2 ms·

So you've read all the papers, which have an overwhelming agreement, then you ignored their conclusions? That is in many ways worse than not reading them. You

So you've read all the papers, which have an overwhelming agreement, then you ignored their conclusions? That is in many ways worse than not reading them. You apparently know that the research all agrees that switching to EVs in California has massive benefits and yet you are still repeating the opposite to argue against things you've taken a dislike to. It's the EPA's myth #1 on EVs: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth1 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myt... Not some radical new claim that you can undermine by complaining that a single source hasn't open sourced their basic maths.

brutusborn 3y ago
Reread my comment, I’m questioning the policy. This policy isn’t the same as switching to EVs, in fact it may cause no switching! Let’s assume it causes 1% of people to switch and decreases the local efficiency of ICE vehicles by ~1%. This would be a net increase of ~0.5% emissions! And we don’t know if it’s 1/1 or if it’s 0/5. My point is we cannot tell if this policy works without those numbers. 40% fossil fuel based power has a large effect on this number, so also needs to be taken into account.