MIT Climate Portal

[eddiet1212]

I understand that the resource is but one of many in the debate concerning the overall carbon footprint of EV's but I thought that it may be a good resource for SOME forum members to create their opinions concerning the issue in the world of fast evolving EV technologies.

MIT Climate Portal-Learn from MIT experts

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?

Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.

climate.mit.edu

How much CO2 is emitted by manufacturing batteries?

How much CO2 is emitted by manufacturing batteries?

It depends exactly where and how the battery is made—but when it comes to clean technologies like electric cars and solar power, even the dirtiest batteries emit less CO2 than using no battery at all.

climate.mit.edu

Electric Vehicles

Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles are a cleaner alternative to gasoline- or diesel-powered cars and trucks—both in terms of harmful air pollution, and the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change.

climate.mit.edu

In the right circumstances, could a hybrid car be "cleaner" than an electric vehicle?

In the right circumstances, could a hybrid car be "cleaner" than an electric vehicle?

Fully electric vehicles are usually the cleanest choice, but it is possible for a hybrid vehicle to create even less climate pollution, depending how and where they're manufactured and driven.

climate.mit.edu

How well can electric vehicle batteries be recyled?

How well can electric vehicle batteries be recycled?

Many battery materials are valuable enough to repay the intensive work of recycling them—although we should still expect lots of demand for newly-mined nickel, cobalt, lithium and copper.

climate.mit.edu

 

[THil08]

Im sure ill be attacked by people here for this but CO2 what we release when we breathe out as a byproduct of the oxygen we breathe in. So it makes zero sense why all of as sudden we are afraid of something our own body makes. But i guess it’s because it’s coming from a big scary gas engine. Just simple Bio and Chem.


Otherwise they are great articles.

 

[oldgeeksguide]

Im sure ill be attacked by people here for this but CO2 what we release when we breathe out as a byproduct of the oxygen we breathe in. So it makes zero sense why all of as sudden we are afraid of something our own body makes. But i guess it’s because it’s coming from a big scary gas engine. Just simple Bio and Chem.


Otherwise they are great articles.

We aren’t afraid of the CO2 that we breathe out. As you point out, that’s part of the stable cycle, we grow plants , they absorb carbon, animals eat the plants and emit carbon, and it’s a nice stable cycle. The problem comes when we dig up carbon that’s been in the ground for hundreds of millions of years and release it all at once over a century, at some point (around now) it overwhelms the natural checks and balances and destabilizes the climate, which is happening now. It is bio and chem, and the experts in those fields are the ones who are raising the flag about where we’re heading. We’re seeing the effects already, and if anything the predictions have been conservative.

 

[nolen]

Im sure ill be attacked by people here for this but CO2 what we release when we breathe out as a byproduct of the oxygen we breathe in. So it makes zero sense why all of as sudden we are afraid of something our own body makes. But i guess it’s because it’s coming from a big scary gas engine. Just simple Bio and Chem.


Otherwise they are great articles.

Your body also creates methane which you shouldn't breathe either. E-coli comes out of our bodies. So does a lot of other bacteria that is bad for us. And if you want to stick to CO2, if you only rebreathe the CO2 that comes out that won't work so well for you. Your argument is disingenuous because fear of CO2 isn't the problem being discussed and natural doesn't mean safe.

We aren't scared of CO2 - we are concerned about the increased amount in the atmosphere which is helping trap heat which is changing the climate all over the world, both up and down depending on where you look but on average a higher world temperature. The source of the CO2 does not matter at all - engines, factory stacks, fires, volcanoes, whatever. Respiration is hardly a blip compared to all those sources. And there are other compounds (including the aforementioned methane) that are even worse for trapping heat, CO2 is just more abundant. It doesn't cause as much damage per pound but there are more pounds released. We need to regulate CO2 and these compounds to lessen the issues they are causing.

 

[nolen]

Why don’t we have more carbon capture sites to collect the carbon from underground.

Carbon capture isn't a simple process and it is highly situational on where it can work. Obviously it isn't going to work for mobile sources. Power plants become less efficient when the equipment is added to their process, simultaneously increasing their costs and non-CO2 pollution. It can be more useful in the oil and gas industry and at some factories but getting them to update their equipment is like pulling teeth. The best way to get them to agree to do it would be regulation and funding but... yeah.

 

[THil08]

What I don’t understand is that the USA is less than 5% of the worlds population so why are we trying to take the burden to fix this. Put it on other countries too.

 

[nolen]

What I don’t understand is that the USA is less than 5% of the worlds population so why are we trying to take the burden to fix this. Put it on other countries too.

you mean like the Paris agreement we pulled out of?

 

[THil08]

It was hurting the US economy so it was kinda better we pulled out(thats what she said). And plus China is the Greenhouse gas highest manufacturer in the world, make them cut back.

 

[J Alynn]

What I don’t understand is that the USA is less than 5% of the worlds population so why are we trying to take the burden to fix this. Put it on other countries too.

I love rippled bbq chips. How about you guys?

