• lazynooblet
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The carbon footprint of building an EV is larger than an ICE, no one is disputing this. But once in operation the EV catches up and through its life is a better alternative over all. So why not take that win? Why be so vehemently against a solution that reduces carbon footprint and air pollution? Because fuck cars right?

        • glasgitarrewelt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because the real problem is our car centric society and we won’t fix that by switching every ICE with a EV and tell the people they have to drive a lot so the advantage of an EV comes to light.

          EVs have their place, but we could do so so so much better with all the energy we put in them.

          So yeah, ‘fuck cars’, if that is the level you prefer and understand.

        • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          From what I’ve seen: EVs normally produce about half the carbon of regular cars, mostly from making the batteries. Switching fully to EVs would therefore reduce worldwide emissions by about 8%, compared to 16% by just getting rid of cars completely. EVs also don’t fix the societal problems of cars including sprawl and all of its related problems.

          An ideal future would have no internal combustion engines and only EVs. But there would be a lot fewer of them, and preferably in a much smaller form factor.

          As an unrelated side note, when I read ‘ICE’, the first thing that came to mind was the train. I’ve never even been to Germany…