Are Electric Cars Actually Good for the Environment?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июн 2024
- Everyone knows electric cars are better for the environment than gas-powered ones. But are they actually good for the environment? We explain why automobile dependence is always a problem, whether it's electric or not. Featuring Paris Marx.
Sources in the video.
ERRATA: at 4:15, the text reads 26,000, when it should read 20 600.
These videos are entirely funded by small donations. In order to expand what we do, we need your help. Please join us on Patreon if you can: / gravelinstitute
Or, if you prefer, give a one-time donation: secure.actblue.com/donate/br-...
Ladies and gentlemen, another thing that the government refuses to fund: public transportation.
How does this work in the mid West and West? Not everyone lives close to where they need to be.
@@reidloSdoG the point of public transportation is to get people from point A to B. This can work in suburban towns just as it could in cities.
because they're owned by the petro and automobile corporations
Don't blame the Government. Government is bad because they have a license to Ill. It really about Corporations having too much money. People being afraid of change. Say it with me Workers unite and seize the means of production.
@@reidloSdoG Same way as it does everywhere else.
You build stops in local places to get people into larger urban areas, where they have yet even more options to switch to other types of public transportation and go places.
Sure, it's not going to be all solving and you are most likely still gonna need to have a car just by the fact of being in a remote area ( so to get groceries and such ), but public transportation can still work. Especially for frequent every day trips - for example trips to work or school, which usually take place at the same or similar time each day.
Of course if you live in a farm which is 5km from other nearest settlement, public transportation is likely not going to be stopping anywhere near and so you will use a car, but even for just villages and small towns, estabilishing a ( regional for example ) public transportation network is a possibility.
To quote Reddit: Electric cars aren't here to save the planet; they're here to save the car industry.
Good quote
Source: some neckbeard in his mom's basement
@@tehgzizlauw1787 Noted, you're not disputing the rightness, just whether we would envy the speaker's lifestyle.
@@tehgzizlauw1787 No matter how undesirable the individual that came up with it could (or couldn't) be, it's true.
Electric cars are the future of cars, but to have a livable future we need a lot more mass transit and a lot less cars.
I'm so glad these ideas are picking up steam with more people. I absolutely love cities that are designed to a human scale, and wish so badly I had more options here in 'Murika.
The few places you could live this type of lifestyle in the US are prohibitively expensive.
@@rexx9496 Yep. Criminally expensive imo
EV's with safety recalls for fire. Renault Zoe, Peugeot-e, BMW i4, Mercedes C class, Mercedes EQS, Mercedes GLC, Mercedes S class, Ford Focus, Chevrolet Bolt, Hyundai Ioniq, DS7 Crossback, Hyundai Kona, Mercedes EQC, VW Arteon ehybrid, VW Passat GTE, Ford Focus mHEV, Ford Puma mHEV, Ford Fiesta mHEV, Opel Ampera e, Mercedes eSprinter, Skoda Citygo e, Mercedes eVito, VWeUP, Seat Mini electric, Mini Country PHEV, BMWi8, BMWX5PHV, BMW X3 PHEV,BMW X2 PHEV, BMW X1 PHEV, BMW 7 series PHEV, BMW 5 series PHEV, BMW 3 series PHEV, BMW 2 series active tourer, Land Rover Discovery Sport PHEV, Land Rover Evoque MHEV, Hyundai Kauai, Audi A4, Audi A 5, Audi A 6, Audi A7, Audi Q5, Ford Puma MHEV, Ford Kuga MHEV, Renault Zoe, Audi eTron, ....
As an European I'm baffled looking at you Americans wishing for things that are everyday reality here and everywhere else in the world. Unbelievably backwrads union.
@@anglosaxonmike8325 Bloody hell... :(
The uncomfortable truth is that owning personal vehicles and single family suburban homes are unsustainable both for the climate but also for traffic and the survival of cities. Racist zoning laws and awful public transportation have really programmed us Americans to think in a certain destructive way.
yes
Yeah, but how do we undo a near-Century's worth of Suburban Rot? Especially since Housing is a speculative Asset, meaning that the Monied Classes will fight any sort of zoning reform.
Lol cry about it, living in your own house is fine, but it's Americans who hate living with extended family.
@@BlitzkriegOmega Our socialist nation keeps passing legislation to bailout car companies and we still have legislation from 1956 which allows the building of new roads. Obviously all on tax payer money. Not to mention that there is something called the filibuster stopping future legislation... not that I think Dems legislation would actually fix anything because they are also conservative
@@kosmonarrat Ah yes, because Republicans certainly haven’t demonized public transportation as “socialism” for decades, pushing for massive subsidies for those same auto companies.
I’m glad public transit and electric cars have been getting more attention lately. Even consider the problems electric cars face right now.
100% - it’s a fortunate trend
@@NoTimeForNoodles Lithium mining.
@@willhiggins9563 Specifically the public transit part and less the electric car part
Yep, and I've been hearing more and more "average" people hear about cities that adopt a more human-scale urban design. Sounds like it's all coming together, hopefully. :)
you mean public transit in the america and the west?
Its always the issue of not actually solving the issue- but choosing the fastest cheapest 'solution'. Happens almost everytime with every issue. Companies distract by just talking about surface stuff and since the general public is lacking in critical thinking, it works.
Like we shouldnt be focusing on different cars altogether, we need less cars. So frustrating.
The funny thing is that building dense walkable/bikable infrastructure is the cheaper solution. Highly recommend checking out strong towns, not just bikes, etc if you want to learn more about the economics of different development patterns. But generally cars are the most expensive solution for consumers and municipalities while they are the most profitable solution for corporations to extract wealth from consumers and governments.
Same, it's just like 'carbon-capture' or carbon credits. It's a way to make money while seemingly do better for the environment, when in truth, all that happen is just about making profits and stoling public founding on non viable projects.
Unless we make public transportation a top priority in this country we will never get a handle on air pollution. But neither the car manufacturing sector nor the finance industry have any interest in this.
*c̶h̶e̶a̶p̶e̶s̶t̶ - most profitable
People want cars and people want space. The market gives people what they want.
Public transportation and walkable cities are the way forward
24/7 public transportation. And yes, walkable cities. With essential services like pharmacies, grocery stores, and food places open 24/7 too.
Yo, Gravel Institute, will you guys talk about urban planning at some point by having on Climate Town?
Such an important topic!
Especially how zoning laws impact the socioeconomic status of the population, and how they consequently prevent urban sprawl (though this portion has been addressed on more building+architecture-focused channels)
Or Not Just Bikes.
@@thomasakagi7545 Gravel Institute and Not Just Bikes/Climate Town is the overlap I've been waiting for
Or City Beautiful, or Oh the Urbanity, or Not Just Bikes, or Strong Towns!
