I find this ignorance really frustrating that people believe purchasing an electric car is somehow environmentally neutral. People should be educated on the environmental toll of EV production, lithium mining, tire pollution etc.

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    You must account for

    The sourcing of materials

    The manufacturing costs

    The transportation costs

    The usage costs (electricity generation, tires, batteries, parts)

    The cost of the infrastructure (roads, car centric design making things farther away, massive parking lots, maintaince and snow clearing)

    And the cost of disposal when the product is finished its life.

    This type of analysis is called a lifecycle analysis.

    The EV is here to save the car industry, not the planet.

    • fenynro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Asking purely from a point of ignorance - is that not the same for ICE cars? Sourcing of battery components is a clear difference, but ICE cars also require materials to be sourced, manufactured, transported, usage input costs, drive on the same infrastructure, and also require disposal after they’re no longer operable.

      Are these metrics truly that different between EV and ICE cars? If not, then all we’re really saying is that “making cars is not good for the environment” which, while accurate, seems like an insane point to use against EVs when comparing them to ICE

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, thats the point. EVs are still cars and have a massive individual resource and space requirement. Shifting away from car centric design would save energy and space in urban environments. Transit shares it’s life cycle with many more people than private vehicles do which spreads its larger resource and energy demand accross a signifcantly larger ridership.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Everyone here agrees with that sentiment or they probably wouldn’t be here. However an individual can’t just whistle up a transit system. Even in the best of cases, transit takes years or decades to develop

          I live in a part of the US with decent transit, and have commuted by rail where possible. I’m a big fan of rail and advocate for it. My town is centered on a train station and is zoned for higher population density near the center, creating a nice active walkable downtown with a traditional “Main Street “, and a quick train ride to the nearby city. We do everything right, to a greater extent than most of the US, but I still need a car

          Anyhow, working from home is even better for the environment than transit, I walk to restaurants and parks, and still need a car. My electrical provider only has 20% renewable energy thanks to NIMBYs , but coal is long gone so overall my EV is pretty clean, and I use it less every year

          • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Overall I am pro electrification of cars, I just don’t like that they are pushed as some ultra green revolution. The overall energy expenditure on them is still massive. Other cities should focus on becoming more walkable and transit friendly like yours is, that way people actually have the option to travel in truly more effecient ways like walking or transit. Pushing just electricfication of cars while not addressing any of the other concerns of them like the economic and zoning costs of roads and extensive parking lots is just making an ineffecient system slightly less ineffcient.