[pfdietz]

There are two things involved: CO2 emission inherent in operation and construction, and CO2 emission that just happens to be occurring today because of how the materials and electricity are presently generated.

The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter.

There is no inherent CO2 emission required in construction and operation of an electric car. This is unlike gasoline powered cars, where petroleum has to be involved in their fueling.

From a policy point of view, an EV that replaces a gasoline car is a good thing, even if there is at the moment some CO2 emission in the construction and operation of the EV. It reduces CO2 emission in the near term, while also pushing EVs down their experience curves to enable total replacement (and abolition of CO2 emission) in the far term.

[543g43g43]

Ignoring the fact that there are no renewable energy-powered EV factories, there are also plenty of industrial processes that inherently emit CO2. Steel manufacture first comes to mind.

By your same argument, I could say that there's no inherent CO2 emission required to manufacture petrol (as in, there theoretically is a way to do it).

>The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter.

I'm not confused about the distinction between the two. The pro-EV crowd seem happy to ignore the former, as long as it's far away, or could be solved by some as yet unimplemented technology.

[pfdietz]

Steel manufacture does not inherently emit CO2. The current CO2 emission is overwhelmingly from reduction of iron ore to iron metal with coke, but this can be replaced by reduction with hydrogen. Some carbon needs to then be added to the iron to make steel, but this is small compared to the carbon that was in coke, and is not an energy source and need not come from fossil fuels.

The pro-EV people are not ignoring the distinction here. Stop putting your lies in other peoples' mouths.