MIT-Studie kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass Benzinautos nicht insgeheim besser für den Planeten sind als Elektroautos, ganz im Gegensatz zu dem, was alle auf Facebook sagen
https://www.jalopnik.com/2195847/mit-study-finds-evs-better-for-planet-than-gas-cars/
43 Kommentare
I’m shocked. Next you’ll tell me Facebook comments weren’t the gold standard for climate science.
This just in, „no fucking duh“
How about, just a wild thought here…LESS CARS.
We needed a MIT Study to find this out?
My way I fight these people in real life is to tell them I pay $8 per 300 miles or when they have a car expense related to combustion (exhaust system, engine, transmission, taking time off work for oil changes) I just remind them that I haven’t done a thing besides park my EV in its garage in 5 years.
Tbf there’s a 90% chance that whatever is trending on fb can be ignored and assumed that the opposite is actually the truth.
Like, hate to break it to you, but there isn’t a caravan of trans Mexican 9 year olds coming for your bathrooms and to dunk on your children in team sports
Whoa, I thought everybody knew that facebook was just a pile of lies built on shit
This is satire right? Right?
Nobody can be this stupid to believe that gas cars are better for the environment. Right?
Anyone who goes to Facebook for advice deserves whatever dumb thing that happens
Facebook; a cesspool of moronity with ads in feed.
“Everyone on facebook” – Bots
> Collectively, these effects mean that a company or community prioritizing clean electricity and vehicles with high annual mileage and frequent urban driving may need to adopt only 9% BEVs to achieve 10% emissions reductions across their fleet, whereas a fleet with low annual miles and infrequent urban driving may need to adopt 42% BEVs to reach the same emissions reductions.
In other words, good public transport combined with well-planner urban areas does wonders.
That article is deliciously sarcastic
Talking to my brother about my EV and he goes “I just know of too many problems with them” and when pressed about the problems by said “they just aren’t there yet”. The only thing he knows is what he’s been told to think about EVs.
Now do the same for how incredibly expensive nuclear energy is compared to renewables!
I think the rub lies between classic combustion engine is mining and manufacturing of rare earth materials for EV batteries being the main issue and the life cycle of the batteries.
Of course EVs are better – but we have a few things holding us back:
1) Improve the public fast charging network availability – tons of multifamily occupants that can’t really set something up at home and cost is prohibitive for older multifamily projects to do so. Cost may also be prohibitive for people with high energy utility prices.
I believe there was some funding in Biden era, but believe bureaucracy and bloat delayed or inflated many of the projects and current administration may have cancelled some of the delayed ones.
2) Improve use of cutting edge battery technology – solid state should win over lithium eventually.. Batteries also need to do better in cold climates.
3) Make electric cars that aren’t so damn expensive. Produce stuff like BYD does.
There are tons fewer parts, and tons fewer sensors and controls related to emissions which can be eliminated. After initial retooling for a completely new vehicle it really should be less expensive to produce EVs!!
If people can afford them and know where to conveniently charge them, people will buy them.
holy shit was that a garbage article to read. Was this written by an angsty teen?
You lost me at Facebook
Reminds me of „every scientist in the field says carbon is warming the planet, but Steve from facebooks who’s profile picture is of him holding a fish in front his truck says it isn’t“ it’s hard to know who to trust
There is a truth no one can deny
Fossil fuels are a poison to all life on Earth. We pump this poison into the places we live.
Our breathable atmosphere is a scant 5 miles thick envelope around our planet, yet we continue to pump the combustion byproducts of this poison into the air we breathe.
Everyone with a functional brain knows this already
They should do a study on how jalopnik fell so far and turned into the pile of shit that it is today.
I hate that this falls on the consumer, it’s just like “reduce, reuse, recycle”. We are supposed to reduce first, then reuse, then as a last resort recycle. This basically means 99% of your decisions require mental energy. Meanwhile 99% of the destructive behavior to the planet is caused by businesses and governments.
The argument is the battery production is awful. I have no clue but conservatives won’t fucking shut up about it. Of someone has an article disproving I would love it. From synopsis I don’t think this study covers that but maybe it does.
Maybe, just maybe if they didn’t make it a dick measuring contest for power and range, they would be even better for the planet.
I had to leave facebook because reading comments made me lose what little hope for humanity I had.
At some point there was an article that said not to trade in your gas vehicle for an electric car because the true environmental cost of a vehicle is front-loaded in the manufacturing process.
The conclusion here isn’t that gas cars are environmentally superior, or that you’re hurting the environment by going electric. The conclusion was supposed to be that the most environmental choice is to drive your current car into the ground to squeeze as much benefit from it as possible, and then replace it with an electric car.
EV takes a hit up front for battery manufacturing, but old batteries can be recycled and we don’t have to mine these rare earth resources from the very beginning. You burn a gallon of hydrocarbons, it’s gone forever. When comparing non-renewable resources with resources that are at least partially renewable, even partially renewable resources is better than zero.
Few serious people are arguing that operating an EV is worse than an ICE car.
The argument that I thought had some traction was „buying a new EV“ vs „keep using existing ICE“. I forget what the time period is that it takes for EV operating emissions to offset the emissions associated with production of that new vehicle. I didn’t see it when I skimmed the article, is it addressed?
I think the reason this debate never dies is that for a lot of people it isn’t really about emissions data. It’s about trust. Some people trust researchers and institutions; others trust their own experiences, friends, mechanics, or what they’ve seen go wrong. Until people feel heard on those concerns, another study probably won’t change many minds.
Better for energy independence and national security.
You know what is though? Bikes!
Facebook is unmatched in its ability to be wrong about everything
You had me at Despite What Everyone On Facebook Says.
In the same way wind power isn’t a net loss despite Billy Bob Thornton’s monologue on the show “land man”.
**insert surprised Pikachu face**
We already knew this.
How sad we have to do studies to disprove idiotic claims. And the people making the idiotic claims won’t even believe the study!
This is literally the first time I’ve heard about anyone trying to argue this, Facebook or no.
Nobody said that
Well that was obvious…
Now granted, there is still a significant envrionmental impact from the production of EVs, but to say its more than gas guzzling, exhaust spewing vehicles, is just ridiculous.
That being said, one of the biggest impacts from vehicles in general is, tire dust. A significant amount of microplastics come from tires wearing down, about 28% of the total. Would be a great help if that could be made to breakdown and decompose.
People complain about junk science research.. this is it.
For anyone that isn’t an idiot, this is going to be some „yeah, no shit“ news… for the people that were „skeptical“ before, this isn’t going to change their opinion in the slightest.