Don't fall for the anti truck psyop

Attached: 20220314_202016_0000.png (1080x1080, 679.15K)

>anti truck psyop
What the hell are you talking (((auto manufacturers))) and (((oil companies))) make billions off stupid American buying over priced half ton vehicles they never do anything with besides driving to the office and grocery store

And a tesla isn't overpriced? Fucking mong. Look into total CO2 emissions for the average fuel consuming truck versus the average electric car. It will shock you.

A recent working paper from a group of German researchers at the thinktank Institute for Economic Research (ifo) found that “electric vehicles will barely help cut CO2 emissions in Germany over the coming years”. It suggests that, in Germany, “the CO2 emissions of battery-electric vehicles are, in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine”.

Why are they flaming ground? Is it something to burn weed and seeds?

Attached: 1647314895530.png (102x77, 12.97K)

Weed removal method that meets the organic regulation.

In the old days, people used to just straight up set fire to their fields. They still do it in some parts of the world.

“On a CO2 [emissions] map, [carbon consumption] is concentrated in Northern Europe, the U.S. Eastern seaboard, a few other U.S. cities, Japan and eastern China,” states Moran, curator of the Global Gridded Model of Carbon Footprints.

“It’s starkly visible how unequal it is between who’s driving the problem and who’s poised to bear the brunt of it.”

The real fix to vehicle pollution is to just re-plan our urban/suburban population centers to not require vehicles for daily living. Very easy to not pollute if you can walk or bike to 95% of the things you do with your time. If medieval peasants could manage it, so can we.

The reason we focus on EVs is because they don't require any real sacrifice. Re-zoning the first world would be tremendously painful and require a lot of sacrifice. Driving electric instead of ICE only requires buying a new product - and we're pretty good at buying new products. Everybody cares about global warming until it requires them to give up even one thing they care about, and then suddenly performative gestures like EVs are the answer.

Attached: 1553580970438.jpg (402x402, 26.78K)

To what end? This is about the rural vs. urban schism. Rural driving distances won't easily be shortened, further its evident that CO2 emissions are only marginally better for EVs in the most idealized circumstances. And I'm certain when more torque and weight is added into this equation that the discrepancy will be more evident.

>organic farming
>global warming
I thought global warming scam was caught , they fudged the numbers and there is no warming?
It was so embarrassing they had to rename the whole scam theme from global warming to “climate change”.

>Rural driving distances won't easily be shortened,
Rural farmers driving ICE vehicles is basically unimportant. There's a legitimate need for personal vehicles in those areas, they don't make enough money generally for fancy new EVs and not many people live out there anyway. Rural farmers who need to make it back to town are the kind of people the car was invented for. It's overall negligible if they continue to use them. The problem is people who live outside of city centers for no good reason, despite working in office buildings or on computers, who drive 30 minutes or an hour each way to get to work. Those people should just live within walking or biking distance of their work. And helpfully enough, these are the kind of people who are also most likely to claim to care about "climate change," so they shouldn't even by whining about doing it. We'll get far more bang for our buck converting urbanites/suburbanites into walkers/cyclists than we will fighting stubborn backwoods Americans over their pickup trucks.

But there is no serious discussion of this. Seemingly nobody can imagine giving up any serious part of their current life (like their suburban McMansion) to try to address this "serious," "dire" problem which will "ruin" the world our children grow up in. Is it pure lack of imagination? A simple failure to really commit to the consequences of beliefs on climate change, pollution and energy? Or a refusal to admit to the real problems?

Attached: 1636814668640.jpg (1121x631, 603.73K)

Excellent post

>The problem is people who live outside of city centers for no good reason
Fuck off, rabbi.

>No mention of India
>Only 'eastern' china
The Curator is a lying kike

Too busy shitting in the streets

Jews literally invented the suburbs

They also crammed the cities full of niggers, and other lowlifes, including themselves.

I should be more direct, the topic I am trying to confront with OP image is the idea that rural drivers are wasting fuel by and large.

How about air travel, overwhelmingly taken by urbanites and liberals. And long daily commutes taken to city centers? You seem to have covered that to some extent.

Don't forget international shipping.

>air travel, overwhelmingly taken by urbanites and liberals
Do you have anything to actually back that claim up?

Attached: fs_data_download_1_2019_07_07.jpg (760x428, 88.08K)

still done in texas if no burn ban

I'm surprised the conservatives is even that high must be all those orthodox Trump supporters going back and forth from Israel. But what about the rest of your claim that more people in urban areas fly? And the majority of flights in the US are domestic anyway

57% of liberals had passports, whereas only 48% of conservatives did. This fits in with liberals being more likely to visit a foreign country on their vacation. It may also suggest that blue flavored people might be more willing to fly to their destination than red flavored people.
When wanting to relax, conservatives prefer fishing and golf, whereas liberals prefer going to a beach or experiencing fine dining. It’s thought that liberals tend to be younger and are slightly more likely to have incomes over $100,000, which could tie in with their preferred ways to relax. It’s also noted in this 2018 Travel Weekly article that, “Statistically,…liberals are more likely to gravitate more toward five categories than conservatives: exploration, experiencing different cultures, experiencing new cuisines, self-discovery and meeting new people.”