The problem is personal transportation, this bizarre idea we have that every single person should have his own vehicle. THAT is the problem. Instead of boosting these toys, we should be investing in massive public transportation infrastructure. It shouldn't be NECESSARY for anyone to have their own car. Now with these supposed ride-sharing apps, the problem is worse than ever because all those cars that would have been parked while the driver was working are out on the road at all hours, zipping around giving rides to people who are PERFECTLY CAPABLE of using public transport but just DON'T WANT TO.
I think it's the opposite.
Ride sharing cars are a good thing for people who use public transportation but need a car once in a while.
Without the ride sharing system, they would still need to buy a car. And if they have a car, why would they use public transportation at all?
And ride sharing vehicles in general will do many miles, so electrifying them will give an above average improvement for the environment. When they can drive on their own, it will be even better, because it will allow them to be used even more efficiently.
An even bigger problem is the fact that the USA is too greedy and stupid to switch to hydro or nuclear power generation. Somehow the richest country in the history of the world finds it too expensive. Over $700,000,000,000 inannual military spending to kill people, though? Oh there's always PLENTY of money for that!
@@Robbedem I think in short term you're right but eventually when transportation will be mostly public and almost everywhere, Serai3 would be right.
All three of you are right.
The idea of the ride share is very good, but the greed makes them really bad.
Taking public transportation is the better alternative, but most American cities have terrible to nonexistent public transportation.
The world is burning almost entirely because of the oil industry and the industries that it spawned. Which includes the automobile industry.
Cycling infrastructure too, please. That should be a huge part of the humanization of cities. The benefits of cycling are immense and the cost so small. . .
I'm so glad you guys are talking about this! public transport is essential for any efficient, sustainable civilization
its only effective in the city it runs in, as you move further out from it youre better off with your own vehicle
@@leocitywrestling7029 I mean yeah, of course, but it would also be interesting to try and figure out public transport options in more rural areas. I'm sure we can both agree that a car shouldn't be a necessity for someone who lives in at least a semi-dense city or town, these places should have robust and extensive public transportations systems. It would be a good thing to find a fuel source that is both more sustainable and safer for the environment for the people who do live in the middle of nowhere and don't have access to public transportation and therefore need their own vehicle.
@@peggedyourdad9560 well the usage of rideshare has supplemented public transport to the point it is competitive
So actually the best way to improve public transport is to privatise it cos the businesses are more likely to want to ensure the system is effective and robust
As for fuel source try nuclear you’ll likely need a fuel cell the size of a tic tac to run a bus if done right or if you’re that scared of nuclear energy try to replicate the arc reactor technology in the iron man movies
@@peggedyourdad9560 if you want an example of private investments better than government ones look at James J Hill vs Union Pacific
@@leocitywrestling7029 UK rail industry is privatised, look at how dysfunctional it is, the goverment litterally needs to support them or they will go bankrupt. So please shut up about privatization.
As I've always said, the issue isn't gas cars vs electric cars, its CARS. *Cars themselves are the problem.* From production to city planning, to the uncompensated time stolen out of our days driving, cars have ruined our lives and made themselves so normalised is quite difficult to explain how they're so bad. Hakim did a video on cars the other day actually. Interesting timing.
Do you live anywhere rural? This comment makes no sense.
That my hombre.
@@reidloSdoG There is no reason whatsoever, rural area couldn't have excellent public transport or be connected to more populace areas without needing cars.
You see what I mean though? Cars are so ingrained in your vision of the world and whats even possible, that you rather attack me and what I said, than take a moment to imagine what could change for the better.
Ask yourself why you have such a reaction. My comment makes perfect sense, but what doesn't, is to be so defensive and reactionary over something this is ruining our lives and planet.
@@reidloSdoG He's discussing city planning. Depending on what source you use, around 80% of Americans live in cities. If we are able to greatly reduce the car dependence of American cities, those 80% will have way less emissions.
Besides, if you have ever lived in the "downtown" of rural an American town like I have, you will discover that you actually drive less than you do in the suburbs since you can walk to get groceries and most essentials while American suburbia requires you to drive 10-30 minutes to do anything.
@@reidloSdoG well now less than 10% of pepole live there ,
So statistically , no they don't live in a rural place ,
Now are pepole that live in the bumfuck of nowere using cars a problem ? No
Is everyone everywhere all at once using cars to get around a problem ? Yes
There is also a third thing besides tailpipe and liftetime emissions: Externalities or more specific, transport infrastructure
If you want to use a car, you need to build roads and parking spaces and that takes some serious amount of energy, plus it tends to reduce the house-density (not just residential, commercial and industrial as well) which means long distances to travel and als even more expensive infrastructure (longer water, electricity, whatever lines from house to house).
Hey, love what y'all make here. I just wanted to mention that at 4:16 the video has that it will take 26,000 miles to break even on emissions and the voice says 20,600 miles
Reading online, 20,600 miles looks accurate for the US. In Norway, a country using mostly renewable energy, it’s 8,400 miles.
@@nickc9070 I have 120000 miles on my car so far so I think 26000 is pretty good
About Lithium and Cobalt,
There are already big efforts made to produce batteries without either of them that are almost as good in some ways and much better in others.
Look up Sodium batteries. BTW, sodium is found in salt, so not a problem either for supply nor environment.
Also, I agree that public transportation should take precedence, especially in cities, but if you live in a rural setting, public transportation is practically a pipedream.
Sodium batteries are still only a concept. There is no telling if it can take over the battery scene.
No, it isn't
While it is true that public transportation would be infeasible for the entirety of the US (and indeed, I don't think anybody is arguing that absolutely everyone should use public transportation all the time!), the point is that it would still be a massive reduction in environmental costs if the ~80% of the population that lived in cities and suburbs used it.
in rural zones, ride sharing cars would be optimal for the environment
I agree that the rural areas would be better served with cars. That's not the point. Nobody is taking away your cars in rural settings. The fact is that most people live in suburbs and other car-infested areas that could see transformation into denser and walkable places.
Besides that, rural areas have their carbon emissions offset from land use in general. Both people in dense cities and rural residents have emissions far below the average suburb dweller.
Whether it's 20,600 or 26,000 miles to break even, that's honestly not a lot. Any car can drive much longer than that during its lifetime.
That was my thought as well. What happens after that 26000 miles is what is interesting to me. Then it gets a whole lot better than driving an ICE. But of course, not having to drive at all would be best....
Also going forward, more and more second generation EV's are going to be powered by batteries that were made from recycled material which is a lot less carbon intensive that mining the materials in the first place. So that 26,000 mile break even point will be way, way less. Lithium and nickel, etc., are infinitely recyclable. Gas, not so much.
Would be interesting to know how much it costs to build the infrastructure around cars too, whether it's parking or roads.
1/4 of our cities land is dedicated to cars.
@@knarf_on_a_bike And it's not just volume. By building for automobiles, we create actual physical barriers that separate and segregate cities.
These barriers frequently make travel of just a few blocks difficult, if not impossible to do without a car.
Not Just Bikes did an excellent video some time ago that showed his attempt get get from his motel to a shopping area within sight. It took half an hour and was difficult and dangerous, when it should have been a simple matter of walking a couple blocks to pick up a few things he needed.
