Asklemmy

I once calculated that my upper-middle class EV (2.1 tons in kerb weight, sadly) is better for the environment (indeed, carbon neutral since I'm only using clean energy) starting at 70,000km of driving usage. I'm at 20,000km now, so I'm already 28% there :)

Depends on what part of the planet you're talking about. America and Europe sure, but any sovereign nation with Lithium, well watch out, freedoms coming. Im just glad Trump was too dumb to make his Latin American coup work.

In the USA, out of every economic sector, transportation creates the most GHG emissions [EPA1], and the majority of that is from passenger vehicles [EPA2]. Significant portions of the industrial sector's emissions come from refining automotive fuel [EPA3]. US total GHG emissions are down around 20% from their peak in 2005, but almost all of that has come from the electrical power sector [CBO1][CBO2]. Vehicular pollution has dramatic direct health impact on top of GHG emissions [HSPH].

Transport emissions are the long pole in the tent for the US. Solutions to that will be the focal point of US climate strategy for the next decade. Barring the demolition of the majority of US housing to re-establish walkability, our two best solutions are EVs and public transit.

EVs cut lifecycle emissions by about 55-60%. [UCS][ANL][MIT][ICCT][BNEF][CB][MIT][IEA]

Public transit cuts lifecycle emissions by... about 55-60%. [IEA][AFDC][USDOT]

Neither is a magic bullet. Both get their asses kicked by bicyles (and to a lesser degree, microcars). Both get better with increased passengers per vehicle. Both can be fueled with renewable energy for additional reduction. Both can be manufactured with renewable energy for additional reduction. Both take surprisingly equivalent amounts of raw resources and energy. EVs need batteries that are carbon-intensive under current practices, but rail needs large quantities of steel which is equally carbon-intensive under current practices.

There are a ton of factors I can barely touch on here, so here's a rapid-fire overview. Public transit offers unique advantages from an urbanist perspective and the liveability of cities [ST], but that's objectively different from sustainability. The US has such low average ridership/occupancy that our busses have more emissions per passenger mile than our cars [AFDC1][AFDC2], and that was before the pandemic -- it's even worse now [NCBI]. Low ridership can be partly attributed to the incompatibility of American suburbs with public transit -- which could be a major roadblock because 2/3rds of Americans own detatched homes [FRED], representing $52t [PRN] in middle-class wealth that they will likely defend with voting power. Climate solutions will need to maneuver around this voting bloc. I personally think individual EVs and intercity rail are complementary technologies -- the more cheap (short-ranged) EVs are out there, the more people will lean on public transit for long trips. Heavy rail gets way better efficiency per vehicle mile than light rail or commuter rail and I have no clue why [APTA][ORNL], but I'm not as impressed by light rail as I expected to be. Since public transit and personal transport leverage different raw resources and face different challenges to adoption, we will achieve the most rapid decarbonization if we do both at the same time.

TL;DR

This is a huge, huge question, and anything short of a dissertation would fail to answer it objectively. My best answer is that the most effective solutions to climate change are diverse, engaging multiple technologies in parallel. EVs are a piece of the puzzle, but not a one-size-fits-all solution.

I mean "nothing" is beneficial to the planet besides just stopping dumping CO2 into the air and toxic bs into the land and ocean. There is NO substitute for stopping corporate pollution, I mean nothing. That said, electric cars have more perks than just environmental impact, they do marginally help and they're cool. but in reality, you have to learn to tease apart what actual climate action looks like VS corporate adoption of "green washing" their products and putting the responsibility on the avg citizen. But that is infinitely hard for some people to come to realize.

"Pretty much nothing" is an exaggeration, but they aren't wrong in stating that it isn't the ideal solution. You've pobably already seen them talk about how shitty the Lithium mines are for the environment, and if you're still getting your electricity from, like, coal plants or other environmentally unsustainable places, well, you're not emitting CEO2, but the plant that outputs the electricity that fuels the car is now outputting more. It's still better than nothing, though

My personal issue with EVs isn't so much that they aren't perfectly ecofriendly, but that the biggest pushers of EVs are still capitalists with an industry to make money. The best we have in terms of solutions is better civil engineering for walkable cities and a robust and efficient public transport system. 5 EV buses is better than 50 EV cars. Thing is, companies making EV cars still want to make money. They have no incentive to actually push for public transport (Some like Tesla seem actively hostile towards the idea), as they would make more money on 50 electric cars than 5 electric buses. Considering how much power companies have in politics, especially in the US (which is from where I'm speaking), things don't look good

I'm certain that EVs are less of an issue in, like, the Netherlands, where public transport is better, and people can just bike everywhere. Again, though, I am speaking as an ignorant American, seeing how things are playing out here. Either way, EVs are generally preferable to ICE cars, but they are a far-cry from the actual solution they are being marketed as

Just like universal healthcare, these systems only really work to their potential with full participation. If all (commuter cars at least) go electric, the incentive is then there for business/funded science to solve the related problems with generating electricity. We've already seen advances in leaps and bounds in recent years, and that's all with the drag of relatively small participation.

So the answer to your question is that they are currently less beneficial than they could be, but the potential of the platform is clear and superior to internal combustion engines. Emergency rooms triage patients based on severity of injuries - if a patient has a gunshot wound, a broken leg and signs of an early stage cancer, you start with the gunshot wound. People planted firmly in the position you represent with your question (not saying that's you, OP) are the ones that start to boast that medicine is a failure if the treatment for the gunshot wound doesn't also cure the cancer - it's the first and most important step towards the solution in that moment.

Here is a source with lots of detail on how carbon emissions compare: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/23/do-electric-cars-really-produce-fewer-carbon-emissions-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles

The tl;dr is that EVs have lower lifetime emissions. If the relevant grids use low-carbon sources then emissions are far lower. (But not as low as bicycles.)

The biggest hurdle that needs to be overcome in my own eyes is how we source the precious metals for the batteries. Look up Lithium and Cobalt mines in Africa. Of course this applies to all lithium batteries (phones and cars being the biggest players).

It is all about people who either are arguing in bad faith, or are focused on perfection.

I don't drive much so my favourite EVs are trains, ebikes and electric buses.

You can run a fleet of ev on regenerative energy, that doesn't work with converting engine vehicles. BUT the problem is it makes no sense if we just exchange all the ce cars with ev ones. We need to stay away from individual transportation solutions towards public transportation.