comment: >
  
  I’d love to read where you got this info, sounds interesting
context: I'd love to have an EV, but I cannot charge at home and the charging infrastructure here is shit. >
  
  Also am I not supposed to get upvoted if this is unpopular lol >
  
  You’re a bit inaccurate.  Your narrative is directly from the oil lobby. America exports more oil than we keep for ourselves. Oil company’s make more. Also making oil and then burning oil to make oil and burning that oil is exponentially worse for
  Environment. Once you use carbon sources to create elect vehicle there are zero emissions so making them is finite and not exponentially creating pollution. Also Mining those minerals not as bad and harmful to land as oil exploration. Not to mention what we spend in war. Also not allowing competitors is monopolistic and is against free enterprise. Don’t stand up for oil companies. How often do they send their children and families to die for you or pay you 6 bucks a gallon to get to work cause there’s no public transportation cause your taxes don’t fund cause they’re funding a military to fight a losing war in iran? >
  
  I agree w this logic the most out of the arguments people have made >
  
  I dunno but I will resist EVs for as long as possible. Or at least until they are are as practical as an ICE.
  There are major hurdles to get over for EVs to be widely adopted and I don't see it happening anytime soon. They're probably great for short commutes but I truly believe their ~300 mile range will have to at least be doubled and charging taking less than half of what it is now for them to be widely adopted. >
  
  EV’s are wayyyyy better than Gas cars dont let anyone tell you different its literally been tested and made factual >
  
  By what metric? >
  
  A lot actually. Electric cars pollute a lot less you can search up on dozens of articles and research done by environmental scientist >
  
  I'll start to believe it if you actually post a link to a credible article, but until then I'm looking at the massive lithium deposits and production it takes to make one as a net negative. Don't you still need fossil fuels to technically mine for it also? >
  
  Lithium is the third most common element in the universe and by far the most plentiful metal.  
  In addition it is fully recyclable, with many companies planning on doing exactly that one EVs are a little more abundant. >
  
  
  The vast majority of energy production in the US is from oil, coal or natural gas
  
  And even if you account for that contribution of fossil fuels to the energy EVs use, electric cars still have a far lower carbon footprint than gas cars do.
  
  That’s not even to get into the rare earth metals that have to be mined for the batteries in EVs - which is arguably more harmful to the planet and is just as, if not more, unsustainable as fossil fuel production
  
  No, it's not. >
  
  The last time I compared EV to ICE was two years ago and at time, accounting for cost of production, cost of electricity/generation/transmittal, the EV had a higher carbon footprint and dollar cost at purchase.
  The break even point for both carbon and dollars was right at the 3 year mark and everything after that was a savings in both carbon and dollar cost. >
  
  It has to be fast because it should have been started decades earlier.
  Any change that big will have major issues. But, gotta do it. >
  
  Sure, but the reality is that until our energy product is less dependent on fossil fuels, EVs aren’t the solution to the problems >
  
  Agreed. City planning around people, not cars, needs to happen. >
  
  Because fossils fuels are the height of sustainability /s >
  
  Obviously not what I’m saying >
  
  I think it’s not happening fast enough. I hate going out of my way to fill up at gas stations. >
  
  Yeah, our power generation is mostly fossil fuel.
  However, power plants based on fossil fuels are much more efficient than ICE powered cars.
  The biggest issue with electric cars is the rare earth materials needed for the batteries. If we can develop batteries that don't require rare earth materials though, then switching to EVs is a huge benefit, even if most our power would still be provided by fossil fuels.
  In a perfect world, fusion power + EVs + walkable and public transportation based cities would be the ideal solution. However, even if our power still comes from fossil, as long as we can update our battery tech it's still worth it in the long run. >
  
  I'd love to have an EV, but I cannot charge at home and the charging infrastructure here is shit. >
  
  Yeah, our power generation is mostly fossil fuel.
  However, power plants based on fossil fuels are much more efficient than ICE powered cars.
  The biggest issue with electric cars is the rare earth materials needed for the batteries. If we can develop batteries that don't require rare earth materials though, then switching to EVs is a huge benefit, even if most our power would still be provided by fossil fuels.
  In a perfect world, fusion power + EVs + walkable and public transportation based cities would be the ideal solution. However, even if our power still comes from fossil, as long as we can update our battery tech it's still worth it in the long run. >
  
  Fair point about the efficiency of power plants v combustion engines. I agree but that’s a huge if. I think it could be amazing but mandates at a point where that “if” isn’t resolved are short sighted >
  
  I dunno but I will resist EVs for as long as possible. Or at least until they are are as practical as an ICE.
  There are major hurdles to get over for EVs to be widely adopted and I don't see it happening anytime soon. They're probably great for short commutes but I truly believe their ~300 mile range will have to at least be doubled and charging taking less than half of what it is now for them to be widely adopted. >
  
  Yeah, range, charge speed and price are key points EVs don't meet Ice at all. >
  
  Also am I not supposed to get upvoted if this is unpopular lol >
  
  
  The vast majority of energy production in the US is from oil, coal or natural gas
  
  And even if you account for that contribution of fossil fuels to the energy EVs use, electric cars still have a far lower carbon footprint than gas cars do.
  
  That’s not even to get into the rare earth metals that have to be mined for the batteries in EVs - which is arguably more harmful to the planet and is just as, if not more, unsustainable as fossil fuel production
  
  No, it's not. >
  
  The last time I compared EV to ICE was two years ago and at time, accounting for cost of production, cost of electricity/generation/transmittal, the EV had a higher carbon footprint and dollar cost at purchase.
  The break even point for both carbon and dollars was right at the 3 year mark and everything after that was a savings in both carbon and dollar cost.