time2roll wrote:
way2roll wrote:
2oldman wrote:
way2roll wrote:
Not a single person has yet to explain to me what problems EV's are actually solving.
Automobile and truck tailpipe emissions of co2.
Yeah it's always "tailpipe emissions". That was the original earth saving mantra. Unfortunately that's only a small percentage of the actual impact. You think the machines that mine raw materials have decent tailpipe emissions? How about the ships that transport it, or the trucks that deliver them? How about the caustic and hazardous waste, ecological impact from mining, continued dependency on foreign nations and the lack of their eco and humanitarian friendly operations? Nevermind the continued emissions and impact from producing electricity to run EV's. Ev's aren't saving the planet and reciting "tailpipe emissions" means you haven't bothered to do any real research on the topic. You have to look deeper. You'd think people really interested in saving the planet would do the homework to ensure that their fancy purchase is having the actual benefit they have been lead to believe.
But snippet "talpipe emissions" and bury heads in sand to justify the continued digging in pockets to support them. Just don't look behind the curtain so you can keep feeling good about it.
Of course the ever popular responses when presented with these facts are "we never really cared about it being green, they're just cool".
"reductions in emissions yielded $270 billion in social benefits in the U.S. in 2017"
"deaths attributable to air pollution due to vehicle emissions dropped from 27,700 in 2008 to 19,800 in 2017"
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/decreased-vehicle-emissions-linked-with-significant-drop-in-deaths-attributable-to-air-pollution/
Just a quick example. Tons of articles on this.
Direct health benefits is a great reason to continue reducing vehicle emissions from burning gas/diesel.
Also a good reason to continue to expand solar/wind/battery/hydro/nuke power and reduce coal/gas generation.
My main question would be around the root cause of such a reduction. Since EV's had hardly any market share when these studies were done, and ICE's were/are still the primary vehicle, isn't safe to say that the efforts in CO2 reduction in ICE's for decades attributed to this decline, as well as environmental regulations on companies? These articles are great but have really nothing to do with EV's. They actually highlight the fruits of efforts to reduce CO2 and increase efficiency in ICE's.
BTW I am not an EV hater. I think they're neat. Awesome if you want one. But they are not the silver bullet to saving the planet that the sales pitch in order to garner votes and taxpayer dollars would have you believe. And that is my overarching point. Buy what you want, I couldn't care less. But I don't like that some facts from some science was cherry picked to support the massive capital injection via tax dollars. I totally support saving the planet. but I've read article after article about how raw materials are mined and shipped for EV's and it's ugly. Permits are already landing on desks to mine unknown regions of the sea floor because they know the resources on the surface are finite. We don't have a clue about the geological impact of such deep sea mining or the ecosystems they could destroy. And that's just one example of impacts that get swept under the rug. Do EV's themselves reduce CO2 emissions at the tailpipe? Sure. Of course there is no tail pipe. Is the entire process green? Nope. Unless you are considering the cash being fleeced from taxpayers.
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ev-car-batteries-destroy-environment-violate-human-rights/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/09/19/dig-this-the-shift-to-evs-requires-a-massive-expansion-of-battery-metal-mining/
https://youmatter.world/en/are-electric-cars-eco-friendly-and-zero-emission-vehicles-26440/
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1031434711/your-next-car-may-be-built-with-ocean-rocks-scientists-cant-agree-if-thats-good
Just a few
