this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
55 points (100.0% liked)
Chat
7498 readers
2 users here now
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wouldn't e-bikes be a relatively stopgap measure? They still require a relatively advanced and carbon-wasteful technological base, after all: maintenance and repair for the bikes themselves (including regular replacement batteries, which are definitely NOT environmentally friendly), plus paved roads in good repair (again, requiring a lot of fossil fuel expenditure).
There's also the likelihood that as the Earth's environment becomes increasingly hazardous we'll require protection from the elements more and more often - protection which would be difficult to add to a bike of any sort.
The US military has projected that basic infrastructure in the USA will be collapsing throughout much of the country in less than twenty years. It's hard to see how ebikes will be practical under those conditions. Gearing towards long-term lower-tech solutions would seem to be a wiser choice.
I don't think you understand how simple E-bikes are, they are essentially just bikes, and their maintenance and repair vs any car is miles away, even if we only consider the savings vs oil changes, not to mention things like car batteries or tires.
I ride an e-bike exclusively to get around, usually several hundred miles a month, for the past 3 years, and my battery is still at near the capacity when it was new. I don't think a new battery every 10 years (if that) counts as "regular replacements", again comparing to the amount of waste involved in automobiles.
Yes, comprehensive public transport would be better overall, but that requires large amounts of public coordination and money, and still takes away agency from the commuter. An e-bike is relatively cheap, and can be a switch made on a person-to-person basis, so you don't need to fund a billion dollar train to make progress, you just need to get as many people as you can on bikes.
And, crucially, if the batteries all die and we're in the apocalypse... It's still a bicycle. You can still pedal around like normal
Which long-term lower-tech solutions are you talking about concretely?
The Modern War Institute articles are not official US positions as stated in their own disclaimer. Here is the disclaimer straight from the link:
That noted, yes US infrastructure is aging and will need more funding. It is not like the US infrastructure will just suddenly become feral ghoul territory in 20 years, funds (likely not enough) will be used to replace/update/maintain infrastructure. Will US cities become feral? I'd bet an exceedingly safe wager is no, not at all. That podcast references 3 other articles dealing with cities mostly in war torn areas of the world, not US cities.
If the worst outcome occurs and some cities turn into Fallout style wastelands... bikes will work MUCH better than large vehicles that require more maintained roads, service stations, and generally more infrastructure/logistics than a bike or ebike would ever require.