 

[nolen]

It was hurting the US economy so it was kinda better we pulled out(thats what she said). And plus China is the Greenhouse gas highest manufacturer in the world, make them cut back.

But we are second in the amount of CO2 produced by country, albeit significantly behind China. However we produce more than China per capita since our population is so much smaller than theirs. Whether you measure it by pure tons produced or tons per person, we are a significant source of CO2 in the world. We have made agreements with other countries to work together to reduce but it is hard to get others to keep their promises when we won't. Everyone wants the other to go first

 

[eddiet1212]

There are several international organizations that have made agreements to improve the environment.

Are these agreements helping? Are these agreements enforced?

I would suggest that the truth lies somewhere in between the positive and negative views of the polarizing issue.

Every year, countries who have joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meet to measure progress and negotiate multilateral responses to climate change. Today there are 198 Parties to the Convention.

The UNFCCC is a multilateral treaty adopted in 1992 – shortly after the first assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990 – to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.”

Since entering into force in 1994, the UNFCCC has provided the basis for international climate negotiations, including landmark agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015).

The United States formally rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021, 107 days after the withdrawal took effect. On January 20, 2025, the U.S. President signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the agreement for a second time.

UN Climate Change Conferences | United Nations

www.un.org

No politics requested or implied.

 

[J Alynn]

It was hurting the US economy so it was kinda better we pulled out(thats what she said). And plus China is the Greenhouse gas highest manufacturer in the world, make them cut back.

It’s like you want @Jamie@ScoutMotors to block you from the forum. You find joy in instigating everyone more and more. We all get your a Trump fanboy! That said politics aren’t welcome on the forum.
My life motto has always (since 9th grade) been “instigate, don’t participate!” Makes life interesting! That said sooner or later members are just gonna block you then the fun will be gone!
Science is science and the whole world is not creating conspiracy theories. I PROMISE you I’m not involved in any but nonsense is nonsense, science is science and ignorance is sad this day and age with the internet at your fingertips.

 

[THil08]

But we are second in the amount of CO2 produced by country, albeit significantly behind China. However we produce more than China per capita since our population is so much smaller than theirs. Whether you measure it by pure tons produced or tons per person, we are a significant source of CO2 in the world. We have made agreements with other countries to work together to reduce but it is hard to get others to keep their promises when we won't. Everyone wants the other to go first

Well good chat everyone. I still have personal and political beliefs on this topic. But i will take somethings from what i have learned, Over the past few minutes from @nolen into my beliefs on this topic.

 

[THil08]

It’s like you want @Jamie@ScoutMotors to block you from the forum. You find joy in instigating everyone more and more. We all get your a Trump fanboy! That said politics aren’t welcome on the forum.

That is more political than anything i have said in the past 24hrs here.

 

[THil08]

There are several international organizations that have made agreements to improve the environment.

Are these agreements helping? Are these agreements enforced?

I would suggest that the truth lies somewhere in between the positive and negative views of the polarizing issue.

Every year, countries who have joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meet to measure progress and negotiate multilateral responses to climate change. Today there are 198 Parties to the Convention.

The UNFCCC is a multilateral treaty adopted in 1992 – shortly after the first assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990 – to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.”

Since entering into force in 1994, the UNFCCC has provided the basis for international climate negotiations, including landmark agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015).

The United States formally rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021, 107 days after the withdrawal took effect. On January 20, 2025, the U.S. President signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the agreement for a second time.

UN Climate Change Conferences | United Nations

www.un.org

No politics requested or implied.

Thank you for the resources you found it on. It allows for finding the truth in the center of the Highly Positives and Really Low Negatives.

 

[Mousehunter]

My environmentalism has little to do with CO2 theories. EV's have more pollution during their production, more physical mining damage. Perhaps, if they are simpler and last longer it might balance out. But they are the king of not in my backyard. They move the pollution and the environmental destruction to elsewhere.

Sadly I am a complete cynic. Published studies tend to prove whatever the people who fund them want to - or they don't get published. Long joke in my former profession. A Lawyer, Engineer, and Accountant are in a bat. A stranger asked them what 2+2 equaled. The lawyer said he would have to research statute, the engineer said he would need to do calculations - the Accountant said what do you want it to equal.

I guess I am an unclean environmentalist - I live in an oil field. I see the places that are not the east and west coasts back yards every day. Only thing worse (environmentally) is all the solar farms. So I feel the need to do that too-put in solar panels. So my house will have solar panels, while being bathed in the glows of gas flairs every night. No place within 1000sq miles of my house is dark at night (including many solar farms). Could be worse - it could be lithium pit mines... I don't think there is any lithium near me, uranium, but not lithium... FWIW, my father-in-law was a uranium geologists... Their mining was some of the cleanest I have ever heard of. 2 water wells, run the water from one through a catisist system to get all the metals out, pump back into 2nd well. Rinse and repeat. They got copper, nickel, silver, gold, and uranium out of the water. They did not put anything in the water - they cleaned dissolved metals out.

