[robocat]

Their argument:

  But many analyses actually find that the emissions reductions from switching to electric vehicles are quite minor. 
  Paul Hawken, for example, doesn’t put electric cars in his top 10 climate solutions. In fact, it’s number 24 on his list, with almost ten times less impact than reducing food waste, nearly six times less impact than eliminating the use of refrigerants which are powerful greenhouse gases, and behind solutions like tropical rainforest restoration (about 5 times as effective at reducing emissions as is switching to EVs) and peatland protection (more than twice as effective).
  Producing a single electric car releases a lot of greenhouse gas emissions—about 9 tons on average. This is rising, as the size of electric cars is going up substantially. That means that even if operating electric cars reduces emissions overall, it’s not going to reduce them much. One calculation estimates reductions of 6 percent in the United States. That’s not enough to make much of a dent in warming.

[robocat]

> almost ten times less impact than reducing food waste, nearly six times less impact than eliminating the use of refrigerants

I love this: it implies we should eliminate refrigerants and we should eliminate food waste...

Like a child wanting two incompatible things.

And I was answering "it looks like their arguments are presented entirely in terms of tradeoffs". Which to me contains the same locura - trying to face reality but failing to.

Plus the other reply which is black and white: "unambiguous moral purity opposing these projects that we can have a trade-off. Without them, nothing that goes against the unambiguous selfish interests"

And I've just noticed the original comment is flagged... Another form of denying and erasing the reality of others.

Casting into the void.