The part about the emissions being "reversed" is something I'm skeptical about gas and charcoal are still common sources for electricity generators.<br>The gap possibly closes but I doubt it actually gets reversed. <br>I'm also curious about what the post life cycle looks like what gets recycled what has to be thrown etc...,(reply>), @Tyrian Dunaédine lol why getting personal right now? did i hurt your feelings with too many facts? if you cant hold a normal discussion, just stop trying.,(reply>), @battlehotdog No. I have said there is problem with electric vehicles. I don't avoid it, but I compare the problems between two technology. You don't. You prefer to close your eyes on fact you don't want to see. So close your mouth as well. The problem of the video is charging electric vehicle with problem currently associated with ALL ours technology. ALL. So you reject electric vehicle based on a collection of anecdotes, but use your PC or smartphone or even fossil vehicle (there is the same problems, far worse in fact in the long run), you are only an hypocrite, and it is not the environmental cause you have in mind.,(reply>), @Tyrian Dunaédine this completely avoids the current discussion tho. fact is we have those issues and fact is EVs are currently not good and it is difficult to estimate the damage the production brings with it, we know its far worse than what LCAs are showing and the politics are telling us. and what are we going to do in 50 years when we cant produce EVs anymore? we have to go back to combustion engines.<br>thats why i think this video helps a lot with the discourse, it brings light to some issues nobody is talking about.,(reply>), @battlehotdog It is because it is complex this need some expertise. I don't have this expertise, so I must have confidence in experts, like the GIEC. Currently, atmospheric pollution cost nearly two to three years to every human on earth, including all cause of atmospheric pollution. So only a portion of this is on transportation, but a significant one (20% to 60% depending of the polluant). It is on the top five cause of lost of life expectancy. <br><br>And all of this without including the effect of climate change. Some estimate indicate a lost of one year due only to extreme temperature. So without the effect of the increase of hurricanes, droughts, etc.<br><br>And all of this is destroying large swath of "natural" zone. Climate change and atmospheric pollution affect all the planet. So yeah, bad practice in mining industry is a real danger. But it is not the worst. The silver lining in this: bad practice in mining can be resolved by legislation. Not fossil vehicles.,(reply>), @Tyrian Dunaédine i dont think thats true.  how do you translate the reduction in life expectancy into a co2 equivalent? that sounds impossible to do. especially when you dont know what the impact those leaks into the environment have. how do you quantify damaged/dead/poisoned soil? especially when that soil stays unusable for decades after, we dont even know how long we cant use that land. i also have not found a singe LCA study that took water pollution into account, just emission from mining gear and transport. all this stuff us super hard to quantify, thats why i dont think any heavy metal leaks are taken into account when people talk about how "green" EVs are.