Petrol / diesel vehicles usually have a longer range than electric… as long as they are topped up.
But to answer your real question, I also wonder what the point of the article is. It seems like the point is to dissuade people from buying EVs and to keep oil companies making as much money as possible. Since we are talking about hypotheticals (she might still buy EV if her family has a petrol car to borrow), why not discuss the hypothetical of a bus / train / car share network that makes a personal vehicle irrelevant?
otter@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
I was unsure at first, but part of it might be the type of article.
www.cbc.ca/news/first-person-faq-1.5927006
So it’s one person’s account of what they experienced and how they feel. There might not be a specific point to the piece, but rather you can take from it what you will. I saw it as advocating for further improving the charging network, in particular focussing on the issue of how forest fires might impact it.
It’s also a bad title. The content is decent, but if you just read the title it’s bad.
Worx@lemmynsfw.com 11 months ago
Thanks for doing that research. I read the summary which is all written in third person and assumed that was the whole article. Less likely to be malicious if it’s just the newspaper’s equivalent of a personal blog…