YouTube’s Loaded With EV Disinformation::When it comes to articles on a website like CleanTechnica, there are two kinds of articles. First, there are the … [continued]

  • splonglo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    They solve tailpipe emissions AND all the emissions associated with mining, refining and transporting the fuel - which is enormous and usually left out of the calculations. Public transportation / walkable infrastructure is god-tier but lots of people live away from dense neighbourhoods. Ev’s are not a golden bullet solution to climate change but they’re pretty good and neither is anything else. It makes sense to attack the issue from as many angles as possible instead of getting all tunnel-vision about one particular solution.

    • paultimate14@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      AND all the emissions associated with mining, refining and transporting the fuel

      Except it’s nowhere near that simple. Manufacturing and shipping batteries is hardly a clean process. And the impact of the fuel is dependent upon the method used to generate the electricity, and both in the US and globally fossil fuels are still used widely for that.

      Plus a lot of the pollution and carbon generation is virtually identical for personal vehicles regardless of how it’s powered. You still have tires that wear, tons of plastics and fluids (even EV’s need lubrication), and of course all of the metals involved. Then of course there is road infrastructure: thousands upon thousands of miles of asphalt and concrete separating neighborhoods and habitats. Acres upon acres of impermeable pavement soaking up heat and occupying valuable space that could be used for something more productive.

      EV’s are better than ICE options because they at least will get greener as the electrical grid does, but still have the same fundamental issues that all personal vehicles do. You could add in bil-diesel and hydrogen cars too. It’s saving pennies when things like better public transportation and more walkable cities saves pounds.

      • splonglo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The pollution from EVs is far lower than ICEs even if they are powered by 100% coal - the absolute worst electricity source. This is because a large generator is inherently more efficient than lots of small ones simply due to the efficiency of scale. And most grids are far cleaner - the UK uses almost ZERO coal.

        The problems that you’ve just described are real and I support your solutions to them - but they apply to the entirety of modern industrial society. Public investment should absolutely go to these things, but since people are spending their private money on EVs ( which in many cases makes economic sense AND are better on emissions ) , why push against that? They are two totally different revenue streams. Spending on one doesn’t detract from the other. A private individual can’t buy a bus. American suburbia is not going to become walkable any time soon.

        • paultimate14@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except it’s not private money. Private vehicles have been heavily subsidized for almost a century in the US. We’ve had decade after decades or tax credits, interest-free loans, and bailouts to the oil and automotive industries. Most local road maintenance is financed with debt, and that debt has started to bankrupt municipalities. Minimum parking requirements encourage sprawl and reduce the tax base by filling these municipalities with land that is economically unproductive.

          This all applies to electric too. Tesla famously would not exist if not for years and years of government money propping them up and artificially lowering their prices. Plus all the incentives for building owners to add charging stations, and the billions of dollars going towards expanding EV charging infrastructure in general.

          And if you want to optimize for efficiency, personal EV’s are still not even close to buses or trains. Personal vehicle ownership absolutely does NOT make economic sense for anyone except the owners and managers of the companies who profit from them.

          American suburbs aren’t ever going to become walkable if everyone just keeps saying “well it’s just too hard to have nice things” and keeps throwing money at perpetuating the problem instead of using that money to get out of the hole.

          • ebc@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            EVs are a good stopgap solution for climate change while we rework our urban environments to be less car-centric.

            But we have to start somewhere, and as an individual I can pester my representatives to improve public transit & infrastructure and at the same time look at EVs next time I buy a car. One doesn’t preclude the other, and EVs are still a step in the march towards carbo-neutrality. They’re not the destination, but they absolutely have a role to play in getting there.

    • notenoughbutter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      but lots of people live away from dense neighbourhoods.

      then we should focus on creating a 15 minute city

      • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This takes time and a lot more money. It’s something we should do in parallel, but even if we started this today, any EV sold in the next decade would be long off the road before sizable impactful progress had been made on 15min cities.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are also tire and brake emissions that no one talks about.

      • ebc@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        These are bad from a local air-quality perspective, but they’re not relevant to climate change.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tires sure, the vehicles all need to get lighter and smaller. EV Hummers just straight up don’t need to exist and are a danger to anyone near a road or parking lot.

        Brakes however, are largely used less than in ICE vehicles. Regenerative braking turns much of the kinetic energy that would become heat and brake dust back to electricity (and some heat) instead.

        Smaller vehicles will help reduce brake use even more. We need to limit heights, weights and sizes of vehicles since there’s no near term way to eliminate them. Even Texas is raising taxes base on the weight of the vehicle.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      all the emissions associated with mining, refining and transporting the fuel

      Not trying to be pedantic… But, EVs have the same essential issue, their batteries require the same mining, refining, and transportation process as any other powered vehicle. And if your electricity isn’t sourced from renewables, you’re just kicking the problem down the road.

      • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        And if your electricity isn’t sourced from renewables, you’re just kicking the problem down the road.

        Partially. With the exception of maybe coal, fossil fuel energy plants are more carbon efficient than an internal combustion engine can be just due to difference in scale.

        The better option is to have it powered through 100% renewable, but it isn’t an automatic lost cause.

      • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The mining only happens once. The materials in batteries are infinitely recyclable.

        Oil is single use and the impacts of mining it has caused sooooooo much damage, news agencies don’t even bother covering it anymore.

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          While it is recyclable unfortunately no one is doing that as recycling is more expensive than mining.

    • Phrodo_00@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      AND all the emissions associated with mining, refining and transporting the fuel

      Highly dependent on the grid you use to charge the car.

      • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really though.

        If the grid is powered completely by coal, and the government has no plans to phase out said coal and the grid is going to stay all coal for the next 30 years. Then yes, in that case EVs aren’t a great choice.

        But like anything else and the “but the grid is currently not clean” arguments don’t really hold water.