This Paris guy looks 100% worthy of his last name.
Careful. Before you know it, he'll start preaching Marxist ideology 😝
Marx was pretty fuckin smart. Good point.
Lol
He's also super cute... ;)
I love the Gavel Institute but no one is perfect. All these videos on many channels criticizing EVs always forget Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries, LFP for short, which are quickly replacing those that use cobalt and nickel. Cobalt and nickel batteries manufacturing process produces 50% more CO2 than LFP manufacturing. Lithium can be 100% recycled from EV batteries which means once we minded enough Lithium there is no more need to mine more. LFP batteries last 2 to 3 times longer. Are next to impossible to catch on fire but if they do they do not produce their own oxygen so they are easier to put out then cobalt nickel batteries.
it's still way better to tell people that public transportation rocks and we shouldn't have huge faith in EVs than tell them EV industry is getting better and better for the environment, because although 4 seat vehicles would still be needed for a very long time with different services so replacing CVs with EVs is the right move there, the overwhelming majority of the problem is that too many people drive their personal car instead of using public transportation which would help the environment a lot more than transitioning to EVs, which would be more tempting if people were told EVs are "good enough".
They are not "forgetting" anything. They lie by omission. It does not fit their narrative, so they don't tell you about it.
Alternatively, they are just very ignorant because they are not interested in looking into what the other side has to say.
I am putting my hope into sodium ion batteries. Apparently, depending on the manufacturer (!), they don't contain anything problematic. They are my "optimistic scenario".
I love Gravel too, but this is a really flawed video.
A Tesla needs to "drive 20,000 miles" before it's greener than a RAV 4? 20,000 miles is nothing.
Under an "optimistic scenario," the U.S. will have 42% hybrids or EV's by 2050? "Optimistic" would be 100%. We seem headed for all new cars are EV's by 2035.
They are misleading viewers about some very basic data.
@@emanuelneagu14 EVs are a good step in the right direction but it is just one step. Public transportation in the United States at least needs a vast improvement. Cities and towns need to be redesigned to make them more walkable and public transportation in those places needs to be quick, cheap, convent and enjoyable. Really everywhere public transportation needs to be those things. If you make it those things then people will naturally use it over cars. It took 100 years for infrastructure for cars to develop. Let's hope it doesn't take 100 years for improvements in our cities, towns and public transpiration to develop to where cars are no longer necessary.
@@patrickb.4749 I am for whatever technology or solution works the best for any particular situation. If I remember right sodium ion batteries don't last anywhere near as long as LFP. Sodium ion batteries currently only last 300 or 400 cycles while LFP last 5000 to 7000 cycles. Depending on how much CO2 is generated during the sodium ion battery production the LFP battery may still be our best option. I am all for continuing to develop sodium ion batteries that is for sure. I will be the first to jump on board for sodium ion batteries once when everything is factored in they are better than LFP but right now they are not.
The Gravel Institute really needs to make more videos about urbanism, I like that this video begins the conversation, but there's a lot about public transit and pedestrian mobility that we here in the states aren't even exposed to at all.
Before the 1950s, almost every major city in north america had an extensive tram network. Most of which were already electric! Car companies bought them out and swapped them for busses that pollute more and are slower.
hey just a note: at 4:19 the narrator says 20,600 miles, but the read out says 26,000 miles. just wanted to point it out, thanks for the great content
I’d be interested in knowing which one is true; probably the read out
I live in a rural area about 30 miles from a major metro area. There's a 4 lane divided access highway between the two areas. Traffic is horrendous at rush hour with everyone leaving in their personal cars at exactly the same time.
It would be a great investment to have rail transit in the median, which would eliminate probably 70% of the single occupancy cars. It would be easy to incorporate bike lanes too... currently NONE exist. How many other rural/metro areas are exactly like this??
The lifetime co2 graph is misleading. ICE cars are actually worse for co2 since fuel production is never included in these comparisons. You have to add on 30% on top of the total for gasoline cars and 25% for diesel. This comes from Auke Hoekstra who cites the paper ' Global carbon intensity of crude oil production '.
co2 from Electricity production for EVs isn't included either. Pretty sure it evens out.
@@snitox Actually, I think the tailpipe emissions figure for EVs is probably based on co2 from grid electricity. Since the car itself doesn't have a tailpipe. Even coal plants, the worst offenders for co2 production, are proportionally more energy efficient than combustion engines.
That said it's true that mining and transporting coal, gas, uranium etc has it's own co2 cost and that may not be included in those figures. I'd don't know what those numbers are. At the end of the day, it comes down to the energy mix on the grid. For instance Scotland gets most of their electricity from wind, so EVs are pretty damn green over there.
@@fawfulBeans And how much coal is used to generate electricity varies widely state to state. My state only uses .15% coal in the production of electricity. That's approximately 1/6th of 1%.
@@puggirl415 Yeah, coal is on the way out globally. In The UK nowadays coal makes up less than 1% of the energy mix. On some months not a single coal plant is fired up in the entire country.
Congress should take a road trip to the Nordic countries.
I think you're assuming that they want to solve problems. They want only one thing, to make their donors happy.
Voters decide nothing and their opinions don't matter, they are the product of the election show. Once the show is over, they politicians go back to work for the people who paid to produce the show.
I'm not seeing a bar chart of the impact of actually refueling EVs with renewables. I have a large solar array with battery backup. The offset with my solar production isn't factored into this equation.
Also when comparing ICE to EVs people often don’t take into account the emissions from obtaining, refining, transporting, and pumping fossil fuels.
So not only the ICE vehicle more inefficient in how they use their fuel but also the process to deliver it to the vehicle as well
Public transit along with cycling infrastructure is the future of transportation not cars and this video has done a good job proving it.
Public transportation would certainly help, but thanks to things like COVID some people are going to need a lot of convincing.
I can assure you the same lobbyists who would fight back hardest on public transportation were the ones who cared the least during Covid
*racism
I can't believe this video is bringing up the issue....car dependency at it's worst. A marketed freedom that has become a hindrance to the individual and plant as a whole.
They are significantly better overall than ICE vehicles on a coal grid. On a renewable grid, they are much better yet.
Batteries are recyclable. Gasoline is not.
Are they better than no car? Obviously not--but we should be doing both at the same time. There is not enough time to redesign all urban cities.
Can be better but public transportation needs to be more commonplace
I like cars and especially EVs, but we should not act like EVs are the only future of urban transportation.
That's actually a very good point about battery recycling. For the first generation of electric cars all the battery components will be from mining, but afterwards a significant fraction will come from recycling. The recycled part will probably contribute very little to emissions.
EVs have the same basic problem that all industry has. The need to infinitely extract finite resources in order to stay in business.
We've gone so far around the bend pretending that the absurd is, in fact rational, that very few even notice it anymore.
