Miss leading headline of the year goes to:

[cornbinder89]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...5?cvid=bfca432b7ad048b1b392c91619d71ee5&ei=91

Ok, I had to check it out, and the guy is a Harvard grad (who did the study) but if you read the article, what was said, was that if you personally only use a car for a few short trips and don't put many miles on the car, YOUR carbon footprint would be smaller with a ICE car, because of the mfg cost associated with an electric vs. ICE. Over the life of the CAR however, the footprint will be much smaller than an ICE
Those that lease or buy then trade every few years have a PERSONAL carbon foot print bigger than those that hold onto the car for its lifetime, but the footprint of the car itself doesn't change when someone else owns it.
Could it be someone has an agenda here? Naw, couldn't be!

 

[Drew21]

It is interesting how this viewpoint disagrees with every other "EVs suck" article which claims that EVs are no good for real 'Muricans because every single one of us has to be equipped to set off on a Cannonball Run-style cross-country trip at any given moment.

Just my opinion, but any honest assessment of vehicular efficiency needs to begin by matching vehicles to their intended use. If I needed to regularly pull 80,000 lbs, I would own a semi tractor and trailer. Even though it might only get 5-6 mpg pulling that load, it would be way more efficient than using a fleet of 115 Honda Fits (850 lb cargo capacity including driver) to move the same load. On the other hand, when I want to drive 1250 miles back to MO for family Christmas with my wife and our dog, my 2010 Honda Fit isn't a bad choice and I regularly exceed 40 mpg on the highway. Finally, when my wife needs to drive 16.5 miles each way to her cushy university job, where she has available free L2 charging, our 2014 Nissan Leaf is an ideal (and cheap) vehicle for the job.

 

[cornbinder89]

Well, I think they are trying to find a new angle to bash EV's. The fact that they are a little more "dirty" at present to mfg and get to the 1st owner, is the angle. but avoids addressing that the car's life is what is important in terms of how much or little pollution it causes, not who the owner is.
For what they are arguing you would have to scrape the car after keeping it two years, that just isn't reality

 

[knightmb]

I've found over the years that most anti-EV articles are just using a research link that contradicts what the article says because they figure no one will go read the actual research followed by a research study where the outcome was already predetermined and just needed to create the illusion of research to make it seem to fit.

An easy example, articles were written about the amount of energy needed to manufacture an EV and then it breaks down how much pollution that creates, etc. While the specifics might be true, the same article would then talk about how much pollution an ICE would produce over it's lifetime of driving compared to the manufacture of said EV but conveniently left out that manufacturing the ICE also produced nearly the same amount of pollution to begin with and that was ignored in the article.

 

[cornbinder89]

In this case it is especially egregious, because it is where ICE cars are the worse. An EV doing short hops could do it with very little power for 20 years or more and battery degradation wouldn't even be a factor.

 

[psalmon]

Did you know that EVs cost more to drive than gas cars because filling up an electric Hummer at the most expensive public charger there is costs more than filling up a Nissan Micra?