Their hobby is a feat of mechanichal engineering, and like I said, their prescence accounts for less than 1% of total emissions.The research and development that goes into these cars can also translate to consumer cars.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the improved aerodymics, engine efficiency, and reliability from pushing engineering practices significantly offset the emissions created by the sport

Here is an interesting read showcasing that f1 puts out one tenth of the emissions that the world cup does and also shows that the races themselves only cover 0.7% of the sport’s emissions. So that is 0.7% of <1% of global emissions, which is negligible.

I understand that off principle, it may seem like a waste, but thinking pragmatically for a second one can see that the benefits outweigh the environmental costs.

While I can respect the idea, pragmatically speaking, it would be too little too late. My 10 percent figure refers to global emissions from personal vehicles globally. In the US, these account for less than 2.5% of global emissions

Like another commenter mentioned, the majority of people (in the US) can’t even afford EVs yet, and many can’t afford environmentally conscious food replacements. If the government provided credits toward EV purchases/subsidized production/expanded public transportation, then it would maybe be possible. But given the current economic climate, it won’t happen, and the rate at which it would change even if the government did wouldn’t be significant enough to have a substantial impact. Not to mention that most of these policies are an attempt to disguise a lack of reform in the industrial/power sectors. The article above does a great job explaining why this sort of rhetoric is purposefully misleading.

I think there’s a MASSIVE difference between Formula/GT/Rally guys and guys who roll coal. True racing cars count for less than 1% of global emissions. The real problem is all the flights and transport necessary to get to the venues. The vehicles themselves are a blip on the radar.

Guys who roll coal are deliberately harming the environment for the sake of making a really stupid point.

Not even remotely true. Most emissions are caused by factors completely indepedent from consumer vehicles. Nearly 60 percent comes from power generation, industrial processes, and goods transportation (Not to be confused with personal vehicle use)

Im not justifying it. In fact, I said that I didn’t agree with it. All I’m saying is that in some situations, this shouldn’t affect your decision if the car feels right for you. Like other commenters have pointed out, most major manufacturers are pulling the same BS (Which obviously doesn’t make it OK) But the free 3 year trial makes it less of a sore spot for some.

Also, there are plenty of aftermarket remote start systems that you could install if you dont want to deal with the expensive OEM solution. This is the case for the majority of additions anyway.

Again, it’s not okay, I think it’s absolute BS that you have to pay any sort of subscription on a 5-figure purchase, but thinking pragmatically, there are plenty of situations where this is irrelevant.

Great job bashing the dems while contributing nothing of substance to the conversation. Do you have any points concerning Trump’s or Harris’ manufacturing policies? Also, per your last point, please tell me how that commenters grievances are illegitimate. Is it because they’re trans?

He has just as much expertise as trump does, which is basically nothing.

The subscriptions is free for the first few years so if you plan on trading it in definitely still worth it. While this does piss me off I still really like my mazda 2020

Ah, yes, the old “consumers are the problem” rhetoric when, in actuality, they only account for 10% of emissions.

When did this happen?

That sir is a swan

E: could also be a goose

I agree

As someone who sells both the ecotanks are good, but you dont quite get the yield they promise upfront.

Because the ink has to travel all the way from the reservoir at the front of the printer to the print head, there is much more distance that the ink has to travel, giving it more opportunity to dry out. To combat this, ecotanks need to purge much more frequently than traditional inkjets that mount the cartridges next to the print head. This requires shooting a lot of the ink through the lines at high speed/pressure in turn wasting ink.

Also, once this cleaning cycle has been run enough times, you need to replace the ink pad that absorbs all the ink used to clean out the printer. (Only costs 10 bucks)

All of this said, I still recommend them to folks who need to print photos at home, as their color accuracy is impressive for a CMYK printer, and while the yield isn’t as high as they claim, it is still much cheaper per page than most other inkjets. But more often than not, I try to convince people to just get a monochrome Brother and use a printing service/shop that has a multi-thousand dollar photo printer when they need photos.