@@rickb3650 EV's are more recyclable than just about anything that can get you around. The battery, motors, frame, and glass are completely recyclable. Improvements could be made in the plastics and seats, and more of the electronics need to end up in recycling rather than landfills.
Better for the enivironment =/= good for it. Public transportation rocks
The videos argument though wrong in certain ways, Public Transport should be the main focus.
veering away from Cars and investing more on cheaper or even "Free" buses.
It is ASTOUNDING how much land is needed just for roads? If all we had was roads for deliveries and public transport? That extra Land we'd be freeing up could be used to build/house MILLIONS!!
@@2DRonaldo
I do think think there will still need to be some amount of individual transportation, especially in rural areas.
@@tadstrange1465 It would have to be public ownership, because Private Transport has reversed allot of the rural Bus routes in the UK and it's only getting worse.
Great video that's very well presented! I've been making changes in my life for years attempting to reduce car dependency. It's absolutely insane to need a 3,800Lbs car that costs thousands of dollars to buy and maintain just to haul my 160Lbs body around. Cars have their place but humans are perfectly capable of and even better off propelling ourselves for the vast majority of transportation. The main component preventing that now is the way our infrastructure is built with car usage often being the only consideration. The space required makes walking and biking inaccessible and sharing the road with cars is far too dangerous.
I thought electric cars were mainly incentivized to improve air quality in cities. I do think it helps locally although larger transport trucks are the bigger issue.
Yes, better airquality is a big plus, also saves a lot of CO2 in cities because ICE release not CO2 there while driving or standing still in traffic. Electric trucks/semi's will come too, they are getting better and better due to improved batteries and electric drivetrains. Also the public transport is going electric from busses to taxi's/ubers.
yea they really dont go much into the big reason why cities like it b/c they dont want air pollutions lol, they will always be a need for cars tbh rather have the one that isnt blowning co2 in the air
need to be much smaller, everyone should be on Ebikes.
too many dumb roads and shopping malls.
I love ebikes. There are even models that accommodate passengers, should someone be unable to ride. Mine is my only vehicle and it's been a great help getting around my stroad covered monstrosity of a town.
Even trikes, like the Elio, or the Aptera would be an improvement, because the batteries that they require are so much smaller than they are for conventional vehicles.
Cars will not save us.
Cars are killing us.
@@knarf_on_a_bike No they're not.
Car dependency is bad for sure, but the other extreme of "let's ban cars" is equally bad if not worse.
@@Mr-DNA_ Cars are killing us for sure. 40,000 a year in the USA from collisions. Tens of thousands die prematurely from the effects of pollution of which cars are a major contributor. We need to find a way to lessen our dependency on cars. We don't have much time left.
@@knarf_on_a_bike The reason why people die from car crashes in the US is because America has awful road design.
Things like roundabouts and better road hierarchy would likely reduce the number of road fatalities greatly.
European countries have way less road accidents, not because they have significantly less cars, but because they have better road design.
And about the pollution: If you're talking about carbon emissions from gas powered cars, then you're right. But this video has ignored a few key points about electric cars. The main one being that the environmental impact of EV production is not an unavoidable problem with EVs themselves, but rather an issue with the current production practices of EV producers. Producing a fully carbon neutral and 100% recyclable car is well withing the realm of possibility, but because electric cars are a relatively new thing, they're not perfect yet. EV's (if powered by renewable energy) are a lot more energy efficient, less carbon intensive and overall MUCH more sustainable than gas cars.
Been biking to work every day now since I woke up and realized car dependency is a huge problem. I don't live in a dense area, but biking is still possible. Many American cities need to do a lot more for just basic infrastructure. There are many areas where sidewalks are just gone, and there are no bike lanes anywhere. And if there are, cars park in them and they are not protected from the lane of highspeed traffic right next to it.
Love Gravel's work here, and excellent video that gets to the root of the problem.
Sold my car in 1996. Cycle to work every day, 15km each way. Car-free existence is beautiful, isn't it? 😀
Electric cars get so much air time, because they are something you can actually Do...
I Can (theoretically), buy electric next time I need a new vehicle.
I Can't will a trolley system into being in the town I live in.
Funding public transit in the US should get a lot more attention but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The US is car dependent. Dependent means we can’t function without it, the idea that we should stop everything and rebuild our cities and suburbs to be car free is not feasible in the time frame the IPCC has outlined. Electric vehicles and cleaning our electric grid can be done today, new public transit will take decades. We need to work on both. Additionally I want to mention that mining for battery minerals does environmental harm but so does oil extraction. Big difference is we need to continually extract oil were as EV batteries will have a second life on the grid and can be recycled into new batteries after that. To do a real well to grave study this needs to be considered.
Been saying this for a while, cars need too dissappear. Walkable cities are a must for a better world
Not everybody lives or wants to live in a city. How about them?
@@antizwets5904 Public transport for these areas? We already have that in parts of Mexico it's pathetic the US has like no public transport in smaller towns
Walk. Transit. Cycling. In the cities, that's all we need. Ban cars.
@@knarf_on_a_bike The irony of whining about car-dependency and then advocating for banning cars and forcing people to walk and take public transit is amazing.
Hmmm..
Shouldn't we build a multi-modal future for everyone, including cars, where people are able to choose between transit, cars, bikes and walking instead of hating on cars and trying to force everyone not to drive?
Yes I believe this long time ago that the public transportation is the key to solving half the carbon emissions
Awesome to see a video from Gravel on car dependency! I'd love to see some shout-outs to Strong Town's & other orgs & youtube channels promoting alternate transportation & city planning.
It should become a commonplace that public transport is a better alternative to personal transport. Its tradeoff for society and nature will be incomparable, but today it's hard to find a government that will invest into that.
By the way, in Russia and some other post-Soviet states we have these things that are called «route taxis». It sounds like if they are cars, but in fact that's something like a minibus. (They also typically have a slanting front; google «маршрутка», if you want to know how they look.) Their capacity is usually from 13 to 20 persons, depending on the kind of the route (some of them travel between cities). Those route taxis are somewhere in the middle between full-blown buses and automobiles. Since they are smaller than buses, they arrive at bus-stops more often. Some people (like me) prefer them to buses, and in some cities (like mine) they seem to actually prevail over buses: they have more routes and there are visibly more of them.
I have issues with some GI videos but this one was well done. Nice job.
as a car hater I think we should make distinctions between different electric cars, for example a big tesla or a small electric volkswagen have very different environmental impacts
Right, the big Tesla is made much more efficiently and uses energy much more efficiently than any VW, the company that has been caught cheating on emissions testing 3 more times AFTER Dieselgate. So yeah, let’s put an end to VW.
@@richardfolden3860 not defending vw, I was just picking a random company, plus no, tesla suck big
@@FillyTheRed sounds like you have done a lot of research to come to that conclusion, lol! Good job!🤡
A "car-hater"?
I hope you keep your hate for cars personal and accept that other people prefer to drive.
