In addition to other answers, keep in mind that Tesla gets credits relative to how far below the average carbon footprint their cars are and sell those credits to manufacturers of cars with more emissions. So in a way a part of the reduced liferime emissions are “gone” before the cars drive for the first time
Measured against ICE cars. Actual direct alternatives are public transport, bikes, and micro cars.
And you’re also assuming they’re driven that long before the person buys another car.
They do serve the exact same function. And no, they don’t stay on the road. The batteries degrade, die and aren’t replaceable due to proprietary designs. There’s already plenty of dead EVs.
I’ve been doing an ebike conversion to do errands around town. I won’t be using it to travel to my mother in law’s place 70 miles away. They aren’t direct alternatives.
The average life of an EV is over 13 years. The batteries, generally have 100k warranties and are consistently lasting well into the 150k mile ranges. These vehicles stay on the road for as long as an ICE automobile and have a negative carbon footprint when compared to that baseline.
Buses, trains, trams, etc. serve a similar overall function as a personal automobile, the two even share some overlap on fundamental functions; however, as they are not 1:1 replacements for one another any comparison can never be of a direct nature.
Unless you consider alternatives such as e-bikes and public transport which we should be. We’re not gonna make a dent in climate change without some form of sacrifice.
if there were some figures i could fiddle to fit that narrative, do you think that would mean that cutting down 250 acres of forest would actually be worth it rather than a convenience somebody has gussied up as “necessary” because it would make them a profit?
Does the carbon savings make it worth it?
In addition to other answers, keep in mind that Tesla gets credits relative to how far below the average carbon footprint their cars are and sell those credits to manufacturers of cars with more emissions. So in a way a part of the reduced liferime emissions are “gone” before the cars drive for the first time
Highly doubtful. EVs still have a high footprint, especially those obese ones that we’re making in the West.
They have a large footprint of creation. Their footprint over their lifetime is net negative when measured against direct alternatives.
Measured against ICE cars. Actual direct alternatives are public transport, bikes, and micro cars. And you’re also assuming they’re driven that long before the person buys another car.
Those are indirect alternatives. A direct alternative serves the exact same function.
It doesn’t matter if that person buys another car; it matter is the EV stays on the road. They do.
They do serve the exact same function. And no, they don’t stay on the road. The batteries degrade, die and aren’t replaceable due to proprietary designs. There’s already plenty of dead EVs.
I’ve been doing an ebike conversion to do errands around town. I won’t be using it to travel to my mother in law’s place 70 miles away. They aren’t direct alternatives.
That’s what trains are for, or worst case, a car that isn’t an oversized mess.
I’d love that. We’re also not likely to get it anytime soon between us and her. Though we hopefully will for other cities in the area.
The average life of an EV is over 13 years. The batteries, generally have 100k warranties and are consistently lasting well into the 150k mile ranges. These vehicles stay on the road for as long as an ICE automobile and have a negative carbon footprint when compared to that baseline.
Buses, trains, trams, etc. serve a similar overall function as a personal automobile, the two even share some overlap on fundamental functions; however, as they are not 1:1 replacements for one another any comparison can never be of a direct nature.
Unless you consider alternatives such as e-bikes and public transport which we should be. We’re not gonna make a dent in climate change without some form of sacrifice.
Those are indirect alternatives and are not relevant to my comment.
if there were some figures i could fiddle to fit that narrative, do you think that would mean that cutting down 250 acres of forest would actually be worth it rather than a convenience somebody has gussied up as “necessary” because it would make them a profit?