We still have to build and maintain roads for cars, which has its own emissions. EVs also weigh more and road damage cubes or ^4 with vehicle weight, so EVs also increase the cost and frequency of road repair. EVs are an improvement, but less cars and not needing to own a car is the better choice.
Because it urbanized so late, China had the option to choose the alternative you advocate, but did not to take it: China is full of cars.
In contrast, IIUC, landlines are basically not a thing in large parts of China because China adopted the telephone as a mass-market service so late that they had the option of making cellular-telephone network so reliable and so ubiquituous as to eliminate the need to run a wired telephone network to every residence, and IIUC China took that option.
The fact that China is full of cars is (because Chinese policy makers are sensible practical people) at least some evidence that the alternative you advocate is not as great as you think it is.
I'm not sure how another urbanizing country choosing cars is evidence against my belief that denser and more walkable cities are better to live in. Places like the Netherlands are choosing to build dense walkable neighborhoods and in my opinion they seem really pleasant.
If China had chosen the path that the Netherlands is taking, would you consider China's choice evidence for your belief? If so, then "the rules" dictate that you consider the fact that China chose the way it actually did as evidence against.
>So if you claim that “no sabotage” is evidence for the existence of a Japanese-American Fifth Column, you must conversely hold that seeing sabotage would argue against a Fifth Column. If you claim that “a good and proper life” is evidence that a woman is a witch, then an evil and improper life must be evidence that she is not a witch. If you argue that God, to test humanity’s faith, refuses to reveal His existence, then the miracles described in the Bible must argue against the existence of God.
Hasn’t the Netherlands always been like that? I haven’t been there in a while but it always seemed walkable and pleasant to me. Nice little coffee shops, pubs, etc. with lots of people walking around. It isn’t really for me but I get it.
There is no absolute need for a car in China, it a convenience not a necessity, like somewhere in Phoenix or Tampa. So even if China twice GDP per capita compared to US there is still would be less ownership.
You may have to define "need". It is likely possible in nearly every jurisdiction to live without a car - particularly large cities like Phoenix or Tampa. Still I wonder why "living without a car" is really that important of a goal. Making life as awesome as possible should be what we are really shooting for. Being a 5 minute walk from everything important would be great. I don't know about a 15 minute bike ride though - that is really quite far and most people would probably rather drive I think (especially if in a hurry).
Even an electric car has big embedded CO2, but CO2 isn't everything. Other environmental impacts - mining and fabrication of the batteries, steel, etc. Then, there's tire dust - one of the biggest sources of toxins and microplastics . Electric vehicles actually generate more tire dust, because they are much heavier than equivalent gas cars. Then, suburban development is an incredibly inefficient use of land. You're trading habitat, farmland, and aquifer recharging for ticky-tack houses on cul-de-sacs. All of those roads also reduce water quality from stormwater runoff, and cost a lot of CO2 (and dollars) to maintain.
I think some people just don't like cars. That is completely fine, I don't really care about cars much myself. However, the odd thing is they don't want anyone to have a car. First the problem was emissions - which will eventually be fixable with EVs. But now they are too heavy and create too much "tire dust".
> You're trading habitat, farmland, and aquifer recharging
Habitat, sure, but farmland and aquifer recharging? I'd wager most suburbs in the US are cut out of forests, not existing farmland, and I see no reason why rainfall in the suburbs (low-density, with grass lawns) won't reach the aquifer the same way as whatever undeveloped land was there previously. In fact, dense cities will do worse in this regard, since there's more underground infrastructure and stormwater has to run off more.
Is running wholly separate refrigeration, AC, ovens, and other electric power negligible? Average household size in cities tends to be smaller than the suburbs. The environmental argument always clings to cars, but emissions keep improving. Carbon footprint per person is really what we're talking about here.
> Carbon footprint per person is really what we're talking about here.
On the other hand, increasing energy consumption per person is exactly equal to civilization and rising standards of living, so let's not be too hasty in condemning carbon footprint. Of course, ideally the energy we spend would be generated and stored via other sources; and technology will likely lead us in that direction.
