> 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 d

> 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.