- cross-posted to:
- citylife@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- citylife@beehaw.org
I find this ignorance really frustrating that people believe purchasing an electric car is somehow environmentally neutral. People should be educated on the environmental toll of EV production, lithium mining, tire pollution etc.
You must log in or register to comment.
Her vehicle died. She purchased a second hand EV and is still using it years later.
Aside from not owning a car she did the next best thing for an environmentally conscious person can do.
Did you even read the article you posted?
Obviously she was supposed to immediately switch to public transportation the moment her other car died. And if that’s not practical given her living situation and community, then she should have thought of that before her car died.
/s
Yes I did read the article. I’m not saying that she shouldn’t have replaced her vehicle, in fact she probably did make the smartest choice by going for a second hand EV. I’m just frustrated by the people that assume an electric vehicle is somehow “good” for the environment when it is not.
She refers to her car in the following ways:
- “a car that [does] not emit pollution”
- “Zero emission gave me peace of mind that I made the right choice for a world facing climate change”
- “earth-friendly”
Also this statement shows she is concerned about the environment:
“suddenly remembered my intention for buying an EV in the first place. I should have spoken up. Greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide, climate crisis … These words jumbled in my head. Nobody had even mentioned this life-or-death issue we all are facing.”
But EVs are not some sort of silver bullet for the climate crisis. Do we yet have any studies confirming that they are better for the environment over ICE vehicles when considering lithium mining, vehicle production, battery replacement, tire pollution etc?
I hope that the EV revolution is a net positive solution over ICE vehicles, but they are not some sort of magical product that is going to save the planet.
Yes.
Total lifecycle carbon emissions of EVs are literally less than half that of ICE cars.
They’re an improvement over ICE cars, if not e- bikes.
Nice, I’ll check it out. Thanks
While no car is far, far better than any car environmentally, an EV is far better than an ICE vehicle. Let’s not piss on incremental improvements shall we?
I’m all for incremental improvements but these people that laud themselves as environmental heros for owning an electric car need to understand what happens behind the curtain before they receive their electric car, and after the battery is replaced.
Is there any comprehensive proof that EV production is cleaner than ICE production?
First, assuming battery replacement is required in the life of the vehicle doesn’t hold up against real life. It’s mostly happened due to battery design issues (LEAF, Bolt), not batteries dying before the rest of the vehicle.
Second, nobody is saying EV manufacturing is cleaner, but the operation of an EV is far cleaner than an ICE.
Yes, people post lifecycle studies on Lemmy and Reddit once in a while. In general, EVs are a bit worse to manufacture but you make up for it after a couple years typical driving, then it’s gravy for the life of the vehicle
One where some of the numbers stuck with me looked at that trade off by the average power generation per US state. Quite a few had a trade off under 2 years. However for Wyoming and West Virginia that still heavily use coal, the trade off can be as long as 14 years. Don’t buy an EV where coal is still king, but they’re a nice step for the environment in the rest of the US and anywhere power generation is relatively clean.
Also remember they get better for the environment over time, as power generation is cleaned up
You must account for
The sourcing of materials
The manufacturing costs
The transportation costs
The usage costs (electricity generation, tires, batteries, parts)
The cost of the infrastructure (roads, car centric design making things farther away, massive parking lots, maintaince and snow clearing)
And the cost of disposal when the product is finished its life.
This type of analysis is called a lifecycle analysis.
The EV is here to save the car industry, not the planet.
Asking purely from a point of ignorance - is that not the same for ICE cars? Sourcing of battery components is a clear difference, but ICE cars also require materials to be sourced, manufactured, transported, usage input costs, drive on the same infrastructure, and also require disposal after they’re no longer operable.
Are these metrics truly that different between EV and ICE cars? If not, then all we’re really saying is that “making cars is not good for the environment” which, while accurate, seems like an insane point to use against EVs when comparing them to ICE
Yes, thats the point. EVs are still cars and have a massive individual resource and space requirement. Shifting away from car centric design would save energy and space in urban environments. Transit shares it’s life cycle with many more people than private vehicles do which spreads its larger resource and energy demand accross a signifcantly larger ridership.
I completely agree with that message, but until we get to that point there is a clear utility for EVs.
Shifting urban development to be less car-centric overall will take decades of effort, if not generations, and we can’t expect people to quit their commuter job, sell their car, and find an overlap of employment and public transport that works for the planet when there’s no social or infrastructural support for it.
In the meantime, to me at least, it makes sense to transition to EVs instead of ICE while that infrastructure is developed. It seems to me that perfect (a public transportation focused society) is becoming the enemy of good (reduced emissions for the sea of single person vehicles we currently have), or at least that is frequently my perception when every thread talking about EVs has people in the comments mentioning manufacturing costs as a hurdle, when the only plausible alternative is ICE vehicles with more environmental impact
We can’t, but we also can’t expect it to be possible to change if we don’t stop zoning in such low and sprawling densities. The more car centric infrastructure we build, the deeper the hole gets. We can build transit prioritized neighbourhoods and also encourage EV development, but the former is nearly illegal to build in much of North America.
Everyone here agrees with that sentiment or they probably wouldn’t be here. However an individual can’t just whistle up a transit system. Even in the best of cases, transit takes years or decades to develop
I live in a part of the US with decent transit, and have commuted by rail where possible. I’m a big fan of rail and advocate for it. My town is centered on a train station and is zoned for higher population density near the center, creating a nice active walkable downtown with a traditional “Main Street “, and a quick train ride to the nearby city. We do everything right, to a greater extent than most of the US, but I still need a car
Anyhow, working from home is even better for the environment than transit, I walk to restaurants and parks, and still need a car. My electrical provider only has 20% renewable energy thanks to NIMBYs , but coal is long gone so overall my EV is pretty clean, and I use it less every year
Overall I am pro electrification of cars, I just don’t like that they are pushed as some ultra green revolution. The overall energy expenditure on them is still massive. Other cities should focus on becoming more walkable and transit friendly like yours is, that way people actually have the option to travel in truly more effecient ways like walking or transit. Pushing just electricfication of cars while not addressing any of the other concerns of them like the economic and zoning costs of roads and extensive parking lots is just making an ineffecient system slightly less ineffcient.
The last sentence is so true.
