[asg70]

And yeah, despite all the cries forever about collapse and the end of oil, it's pretty ironic how "the thing" is huge, gas guzzling trucks and SUV's.

Peak oil doom may still be a ways off but I still think anyone who regularly posts here who buys a brand new ICE vehicle is being pretty damn stupid (not to mention unethical considering AGW). Even if you think EVs aren't compelling enough, hang on for the next few years. There will be plenty of big doom-friendly 4x4s soon enough, including Jeep.

[Outcast_Searcher]

And yeah, despite all the cries forever about collapse and the end of oil, it's pretty ironic how "the thing" is huge, gas guzzling trucks and SUV's.

Peak oil doom may still be a ways off but I still think anyone who regularly posts here who buys a brand new ICE vehicle is being pretty damn stupid (not to mention unethical considering AGW). Even if you think EVs aren't compelling enough, hang on for the next few years. There will be plenty of big doom-friendly 4x4s soon enough, including Jeep.

I get you loud and clear re the AGW thing, though I'll point out that buying less, heating less, cooling less, traveling FAR less, etc. (I do all those things) is very likely FAR better for one's overall carbon footprint shrinking than just buying a BEV, and continuing to drive a lot of miles, and do other stuff as per usual.

Re the economics -- when the BEV case gets compelling, then the switch will be massive and rapid, and it will take care of itself. Until then, us, or anyone else just yelling about it isn't going to change the math nor the masses wanting to get the best economic value for their products (as they see it), by and large.

[Newfie]

1+

buying less, heating less, cooling less, traveling FAR less, etc. (I do all those things) is very likely FAR better for one's overall carbon footprint shrinking than just buying a BEV, and continuing to drive a lot of miles, and do other stuff as per usual.

Doing less requires no capital infrastructure in segment, additional tax dollars, research, or development. It also will reduce the depletion pressures on other resources.

And it immediately available.

[Keith_McClary]

Rural America is where I will be living in retirement after selling my home in suburbia. I'm not the only boomer who is doing so.

But not the industrial megafarm kind of rural, right?

[Keith_McClary]

You can google

"rural vs urban" energy consumption

Most suggest that rural is more energy intensive per capita than urban.

If governments ever get serious about CO2 reduction it will mean a carbon tax or something equivalent with a more salable name (eg. : "carbon dividend" or "green incentives"). Whatever they call it, it will not be happy for rural lifestyles.

[Cog]

Rural America is where I will be living in retirement after selling my home in suburbia. I'm not the only boomer who is doing so.

But not the industrial megafarm kind of rural, right?

There are many rural areas unsuitable for mega farming due to terrain. But very suitable for hobby farming. Or simply not rubbing elbows with city rats.

[Keith_McClary]

There are many rural areas unsuitable for mega farming due to terrain. But very suitable for hobby farming. Or simply not rubbing elbows with city rats.

Wiki (Hobby farm) sez:

In the US, as farms grow in size, older farms become less economically viable. Some are purchased and most of the land combined with larger nearby farms, however the large farm has little use for the buildings. These can be sold off with only a building lot of real estate, but are much more saleable if a modest area, 5 to 15 acres (20,000 to 60,000 m²) is sold along with them. These are usually snapped up quickly by people with well-paying city jobs who wish to live in the country, or to retirees

[Newfie]

My rule of thumb is to look for horses. If you see horses (pets, not draft animals) then you know the area is over priced.

[yellowcanoe]

Most suggest that rural is more energy intensive per capita than urban.

If governments ever get serious about CO2 reduction it will mean a carbon tax or something equivalent with a more salable name (eg. : "carbon dividend" or "green incentives"). Whatever they call it, it will not be happy for rural lifestyles.

I would certainly believe that rural living is typically more fossil fuel intensive per capita than urban. The Yellow Jacket protests in France were partly driven by the fact that people living in more rural parts of the country were more adversely affected by increases in the cost of fuel. They had less access to public transit than urban residents and typically had to drive further to get to work. There were also issues of salaries being lower and not keeping up with inflation.

[Newfie]

I think it’s true that many suburbans have a higher footprint.

But that is not the best way to evaluate.

A rural person living a frugal lifestyle while working a small farm or a wood lot may have a higher foot print than an urban cliff dweller but he is also contributing something positive to the environment.

For example we own 168 acre wood lot we are protecting from clear cutting and development. My next door neighbor clear cut his. That iffsets the equivalent of 44 vehicles from American roads.