3 ms·

On top of all the other replies debunking this, one thing left is that they're not the greener option for everyone. Auke Hoekstra has been pretty active (on Tw

On top of all the other replies debunking this, one thing left is that they're not the greener option for everyone. Auke Hoekstra has been pretty active (on Twitter etc) debunking this - electric cars' additional footprint gets paid off under 20k miles even at the emission levels of electricity grids of yesterday. As the grid decarbonizes further it will become even less. The number of cars driven less than 20k miles is irrelevantly tiny. https://x.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1332464525602410498 https://x.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1332464525602410498

hnlmorg 2y ago
Did you actually read my comment and the replies? Because most of the replies didn’t even address the points I was making, let alone debunk it. Just like with your post. I never actually made any claims about mileages. However as it happens, I do specifically fall into that uneconomical bracket. That’s why I ended up buying petrol despite wanting an EV. I work from home and thus rarely drive. EV isn’t yet ready for my specific use case. It will get there, but it’s not there today. And thus we are back to the crux of point is was making: that this topic is far more complicated than the OP suggested.
- locallost 2y ago
  I read it carefully. Your claim was it's not greener for everyone. It is because the additional costs in terms of emissions are paid off in less than 20k miles. This is a little bit more than the average per year. It's possible a car travels less than that during its life span, but it's so small it's irrelevant. That's like saying it makes financial sense playing the lottery just because someone occasionally wins.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    > Your claim was it's not greener for everyone. No, my point was “EVs aren’t all that green either”. Things are going to improve. But people so often forgot about all the other environmental costs involved with EV. In an ideal world we’d be using push bikes, but clearly that’s not practical either. However it’s fair to say that this whole transportation debate is a lot more complicated than people like to summarise. > It is because the additional costs in terms of emissions are paid off in less than 20k miles. Again, that was never my claim. That’s a strawman argument you’ve constructed.
    - locallost 2y ago
      Direct quote: In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon footprint in full. End quote. No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles. As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Locally I go on foot, bike and rarely public transport and long distance by train and I rarely fly. So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. If not, EVs are a much better option.
      - hnlmorg 2y ago
        Exactly. That quote doesn’t mention mileage. You mentioned it. > No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles. You’re being overly generalised. There are different ICE cars that have different carbon footprints. Hybrids too. Different driving styles that can affect fuel consumption too. Just as there are different EVs that have different running costs, different mileage per charge, and different carbon footprints to manufacture. Then you have questions about how that electricity was generated. Most countries are improving with their use of renewables but there are some counties out there that are just going to burn fossil fuels anyway. However even if you ignore external factors like driving style, and where the electricity comes from, you still have literally thousands of different variables just on the vehicles alone. These are all important variables that shape the results. Saying “20k miles” is completely bullshit headline made by people trying to greenwash people into buying EV. There isnt this magic line you claim there is. Instead we have a massive fuzzy grey area. I also think you massively underestimate just how different European cars are to American cars. Plus the fact that even your grossly generalised statement acknowledges that there is a cross over point, means I’m still factually correct; even ignoring how overly simplistic (to the point of being factually incorrect) you are. > As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Right. So your points are from a theoretical perspective rather than actual experience. Understood. > So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. I’m getting really sick of your assumptions about me. I’ve already said I work from home and rarely need to drive. That was literally in the comment you claimed to have “read carefully” - thus proving my point that you hadn’t. I live in the countryside. So I do walk and cycle lots. That’s the entire reason I chose to live where I live. ——— You have this impression that cars are literally one thing and it’s a Boolean decision. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. People like yourself need to understand that life is fully of nuance. Which was the point of my original comment: that the issue around EVs environmental footprint is still being understood but even by conservative estimates, there’s still a lot of room to improve. Yet you missed all of that when you “carefully read” my comment and instead focused on some meaningless generalisation you saw on twitter coupled with a bunch of incorrect assumptions about myself.

hnlmorg 2y ago

Did you actually read my comment and the replies? Because most of the replies didn’t even address the points I was making, let alone debunk it. Just like with your post. I never actually made any claims about mileages. However as it happens, I do specifically fall into that uneconomical bracket. That’s why I ended up buying petrol despite wanting an EV. I work from home and thus rarely drive. EV isn’t yet ready for my specific use case. It will get there, but it’s not there today. And thus we are back to the crux of point is was making: that this topic is far more complicated than the OP suggested.

locallost 2y ago
I read it carefully. Your claim was it's not greener for everyone. It is because the additional costs in terms of emissions are paid off in less than 20k miles. This is a little bit more than the average per year. It's possible a car travels less than that during its life span, but it's so small it's irrelevant. That's like saying it makes financial sense playing the lottery just because someone occasionally wins.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  > Your claim was it's not greener for everyone. No, my point was “EVs aren’t all that green either”. Things are going to improve. But people so often forgot about all the other environmental costs involved with EV. In an ideal world we’d be using push bikes, but clearly that’s not practical either. However it’s fair to say that this whole transportation debate is a lot more complicated than people like to summarise. > It is because the additional costs in terms of emissions are paid off in less than 20k miles. Again, that was never my claim. That’s a strawman argument you’ve constructed.
  - locallost 2y ago
    Direct quote: In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon footprint in full. End quote. No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles. As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Locally I go on foot, bike and rarely public transport and long distance by train and I rarely fly. So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. If not, EVs are a much better option.
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      Exactly. That quote doesn’t mention mileage. You mentioned it. > No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles. You’re being overly generalised. There are different ICE cars that have different carbon footprints. Hybrids too. Different driving styles that can affect fuel consumption too. Just as there are different EVs that have different running costs, different mileage per charge, and different carbon footprints to manufacture. Then you have questions about how that electricity was generated. Most countries are improving with their use of renewables but there are some counties out there that are just going to burn fossil fuels anyway. However even if you ignore external factors like driving style, and where the electricity comes from, you still have literally thousands of different variables just on the vehicles alone. These are all important variables that shape the results. Saying “20k miles” is completely bullshit headline made by people trying to greenwash people into buying EV. There isnt this magic line you claim there is. Instead we have a massive fuzzy grey area. I also think you massively underestimate just how different European cars are to American cars. Plus the fact that even your grossly generalised statement acknowledges that there is a cross over point, means I’m still factually correct; even ignoring how overly simplistic (to the point of being factually incorrect) you are. > As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Right. So your points are from a theoretical perspective rather than actual experience. Understood. > So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. I’m getting really sick of your assumptions about me. I’ve already said I work from home and rarely need to drive. That was literally in the comment you claimed to have “read carefully” - thus proving my point that you hadn’t. I live in the countryside. So I do walk and cycle lots. That’s the entire reason I chose to live where I live. ——— You have this impression that cars are literally one thing and it’s a Boolean decision. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. People like yourself need to understand that life is fully of nuance. Which was the point of my original comment: that the issue around EVs environmental footprint is still being understood but even by conservative estimates, there’s still a lot of room to improve. Yet you missed all of that when you “carefully read” my comment and instead focused on some meaningless generalisation you saw on twitter coupled with a bunch of incorrect assumptions about myself.