Asklemmy

Pretty much; although, (more importantly IMO) it also removes their economic support from oil companies. GHG's are still produced when obtaining lithium for the batteries, aluminium for the body, etc. There's as well the break and tyre particles that are still major pollutants regardless... despite all that it's still better then using a gas engine.

It's also not easy to convince someone to change their preferred mode of transport and EV's provide an acceptable (and in many ways superior) alternative. Not to mention taking the bus or riding a bike just isn't feasible for some people, similarly some places (like Japan with three separate voltage standards) don't have the necessary infrastructure and capacity to support EV's.

They're marginally better but we don't need marginally better, we need to get our shit together right now.

Dragging 3 tons of disposable plastic, glass and Lithium with you everywhere--is it really necessary?

Also, one of the biggest pollutants associated with cars is dust and micro plastics from tires. EVs don't get rid of that.

No, not really. Truth is that electric cars aren't here to save the planet, it's to save the car industry, from an increasingly environmentally aware market. They exist to make the thought of every citizen owning a 2 ton machine more palatable, instead of embracing better pedestrian and public infrastructure.

Granted there will always be people that need or want a vehicle, and EVs would be great for them. But that statement ignores that the majority of people would be satisfied walking or using well funded public infrastructure. The emissions from building a 1-2 ton machine of any kind, for every citizen, is environmentally infeasible.

That being said there could be a point to building high occupancy electric vehicles (buses/trucks) that could serve hundreds, if not, thousands of passengers/lbs of cargo. This could be a desperately needed stepping stone for cities too deep in car/vehicle oriented infrastructure. It will certainly give urban planners some desperately needed breathing room when the time comes to completely restructure both public and logistics related infrastructure (as in public transportation, and transportation of goods/cargo).

Also this entire comment ignores that theres no where near enough lithium produced to satisfy "sufficient production" of electric vehicles (replace current vehicles sales with electrics). There is new, lithium free, battery tech being developed. To me however, it's very foolish to gamble your planet's wellbeing, on technology that doesn't exist, to save some car companies.

Lithium mining is not good for the environment.

The #1 problem with EVs is not the energy and materials used to create the battery because that is eclipsed many times over by not using gas during the battery’s life- the biggest problem is that the entire car becomes e-waste as soon as the battery is damaged or degraded in any way.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/yikes-the-60000-hyundai-ioniq-5-battery-replacement-saga-continues-226590.html

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/florida-family-electric-car-problem-replacement-battery-costs-more-vehicle

Not if there are going to be hundreds of millions of them, no.

There are studies after what kind of mileage an EV outperforms a regular car.

But the question is: Where do you get your electricity from? Is it regenerative energy?

We rape Africa for those metals the in a similar way we've been raping the middle east for oil. I guarantee once the US starts mandating EVs and the majority start to transition over there will suddenly be some reason we need to have a vested military presence in Africa, with the possibility of wars centered around countries with these metals that we need.

It's better for air quality and would do a shitload towards giving us some spare time to process climate change, but they come with their own baggage of bullshit in terms of environmental damage.