligent conversations about balances and trade-offs rather than preaching and vandalism.
I know three major studies of the total carbon footprint of EVs from battery production through expected life of the vehicle as compared to ICE. MIT was the most optimistic with a 50% reduction, Cornell was somewhere near 80% and KTH (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) calculated no reduction, 0%. Given that Sweden has decades of experience integrating renewables into their energy systems their calculation should be carefully considered.
Sheer volume of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines disturbs me. Even half as many batteries is still too many. Miles and miles of solar panels, wind turbines, yet they produce only about 6%. What happens when we scale them up to be 100%, where are they going, cover up deserts since deserts are useless? Much like we cut down tree to heat since forests are dark and scary? How are we disposing them without leaking toxic chemicals? How are we producing them?, etc.
It’s hard to imagine any chemical processing leaving a less toxic trail than that of Lithium and the heavy metals needed to provide the power subsystem in an EV. Every step in Li processing results in discarded natural resources that remain toxic and unusable. The earth mining alone is insanely destructive, less than 1% of the mined earth contains Lithium in the typical mine, and the mined earth is left in a toxic state, unusable, similar to a Cu mine. The size of the evaporation fields in Chile, used in brine mining, are on the order of 50000 acres, using 21 million liters per day, all unusable after the mining is complete.
There wasn’t anything in that post that suggests the manufacture of a Li battery isn’t an insanely toxic, energy intensive and destructive process. Is it arguable that it may be less toxic than gasoline refining, sure, but it is not a slam dunk.
One point regarding the carbon footprint studies is to achieve the 50/80% level MIT/Cornell assume the EV is used to within 20% of the batteries efficiency. That seems doubtful.