4 ms·
Comparing the environmental impact of extraction processes for batteries to the impact of fossil fuel use is laughable, but I don’t fault you for asking the que
by kbos87 3y ago
Comparing the environmental impact of extraction processes for batteries to the impact of fossil fuel use is laughable, but I don’t fault you for asking the question. It’s disinformation, plain and simple, and it’s been surprisingly effective at getting people to question the shift to EVs over the past couple of years.
A broader conversation about consumption habits and their environmental impact in the western world is completely valid and sorely needed, but arguing that the transition to EVs isn’t worth it because there are other negative impacts is just plain defeatist. Slowing the rate at which we are pumping carbon into the atmosphere is virtually the only thing that matters at this moment.
- mydriasis 3y agoGotcha, understood! Yes, I didn't know that it was disinformation at all. Our family is trying our best to cut down on consumption habits, from growing our own food to generally trying to be less wasteful of gas, electricity, etc., but it is difficult: we grew up in these conditions and "cutting the cord" is a tough thing to do. I'd like to do whatever _really really helps us_ in the long run, you know? If that means EV conversion then so be it.
- Spartan-S63 3y agoThe other piece is that individual action is good, but laughably ineffective in broad strokes. When we talk about polluters and wasters of renewable and non-renewable resources, corporations are the biggest culprits. If we really want to conquer climate change, it starts by forcing the market to internalize the economic costs rather than passing them onto the taxpayer (and individual). Policies like cap and trade, polluter pays, and so on, are what's most effective at curbing climate change. Incentivizing proactive shifts (and penalizing laggards) towards renewable resources in manufacturing are what's required.