1. its not a sports car
2. the "forest" ist temporary monoculture-plantation for cardboard & would have been harvested anyway
3. for every m² they cut down they plant 3m² of real forest (Mischwald).
4. We need those batteries in the future - better here under decent working/environmental conditions than in east/south europe where people turn the other eye easier.
@Drezil @tauli 1. It's a totally unnecessary city-clogging bullshit car that no one actually needs / should need. And that's the Model 3, the others are even worse.
2. You can't deny that there will be severe environmental impact, both at location (water shortages!) and elsewhere
3. This forest will take a _long_ time to grow. That forest shouldn't be cut down in the first place
4. No, we really don't. It's a mistake to think that we can rely on individual motorized transport for our future
1. then we should ban cars from cities & not talk about a single producer.
2. what impacts? what water shortages? The local water-authorities say that everything is ok. The Frontal21-report was debunked throughout..
3. there is no forest being cut down. There is a plantation that is ripe for cutting being cut down. Would have happened anyway.
4. We need batteries for storing energy. Not for cars - but for virtual power plants, grid-balancing etc.
@Drezil @tauli 1. Maybe both? Capitalism is at fault here.
2. Could you send me a link to that debunk? I wasn't able to find it.
3. Re-naturalization is a thing
4. We need *a lot* less energy storage when we are able to modify demand dynamically. I highly recommend the "Klimaplan von unten" on that topic
zu 3.: Renaturierung kannst du in einer PLANTAGE nicht machen.
zu 4.: in der theorie sicher möglich. Praktisch wird es an den Menschen scheitern mit denen du arbeiten musst.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!