I wouldn't dispute either statement. Indeed, I was going to point out that the real solutions involve practical mitigations like longer-wearing tire/road compo

I wouldn't dispute either statement. Indeed, I was going to point out that the real solutions involve practical mitigations like longer-wearing tire/road compounds and removal of the most ecologically harmful anti-fungal additives used in tires today. Naturally, you would still want to do this regardless of switching to EVs (which I think is inevitable). My point is that the way you're arguing undermines our side's credibility. When you say (rightly IMO) that TFA is dishonest for omitting major emission routes because they're inconvenient toward their EV beliefs, everyone immediately sees how that cuts both ways. Even though we're right, it makes our side look disingenuous (and worse hypocritical) by selectively ignoring downsides while simultaneously accusing others of the exact same. It's weak rhetoric. Please keep fighting the good fight! I only wish my allies to be more effective fighters armed with the most powerful rhetoric. Thanks.