“Research calls for better transparency over the environmental impact of building electric vehicles.”
“On the other hand, do we really always have to take the car?”
Some five years ago, the skies of many European cities were decidedly smoggy:
Currently, the collapse of economic activity has meant less smog in many cities worldwide:
Car use is certainly a ‘driver’ of this – but banning ‘polluting’ vehicles from city centres will not necessarily mean reducing pollution:
We have to ask how environmentally-friendly the alternatives are:
Here’s the latest – from the car dealers:
Electric cars need to be driven 50,000 miles to match carbon footprint of a petrol car, research claims
New report calls for better transparency over the environmental impact of building electric vehicles
Commissioned by Honda, McLaren, Aston Martin and Bosch – and reported by The Times and the Daily Telegraph – the research calls for better transparency over the environmental impact of building electric vehicles. It claims the production of electric cars generates high levels of greenhouse gasses, particularly the making of battery packs.
With a report from the Green Age:
Clearly, as there are no tailpipe emissions, electric cars are better for the environment than other options. However, that does not mean they are completely carbon neutral, as manufacturers might like you to believe.
Electric cars indirectly cause emissions from the following: …
Finally, a conclusion from a Belgian energy website:
E-cars can be an interesting alternative, but…
The electric vehicle is an interesting path to follow, provided that other aspects of our production systems are adapted, whether with regard to energy, industrial processes or technology.
On the other hand, do we really always have to take the car?