You're trying way too hard to sound smart. Imagine this. You tell me people can't get to the moon because it's expensive. Then I say the majority of people I t

You're trying way too hard to sound smart. Imagine this. You tell me people can't get to the moon because it's expensive. Then I say the majority of people I talk to have been to the moon. Is my argument better because it's "data" based versus your rhetoric based argument? No it's not even close. And an argument backed up by data is not somehow more meaningful than all others forms of argument. You can go look to nearly ever mathematical field for proof of that. Besides that anecdotes are not data. They aren't just not high quality data, they are not data. You cannot just state something you may or may not have truthfully heard and then call it data. >How much CO2 does an electric scooter emit per passenger kilometre over its lifetime? What journeys are they used for? How much CO2 would be emitted by the same people performing the same journeys by alternate means of transport if the scooters did not exist? This is an impossibly complex set of questions. But what you're basically saying is the scooters emit less (CO2 is not the only emissions that matters) than whatever transportation would have been used otherwise. This isn't true. This is literally what the article this thread is about says.