I'm all in for cycling infrastructure and public transport, but if you're advocating for abolishing cars, you've completely missed the point of why car-dependency is bad.
This video looks familiar 🤔
LiFePO4 is a battery type that does not have cobalt, and it does not suffer from thermal runaway, so it is safer with no battery fires, we should be pushing the industry to use those over regular Cobalt based batteries. Of course that is just for starters, each aspect of the issues that they present here have known answers, it is only pressure from the populace that can force those changes. But to pretend that forcing everyone to take a bus, is not a viable answer as it entirely ignores the majority of the details of why people are forced to drive to their various appointments, work and such, unless you envision with some of those dystopian depictions of megacities in movies, or the fact that it is still just a reduction on top of the horrid conditions that answer creates, it is just not a good answer.
Besides, I cannot imagine we will be released from the details of any, let alone all of those issues with capitalism in place, where the rich control everything making all the decisions, and the rest of us can suck it.
Overproduction and the consequent overuse of resources is the problem. Building more personal vehicles of any kind cannot be a solution.
EVs and self driving vehicle ride sharing will lead to fewer necessary cars.
But until we find an alternative to trucking products across country via semis, we need cars. 17% of our carbon emissions come solely from semis. Electric car proliferation lowers the cost to eventually make electric semis, and (more) electric buses (see Wright's Law). It's not an either/or; we need less cars, but *also* need them to be EVs.
@@AMortalDefiant "But until we find an alternative to trucking products across country via semis, we need cars."
Trains. Trains can be electrified via a catenary/pantograph system.
Electric semis aren't going to be viable any time soon.
Invest in public transit. That's what'll actually help the environment.
Yes, but we still ALSO need electric vehicles. Wright's Law shows us that production costs decrease in direct proportion to increases in production of new technologies. Battery costs have come down 86% this past decade. EV adoption effectively pays for electric public transport, which is even better, AND electric semis. Semis account for 17% of our carbon emissions in the US. No amount of public transport alone will offset that. There are companies working on electric semis, like Tesla, and companies that already sell electric buses (Proterra, BYD, et. al).
Even aside from the environmental factors, human health is severely harmed by emissions, whether they come from a car or a public transport. Tailpipe emissions have been linked to cardio-respiratory disease, lower IQ, etc.
I am so glad that here in Switzerland we have a great public transport system
At 4:16, is it 26,000 miles or 20,600 miles? The text says the former but the narration the latter.
In either case, the point stands, but I'd like clarity.
Another push i wish would happen is electric bikes and trikes, as they are much more efficient and don't need as big of a battery
An electric bike is just stupid. A bike, which have almost 0 lifetime emiton, you ad on the battery, the electric engine, and you have something with a ton of emtion...
@@dian_photo have you ever used a bike as your main form of transportation?
@@minecraft1nerd i am an european, yes, i do it daily
@@dian_photo for me, the reason I like the idea of electric bikes is they are much more efficient than a car and make having to travel 10 miles (ca. 16 km) in a day a lot easier than on a normal bike.
The problem is we live in an indivdualistic society. We don't believe in collective solutions.
We don't want to think about our fellow neighbors. We don't want to share our resources or even our time with anyone unless there's a tangible, individual, personal benefit.
The concept of collective solutions to our societal problems is inconceivable to even people who describe themselves as "progressive" and "leftists".
very professional matter of fact, great job gravel!
Gravel Institute, I love the educational value and accessibility of your videos, but I am begging you to kill the mid-roll ads.
Really impressed with the quality on this one. Just a small note: at around 4:16, the narrator says "20,600 miles" but the text says "26,000 miles". Which is the actual number?
As a climate reporter, this gets a lot of stuff right. We need to totally restructure our cities over the next 30 years to preference dense, mixed-use housing that will enable people to walk, cycle, and take public transportation. However, EVs are much more efficient over their lifetime compared to combustion vehicles so I think it's dangerous to frame them as equivalently wasteful/destructive. This video includes some misleading statistics.
I agree with you. But electrification of cars isn't a solution, and we need more narratives that go against the status quo.
Society isn't a controlled scientific experimental where when a scientist says "a strong correlation" everyone else knows that means yes those 2 almost completely affecting each other.
As someone who really enjoys science and research, sometimes leaving the scientific terms at the door and being more forward and simplistic in our communication helps more. Specifically in this case, I'd be much happier when the general population understands that pushing electric cars as an alternative will not solve any problems especially obstinate science communicators like Derek from Veritasium. We can work on the nuance later, once we have gotten rid of the literal life ending threat.
Also even tho technically, EVs are better, they are as bad in the manner that the destruction they bring about will also be very very very bad. "Not as bad" is not good enough. Climate change has already wrecked a lot of people's lives, allowing people to think lemme buy an EV, instead of trying to restructure their towns thinking that they can delay action as they've already "done their part for now" that kind of thinking is the one that's gonna get way more people who don't have the resources to deal with this kind of shit, dead.
Putting 1 more bus to public use is still more helpful than changing 10 combustion vehicles to elecric. Also, way easier as it's cheaper. Not even mentioning the advantage of trains or metros.
Thanks for another great one ! Keep it up
What is the source for the numbers at 4:10?
I wish the author had done more research into the EV space before making this video. Half of Tesla’s cars (who makes about 70% of EVs) use LFP cells which don’t use cobalt. They are mostly iron and phosphate which are easy to obtain. Lithium only make up about 5% of a battery and there’s been some major developments in sodium and sulfur batteries as well. But in the near future most EVs won’t be using cobalt at all.
Exactly, and precisely why I wouldn’t believe any of the crap this organization produces.
@@richardfolden3860 Most of their productions are excellent; this one unfortunately pushes a lot of Big Oil talking points, though.
@@AMortalDefiant I actually read the quick résumés of the board and tried to research where their funding originates. Couldn’t find the latter, which is a big warning sign. They may be talented in their productions but at this point I think I can tell that I don’t believe in their message nor would I believe them period. A piece like this that ignores obvious truths tells me all I need to know about the makers.
This is a really good video, however, too much focus on the "mining of the stuff" argument.
A typical EV battery is 1000 lbs, and you mine it once. A typical gas car requires 50,000 lbs of gas, and once you burn it, it's gone.
I agree, there are some facts/comparisons that are not included in the video that should have been.
And while public transportation is great, it only helps those in densely populated areas.
@@GreenThumb27 And those who actually WANT to use public transport.
In a truly free society, everyone should be able to choose their mode of transportation.
If you recycle batteries, you don't even have to mine all the materials for each battery.
And at 6:50 we are told to walk and bike, as if everyone is young and can do that. Throw in a pandemic that has people afraid to be near other people and you can see why individual transport is so popular.
