4 ms·

It's nuts how widespread these ideas about EVs are, even amongst people where I honestly would have expected something more. A lot of people I've talked to rel

It's nuts how widespread these ideas about EVs are, even amongst people where I honestly would have expected something more. A lot of people I've talked to rely on two main arguments. 1) Producing EVs is far more polluting than normal cars 2) They're running on dirty grids anyway OH, and a third popular argument 3) How are we supposed to build enough EVs for everybody when considering the environmental impact of producing the batteries?

masklinn 5y ago
> It's nuts how widespread these ideas about EVs are, even amongst people where I honestly would have expected something more. It’s not nuts, they’re just bad faith arguments.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
obarthelemy 5y ago
Then again, that study assumes cars will be on the road for 18 years (??!!??), with no major repairs especially no battery change. The current average age of cars in the US is 12 yrs. How's that supposed to jump by 50% ? I understand electric engines themselves are simpler and more durable, but you still get accidents, chassis issues, steering issues, vandalism/theft, evolving fashion and tech... and you add battery issues: a smartphone's battery barely lasts 5yrs, I understand car batteries are sturdier, but ... 3.5x longer-lasting ? If they need replacing, that's a major source of extra pollution. I'm all for cleaner cars, I actually don't own a car myself. But a study based on 18 years (+50% !) of product life isn't convincing, unless they prove cars in general and batteries in particular can last that long.
- ikerdanzel 5y ago
  Most studies are flawed and bias. It is the conclusions that counts even if it is on shaky premises. This study is just to back EU to change their policy more on renewables and support EVs in general. Basically, propaganda disguise in sci-wolf skin.
- postingawayonhn 5y ago
  > In the US, an EV produces between 60 to 68 percent fewer emissions. It seems like a vehicle with a 12 year life you still produce fewer emissions than a ICE vehicle.
- bnajdecki 5y ago
  You’re right - 18 years is a lot for a car. But we’re not so far - The average age is 12 for the USA, but the average lifespan is around 13-17 depending on the source. So we might be closer than you pointed out ;)
- btach 5y ago
  Wow, that suprises me about the average age of cars on the road. I've grown up with the expectation that since cars are so expensive, it pays to take care of them and keep them working. Most areas I've lived have been areas of smaller populace and I am used to seeing older cars everywhere. My daily runner is a 2001 Outback with 140k miles. It's had problems, but I've always fixed them myself (engine rebuild following head gasket issue, broken fuel pump, etc). It's what my dad always did with our vehicles growing up and what many guys I've known have done. The mindset isn't universal of course, but looking at those numbers, seems to be relatively more prevalent in my microcosm than overall average. I guess my suprise is that what I took for granted to be normal really isn't compared to the overall average!
- URSpider94 5y ago
  You’ve fallen prey to a mathematical fallacy. Imagine a place where one person is born each year, and all of them die upon reaching age 10. The average age of that population is 5, while the expected lifespan is 10. At any given time, the expected lifespan will be somewhere around double the average age. So, there’s no need for the average age to jump dramatically, we are already there.
acdha 5y ago
One thing to always keep in mind is how much money there is supporting certain viewpoints. It’s not that people are combining up with things at random but that they’re hearing stuff recirculated from the same sources. Anything to do with fuel economy or power sources gets the double whammy from people who are hesitant about change or self-identify with a technology (think about the car enthusiasts who said EVs would never be fun before Teslas started smoking them), as well as a very well funded media network serving both political ends and the interests of a very rich industry. That keeps ideas circulating and the more people hear it, the more they might start to think there’s something to it. One interesting example of how weird this can get was in the mid-2000s when various places started circulating hit pieces on Rachel Carson claiming that banning DDT had killed millions of people by letting malaria spread. This was scientifically nonsense (resistance evolves rapidly & was a major problem by the late 1950s) but it circulated enough to get mainstream coverage, especially as various right-wing outlets (Reason, Cato, CEI, Fox, etc.) started pushing it as justification for ignoring climate change. For a period, a fair number of people felt it reasonable to ask whether it might in fact have been better to allow unrestricted DDT use even though they had none of the political or financial ties motivating the original spreaders, simply because it was successfully introduced as a topic people should have an opinion on. The campaign traced back to tobacco company lobbyists who were trying to discredit the WHO in Africa so their anti-smoking campaigns would be less effective: https://web.archive.org/web/20080517020543/http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10175 https://web.archive.org/web/20080517020543/http://www.prospe...
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
Lots of motivated reasoning. See no further than the willingness to believe that there are all these hydroelectric power plants idling around in China to see that it can befall even those convinced they are oh so rational.

