I remember a TedEx talk running thru another side of this problem, laying out the carbon investment both upfront and overtime.<br>Because EV batteries are so giant and dirty, and that the grid isnt fully renewable itself, the guy roughed out a number of over 100,000 miles of travel before an EV breaks even with the emissions of a relatively efficient combustion engine.<br><br>The alternative he brought up was using hybrid vehicles, where the greatly decreased of both engine block and battery pack means less upfront emissions, and then the high gas mileage makes for lower emissions over time.<br>Given that there's a lot of concern about the grid not being able to support a full EV transition and a billion other things, I think its pretty good grounds to argue that Hybrids are the real way to impact overall carbon footprint, at least until battery technology improves and the infrastructure catches up with it as well.<br>A little frustrating, then, that there is such a push for EVs and nothing short, when we have a technically BETTER alternative that requires less of a shock to the entire transportation system and society at large.<br><br><br>I think this UE video has also brought up an issue that I've had on my mind for about a year now -- where the division is going to rise between ecology and addressing climate change. Just because its less carbon intensive, doesn't mean the "planet" is being "saved" on the local scale. It will be interesting to see what comes of this in the long run, since I do believe the original spearheads of the climate issue had a keen focus on protecting the environment as a whole, not simply climate...,(reply>), ​@Toberumono Unfortunately , the is comment section have  bad habit of yeetin post that point/links  to outside source (even quoting a large portion of it would trigger the algorithm , it seem)  so I can't really do much about citing the true source. But other channel on youtube  (Sabine Hossenfelder, Engineering with Rosie, Just Have a Think, Transport Evolved, Real Engineering  etc) hade covered  the hydrogen problem .<br><br>As I said even if we have very robust city planning and  public transport, it will not and could not eliminate the need and want for private  vehicle . The fact that countries like Japan and Netherland  having high percentage of car ownership underlines this.,(reply>), @remliqa First, I’d love to see your source RE “Green” Hydrogen. Second, again, you miss my point. I am saying that changing car types won’t be enough, not that we shouldn’t find cleaner cars.<br>Third, you greatly misunderstand the psychology of car usage. While people think that cars give them their freedom, the reality is that cars and places designed around them take away freedom so that cars can “give it back”. The winding neighborhoods of the suburbs serve to put more practical distance between people and what they want while zoning laws ensure that it is impossible to fix the problem. Combine that with the consistent underfunding of public transit and you wind up with the convenient illusion that cars are freeing. While yes, personal vehicles can be useful in a small number of circumstances, the simple reality is that the vast majority of people could easily use public transit instead if only we hadn’t consistently nuked its funding. So, while sure, it might be the case that we can build a cleaner car, we already know how to avoid the need for car use almost entirely, which makes the idea that people will always want cars just plain sad.,(reply>), @Toberumono It not meaningless because unlike  hybrids, BEV actually solves the pollution and emission problems associated with having a vehicle in the first  place. Face it:  people will always have need and want for personal vehicle , so why not  transition to the cleaner BEV instead of maintaining  the destructive  status quo of ICEV.,(reply>), @remliqa Mate… that’s what I said. Hybrids can’t save us, nor can EVs (the cost both human and environmental of making their batteries is obscene). “Cold comfort” means something that isn’t comforting because it is meaningless.,(reply>), ​@Burt Sidefish Why would you wants hybrid? They are worse for the environment than BEV while only be marginal better at cutting pollution   than a pure ICE. They combine the worst aspect of BEV (expensive and polluting material mined in poor countries) with ICEV's  (terrible long term emission as you need to burn fossil fuel for the rest of the car's life).