 

[THil08]

My environmentalism has little to do with CO2 theories. EV's have more pollution during their production, more physical mining damage. Perhaps, if they are simpler and last longer it might balance out. But they are the king of not in my backyard. They move the pollution and the environmental destruction to elsewhere.

Sadly I am a complete cynic. Published studies tend to prove whatever the people who fund them want to - or they don't get published. Long joke in my former profession. A Lawyer, Engineer, and Accountant are in a bat. A stranger asked them what 2+2 equaled. The lawyer said he would have to research statute, the engineer said he would need to do calculations - the Accountant said what do you want it to equal.

I guess I am an unclean environmentalist - I live in an oil field. I see the places that are not the east and west coasts back yards every day. Only thing worse (environmentally) is all the solar farms. So I feel the need to do that too-put in solar panels. So my house will have solar panels, while being bathed in the glows of gas flairs every night. No place within 1000sq miles of my house is dark at night (including many solar farms). Could be worse - it could be lithium pit mines... I don't think there is any lithium near me, uranium, but not lithium... FWIW, my father-in-law was a uranium geologists... Their mining was some of the cleanest I have ever heard of. 2 water wells, run the water from one through a catisist system to get all the metals out, pump back into 2nd well. Rinse and repeat. They got copper, nickel, silver, gold, and uranium out of the water. They did not put anything in the water - they cleaned dissolved metals out.

100% correct on the way how the research is skewed to make the person who funded it correct.

 

[eddiet1212]

Hope that this informational thread and spirited posts did not create additional carbon emmissions....

 

[Cranky Canuck]

My environmentalism has little to do with CO2 theories. EV's have more pollution during their production, more physical mining damage. Perhaps, if they are simpler and last longer it might balance out. But they are the king of not in my backyard. They move the pollution and the environmental destruction to elsewhere.

Sadly I am a complete cynic. Published studies tend to prove whatever the people who fund them want to - or they don't get published. Long joke in my former profession. A Lawyer, Engineer, and Accountant are in a bat. A stranger asked them what 2+2 equaled. The lawyer said he would have to research statute, the engineer said he would need to do calculations - the Accountant said what do you want it to equal.

I guess I am an unclean environmentalist - I live in an oil field. I see the places that are not the east and west coasts back yards every day. Only thing worse (environmentally) is all the solar farms. So I feel the need to do that too-put in solar panels. So my house will have solar panels, while being bathed in the glows of gas flairs every night. No place within 1000sq miles of my house is dark at night (including many solar farms). Could be worse - it could be lithium pit mines... I don't think there is any lithium near me, uranium, but not lithium... FWIW, my father-in-law was a uranium geologists... Their mining was some of the cleanest I have ever heard of. 2 water wells, run the water from one through a catisist system to get all the metals out, pump back into 2nd well. Rinse and repeat. They got copper, nickel, silver, gold, and uranium out of the water. They did not put anything in the water - they cleaned dissolved metals out.

You seem to have fallen for some common misconceptions about EVs so I'll try to clear some of them up here; while it is true that EVs do produce more emissions during their manufacture than a similar combustion vehicle, those extra emissions are more than overcome in the first year or two of driving. While mining is generally bad for the planet, the materials for an EV are mined once whereas mining must be an ongoing process for combustion vehicles. A conventional gas car requires continuous mining of oil in order for it to keep operating so if the environmental damaged caused by mining is your primary concern then you should be pushing to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The vast majority of mining activity on Earth is done to extract fossil fuels.

As for the 'moving pollution elsewhere' thing, that's only true if your local power grid still burns fossil fuels. In places like where I live, Ontario and Quebec for example, our electricity grid is almost entirely emissions-free (Quebec is 100% emissions free). Ontario is in the 90% range as we still have gas peaker-plants that run at peak times. Either way I charge my car overnight when it's cheapest and the grid is cleanest so for EV owners here we haven't simply moved our transportation emissions somewhere else, we've removed them almost entirely.

Lithium isn't mined in pits either. That is simply oil industry propaganda. Lithium is a salt and is usually extracted from a water brine. The majority of the world's lithium comes from brine ponds where the water evaporates and the lithium is scraped up and then processed. In fact there are places that are working on mining lithium from sea water as a by product of desalination. Either way it's not an open pit mine like they do for coal or copper, that whole idea is a straight up lie.

 

[Cranky Canuck]

All valid points. 100% correct on the way how the research is skewed to make the person who funded it correct.

We call that "biased research" or "propaganda" and it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Actual research involves verifiable facts and peer reviews. Actual research can be repeated and tested independently. We call that the scientific method and it's how objective truth and facts are discovered. Actual research welcomes good-faith challenges and attempts to refute or disprove it based on verifiable evidence because that is the best way we know how to find an objective truth. Good research should be able to stand on the merits of its evidence.

What you're talking about though is corrupt industry propaganda which is intended to skew public discourse by fooling uncritical people into believing lies. That is not research.