3 ms·
Another day another set of researchers justifying their research which then gets spun as anti-EV FUD.
by _aavaa_ 3y ago
Another day another set of researchers justifying their research which then gets spun as anti-EV FUD.
- wyldfire 3y agoWhy would that happen? EVs use their brakes much less often. when I read the article it occurred to me that this could eventually used to justify policy that would subsidize EVs more than they are.
- thebruce87m 3y agoThe article has this statement: > The new study reveals a problem that may grow as electric cars become more and more common over the next several decades. Electric cars, Smith explained, are not truly zero-emission vehicles, so municipalities need to think about strategies to reduce emissions from brake use as well as tailpipes. Which completely ignores regenerative braking.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoThe first sentence of the abstract also shows a technically correct statement easily used for disingenuous framings: “The coming decades promise a transition from internal combustion engines to electric, and with it a greater relative contribution of nonexhaust sources to urban air pollution.”
- decafninja 3y agoThe brake dust argument is something I’ve noticed coming more from the “ban all cars” crowd more than the “anti-EV/pro-ICE” crowd. I assume the objective is that these people want to see things go from ICE cars to public transportation instead of EVs.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoAnd while setting up cities to go from car-centric cities to something that's walkable and/or easily accessibly by bus/train/bike for the majority of able-bodied people is something I agree with, that's a change that will take decades to roll out. In the meantime, the cars are here to stay, so we might as well push to get cleaner ones.