Thank you for your review. I don’t really agree with your criticism though since your main arguments against the linked article can easily be abused to discredit anything that hasn’t been studied in the exact form discussed. We will never have scientific papers on every possible dimension and perspective on a problem and as such understanding will need to be built by engaged members of society connecting dots in good faith and debate about it as you and I do now. There is nothing inherently bad about a blog with citations.
I also notice how what you link is not at all equivalent. They add in the infrastructure needed to supply vehicles with the fuel they consume, which is of course a valid addition. That addition then offsets the difference in production by adding on disproportionately more to ICE vehicles. What we then end up in is that we still see that building BEVs is still not going to solve our crisis. But they are for sure better than ICE, and this isn’t something I nor the article disputes. My claim that it would be worse for the environment short term also holds true because the gain for the environment only comes after the production cost increases has been offset and, as the paper you linked added, gasoline infrastructure can be decommissioned.
The paper you linked also doesn’t look into Lithium nor Kobalt which are problematic to say the least, if not from a CO2 perspective. Nor does it say anything about the feasibility of an even more rapid phase out (because a phase out is happening right now, and rather rapidly at that, we can’t go much faster without other significant risks).
In summary, the article and the linked paper are not in conflict, from my reading.
I’m not a bot! I’ve tried to reduce this comment down by removing some text. Here’s my summary:
“Scientists can’t be doing everything everywhere at once so we should believe capitalists when they pull numbers out of their asses”
I’ve reduced this comment down by 89%!
The paper I linked doesn’t look into all possible aspects because it’s a peer reviewed scientific work, which unlike blog posts tend to have narrow scopes and aren’t written to debunk every aspect of random peoples thoughts on the topic.
The long and short of this is that people need to be much, much more discerning in which information to trust and which to disregard. The author of your article had a Ph.D. , they could seek to publish their research in serious journals, but they’d need to actually do the hard work of finding reliable, evidence based , peer reviewed sources to do that. Instead we get a blog post the links out to other blog posts that link to yet more blogs, occasional draft papers, and decidedly non scientific works.
If I were to trust this author writing in this medium, why not trust anti-science fossil fuel interests who use the same mediums and communication strategies?
Are you familiar with the concept “the medium is the message”?
For me, it’s a big no thanks, especially on important issues like the adoption of BEVs.
I fully understand the need to filter out information as being to much of a burden to actually verify/dispute. And I don’t think any less of you for sticking to the safest material in terms of trust, i.e. peer reviewed papers in acclaimed publications.
But at the same time we can’t really wait around for consensus and full understanding of every matter before making informed decisions either. Now, once again, I’m pro BEVs, I just don’t see them as the solution to climate change because even with 100% BEVs our planet can’t sustain personal transportation as it works right now. I haven’t written anything here with the intent to discredit BEVs, I’m just trying to steer focus to what I consider more important issues to craft policy and solutions around. Like personal transportation, wasteful consumption and more.
If you’re asking why I trust this author more than others it’s because they seem to argue in good faith, the cited sources aren’t horrible. The opinions aren’t hyperbolic or presented without any nuance. It doesn’t ring any of my warning bells that causes me to outright dismiss.
And as closing I have no issues with your dismissal of the source and I don’t even think we’re in disagreement.