It's interesting that the left is often so fixated on things like this since there is inherit privilege in simply being able to walk or bike to work. What if there's bad weather? What if you work a job where you can't show up with sweaty pits (which I imagine is most people)? What if you're disabled and physically unable to walk or bike? It's good if those that can want to take that route, but it's not a cure all. I'm all for idealism, but redesigning our entire country like they say is never going to happen and maybe we should stop poopooing something like an electric car takeover which is actually very possible. 26,000 miles is nothing. They claim it's "a lot." That's 2-3 years for most people. After that, that's millions of people driving for tens of thousands of miles with each mile saving on CO2 emissions.
1. not all areas use dirty fuel to generate electricity. BC, Canada uses almost entirely hydro electric dams. 2. what about recycling the batteries? if one person buys an electric car then there is a big chunk of emissions to create that car and the battery. but if the battery is recycled, then that person could in theory just be using the same materials for their car forever.....i dont know the numbers for that, but if you want to claim electric cars are not very good you have to look at the whole picture, not just parts. and most of the world is trying to move to cleaner electricity sources (except the US lol). over time electricity will get more and more clean. 3. people still will always need cars. yes, they should take transit or walk/bike as much as possible. and there is a LOT the gov can do to encourage that, such as building better infrastructure, making transit free, adding more vehicles so the waits are shorter and vehicles less packed. more direct routes also will help shorten the transit time. but cars will ALWAYS be needed. to get groceries. to go on trips. FOR THE DISABLED, LIKE ME. for people whose job requires it (carry tools, visit peoples homes, transport goods). the push to get everyone on bikes and walk is absurd. do it as much as possible, but in Vancouver it rains here half the year and its totally unrealistic to expect people to bike to work in the rain. and many people are physically not able to. 4. there should be tiny cars available for people to drive just themselves, or 2 people. plenty of people never have more than one other person in their car, and could have a significantly smaller car.
I wonder if Paris would agree with me when I'd say that there's this extra type of pollution that's coming from cars, be it electric or motor powered: it's the tiny metallic dust particles from brakes, micro-elements from rubber tyres and dust being kicked up from the road as the car goes by. These aren't easily visible to the naked eye, but they are there, and they contribute to smog and general pollution in cities. We breathe this stuff in.
Cyclists know about that and carcinogenic tailpipe smog.
Yes, that is true, but you are talking about a local problem (air pollution). Climate change effects everyone and everything on this planet, so that should be the main priority.
Also, car traffic creates noise pollution. Even electric cars make noise when they drive at fast speeds due to the tires, and traffic jams are the worst source of noise pollution.
Although subjective, you could also argue that dense traffic and traffic jams in cities creates awful visual pollution - pedestrianised streets are such a refreshing sight compared to conventional city streets.
If you want to be completely fair, trains make those too. Also noise pollution from just about every form of transportation, public or private. But it should be possible to fix those things with technology.
I mean 20,000 miles isn't really that much for an EV to start having less emissions than a gas car. Most cars are driven for way more than 20,000 miles. That said, yes public transportation and the infrastructure that allows that is the ideal.
Yeah that’s less than 2 years for the average driver
I've had my car(2014 Honda Civic) for about 8 years now and drove it minimally. Meaning to work and back and only occasionally for something big(moved across the country a few times but only in a straight line, which added a good 12k miles to my meter) and that brought it to a little over 120k miles. Divide that down and you'd break even on an EV in about 2 years emission wise. Plus there's the benefits of not needing to refine gasoline anymore.
EV's aren't everything but they're a massive step forward in more than just the transportation industry. Investing in electric buses and trains along with general infrastructure would be even better. And those things are run non-stop so they'll make up for their emissions pretty quickly.
Indeed, they make this sound like a major unsolvable problem, but forget to mention that when the % of renewables in the energy mix go up, the amount of miles is reduced rapidly too. So it's an incomplete representation of the facts.
Yes, this video is largely BS that conveniently leaves out much critical information.
@@richardfolden3860 I wouldn't go that far. The points made against EV's are valid, but aren't as bad as they make it out to be.
Similar to how EV's are a good tool, but not the be all end all.
There is a typo at 4:14, The voiceover states 20,600 miles and the graphic states 26,000 miles.
At 4:17 is the narration or the video wrong when they contrast at "20,600" and "26,000"?
A few notes -- the "new" batteries being produced currently are Lithium Ion Phosphate (LFP), which doesn't use cobalt or manganese. LFP batteries are much safer (i.e., they don't blow up), and batteries, in general, last much much longer than gasoline/petrol, which has to constantly be extracted.
Can't believe Gravel have dropped the ball so badly here.
Only thing I agree with is we need to steer away from public ownership of cars to a more public transport reliant transportation system.
But still, this guy they brought in, his research on Cobalt batteries is outdated tech.
Lithium IRON phosphate.
Bikes & trains could cover 90% of trips and with far lower costs, comparatively minimal batteries, and great improvements in health and happiness!
You do know that people get old don't you?
@@3ducs old people still benefit from activity like walking & if you're too old to bike you're probably not far off too old to drive, so maybe an electric-assist trike (or trains & walking) could be an option
@@13ccasto Thanks for your concern. I live in a rural area in America, none of the options you name are applicable here. At 75 I am far from giving up on driving, my Mazda MX-5 suits me and the roads around here. We don't need European Utopianism here, other people's ideas for how we should live our lives fall flat here.
@@3ducs No doubt cars will still have a place in the world, especially in rural places (where I live too) which couldn't feasibly be serviced by public transit - but right now in America cars are essentially the only option for people in cities, suburbs, or rural places, and people in cities, suburbs, and rural towns could have their daily needs better served by public transit, walking, and biking than driving. I don't think we need to replicate every single thing Europe does without thinking about how it might or might not work in America, but we shouldn't discount ideas that help make (northern) Europeans the happiest people in the world just because we believe utopias are out of reach or a socialist ploy to make us all happy. And we shouldn't forget that trains and public transit were once America's strongsuit - remember the streetcar suburbs of the early 1900s that got people into cities faster than driving does today thanks to traffic. That of course brings up another point that relying less on cars makes car drivers better off, since there would be fewer people to share the road with. It's a win win in so many ways
4:15 - Voiceover says "about 20 thousand, 600 miles". which would be... 20,600. On screen number shown is 26,000, which is "twenty six thousand miles". Which is it?
This is the content I need. Walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented cities are not just better for the environment, but are also better for affordability, mental and physical health, a sense of community, reduced noise pollution, and public safety. Cars consume so much public space that could be better used for housing, parks, plazas, bus lanes, wider sidewalks, street trees, etc. Plus, cars kill 1.3 million people every year and seriously injure millions more. They are the number one cause of death for children and all young people under 30 in the US. Maintaining car infrastructure and sprawl is a massive money sink for public funds that could be better utilized elsewhere.
We need to find away to let people virtue signal that they ride transit get all those "look at me I'm saving the environment" folks out of personal vehicles. Writing this on a bus btw.