masklinn 5y ago

> It's nuts how widespread these ideas about EVs are, even amongst people where I honestly would have expected something more. It’s not nuts, they’re just bad faith arguments.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

obarthelemy 5y ago

Then again, that study assumes cars will be on the road for 18 years (??!!??), with no major repairs especially no battery change. The current average age of cars in the US is 12 yrs. How's that supposed to jump by 50% ? I understand electric engines themselves are simpler and more durable, but you still get accidents, chassis issues, steering issues, vandalism/theft, evolving fashion and tech... and you add battery issues: a smartphone's battery barely lasts 5yrs, I understand car batteries are sturdier, but ... 3.5x longer-lasting ? If they need replacing, that's a major source of extra pollution. I'm all for cleaner cars, I actually don't own a car myself. But a study based on 18 years (+50% !) of product life isn't convincing, unless they prove cars in general and batteries in particular can last that long.

ikerdanzel 5y ago
Most studies are flawed and bias. It is the conclusions that counts even if it is on shaky premises. This study is just to back EU to change their policy more on renewables and support EVs in general. Basically, propaganda disguise in sci-wolf skin.
postingawayonhn 5y ago
> In the US, an EV produces between 60 to 68 percent fewer emissions. It seems like a vehicle with a 12 year life you still produce fewer emissions than a ICE vehicle.
bnajdecki 5y ago
You’re right - 18 years is a lot for a car. But we’re not so far - The average age is 12 for the USA, but the average lifespan is around 13-17 depending on the source. So we might be closer than you pointed out ;)
btach 5y ago
Wow, that suprises me about the average age of cars on the road. I've grown up with the expectation that since cars are so expensive, it pays to take care of them and keep them working. Most areas I've lived have been areas of smaller populace and I am used to seeing older cars everywhere. My daily runner is a 2001 Outback with 140k miles. It's had problems, but I've always fixed them myself (engine rebuild following head gasket issue, broken fuel pump, etc). It's what my dad always did with our vehicles growing up and what many guys I've known have done. The mindset isn't universal of course, but looking at those numbers, seems to be relatively more prevalent in my microcosm than overall average. I guess my suprise is that what I took for granted to be normal really isn't compared to the overall average!
URSpider94 5y ago
You’ve fallen prey to a mathematical fallacy. Imagine a place where one person is born each year, and all of them die upon reaching age 10. The average age of that population is 5, while the expected lifespan is 10. At any given time, the expected lifespan will be somewhere around double the average age. So, there’s no need for the average age to jump dramatically, we are already there.

acdha 5y ago

One thing to always keep in mind is how much money there is supporting certain viewpoints. It’s not that people are combining up with things at random but that they’re hearing stuff recirculated from the same sources. Anything to do with fuel economy or power sources gets the double whammy from people who are hesitant about change or self-identify with a technology (think about the car enthusiasts who said EVs would never be fun before Teslas started smoking them), as well as a very well funded media network serving both political ends and the interests of a very rich industry. That keeps ideas circulating and the more people hear it, the more they might start to think there’s something to it. One interesting example of how weird this can get was in the mid-2000s when various places started circulating hit pieces on Rachel Carson claiming that banning DDT had killed millions of people by letting malaria spread. This was scientifically nonsense (resistance evolves rapidly & was a major problem by the late 1950s) but it circulated enough to get mainstream coverage, especially as various right-wing outlets (Reason, Cato, CEI, Fox, etc.) started pushing it as justification for ignoring climate change. For a period, a fair number of people felt it reasonable to ask whether it might in fact have been better to allow unrestricted DDT use even though they had none of the political or financial ties motivating the original spreaders, simply because it was successfully introduced as a topic people should have an opinion on. The campaign traced back to tobacco company lobbyists who were trying to discredit the WHO in Africa so their anti-smoking campaigns would be less effective: https://web.archive.org/web/20080517020543/http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10175 https://web.archive.org/web/20080517020543/http://www.prospe...

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

Lots of motivated reasoning. See no further than the willingness to believe that there are all these hydroelectric power plants idling around in China to see that it can befall even those convinced they are oh so rational.