Along with the massive recent manufacturing investments in electric vehicle (EV) technology and talks of a greener, decarbonized future, there are some not-so-green problems.
In its latest New Energy Finance report, Bloomberg News predicts there will be some 730 million EVs on the road by 2040. The year before, Bloomberg predicted half of all U.S. vehicle sales would be battery electric by 2030.
In Canada, too, there’s talk of a big economic boost with the transition to EVs — including 250,000 jobs and $48 billion a year added to the nation’s economy through the creation of a domestic supply chain.
Governments have already invested tens of billions into two EV battery manufacturing plants in southwestern Ontario. However, they come with the environmental dilemma of what to do with the millions of EV batteries when they reach the end of their life.
“The rules are non-existent,” said Mark Winfield, a professor at York University in Toronto and co-chair of the school’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. "There is nothing as we talk to agencies on both sides of the border, the federal, provincial, state levels.
“In the case of Ontario, the answer was actually that we have no intention of doing anything about this.”
The negatives of ICE cars and EVs are not comparable. EVs are an important solution against climate change, ICE pollutes much more. One lithium battery is not the same as literally 10 years of directly burning oil, the rest of the car takes the same ressources to build in both cases.
Daily reminder that “batteries are the devil and EVs pollute just as much as ICE” is pure oil industry propaganda.
You’re missing my point. EVs do provide some value in their immediate offset of Carbon. No question. My point is that on a broader scale, unless we REDUCE OUR DEMAND for individual transportation, and have systems in place that can replace that need, any solution we offer is going to be hugely environmentally detrimental. if 100 people need 100 cars to live, that’s still 100 cars we have to produce. If 100 people can get by on 3 busses and 15 EV scooters, we are better off.
No, I’m correcting you on things that you are presenting as ground truths. I’m not missing anything, my comment only pertains to your two first sentences which are completely false.
You can make your point without lying and being a mouthpiece for the oil industry.
How are they false? You still need metal, rubber, and plastics to make an EV, in similar quantities to create cars, because you are creating cars. There is an environmental impact associated with this.
As I said, you certainly get the C offset due to not burning fuel, and definitely helps, but it’s not a be all end all solution.
As I continue to say, we need a holistic approach to the climate crisis, without oil.
I don’t know why you think I’m a o&g mouthpiece, when I would happily watch those companies and Petro states beg for alms down by the river.
EVs aren’t perfect but they certainly are much better imo.
A car free society is 100% the end goal but we need to transition through EVs, we simply can’t cling on to gas any longer. It’s going to take too long to switch for us to just ignore the impact gas has on our environment while we do so.
Both types of vehicle have their manufacturing environmental costs but there is a vast difference between the cost of a lithium battery and literally taking oil and burning it. Presenting both as having the same environmental cost is precisely the type of misinformation the oil companies are peddling.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
The negatives of ICE cars and EVs are not comparable. EVs are an important solution against climate change, ICE pollutes much more. One lithium battery is not the same as literally 10 years of directly burning oil, the rest of the car takes the same ressources to build in both cases.
Daily reminder that “batteries are the devil and EVs pollute just as much as ICE” is pure oil industry propaganda.
You’re missing my point. EVs do provide some value in their immediate offset of Carbon. No question. My point is that on a broader scale, unless we REDUCE OUR DEMAND for individual transportation, and have systems in place that can replace that need, any solution we offer is going to be hugely environmentally detrimental. if 100 people need 100 cars to live, that’s still 100 cars we have to produce. If 100 people can get by on 3 busses and 15 EV scooters, we are better off.
No, I’m correcting you on things that you are presenting as ground truths. I’m not missing anything, my comment only pertains to your two first sentences which are completely false.
You can make your point without lying and being a mouthpiece for the oil industry.
More vitriol please.
How are they false? You still need metal, rubber, and plastics to make an EV, in similar quantities to create cars, because you are creating cars. There is an environmental impact associated with this.
As I said, you certainly get the C offset due to not burning fuel, and definitely helps, but it’s not a be all end all solution.
As I continue to say, we need a holistic approach to the climate crisis, without oil.
I don’t know why you think I’m a o&g mouthpiece, when I would happily watch those companies and Petro states beg for alms down by the river.
EVs aren’t perfect but they certainly are much better imo.
A car free society is 100% the end goal but we need to transition through EVs, we simply can’t cling on to gas any longer. It’s going to take too long to switch for us to just ignore the impact gas has on our environment while we do so.
Both types of vehicle have their manufacturing environmental costs but there is a vast difference between the cost of a lithium battery and literally taking oil and burning it. Presenting both as having the same environmental cost is precisely the type of misinformation the oil companies are peddling.