Comment by chrisbrandow
5 hours ago
I used to work for the Air Resources Board of California, and while there is a warm-up period, modern ice cars are so profoundly cleaner than cars even from the early 2000s. It’s pretty stunning.
Regardless, there’s nothing cleaner than no combustion, and I can’t wait until EV‘s have replaced them all
There's nothing cleaner at the locus of measurement. Great. But, prove that you are not moving emissions up the supply chain to make your argument. Only then can chemists like myself agree that you aren't just sniffing your own marketing. Because to me as a chemist it looks like you don't understand the environment and you're just pedaling marketing while treating science as if it is a religion that doesn't require any proof. As if politics alone determines what's good for the environment. That's wrong. I believe in science and I'm offended that you think you're so well educated that your opinion, without a chemistry degree, governs the air that my children will be breathing. Because as a scientist, I believe you're dramatically more destructive than the efforts you're arguing against.
In my expert opinion ICE is far more environmentally friendly when compared with most large grid solutions, as best I can tell. That's especially true when considering loss of energy due to simple transduction across the grid to charge EVs.
Tell me I'm wrong, but don't try to prove it with some marketing bullshit. Give me real science, that includes the entire supply chain and all the energy chain from the source without relying on media marketing and news sources owned by the same economic powers that control the media and the large grid power providers (same people). I want the math. Please eat shit if you can't produce the math.
Please, convince me. Because as a trained environmental chemist I hate everything you're supporting. And I want to prevent you from spreading more misconceptions that have nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with making more money for evil energy companies milking tax incentives towards "green initiatives" that are anything but good for the environment.
Please show all of us scientists how you're smarter. Please do your best to be scientific if you are actually interested in responding. Because I have every intention of responding with stoichiometric realities that are not going to vibe with your bullshit.
Thanks for considering deeply if your response is actually scientifically sound before you attempt to respond.
Openly, my point, is that so many of you act like you're on the side of science, when in fact you're buying a religion from a media outlet named "science" which is in fact unscientific.
And I fully intend to challenge your idiocy with actual science.
I'm excited to have anyone respond here, especially environmental chemists with a degree in the field.
Looking forward to it.
Every single survey that I'm aware has concluded that by any measure EVs are more environmentally friendly than ICEs. The only caveat is that the "startup" footprint of an EV is higher (because batteries), but the ongoing cost is far lower, even with polluting electricity sources like coal, because it's still way more efficient to burn coal in a proper power plant than it is to ship around gasoline and burn it badly in ICEs. The breakeven point (depending on your assumptions and driving habits) is a couple of years in, and after that EVs wipe the floor with ICEs.
Here's a bunch of those surveys: https://evcentral.com.au/which-is-best-for-the-environment-e...
Keen to hear your expert opinion on what (eg) the International Energy Agency got wrong.
Is every single survey you're aware of conducted by actual scientists? Are you sure? I'm asking honestly. How is it that every day people like yourself without a science degree are so sure of that fact?
You should be ashamed. How are you so sure that you know what science looks like? Are you trained in the field?
Be honest. How do you know that the articles you're subscribed to are provided by actual scientists and not funded by political efforts geared towards profiteering?
As an expert in the field, I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong. The "science" you're pedaling doesn't withstand basic scientific rigour. And I'm so excited to show you how stupid the article that you listed is.
But before I do that, are you really willing to accept that you're about to be dunked on? Or are you going to recoil into a politically media made safe space where your argument is immediately infallible because you don't actually believe in science?
Let me know before I proceed because if you actually can't be convinced then just admit you're not a scientist and recuse yourself.
Are you a scientist or a politician?