I'm not saying the reporting in that article is inaccurate. But the fact that the article has been recycled a couple of times and is still prominently posted almost two weeks later makes me think that it originated as part of a PR strategy by someone in the fossil fuel or internal combustion industries, to slow down EV enthusiasm.

Yea, unfortunately PP is right. More compact development and public transportation is the best answer. Unfortunately, this country runs on cars. The EVs are not the best solution but thanks to Elon, that have emerged as the most feasible alternative. Even if hydrogen was theoretically better it is so behind EVs at this point in terms of infrastructure, it’s never going to catch up and be feasible.
I read the article too and the geopolitics of China dominating the battery space was worrisome. And then bingo - when valuable raw materials are discovered in poor countries, that just invariably becomes a reason for authoritarianism, rampant abuse and human rights violations for the people as opposed to growth and development. Diamonds, oil, the list is endless.
Without knowing the specifics, I hope Bidens $7.5K is a step in a right direction to shift this dominance a bit.

People considering buying an ev need to do research on how they are produced more specifically how telsa batteries are manufactuered prior to purchasing.

Anonymous wrote:Unlike those workers in oil platforms in the middle of the ocean -- they are really living it up!

Eh they are making pretty good money at least. And also we all know that oil is evil, but we are touting electric as some kind of a environmental miracle which it certainly isn’t. It’s just a little less evil…for now.

Unlike those workers in oil platforms in the middle of the ocean -- they are really living it up!

Anonymous wrote: I'm a layperson, and I do agree that ev production is not without a cost.

However, it seems like, if we could make the mining process humane for workers (keeping them safe and paying them fairly) and also aggressively recycle the minerals once the battery eventually wears out-would go a long way to making ev production better.

I have a PHEV which I love, but I do realize that there is a cost on both ends.

Sure but then your PHEV may cost 3x-5x more in the future.

What we should actually do is reduce dependence on cars.

The answer is public transportation and walkable cities.

This is very obvious.

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

I'm a layperson, and I do agree that ev production is not without a cost.

However, it seems like, if we could make the mining process humane for workers (keeping them safe and paying them fairly) and also aggressively recycle the minerals once the battery eventually wears out-would go a long way to making ev production better.

I have a PHEV which I love, but I do realize that there is a cost on both ends.

Anonymous wrote:And not for nothing, but do people realize that most electricity in this country is generated by burning coal and natural gas? It’s not (carbon) free

Power plants are far more cost effective and pollution effective than engines.

And not for nothing, but do people realize that most electricity in this country is generated by burning coal and natural gas? It’s not (carbon) free

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the production and operation of internal-combustion engines is terrible, too, and reducing carbon emissions is critical. It's not like petroleum isn't a finite resource, or that there's no cost to ICEs. It's also the case that the effects of climate change are going to be disproportionately horrible for the poor and their communities and their environment.

OK, but other than the cost (initially) wouldn't hydrogen be a better option?

No, it's also about efficiency. Hydrogen is much less efficient. And hydrogen is not as green as you think. The production process still requires fossil energy.
95% of hydrogen produced today uses methane gas for production.

Anonymous wrote:Because the production and operation of internal-combustion engines is terrible, too, and reducing carbon emissions is critical. It's not like petroleum isn't a finite resource, or that there's no cost to ICEs. It's also the case that the effects of climate change are going to be disproportionately horrible for the poor and their communities and their environment.

OK, but other than the cost (initially) wouldn't hydrogen be a better option?

Because the production and operation of internal-combustion engines is terrible, too, and reducing carbon emissions is critical. It's not like petroleum isn't a finite resource, or that there's no cost to ICEs. It's also the case that the effects of climate change are going to be disproportionately horrible for the poor and their communities and their environment.

This is an interesting article from WOPO today. I knew some of it, but I (naively) didn't know how terrible the conditions were for the people mining the resources necessary to make the batteries. Why are we so agressively pushing towards EVs knowing that we are just kicking the can down the road?

"While electric vehicles are essential to reducing carbon emissions, their production can exact a significant human and environmental cost. To run, EVs require six times the mineral input, by weight, of conventional vehicles. These minerals, including cobalt, nickel, lithium and manganese, are finite resources. And mining and processing them can be harmful for workers, their communities and the local environment."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/electric-car-batteries-geography/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F39d7c48%2F644aa203a61bab12f740d0bc%2F5972f63b9bbc0f1cdceefcf4%2F13%2F72%2F644aa203a61bab12f740d0bc