[Sohcahtoa82]

The carbon footprint of producing an EV is higher than an ICE. Nobody disputes that.

But the lower carbon footprint of operating the an EV makes the EV have a lower footprint over the life of the vehicle. This is true even if your electricity comes purely from coal, as a coal power plant gets an economy of scale that an ICE doesn't achieve. If your power comes from a renewable source, then the trade-off happens even sooner.

[zuzululu]

the problem is where these lithiums are sourced from and that raises the costs of human rights

[Sohcahtoa82]

Questioning the lithium source is valid, but also a red herring when we're talking about environmental impact.

But yes, battery minerals can involve human rights abuses. But ICE vehicles are also built from steel, aluminum, copper, rubber, electronics, and metals that can involve forced labor, unsafe mining, land displacement, pollution, or exploitative labor. The ethical issue is supply chain due diligence across the whole auto industry, not just lithium.

Funny how some people (Mostly anti-EV folks) only discover supply chain ethics only when the car has a battery.

[zuzululu]

what car company is using forced labor as you are claiming that is pretty serious, almost all except China, are built in countries with strong labor unions.

what I really hate is that EVs have given people a false sense of superiority that seemingly stems from their curious unwillingness to look at the ugly environmental and human rights abuses around the lithium sourcing.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> what car company is using forced labor as you are claiming that is pretty serious, almost all except China, are built in countries with strong labor unions.

You're conflating final car assembly with the sourcing of the raw materials.

GM's report [0] says "We have reason to believe that certain of the 3TG in our products may have originated in a Covered Country [1] and may not have all come from recycled or scrap sources."

Honda admits [2] "Among all the smelters and refiners disclosed to us by our suppliers, we determined that some of them processed minerals sourced in the DRC or its adjoining countries."

I read reports from other car manufacturers and they're all full of the same weasel words. Ford says "We do not knowingly procure materials that contribute to child and forced labor, bribery and corruption, conflict, or environmental concerns" [3] while admitting "Through our 2023 data collection and due diligence efforts described below, Ford has reason to believe some 3TG contained in our products may come from Covered Countries."

[0] https://investor.gm.com/static-files/5e0ea429-ded3-40ca-b3a1...

[1] SEC defines "Covered Country" as "the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country"

[2] https://global.honda/en/investors/news/news20250522/main/0/l...

[3] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37996/00000379962400...

[Sohcahtoa82]

It's been over a week. I answered your question and you seem to have ignored it.

[defrost]

> the ugly environmental and human rights abuses around the lithium sourcing.

Be specific, please, and for completeness compare to the impacts of fossil fuel extraction and production for ICE vehicles.

Lithium supply chains: Environmental impacts and trade-offs analysis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235248472...

  Most world lithium production is attributed to spodumene mining in Australia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, and Canada, and to brine operations in Chile, China, and Argentina

[zuzululu]

you've refused to answer a simple question twice so for the third time : what car company is using forced labor as you are claiming?

[defrost]

Can you please link to these prior two occasions you've asked me this question?

I have no recollection of ever having addressed you or being addressed by you before this interaction. (EDIT: we have had zero intersection in HN comments for at least 16 days.)

I suspect you've confused a user name.

Still, to address your question, for the very first time, there are reports of car companies in China, Japan and elsewhere being linked to third party forced labour practices - Toyota, for one example, made a comprehensive statement in 2021 to explain how they were acting to mitigate (ie minimise, reduce, limit) their existing exposure to Forced Labor of Migrant Workers and the Modern Slavery Acts. That 13 page statement is essentially a confession that Yes, they did rely on parts in the supply chain with a forced labour element and Yes, we will minimise this but it will likely be hard to entirely eliminate this.

If you like I can link to this statement, should you be unable to unable to find it yourself.

Would you now be kind enough to expand on your statement about the lithium supply chain and sensibly compare it to the environmental damages of the fossil fuel industry?