Virtue signalling isn't going to do anything. This is a systemic thing and hence needs systemic change. Cities need to be rebuilt from the ground up.
it's annoying because the supply chain for industries like mining can be easily cleaned up. traditional mining is perfect for decarbonization due to all the heavy equipment already using diesel-electric hybrid drive trains. furthermore lithium really doesn't have to come from the open pit mines the mineral resource industry is so fond of. lithium is a prime example of a mineral that is actually extremely abundant if you look at sources other than those you can build an open pit mine around. everything from desert sand to ocean water is filled with more than enough lithium to work as a feedstock to purify the element from. cobalt ofc is a different story and the battery industry really needs to switch to chemistries that don't require it.
Neat that this dropped less than a day after Hakim's video on the same topic.
Wow I never knew this information thank you for this
For urban and suburban areas I can see public transportation being the future but what if you wanted to go to a rural area for whatever reason?
How would the infrastructure work at that point to facilitate travel to less urbanized regions? How much would you need to build? High speed rail is a must especially here in the US but I don't see public transportation as a be all, end all solution to ALL travel. There are still certain situations a personal vehicle might still be needed.
Rent a car services probably?
@@AbstractTraitorHero Maybe...
There is a child labor boom in Congo cobalt mines. Worse the lithium pollution at this massive scale. Using lithium for cordless machines and solar, is very smart. In cars, not so environmentally friendly at all. They still use coal grid power to charge these cars.
Well, now I'm going to be even more upset by disposable vape devices.
You are dangerously behind in your information. Cobalt is largely disappearing in EV batteries, most car batteries are becoming LFP. And batteries and EVs are resulting in the closure of coal fired peaker plants. Even if they weren’t, would it make sense to continue to drill for oil? You need to up your game.
@@richardfolden3860 Before it dissapears, it's still in use. You could watch a very short documentary here on RUclips or do some digging. That clean electric/hybrid car, if you track raw material extraction - Its not as clean or ethical. Unfortunately us here in Africa, we gotta debate New York guys-who get their Africa news from Fox and CNN. You could visit us here, and see in person
@@managersamuel well, it’s moronic to blame the EV industry, which again is putting an end to it, and it wouldn’t have been ending without it. Tesla in particular refuses to purchase cobalt that is sourced in that fashion and is ending its use altogether. You want to blame someone, blame the companies that buy it. Or, police thyself. You aren’t making comments on a device with a cobalt infused battery are you? Right? Right? Because that would make you a hypocrite…..
So my V8 M3 gets 15mpg.
saying I should keep driving that instead of the PEV I'm looking to buy ?
No, as great as Gravel Institute is, this isn't one of their better pieces. While more walkable cities would be awesome, the sad fact is that too much is dependent on vehicles for now, and that means we need personal EVs, which lowers the cost to produce EV buses (Proterra, BYD, et. al.), and electric semis (Tesla is working on this). Semis alone account for 17% of our carbon emissions, and since we can't walk Amazon products cross-country, we need electric semis. In accordance with Wright's Law, each doubling of production decreases production costs by a predictable amount. Which means, EV adoption is effectively making electric buses and semis (more) affordable. This is a piece of the pie that currently CANNOT be reduced any other way (unless we figure out how to teleport things across the continent).
In the Netherlands, bikes do about 50-60% of local transportation. Additionally there are a multitude of other benefits, including health. I wonder what the percentage is in the United States.
💯💯💯
The switch from ICE cars to EV's is a transition much greater they protrayed in this video, will touch on a number of those here.
- Robotaxies : Full selfdriving taxies will replace much of the vehicles owned by people who drive less time, reducing the number of cars in total while driving more miles per car then an average car would, so less cars needed and also less parking spaces.
- EV carshares : if not full self driving robo taxies then car sharing, this is made much easier when fully electric because it takes out the whole refueling/paying for fuel aspect out of the deal because you just plug it in, it has a computer and screen for tracking etc. Much easier then with ICE vehicles.
- Tunnels : electric cars can more easely drive in tunnels because of the no exaust pipe so no need for extreme ventilation. Traffic normally driving from one end of the city to the other end can just use the tunnel and avoid all traffic, tunnels dont have intersections waiting energy with stopping and starting, then just pass underneath. All tunnel driving will be full self driving, not human driven because of accidents.
- Electric public transport : Also all busses, trams, taxi's, trains, short distance air travel will be electric and profit of the transition to EV in terms of costs per km.
- Lithium and Cobalt : Oil refinaries also use Cobalt during desulferisation so the ICE industrie also needs cobalt. The mining and processing of these materials will become cleaner and at end of life can be recycled into new batteries.
- Ice car production has a much larger footprint in space during production as it has more componants like engines, transmissions, etc that all need their own production including the whole industrie for spare parts, add to that the whole fossil fuel processing and distribution ( refinaries, pipelines, gasstations, tankdepots ) , engine oil production and changing stations like jiffylube. EV's use chargingstations that are also used for parking.
Smaller EV's, there are also newer smaller EV's like the Arcimoto, Nobe, Apterra etc, smaller cars that use less materials for the car and have smaller batterypacks. Rightsizing transport is just as important, specially if you cant use public transport for your daily needs, for instances when you need to transport goods for your job from delivering goods to customers, picking up from suppliers or bringing it to the postoffice or transport partner for widescale distribution.
Such an important video. Thanks!
Filled with so much misinformation, love it!
I feel lile Your quality is increasing with every video👍🏻
4:17 - Narrator says 20,600 miles. Display is 26,000 miles. Which one is correct ? Please specify.
I do not care about if they are 'good' for the environment, I just want to empower big oil as little as possible. That has spin off upsides uf most were to do so.
The oil industry is built on imperialist exploitation of labor, mineral extraction is built on those same principles; they are both awful
A detail not brought up in the video is how much heavier electric cars are. The weight of a vehicle has a bigger impact on the degradation of roads than anything else. More road wear means more roads needing repair, and more pollution.
not to mention the risk of those being hit by bigger faster and heavier vehicles
@@kosmonarrat electric car are built to be a lot safer and have a lower center of gravity so the chances of roll over is much less
@@chidorirasenganz safer for who? Drivers ram their cars into crowds. Or did you forget about reality?
Electric cars have less (moving) parts, need less maintenance and an electric engine is a lot more efficient; 85% of the energy you put into it is converted into mechanical energy, compared to only 45% of a gas combustion engine (a lot is lost in heat).
@@kosmonarrat actually Tesla’s in general get in less accidents than drivers but that’s irrelevant because no matter what car it is if it hits a person it’s bad
At 4:16 the narrator says "about 20,600 miles" while the graphic shows 26,000 miles. Which of these is correct? Can this mistake be fixed? It doesn't look good.
Would be nice if you guys shared links of your sources
There are some problems with your analysis. First of all, cobalt is also mined for use in making fossil fuels, which you completely ignored. And while cobalt is steadily being decreased in batteries, other industries (tech) have not been trying as hard to reduce cobalt. 2nd: at 4:13 Your narrator says 20,600 miles, but your graphics says 26,000 miles, and you've also failed to mention that this is a figure that people usually drive before the warranty has run out on their vehicle (The typical auto warranty coverage is 3-years/36,000 miles ). 3rd: You've ignored the fact that, in the wide world (outside of the US) public transportation was one of the leaders in the switch to electric. China has tens of thousands of electric vehicles for public transit already, and subway trains and electric street cars (or trolley cars) in some cities have been running for nearly a hundred years, proving their reliability! (you might as well finish the video on a positive note!)
