Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I'm a little disappointed this article doesn't seem to acknowledge that what's really better for the environment is not buying a car at all. Not only do we need greener cars, we need less cars overall.
Ebikes, public transit, walkable cities are all way more environmentally friendly than buying any type of car.
This is much easier said than done. Around large parts of the United States you can't reliably commute by public transit. For me personally, without a car, a one way 40 mile trip to the major city near me would take 5 hours. That's 2 different trains and 2 different busses.
Add that to the fact that the station closest to me only has a few trains a day and my options are very limited.
Even if we ignore the current train schedule and assume that trains come by every 5 min, it would still be a 2 hour trip that costs me $20 for one way. I could then bike the rest of the way and avoid the last 2 buses.
There are rail passes I could get, but those would cost $477/month. It's cheaper to lease a Tesla at that point.
Owning a car is pretty much the only reasonable way of getting around for many parts of the U.S.
Yes but you do recognize the person is suggesting we fix our town planning so that a car is not a requirement anymore? We did it before cars existed, we can do it again.