A disgrace. For example, 60% of particulates harmful to human health come from brakes and tyres, so EVs have that issue.
Genuinely hilarious. No idea if it's true but even if it is, what you're saying it "We can reduce the harmful particles to human health by 40% and it's a disgrace that they're trying to do that". Meanwhile, this peer reviewed on the causes of GP and A&E visits in Bradford study shows the impact of higher air pollution
Reduce the air pollution, that'll reduce the GP and A&E visits and leave the NHS budget for other things whilst also keep people healthier.
Yep, an absolute disgrace that.
EVs also have the issue that their production is significantly more energy intense and requires minerals that involve deforestation and child labour.
Definite work to be done here but, when you have a huge industry hankering for a solution in an area where tech research can make breakthroughs changes can happen. Check out, for example, the sodium-ion battery research that is happening.
However, even without that, it doesn't change the fact that over the lifetime of the car the EV is far less energy intensive than a petrol one.
MITEI’s three-year Mobility of the Future study explored the major factors that affect the evolution of personal mobility from 2020 to 2050. Using a scenario-based approach, the diverse study team of MIT faculty, researchers, and students examined how different factors shape the future of...
energy.mit.edu
Deforestation and child labour are things that require political and/or industry will to change.
Oh and electrifying all cars will involve the burning of more and more coal - consumption of which has hit record highs, all thanks to nonsense virtue signalling like this.
The world has burnt record levels of coal, but it isn't anything to do with EVs.
The world’s coal consumption is set to reach a new high in 2022 as the energy crisis shakes markets - News from the International Energy Agency
www.iea.org
Meanwhile, 'virtue signalling' belongs in the box with snowflake. A lazy term to try and dismiss something you don't agree with based on no evidence. "I don't like that therefore it's virtue signalling".
Pushing people to upgrade cars is hardly environmentally friendly either . And it is a tax on the poor not the rich.
You're right, it isn't as environmentally friendly as keeping the cars running until the end of their natural life but, in this case, it's will deliver health benefits to those in the city and so isn't purely about the environmentally friendly argument you're trying to pin it on.
Of course, if someone in the city sells the car on to someone in a more rural area where there isn't such a dense build up of pollution then the car still exists. It's merely replaced by a cleaner one in an area that will feel that impact. So no change to the number of cars on the road.
I agree about the impact on the poor, who are often the people suffering the worst from the pollution. That's why there is a scrappage support scheme. Knowing politicians, it's likely to not be comprehensive enough but, again, that's a political decision.
It is purely virtue signalling and I am amazed at how we get led along these paths
Ahh, virtue signalling again. I mean, apart from all the science backing it up then maybe it is. Wonderful.