Both articles were interesting reads. I do think EV's are less green than we would like to believe.
I was surprised that Lesser's article didn't use mining as part of his argument. To me the biggest argument against EV's being more green and ethical is that we require precious minerals that both cause huge emmissions to mine and the mines themselves often have huge humanitarian, labor, and political issues. See Musk's recent tweet saying "We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it!" Of course, if he were to speak out against lithium or cobolt mining, he would have to also acknowledge issues with fossil fuel mining.
Lesser's article is spot on when it comes to subsidies though. Right now, they certainly are only benefiting the wealthy, and thus the poor have to pay more when it comes to the road. The flipside of course is that if we do not subsidize EV's it will be much harder to grow them to the point of being affordable for the masses. I think part of the solution is to give more subsidies to cars with cheaper sticker prices, to encourage automakers to not only focus on top of the line models. The model 3 was a bait-and-switch in this regard, as a "30k" car that was only available in higher trims.
Even taking his clearly bias and not peer-reviewed numbers at face value, they're only going forward 30 years. It took 100 years to get gas cars to where they are today. If we look at a similar timeline, 100 years from now we could have a 100% clean energy grid, and have mined enough resources to depend on recycling precious minerals instead of mining for them. This is when the sustainability of EV's is truly green. It is certainly not a perfect process to get there.
Perhaps the biggest issue with the article is his conclusion: In his estimation it's a net neutral effect in 30 years, so let's not even try. He proposes no alternative but to go with the status quo and continue to destroy the planet.
The bigger truth, that Lesser would absolutely not write about, is that to be truly green we need to reduce consumption. Less overall new cars, less miles driven, more conversions and restorations of older cars to increase their lifespans, more public transportation, etc. Even on the smallest scale, it's better to convert your old bicycle into an e-bike than to order a Super 73, and it's greener than that to just ride your existing bicycle. The key to a greener existence is not just being sustainable but on reduction, and that's a truth that even most EV companies do not want to admit. If his article was titled truthfully, it would be "more new cars and trucks will mean more pollution"
Author
Topic: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution. (Read 3359 times)