what are you basing this off of? Are you specifically saying buying doesn’t cause less emissions (ie manufacturing) or overall compared to a generic ICE car that a Tesla generates more emissions?
If you buy a Tesla,here are the emissions that are directly correlated to it:
* Manufacturing. This includes not just the factory, but also the mining of lithium and other metals that is an environmental disaster.
* Electricity emissions through its lifetime: if you're in a country that uses primarily natural gas for its electricity production (like the US does), you might as well keep running an ICE instead, it'll be just as bad.
* Carbon credits granted, that will lead to the construction of one more ICE from another manufacturer.
Buying new cars will not solve problems. No matter if it's an EV or an ICE.
> Buying new cars will not solve problems. No matter if it's an EV or an ICE.
Believe me I agree. Check my post history. :)
> Electricity emissions through its lifetime: if you're in a country that uses primarily natural gas for its electricity production (like the US does), you might as well keep running an ICE instead, it'll be just as bad.
Uses primarily now doesn't have to mean uses primarily for all time. I'm also not sure how to compare here because you have a limited number of natural gas plants, coal plants, etc. and maybe you can reduce that actual output of c02 into the atmosphere. Can't really do that with an ICE. It'll be very difficult as well to really capture the systematic emissions. How do you account, for example, for the US military and required spending to maintain global oil supply? Should we account for it? Idk.
I agree that you raise valid points here in comparing carbon emissions, but these ideas don't translate into facts or "proof", which is what I originally asked for.
what are you basing this off of? Are you specifically saying buying doesn’t cause less emissions (ie manufacturing) or overall compared to a generic ICE car that a Tesla generates more emissions?