When you see the amount of minerals needed for EV's vs. Conventional cars, it's startling. Raising the pain so you do what they want.
There is no choice without consequence. This applies to everything, even EV's.
The graph attached comes from the IEA (for context and in case you're like me and want to know about the sources of things, I put links to their history and "About" page below).
It doesn't really show much that likely you and I or anyone else didn't already know.
When you go to build an EV it will take more minerals than the comparable internal combustion vehicle.
Minerals that must be pulled up by equipment running diesels.
Minerals that must be transported and refined.
Minerals that, in many cases, involve child labor and disputes with tribal groups over land (something the media often "conveniently" leaves out--I suppose that these things are okay in service of the greater climate good).
None of this might negate a benefit some could get from EV's. Absent from the discussion, however, is how do we as a nation or a species do on the tradeoff? Absent from the discussion is the price we'll pay (in terms of money and other things) for switching to electric vehicles.
There is no choice without consequence. It's time our media and elected leaders who are shoving and pushing and cheerleading for EV's acknowledge this.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/minerals-used-in-electric-cars-compared-to-conventional-cars
https://www.iea.org/about/history
https://www.iea.org/about
I can't help but wonder if upping the pain isn't the strategy some would like to see.
The op ed below contrasts a couple of visions about cities. One European without cars (but WITH croquettes!) and painted in glowing terms. The other a fiery, gridlocked hellscape populated by cars and thoughtless Americans.
Well, I exaggerate, but I think you can probably get the thrust of what I'm talking about here: the author is advocating for cities sans cars. Cities not built (he makes the contention that European cities had cars and transitioned away later) for cars but for people.
You know, if the people that live and/or work in a city would like to follow this model, it's their choice. It's my choice as to whether or not I'd like to visit.** It's the choice of businesses as to where they'd like to locate themselves.
Except, I do wonder at one thing. The devil is, as I've said more than once, in the details, and I think it matters as to HOW a transition would be done. Take a look at the attached screenshot.
Do you see what I wonder?
is it valid to use pain (as opposed to persuasion or incentives) to accomplish any political goal?
And, if this gentleman here advocates for it as a way to de-car downtown Denver, are there others who think it is a valid strategy and want to use it to accomplish their goals: restrict drilling to raise prices to force electrification, make it harder to raise beef to make it more expensive to get people to stop eating it?
I think it would be a leap too far (without concrete evidence) to say that it is the main strategy that movements like "beneficial electrification" are using, but surely there are some in those movements advocating for it. Surely it drives some part of the political agenda.
While I would prefer persuasion, things like incentives and penalties are a long-used and well-known policy tool. They've been used by everyone pushing nearly every thing.
The thing that might make what I'm writing about here unique is would be the idea that the arm-twisting is done behind the scenes; that is, the stated approach and goals leave out the fact that (at least in part) the method will be pain.
Shouldn't be that way. If a group, if a policymaker, thinks the best approach is to pummel citizens into compliance, let that be said out loud.
At least this author here, disagree with him though I may, deserves respect for being upfront.
**Walking or driving, I have to tell you that I detest downtown areas and big cities. Never really ever was a fan. Just don't like the urban way of life.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/22/cities-transit-cars-congestion-urban-living-opinion/