Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
This myth needs to die. Canada's grid is so clean (and getting cleaner) that the emissions payback period is a fraction of the vehicle's lease. Even on a very large vehicle, the payback period is not going to be more than half the vehicles life.
Moreover, what are the chances somebody is moving from a Prius to a Hummer EV? Anybody willing to buy a Hummer EV would probably see an Escalade as the alternative.
I agree that people should drive less. But we know how hard it is getting people to do that. And we don't have decades to convince them to change behaviour and rebuild most of our cities to be more walkable and transit friendly. If they are going to drive, we should do our best to make sure it's in an EV.
|
You sound like you're responding to a point I didn't make. I agree that there has been a long circulating myth that EVs aren't better for the environment because of their embedded carbon footprint and that the myth has been dispelled. But part of how the myth got started is that people compared different classes of vehicles such as large, luxury EVs like the model S with small efficient ICE vehicles in order to support the efficiency of ice vehicles. While the takeaway that they were pushing - that EVs aren't really better in general - was wrong, what I think it correctly points out is that vehicle size does matter and is something to be considered when forming policies related to the environment.
If we're pressed for time, we need to use the limited funds as efficiently as possible. My whole argument is to question whether subsidizing large, environmentally damaging vehicles is the best way to do it. For example, for many years the US has something called a "gas guzzler" tax which discouraged people from buying vehicles with poor fuel economy. There's a variety of policy options available so there's no reason not to think carefully and tailor our approach in the way that's most effective.