4 ms·

>that is also assuming electric cars (in their current state) are less impactful than fossil fuel vehicles (which isn't the case) Is that true? Got a reference

>that is also assuming electric cars (in their current state) are less impactful than fossil fuel vehicles (which isn't the case) Is that true? Got a reference? The problem is that external costs like pollution are not being priced into the cost of ICE vehicles by, say, a pollution tax. This limited subsidy is a backhanded way of doing that. I don't see the issue with rich people benefiting from it, because it's exactly those rich people buying 100K Teslas that are paying for the cost of driving research into better battery technology and cheaper cars so everyone benefits from cleaner air and reduced global warming.

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
A strong argument is that using an already existing car (buying used) is way better for the environment that creating a new car, regardless of the MPG. Obviously if you play with the numbers (CO2 per mile driven, # of miles in life of car, CO2 per new car, expectation for expected reductions in total CO2 reduction by waiting if you want to get fancy) you can get it to tilt in either direction.
rukittenme 9y ago
Yes its true. I do not have a source handy so I'll have to rely on some other HN commenter to help me out. Basically the math works like this: An internal combustion cars cost X tons of carbon to produce. An an EV costs Y tons of carbon to produce. If you need a new car, it will probably require the same amount of carbon to produce an EV as a combustion car. But if you can drive a used car and extend its life 5, 10, 15 years, you save all the carbon of producing the car (which is where the majority of the carbon cost comes from). > I don't see the issue with rich people benefiting from it, because it's exactly those rich people buying 100K Teslas that are paying for the cost of driving research into better battery technology and cheaper cars so everyone benefits from cleaner air and reduced global warming. I love investing in technology. However, there's probably more efficient ways of doing it. Every dollar spent to help the rich could have been spent helping the poor, or the environment, or funding research.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  To be fair if you keep the EV long enough then it will work out to be better for the environment. Though I can't find a reliable number for how many years that actually is and I'm not sure if the average person who owns an EV would even keep it that long...
  - olympus 9y ago
    Maybe not better in the long run. You need to overhaul the batteries (replacing dead cells can be done individually) every decade with current technology. You also need to overhaul a combustion engine (cylinder bore/hone, worn parts replaced, warped parts milled flat) every decade-ish, so their sustaining carbon costs are about the same. It's at least a lot closer than most people realize. A PZEV (very low emission ICE vehicle) is the sweet spot right now in terms of overall environmental impact. It will be a few years before EVs are the clear winner.
- davidcbc 9y ago
  But used cars eventually do have to be replaced, and in the long run it is better to replace them with electric vehicles. It may not be an immediate net benefit but new cars are being built either way and increasing the percentage of new cars that are electric is better in the long run unless Y in your equation is greater than X + the total amount of carbon produced by a internal combustion car across its lifetime.
- rconti 9y ago
  So basically, your argument only works if you assume that the people buying EVs would have either kept on driving their old cars OR sold their old cars and replaced them with a used car? So now EVs are some kind of evil temptress? I think I can do without reading that source now.
  - rukittenme 9y ago
    > I think I can do without reading that source now. This is crazy, man. I'm just saying it costs less carbon to keep a used car. I'm not accusing EVs of "being an evil temptress".
jpalmer 9y ago
> The problem is that external costs like pollution are not being priced into the cost of ICE vehicles by, say, a pollution tax. This limited subsidy is a backhanded way of doing that. Using the carbon offset market, you could offset 760 Tonnes of CO2 with $7500. That's the carbon equivalent of driving an ICE for over 2 Million miles.

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago

A strong argument is that using an already existing car (buying used) is way better for the environment that creating a new car, regardless of the MPG. Obviously if you play with the numbers (CO2 per mile driven, # of miles in life of car, CO2 per new car, expectation for expected reductions in total CO2 reduction by waiting if you want to get fancy) you can get it to tilt in either direction.

rukittenme 9y ago

Yes its true. I do not have a source handy so I'll have to rely on some other HN commenter to help me out. Basically the math works like this: An internal combustion cars cost X tons of carbon to produce. An an EV costs Y tons of carbon to produce. If you need a new car, it will probably require the same amount of carbon to produce an EV as a combustion car. But if you can drive a used car and extend its life 5, 10, 15 years, you save all the carbon of producing the car (which is where the majority of the carbon cost comes from). > I don't see the issue with rich people benefiting from it, because it's exactly those rich people buying 100K Teslas that are paying for the cost of driving research into better battery technology and cheaper cars so everyone benefits from cleaner air and reduced global warming. I love investing in technology. However, there's probably more efficient ways of doing it. Every dollar spent to help the rich could have been spent helping the poor, or the environment, or funding research.

BinaryIdiot 9y ago
To be fair if you keep the EV long enough then it will work out to be better for the environment. Though I can't find a reliable number for how many years that actually is and I'm not sure if the average person who owns an EV would even keep it that long...
- olympus 9y ago
  Maybe not better in the long run. You need to overhaul the batteries (replacing dead cells can be done individually) every decade with current technology. You also need to overhaul a combustion engine (cylinder bore/hone, worn parts replaced, warped parts milled flat) every decade-ish, so their sustaining carbon costs are about the same. It's at least a lot closer than most people realize. A PZEV (very low emission ICE vehicle) is the sweet spot right now in terms of overall environmental impact. It will be a few years before EVs are the clear winner.
davidcbc 9y ago
But used cars eventually do have to be replaced, and in the long run it is better to replace them with electric vehicles. It may not be an immediate net benefit but new cars are being built either way and increasing the percentage of new cars that are electric is better in the long run unless Y in your equation is greater than X + the total amount of carbon produced by a internal combustion car across its lifetime.
rconti 9y ago
So basically, your argument only works if you assume that the people buying EVs would have either kept on driving their old cars OR sold their old cars and replaced them with a used car? So now EVs are some kind of evil temptress? I think I can do without reading that source now.
- rukittenme 9y ago
  > I think I can do without reading that source now. This is crazy, man. I'm just saying it costs less carbon to keep a used car. I'm not accusing EVs of "being an evil temptress".

jpalmer 9y ago

> The problem is that external costs like pollution are not being priced into the cost of ICE vehicles by, say, a pollution tax. This limited subsidy is a backhanded way of doing that. Using the carbon offset market, you could offset 760 Tonnes of CO2 with $7500. That's the carbon equivalent of driving an ICE for over 2 Million miles.