This is a great example of how the media often confuses the complexities of environmental impact. Here's why: 1. This study is limited to particulate matter po

This is a great example of how the media often confuses the complexities of environmental impact. Here's why: 1. This study is limited to particulate matter pollution, not greenhouse gas emissions. Most readers nowadays associate "environmental impact" with climate change, so it's deceptive of the publisher to not specify that electric vehicles cause less greenhouse gas emissions overall than petroleum vehicles. 2. The particulate matter pollution in this study is a solvable problem, even if you keep the coal plants. Equipment like bag houses and static precipitators are already installed on a lot of coal generators to remove particulate. 3. We are currently in peak coal. Even China is starting to decrease the amount of coal generators that they are building. So the argument that we shouldn't switch to EVs because coal is dirty is pretty useless over the next few decades. Conclusion: The Economist knowingly published an article meant to deceive the reader and discredit electric vehicles.