Hate to be that guy, but it takes 20 tons of carbon to make a sedan and 5 tons to make the ev battery to run it (8 if you use the cheap kind). So even before the difference in emissions between gas and electricity come into play the ev is five or six years of driving behind the gas car it’s supposed to replace.
For a huge number of people the greenest car they can own is the one they already have.
That was literally, like, my exact point. Yes we know all of that, how many times do I have to say that? We literally know what you’re talking about.
It’s still better, over the life of the car you will come out better than a fossil fuel car. Consumption of anything anywhere pollutes, and the best option is to not buy a car at all (hello public transit funding, we need you). However, over the entire life of the car you will come out ahead, and the more EVs that are sold the easier it will be to produce. This month alone there are two firms who are claiming they have alternatives to lithium for the battery base. One claims they can use salt. We will continue to see improvements with battery production as it scales.
Please stop with the “gotcha” style and try to instead try to see other people’s sides. Yes, I take public transit and walk whenever I can, but in my city I still need a car for a few things, and my old car is dying. So, faced with buying a new car, I would rather have one that doesn’t pollute while I’m sitting in traffic that encourages auto makers to not just give in but to push green initiatives. Will it work? I don’t know, but it’s better than just giving up and saying “well acksually it’s still ruining our planet just slower”
Despite the environmental footprint of manufacturing lithium-ion batteries, this technology is much more climate-friendly than the alternatives, Shao-Horn says.
That link says that the battery alone takes 4-16 tons of carbon to produce. It doesn’t say anything about the actual chassis and other stuff in the car. So somewhere between 24 and 36 tons of carbon for a new ev to start rolling down the street versus the yearly emissions of the gas car it’s supposed to replace. based on the link you posted that’s six to nine years of emissions before you can even start comparing them mile for mile.
I’m not saying this to suggest that there’s no point in trying or that somehow evs aren’t greener than comparable gas cars but to state that if the goal is to make tremendous reductions in carbon output then a gigantic bubble of carbon rich consumption isn’t the way to go.
We can’t reduce carbon output in the short to medium term by replacing a bunch of cars. We can reduce it by not driving as much.
None of this is a gotcha or an attack on you personally. It’s just stating the fact that keeping existing cars on the road and reducing the amount they’re driven is a really viable path that doesn’t require the insanity of lithium batteries or for some new technology to replace them.
I tried to make that point in a way that put production up front as the best place to turn the carbon spigot off, but in case that’s not clear: consumers can’t change what gets produced and by extension how it is produced.
Yes, we know, but the alternative isn’t “just don’t buy one because it doesn’t matter anyway”, it’s “Do the best we can as consumers to make smart, green choices”. Vote with our wallets that we do want greener alternatives rather than giving up. If a battery comes along that is more eco friendly than lithium I’ll probably buy that one.
A better way to phrase what you said to encourage people to go green is to say “Absolutely going electric is a smart choice, it’ll reduce your personal emissions by a substantial amount, but remember that to public transit/walking are still the greenest options. We can also always demand from the companies we buy from that they should use greener manufacturing as well.”
Don’t just point out the flaws in a way that comes off as “We shouldn’t even try because what’s the point”. We can both be better ourselves and demand companies hold themselves to even higher standards, it’s not one or the other.
Sorry, sometimes it’s hard to make myself understood. Consumption is not in any way a solution to climate change.
Boycotts don’t work, you can’t change the carbon impact of production at the point of consumption because the carbon has already been released. Voting with your wallet doesn’t work.
We should not spend even one iota of time concerned with how to make greener choices as individuals and instead work on stopping pollution at the point of production.
If it’s not clear: climate change comes from the release of greenhouse gasses and that doesn’t happen more or less depending on what I swipe my credit card to buy.
That’s a very selfish way to look at it. “Nothing I can do so fuck it”. But there is. I agree with you, we should demand change in production, but you’re also being selfish just giving up and not altering your lifestyle just because “it’s already been made”.
Boycotts do work. If people actually followed through with them, and yeah, I’m boycotting any more fossil fuels in my house. 1 person doesn’t mean a whole lot, but if cynics like you started actually changing it might.
The written word can really be a boondoggle sometimes.
At no point do I say “fuck it”. Boycotts don’t work (here I’m talking about consumer boycotts not boycotts paired with radical action like Montgomery or possibly bds). Pollution needs to be attacked at the point of production.
It’s not selfish to recognize this. It’s not selfish to suggest that the solution to climate change is not consumption. What does it look like to you to shut pollution off at the source? That’s not doing nothing.
