That link says that the battery alone takes 4-16 tons of carbon to produce. It doesn’t say anything about the actual chassis and other stuff in the car. So somewhere between 24 and 36 tons of carbon for a new ev to start rolling down the street versus the yearly emissions of the gas car it’s supposed to replace. based on the link you posted that’s six to nine years of emissions before you can even start comparing them mile for mile.
I’m not saying this to suggest that there’s no point in trying or that somehow evs aren’t greener than comparable gas cars but to state that if the goal is to make tremendous reductions in carbon output then a gigantic bubble of carbon rich consumption isn’t the way to go.
We can’t reduce carbon output in the short to medium term by replacing a bunch of cars. We can reduce it by not driving as much.
None of this is a gotcha or an attack on you personally. It’s just stating the fact that keeping existing cars on the road and reducing the amount they’re driven is a really viable path that doesn’t require the insanity of lithium batteries or for some new technology to replace them.
I tried to make that point in a way that put production up front as the best place to turn the carbon spigot off, but in case that’s not clear: consumers can’t change what gets produced and by extension how it is produced.
Yes, we know, but the alternative isn’t “just don’t buy one because it doesn’t matter anyway”, it’s “Do the best we can as consumers to make smart, green choices”. Vote with our wallets that we do want greener alternatives rather than giving up. If a battery comes along that is more eco friendly than lithium I’ll probably buy that one.
A better way to phrase what you said to encourage people to go green is to say “Absolutely going electric is a smart choice, it’ll reduce your personal emissions by a substantial amount, but remember that to public transit/walking are still the greenest options. We can also always demand from the companies we buy from that they should use greener manufacturing as well.”
Don’t just point out the flaws in a way that comes off as “We shouldn’t even try because what’s the point”. We can both be better ourselves and demand companies hold themselves to even higher standards, it’s not one or the other.
Sorry, sometimes it’s hard to make myself understood. Consumption is not in any way a solution to climate change.
Boycotts don’t work, you can’t change the carbon impact of production at the point of consumption because the carbon has already been released. Voting with your wallet doesn’t work.
We should not spend even one iota of time concerned with how to make greener choices as individuals and instead work on stopping pollution at the point of production.
If it’s not clear: climate change comes from the release of greenhouse gasses and that doesn’t happen more or less depending on what I swipe my credit card to buy.
That’s a very selfish way to look at it. “Nothing I can do so fuck it”. But there is. I agree with you, we should demand change in production, but you’re also being selfish just giving up and not altering your lifestyle just because “it’s already been made”.
Boycotts do work. If people actually followed through with them, and yeah, I’m boycotting any more fossil fuels in my house. 1 person doesn’t mean a whole lot, but if cynics like you started actually changing it might.
The written word can really be a boondoggle sometimes.
At no point do I say “fuck it”. Boycotts don’t work (here I’m talking about consumer boycotts not boycotts paired with radical action like Montgomery or possibly bds). Pollution needs to be attacked at the point of production.
It’s not selfish to recognize this. It’s not selfish to suggest that the solution to climate change is not consumption. What does it look like to you to shut pollution off at the source? That’s not doing nothing.
There’s plenty of lifestyle alterations coming down the pike. No one is missing out on their medicine except through death.
That link says that the battery alone takes 4-16 tons of carbon to produce. It doesn’t say anything about the actual chassis and other stuff in the car. So somewhere between 24 and 36 tons of carbon for a new ev to start rolling down the street versus the yearly emissions of the gas car it’s supposed to replace. based on the link you posted that’s six to nine years of emissions before you can even start comparing them mile for mile.
I’m not saying this to suggest that there’s no point in trying or that somehow evs aren’t greener than comparable gas cars but to state that if the goal is to make tremendous reductions in carbon output then a gigantic bubble of carbon rich consumption isn’t the way to go.
We can’t reduce carbon output in the short to medium term by replacing a bunch of cars. We can reduce it by not driving as much.
None of this is a gotcha or an attack on you personally. It’s just stating the fact that keeping existing cars on the road and reducing the amount they’re driven is a really viable path that doesn’t require the insanity of lithium batteries or for some new technology to replace them.
I tried to make that point in a way that put production up front as the best place to turn the carbon spigot off, but in case that’s not clear: consumers can’t change what gets produced and by extension how it is produced.
Yes, we know, but the alternative isn’t “just don’t buy one because it doesn’t matter anyway”, it’s “Do the best we can as consumers to make smart, green choices”. Vote with our wallets that we do want greener alternatives rather than giving up. If a battery comes along that is more eco friendly than lithium I’ll probably buy that one.
A better way to phrase what you said to encourage people to go green is to say “Absolutely going electric is a smart choice, it’ll reduce your personal emissions by a substantial amount, but remember that to public transit/walking are still the greenest options. We can also always demand from the companies we buy from that they should use greener manufacturing as well.”
Don’t just point out the flaws in a way that comes off as “We shouldn’t even try because what’s the point”. We can both be better ourselves and demand companies hold themselves to even higher standards, it’s not one or the other.
Sorry, sometimes it’s hard to make myself understood. Consumption is not in any way a solution to climate change.
Boycotts don’t work, you can’t change the carbon impact of production at the point of consumption because the carbon has already been released. Voting with your wallet doesn’t work.
We should not spend even one iota of time concerned with how to make greener choices as individuals and instead work on stopping pollution at the point of production.
If it’s not clear: climate change comes from the release of greenhouse gasses and that doesn’t happen more or less depending on what I swipe my credit card to buy.
That’s a very selfish way to look at it. “Nothing I can do so fuck it”. But there is. I agree with you, we should demand change in production, but you’re also being selfish just giving up and not altering your lifestyle just because “it’s already been made”.
Boycotts do work. If people actually followed through with them, and yeah, I’m boycotting any more fossil fuels in my house. 1 person doesn’t mean a whole lot, but if cynics like you started actually changing it might.
The written word can really be a boondoggle sometimes.
At no point do I say “fuck it”. Boycotts don’t work (here I’m talking about consumer boycotts not boycotts paired with radical action like Montgomery or possibly bds). Pollution needs to be attacked at the point of production.
It’s not selfish to recognize this. It’s not selfish to suggest that the solution to climate change is not consumption. What does it look like to you to shut pollution off at the source? That’s not doing nothing.
There’s plenty of lifestyle alterations coming down the pike. No one is missing out on their medicine except through death.