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.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Cleaner than gas cars =/= Clean.

    This is the lowest possible bar to pass. The point isn’t that EVs are worse than gas. The point is that both are terrible for people, health, safety, climate, transit, sustainability, equity, freedom, etc.

      • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        We wouldn’t have to resign ourselves to bullshit half measures if we lived in a society that didn’t treat public transit as the “poor person’s option” and didn’t see sitting in bumper to bumper traffic, breathing in all those wonderful carcinogenic fumes as “freedom”.

        Let’s ban oil company propaganda first. Also, yeah. Fuck cars.

        • hardcoreufo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s not that public transportation is for the poors, it’s that it is inconvenient. I used to ride the metro every day to work when I lived in DC and it added an extra hour vs driving. I didn’t mind as I could chill and read a book or listen to music but it was extra time.

          When I moved to Portland I could take the bus to work because my house and job were on the same route so it was only about 5 minutes more than driving. Now I’d have to take 2 buses, or walk a mile to the bus stop on the same route as my work. Either option would turn a 10 minute drive into an hour commute each way. I don’t have that kind of extra time when I work 12 hour shifts and come home on my lunch break to walk the dog. I assume people with kids have even more of a time crunch.

        • auzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          We have plenty of public transport here.

          I’d still need a car because I do a lot of hiking and I carry a lot of stuff to and from work

    • Eximius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wut. Cars have legitimate uses.

      EVs dont only not pollute wherever they drive, but overall are probably around 70% efficient if including the power generation, while gas is 40% or less.

      The others, I think you are projecting US problems to the whole self-owned transportation sector.

      • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        No aspect of their comment suggested they support Trump. In fact, it’s the kind of on-brand militant anti-car sentiment that is basically the status quo on Lemmy.