There’s plenty of lifestyle alterations coming down the pike. No one is missing out on their medicine except through death.
Hate to be that guy, but it takes 20 tons of carbon to make a sedan and 5 tons to make the ev battery to run it (8 if you use the cheap kind). So even before the difference in emissions between gas and electricity come into play the ev is five or six years of driving behind the gas car it’s supposed to replace.
For a huge number of people the greenest car they can own is the one they already have.
That was literally, like, my exact point. Yes we know all of that, how many times do I have to say that? We literally know what you’re talking about.
It’s still better, over the life of the car you will come out better than a fossil fuel car. Consumption of anything anywhere pollutes, and the best option is to not buy a car at all (hello public transit funding, we need you). However, over the entire life of the car you will come out ahead, and the more EVs that are sold the easier it will be to produce. This month alone there are two firms who are claiming they have alternatives to lithium for the battery base. One claims they can use salt. We will continue to see improvements with battery production as it scales.
Please stop with the “gotcha” style and try to instead try to see other people’s sides. Yes, I take public transit and walk whenever I can, but in my city I still need a car for a few things, and my old car is dying. So, faced with buying a new car, I would rather have one that doesn’t pollute while I’m sitting in traffic that encourages auto makers to not just give in but to push green initiatives. Will it work? I don’t know, but it’s better than just giving up and saying “well acksually it’s still ruining our planet just slower”
Oh and by the way, your numbers are wrong.
That link says that the battery alone takes 4-16 tons of carbon to produce. It doesn’t say anything about the actual chassis and other stuff in the car. So somewhere between 24 and 36 tons of carbon for a new ev to start rolling down the street versus the yearly emissions of the gas car it’s supposed to replace. based on the link you posted that’s six to nine years of emissions before you can even start comparing them mile for mile.
I’m not saying this to suggest that there’s no point in trying or that somehow evs aren’t greener than comparable gas cars but to state that if the goal is to make tremendous reductions in carbon output then a gigantic bubble of carbon rich consumption isn’t the way to go.
We can’t reduce carbon output in the short to medium term by replacing a bunch of cars. We can reduce it by not driving as much.
None of this is a gotcha or an attack on you personally. It’s just stating the fact that keeping existing cars on the road and reducing the amount they’re driven is a really viable path that doesn’t require the insanity of lithium batteries or for some new technology to replace them.
I tried to make that point in a way that put production up front as the best place to turn the carbon spigot off, but in case that’s not clear: consumers can’t change what gets produced and by extension how it is produced.
Yes, we know, but the alternative isn’t “just don’t buy one because it doesn’t matter anyway”, it’s “Do the best we can as consumers to make smart, green choices”. Vote with our wallets that we do want greener alternatives rather than giving up. If a battery comes along that is more eco friendly than lithium I’ll probably buy that one.
A better way to phrase what you said to encourage people to go green is to say “Absolutely going electric is a smart choice, it’ll reduce your personal emissions by a substantial amount, but remember that to public transit/walking are still the greenest options. We can also always demand from the companies we buy from that they should use greener manufacturing as well.”
Don’t just point out the flaws in a way that comes off as “We shouldn’t even try because what’s the point”. We can both be better ourselves and demand companies hold themselves to even higher standards, it’s not one or the other.
Sorry, sometimes it’s hard to make myself understood. Consumption is not in any way a solution to climate change.
Boycotts don’t work, you can’t change the carbon impact of production at the point of consumption because the carbon has already been released. Voting with your wallet doesn’t work.
We should not spend even one iota of time concerned with how to make greener choices as individuals and instead work on stopping pollution at the point of production.
If it’s not clear: climate change comes from the release of greenhouse gasses and that doesn’t happen more or less depending on what I swipe my credit card to buy.
That’s a very selfish way to look at it. “Nothing I can do so fuck it”. But there is. I agree with you, we should demand change in production, but you’re also being selfish just giving up and not altering your lifestyle just because “it’s already been made”.
Boycotts do work. If people actually followed through with them, and yeah, I’m boycotting any more fossil fuels in my house. 1 person doesn’t mean a whole lot, but if cynics like you started actually changing it might.
The written word can really be a boondoggle sometimes.
At no point do I say “fuck it”. Boycotts don’t work (here I’m talking about consumer boycotts not boycotts paired with radical action like Montgomery or possibly bds). Pollution needs to be attacked at the point of production.
It’s not selfish to recognize this. It’s not selfish to suggest that the solution to climate change is not consumption. What does it look like to you to shut pollution off at the source? That’s not doing nothing.
There’s plenty of lifestyle alterations coming down the pike. No one is missing out on their medicine except through death.