17 ms·

Now ask yourself, how much of the pollution comes from cars? and does all the pollution comes from tailpipe emissions? There is more pollution from breaks and

Now ask yourself, how much of the pollution comes from cars? and does all the pollution comes from tailpipe emissions? There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes. And EVs still use those. Then, if gas lawn equipment like a mower or leaf blower pollutes more than several cars, then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute? More than 90% of the pollution comes from that equipment. None of those use a catalytic converter. So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal.

taylodl 3y ago
> then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute? Who cares? Are there millions of pieces of this equipment in our cities? No? EVs cut down on smog in cities. They also cut down on CO2 output. These are substantial wins.
belltaco 3y ago
> There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes This is false. There is some pollution from brakes and tires but nowhere close to the pollution from tailpipes. Also regen braking reduces almost all the pollution from brakes.
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
> There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes. Absolute hogwash. Where could you even get that idea? How much material is there in a set of tires that you will lose over the life of the tire? How many miles will it take to lose that material? Now consider how many hundreds of gallons of gas you will burn before those tires wear out. > So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal. [0] According to the EPA, 29% of greenhouse gases emitted in the USA come from Transportation. Of that, only 58% of that comes from "Light-Duty Vehicles", ie, cars. That means if we replaced all cars with EVs, it would be ~17% reduction in GHG. Whether or not 17% is "marginal" is somewhat subjective on your definition of the word. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...

taylodl 3y ago

> then how much do you think the machines use in mining, agriculture, wood industry, etc. pollute? Who cares? Are there millions of pieces of this equipment in our cities? No? EVs cut down on smog in cities. They also cut down on CO2 output. These are substantial wins.

belltaco 3y ago

> There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes This is false. There is some pollution from brakes and tires but nowhere close to the pollution from tailpipes. Also regen braking reduces almost all the pollution from brakes.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago

> There is more pollution from breaks and tires than tailpipes. Absolute hogwash. Where could you even get that idea? How much material is there in a set of tires that you will lose over the life of the tire? How many miles will it take to lose that material? Now consider how many hundreds of gallons of gas you will burn before those tires wear out. > So even if you replace every car with an EV, the net pollution reduction will be marginal. [0] According to the EPA, 29% of greenhouse gases emitted in the USA come from Transportation. Of that, only 58% of that comes from "Light-Duty Vehicles", ie, cars. That means if we replaced all cars with EVs, it would be ~17% reduction in GHG. Whether or not 17% is "marginal" is somewhat subjective on your definition of the word. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...