An EV still produces about 30% of the lifetime CO2 emissions of an equivalent ICE, assuming a 100% clean grid [1]. So unless we change the systems that are putting more and more cars on the road, and increasing vehicle miles traveled each year, emissions will continue to rise.
Cars only really became available to the public in the 20s or 30s. I bet your city was overrun by cars by the 50s. Cities drastically changed over just a few decades. Why should it take significantly longer to go in the reverse direction? Other than a lack of political will.
edit: I’m not against EVs overall. I know there will always be a need for cars/trucks to some extent, and I think they should all be EVs. But don’t let that be a distraction from actual meaningful climate action.
So that source specifically states that the production emissions are a best estimate, and not thoroughly examined in the scope of that study. In the not-so-theoretical case where the grid is carbon free (there are locations in North America where this is very close to true) that completely changes the math on the production emissions. That study chose not to look at that, and instead choose a flat rate that reflected the current average.
Also, I’m not saying that electric cars are the proper solution; I’m saying they are the fastest solution. They are a stop-gap because the proper solutions are going to take too long to implement.
I think a bigger part of the production emissions come from further up the supply chain than the factory. Such as extraction, refinement and shipping of the lithium and cobalt required for batteries. That is also what makes it hard to estimate.
My point was that switching to EVs will not make transportation emissions disappear.
An EV still produces about 30% of the lifetime CO2 emissions of an equivalent ICE, assuming a 100% clean grid [1]. So unless we change the systems that are putting more and more cars on the road, and increasing vehicle miles traveled each year, emissions will continue to rise.
Cars only really became available to the public in the 20s or 30s. I bet your city was overrun by cars by the 50s. Cities drastically changed over just a few decades. Why should it take significantly longer to go in the reverse direction? Other than a lack of political will.
edit: I’m not against EVs overall. I know there will always be a need for cars/trucks to some extent, and I think they should all be EVs. But don’t let that be a distraction from actual meaningful climate action.
So that source specifically states that the production emissions are a best estimate, and not thoroughly examined in the scope of that study. In the not-so-theoretical case where the grid is carbon free (there are locations in North America where this is very close to true) that completely changes the math on the production emissions. That study chose not to look at that, and instead choose a flat rate that reflected the current average.
Also, I’m not saying that electric cars are the proper solution; I’m saying they are the fastest solution. They are a stop-gap because the proper solutions are going to take too long to implement.
I think a bigger part of the production emissions come from further up the supply chain than the factory. Such as extraction, refinement and shipping of the lithium and cobalt required for batteries. That is also what makes it hard to estimate.
My point was that switching to EVs will not make transportation emissions disappear.
Cities should be carless (only renting cars should be allowed), rural areas should be EVs only, and only if you have photovoltaics on your roof.