• NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, I’m a nut for EVs, but they are correct. EVs are likely better in the long run, but producing them still produces a ton of greenhouse gasses and other environmental concerns. The best bet is to encourage people to drive less, build better infrastructure so fewer people have to buy cars, and focus on reduction of reliance on driving as a whole.

      Hell, even for me, my whole plan was to drive my EV into the ground, using it as long as possible to offset it’s upfront environmental costs, but my battery failed after 38k miles. I got a lemon :(. Thankfully, it’s covered under warranty and they built me a new battery, but now my car has the battery environmental cost of two EVs so it’ll likely never be as efficient as if I’d just bought a damn Honda Civic. Admittedly, I’m a statistical outlier, but it still sucks :(

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ur right ICE factories make no greenhouse emissions at all and have 250M ICEs on the road makes lots less emissions than EVs. Having existing electrical plants produce power will just make more greenhouse gasses than all the ICE cars they have helped replace.

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you think it doesn’t? Can you explain point by point how your comparison works? Does haing 250M less ICEs in a country somehow increase greenhouse gasses?