4 ms·

WSJ has an article a while back comparing emissions from electric vs gas vehicles over the life of the car [0]. It's graphic-heavy so you'll get something out o

WSJ has an article a while back comparing emissions from electric vs gas vehicles over the life of the car [0]. It's graphic-heavy so you'll get something out of it even you just scroll. I don't know what I should be getting out of this article. Cars require energy and materials to make? I think I knew that. I wish this article made bolder claims about EVs not being green instead of implying and hand-waving. Because than maybe I could refute it. Electric cars are better for the environment, given any reasonable parameters of the average driver, and that's something people should know. [0] https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/ https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better... https://archive.md/DbtZs https://archive.md/DbtZs

irthomasthomas 5y ago
I thought the point of the bloomberg article was that car emissions are only half the story? More c02 is made in the manufacturing of the car than is made in emissions during the life of the car. And EVs are worse here due to the high carbon cost of the batteries. So if all you care about is net carbon, then it is better to stick with your current car, whatever that may be. Now personally I dont like exhaust emissions from ICE cars. People living near busy roads have more health problems and a shorter life expectancy. However, my choice would be to get rid of private cars alltogether, not shift the pollution to another region. When I am king, I will start by enforcing a 1 car per household limit, except those with special needs. And eventually replace all private cars with EV public transport and bikes.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >More c02 is made in the manufacturing of the car than is made in emissions during the life of the car. Everything I've seen says that isn't the case, that by about 50,000 miles you are in the black compared to an ICE. I tend to agree with your second point though. If you are really serious about your environmental impact then bikes are the way to go.
  - irthomasthomas 5y ago
    "Everything I've seen says that isn't the case, that by about 50,000 miles you are in the black compared to an ICE." Yes, perhaps, but that is comparing a new EV to a new ICE. I am talking about keeping your old ICE running vs buying a new EV. That is where the major problem is, and it is a big problem because EVs, and Tesla particularly are marketed as the new must-have gadget. Edit: And people are upgrading earlier than they normally would, due to the hyped and unsubstantiated green credentials of EVs.
    - mcv 5y ago
      Maybe don't immediately trash your perfectly operational ICE car, but if you're ever considering buying a new car, that's probably the moment to switch to EV.
      - dTal 5y ago
        You don't trash perfectly operational cars, you sell them. The people who buy them are themselves replacing older, more worn out cars, which they in turn sell for a lower price. Thus it ripples down the line, with the net effect being an increase in supply in the used car market and therefore a reduction in price, which encourages people driving the very oldest, most worn out cars to scrap them and get something better. Those cars are probably not "perfectly operational", but falling to pieces, in constant need of spares and repair, and very likely less efficient. The running cost, and therefore almost certainly the environmental impact, of an old banger is higher than that of a new cars - and for the people driving them, the capital expense of a better car is likely a significant barrier, even though they'd save money in the longer term. So it's not clear that having the richest people upgrade to electric isn't a net positive all the same. tl;dr rich people upgrading to electric is like a privatized "cash for clunkers" scheme.
    - theluketaylor 5y ago
      Engineering Explained covered this is a recent video. tldr while it obviously depends on how much you drive, you need a pretty efficient ICE car for sticking to lower carbon overall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k
- tinalumfoil 5y ago
  > I thought the point of the bloomberg article was that car emissions are only half the story? I got that, but the issue is Bloomberg doesn't give any actual details or any way to quantify what the non-emission damage is. I highly doubt it's worse than the environmental cost of gas cars, but I can't refute hot air. Like, walking to work probably has a higher environmental cost than you think. It wears on your sneakers which have to be replaced. That requires harming rubber trees and sneaker production actually has a sizable carbon output. You also breathe more exhaling greenhouse gasses. You have eat more for the energy, and food production is pretty bad for the environment. But I'm just spewing hot air. I don't have the numbers to truly compare which is worse. I'm asking you to consider something that's probably not true, walking is worse than driving for the environment (even if I never say that), without providing any point of comparison or any hook for you to refute me.

irthomasthomas 5y ago

I thought the point of the bloomberg article was that car emissions are only half the story? More c02 is made in the manufacturing of the car than is made in emissions during the life of the car. And EVs are worse here due to the high carbon cost of the batteries. So if all you care about is net carbon, then it is better to stick with your current car, whatever that may be. Now personally I dont like exhaust emissions from ICE cars. People living near busy roads have more health problems and a shorter life expectancy. However, my choice would be to get rid of private cars alltogether, not shift the pollution to another region. When I am king, I will start by enforcing a 1 car per household limit, except those with special needs. And eventually replace all private cars with EV public transport and bikes.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>More c02 is made in the manufacturing of the car than is made in emissions during the life of the car. Everything I've seen says that isn't the case, that by about 50,000 miles you are in the black compared to an ICE. I tend to agree with your second point though. If you are really serious about your environmental impact then bikes are the way to go.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  "Everything I've seen says that isn't the case, that by about 50,000 miles you are in the black compared to an ICE." Yes, perhaps, but that is comparing a new EV to a new ICE. I am talking about keeping your old ICE running vs buying a new EV. That is where the major problem is, and it is a big problem because EVs, and Tesla particularly are marketed as the new must-have gadget. Edit: And people are upgrading earlier than they normally would, due to the hyped and unsubstantiated green credentials of EVs.
  - mcv 5y ago
    Maybe don't immediately trash your perfectly operational ICE car, but if you're ever considering buying a new car, that's probably the moment to switch to EV.
    - dTal 5y ago
      You don't trash perfectly operational cars, you sell them. The people who buy them are themselves replacing older, more worn out cars, which they in turn sell for a lower price. Thus it ripples down the line, with the net effect being an increase in supply in the used car market and therefore a reduction in price, which encourages people driving the very oldest, most worn out cars to scrap them and get something better. Those cars are probably not "perfectly operational", but falling to pieces, in constant need of spares and repair, and very likely less efficient. The running cost, and therefore almost certainly the environmental impact, of an old banger is higher than that of a new cars - and for the people driving them, the capital expense of a better car is likely a significant barrier, even though they'd save money in the longer term. So it's not clear that having the richest people upgrade to electric isn't a net positive all the same. tl;dr rich people upgrading to electric is like a privatized "cash for clunkers" scheme.
  - theluketaylor 5y ago
    Engineering Explained covered this is a recent video. tldr while it obviously depends on how much you drive, you need a pretty efficient ICE car for sticking to lower carbon overall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k
tinalumfoil 5y ago
> I thought the point of the bloomberg article was that car emissions are only half the story? I got that, but the issue is Bloomberg doesn't give any actual details or any way to quantify what the non-emission damage is. I highly doubt it's worse than the environmental cost of gas cars, but I can't refute hot air. Like, walking to work probably has a higher environmental cost than you think. It wears on your sneakers which have to be replaced. That requires harming rubber trees and sneaker production actually has a sizable carbon output. You also breathe more exhaling greenhouse gasses. You have eat more for the energy, and food production is pretty bad for the environment. But I'm just spewing hot air. I don't have the numbers to truly compare which is worse. I'm asking you to consider something that's probably not true, walking is worse than driving for the environment (even if I never say that), without providing any point of comparison or any hook for you to refute me.