Everyone knows that electric vehicles are supposed to be better for the planet than gas cars. That’s the driving reason behind a global effort to transition toward batteries.

But what about the harms caused by mining for battery minerals? And coal-fired power plants for the electricity to charge the cars? And battery waste? Is it really true that EVs are better?

The answer is yes. But Americans are growing less convinced.

The net benefits of EVs have been frequently fact-checked, including by NPR. "No technology is perfect, but the electric vehicles are going to offer a significant benefit as compared to the internal combustion engine vehicles," Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told NPR this spring.

It’s important to ask these questions about EVs’ hidden costs, Trancik says. But they have been answered “exhaustively” — her word — and a widerange of organizations have confirmed that EVs still beat gas.

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      By insisting on perfect, you are preventing incremental change.

        • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Sure. Or I can drive my old car very little and be pissed my country subsidizes a clearly inferior solution just to save the car industry instead of subsidizing way more efficient and environmentally friendly mass transit.

          Edit- I think we’re agreeing now that I look at your other comments but I’ll leave this.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Incremental change would have been fine in the 1970s when the world should have instituted it, including incrementally reducing industry to absolute necessities like medical products, and individual developed world quality of life, to find homesotasis with our only habitat.

        Now it’s smash the factories today, and accept the hundreds of millions dead breaking those poisonous supply chains, including possibly ourselves, for humanity to have any non-nightmarish future on a planet we terraformed to be hostile towards Human life for the next couple million yers.

        But having absolutely failed to institute incremental change half a century ago despite warning, and absolutely failing to take drastic action now that we are just beginning to feel our irreversible fine work, our species clearly and resolutely chooses no future/nightmare susbsistance future, or at the very least there wouldn’t be a pop figure/pointless plastic crap factory left standing in the world. 🔥🤷‍♂️🔥

        What I find the most ridiculous is what we’re doing: resolutely choosing death by actions, while still strangely preaching hope for a future. WuT a weird fucking species we were.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Automotive tires are a leading source of microplastics so EVs aren’t exactly a darling angel

      Could we not just make tires out of a different material?

      • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes and no.

        Yes it’s possible. No it’s not scalable or affordable.

        Synthetic plastics (all plastics for the purposes of this conversation) are byproducts of the petroleum industry. They’re making gas out of oil and are left over with plastic precursors so those get made into something and everyone wins* because the materials are basically free.

        Last I looked we were creeping up on two billion tires a year.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      it’s not just capitalism, the US is a very spread out place compared to most other countries. if you want everyone to use mass transit you’re asking them to either 1) move into the city for similar commute times, or 2) spend an inordinate amount of time riding busses around the suburbs for the same distance commute. Neither are good solutions.

      And also we have solved the “getting to work” debate with teleconferencing. why should we need cars or an even bigger mass transit system when most people can simply work from home?

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        if you want everyone to use mass transit

        That’s the point, nobody wants to move people in the middle of nowhere to buses. Everyone wants these people to move to buses:

        That’s like a half-full train’s worth of people if they single-seat, which they do, or 5-10 buses.

        Imagine how cooler the place would be if that 16 lane road would be a 2 lane train track.

      • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Eh there are plenty of places that have less population density than the US but they do just fine with transit. It might be true that most US cities are poorly designed for transit, but the density isn’t a the reason.