And "65% more" to build an EV. Where do they get that? Do you know how many Engine/Trans pieces get shipped around for different processes between different companies before being assembled? there is so much waste in that supply chain I have to think 65% is bs. maybe they meant .68% since they're not too good with numbers
@@zaphodbeeblebrox2817 They should focus on the positive. NY Subway Trains have been electric for a hundred years. Public Transportation is really good in some places around the world. Germany just made a unlimited monthly transit pass for 9 Euros.
@@gabriel38g They do finally get to the real issue, "car dependency" (not clickbaity enough) but they should point out that in the future many cars won't be sitting parked most of the time if they can drive themselves. and if that car can go a million miles that would significantly offset lifetime emissions. Thanks Elon for putting cars on the road Today! that could accomplish this
Many things are manufactured and they also require mineral extraction. Perhaps the bigger problem is $Capitalism$?
Yes, fictional moronic socialist utopias require no minerals 🤦🏽♂️
Welcome back! It’s been too long
Do you think there’s no extraction necessary to transform the way we move people or
you can't just put public transportation, and walk or cycle, in car dependent suburbs, they are designed in a way that makes those things impractical. Building attractive cities with walkable neighborhoods and public transit is the solution but that isn't going to happen overnight, even if there was the will to do it. Electric cars are way better than gasoline
Finally! Marx making some good points here... Wasn't a fan of his economic model but I like his stance on electric vehicles.
The best video from The Gravel Institute so far 👌 💯
Can't wait to see Jason from *Not Just Bikes* comments here as well as other Urban RUclipsrs👍
This was a great video, the argument it makes for human scale and public transport were very refreshing to see. I do think there was something that should of been included in the comparison of electric and gas powered cars, that would paint the picture in a more accurate manner. I think it is important when we discuss the emission differences between gas and electric powered cars, to note that cobalt can be recycled from these batteries and technology is moving away from the use of cobalt in batteries all together. The omission of this information paints electrics in a slightly less favorable light, which arguably isn't incorrect, but I think its important to show the full picture.
I think the way some things are presented give people who oppose electric cars and don't care about emissions to say, "look, electric cars are worse for the environment than my gas vehicle." Which isn't true. Especially when you only have to drive 26,000 miles to break even. That is not very many miles to drive.
Again, I think this is a great video, but it opens up the argument in a way where you could argue against electric cars in favor of keeping gas around as long as possible, which isn't the outcome we would want.
No, electric cars are not going tot fix climate change. But you could also make a video called 'Why Public Transportation Won't Fix Climate Change' and argue how redesigning cities and completely rebuilding infrastructure is harmful for the environment if you consider the complete supply chains of f.e. concrete or asphalt, or talk about the amount of waste that redesigning will create. I agree that more and better public transportation is a much better long term solution, but redesigning cities will take decades, but we don't have time to wait anymore. People are traveling right now by car, public transportation is in many places in the world limited or unreliable so therefore for people it is much easier to switch to an electric car which is still a better (not perfect) way of transportation compared to a petrol car. Another quicker solution would be to reduce to amount of traveling or traveling distances.
More importantly, I find it misleading to mix local environmental problems with climate change. A stable climate is one of the main conditions for all life on earth and affects everyone and everything on this planet. Local problems (bad work conditions, water and soil pollution etc.) are indeed bad and unwanted, but are not even remotely comparable considering the total impact it has on life on earth. Electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines, batteries will all need an enormous amount of (rare) minerals and that will create problems in the places these minerals are / will need to be mined. But the aim of these technologies is to reduce carbon emissions and slow down climate change, and that is priority number one. The reality is that we started fighting climate change 30 to 40 years too late and now we have to make bold decisions and do everything possible to reduce emissions and we must accept some harmful side effects to these rapid transitions.
For now, I am leaning toward hybrids until our infrastructure can handle the additional loads and our energy reliance on coal diminishes.
Nah hybrids are the worst of both worlds. Our grid can handle the transitioning to EVs because it’s not happening overnight and EVs are only getting more and more efficient. Also the composition of the electrical grid is irrelevant because even a EV mostly using a fossil fuel grid is better than a gas car for the environment
What is wrong with the graph at 5:06 how does 42% appear to be halfway between 40 and 80 percent?
Paris Marx. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy of a name. Great video!
Unfortunate truth
Unfortunate that you believe it.
@@richardfolden3860 care to elaborate?
@@micaht4718 sure, what would you like to know?
@@richardfolden3860 why do you think that it’s unfortunate that I believe what is said in the video? I support electric cars but I understand rare earth metals need to be used and that’s toxic to the environment. Electric power mass transit should be the goal. Disagree?
@@micaht4718 the majority of EV batteries are now LFP and the mining of those 3 completely recyclable materials is much less harmful than oil production and will eventually cause zero harm. And while public transportation is a nice theory, very few use it now which makes it even more wasteful. Ride share robotaxis will become the norm in cities and will require much less individual ownership of vehicles, which will in turn reduce the need for excess lanes of travel, parking lots, and unnecessary infrastructure like public transit.
Hopefully as electrification increases, the lifetime emissions will decrease as production becomes cleaner
They have been. As batteries, and EVs themselves continue to get more efficient, less material is needed. Tesla's new environmental impact report cites only 6,500 miles driven to break-even with ICE on lifetime emissions.
And, as battery production scales, we see the effects of Wright's Law; battery prices decrease, and the companies making electric buses, and semis can start to scale up, providing a broader effect. Proterra, and BYD already make electric buses for both schools, and public transportation. Tesla is planning work on semis. Trucking alone is responsible for 17% of our carbon emissions, and as much as we may say "just walk" it's hard to move products cross-country without *some* degree of vehicle use. EVs really need to be a top priority globally.
@@AMortalDefiant Lithium might not scale because it's a limited resource, unless there is a lot of recycling (which will likely happen).
There is an error at 4:16 it should be 20,600 but the video says 26,000.
Everyone in the US needs to see this video, especially those in charge of zoning and transportation. If the US were designed like Europe, with walkable and bikeable cities and robust public transit, our emissions would be so much lower. Not to mention, single family detached homes are sooooo much worse for the environment than multifamily housing. Everything about American urban and suburban development is designed to destroy the environment.
Lol that environment is better to live in regardless of climate benefits. Still nothing compared to companies' emissions btw
@@fuglong I completely agree. Individual actions have incredibly little impact on the environment, but radical change to the built environment is still better than taking no action. While small things like veganism really don't do much for the environment and regulating companies more will actually have a far greater impact, building walkable cities is still a great step forward.