659
MIT Study Finds Gas Cars Aren't Secretly Better For The Planet Than EVs, Despite What Everyone On Facebook Says (www.jalopnik.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
144 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 4 months ago (22 children)

Burning petroleum is one of the most destructive things you can do and it is absolutely common to do it. Everyday a single vehicles emits enough pollution to kill countless people. It gives them cancer and when combined with lead has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. It is absolutely insane people continue supporting this technology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago (21 children)

    Everyday a single vehicles emits enough pollution to kill countless people.

    Considering that since there are over 1.6 billion cars in use worldwide, I think if each one killed more than one person per day there would soon be none of us left.

    Collectively they do cause some 246,000 deaths each year, from pollution alone, with several times that figure being attributable to motor vehicle collisions. So I do think the regular use of fossil fuel vehicles needs to be phased out, along with a drastic reduction in personal vehicle use in general in urban areas and the implementation of systematic safety principles in road design.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (20 children)

    Try seeing how long you can suck on a car exhaust and live? My point stands.

    Lead in gas in cars wasn't even phased out until 1996 and only in 2021 was is declared officially over. Meanwhile the entire planet has been blanket by lead leading to startling facts like burning wood releases a ton of lead.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/may/15/wood-burning-for-heat-reintroducing-lead-pollution-into-the-air-us-scientists-find

    Our entire ecosystem needs a EPA style Superfund cleanup. Hundred of millions of people have already died just from lead. The lead left over in our environment, mostly from gas burning, kills anywhere from one to five million people every year to this day.

    That means thirty years since leaded gasoline was first banned we have lost anywhere between 30-150 million people. This lead is not going away as demonstrated by the trees.

    I swear we have lost close to a billion people from pollution in the last 50 years or so. Lead is only an additive, we haven't even gotten into all the problems with the rest of it. Petroleum is a huge part of this loss of life. This is the true cost, a future of environmental degredation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    My point stands

    But your stats are from your ass.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    Are you acting obtuse on purpose?

    https://healthpolicy-watch.news/96476-2/

    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/11/20/1213841798/a-new-study-says-the-global-toll-of-lead-exposure-is-even-worse-than-we-thought

    As I said the range is anywhere from 1-5 million a year.

    You can take your petroleum apologist nonsense somewhere else. Imagine someone bootlicking when then know millions of people have died and will continue to die.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    If you want to argue scientifically, you have to be precise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    You're doing the facebook boomer thing btw.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Which is what?

    Note, I'm not disagreeing with the guy. I'm helping them make better arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Constantly moving goal posts in order to discredit a true fact because the way it was presented is not precise. This isn't a scientific debate. This isn't a paper. It's a generic social media forum and people generally understand, barring any social development conditions, that exaggeration is acceptable as long as the general idea is true, even hyperbolic exaggeration. Everyone does this constantly in normal every day conversations. Conversations don't stop and wait for you to look up something that ultimately is at best a minor correction, because it's not needed and frankly its silly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    exaggeration is acceptable as long as the general idea is true,

    Totally disagree. If the goal is to influence someone's opinion, in any forum, then it will remain their opinion longer if it solidly fact based, without exaggeration.

    even hyperbolic exaggeration.

    Obvious hyperbolic statements can be very useful. They increase enjoyment for the billions of lemmy readers and make them more receptive.

    Conversations don't stop and wait for you to look up something that ultimately is at best a minor correction

    However, in this format that luxury exists.

    because it's not needed and frankly its silly.

    It is needed because otherwise it damages the argument.

    Constantly moving goal posts in order to discredit a true fact because the way it was presented is not precise.

    If you notice, my contributions have not touched any goalposts. Encouraging accuracy is not changing the argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Try seeing how long you can stay underwater and live?

    Every water kills billions per water!!!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    Please try to stay on topic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (7 children)

    Please try to use your brain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Don't be jealous that I have one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    I admit that I am. That makes it even more embarrassing for you though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    I am not sure what this is, but you guys seem to behave really dumb. Like incredibly. Is it your kink or something to act this stupid?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Are you mad?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Oh okay, just someone acting like a dumb petroleum bootlicking troll. Cheers!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •