Makes sense unfortunately.

@chris Along with plans and programs to reduce car usage overall.

@505fred yup

@chris either that or an open-source based EV design becomes available otherwise all EVs sold will become the new e-waste.

@chris another characteristic of affluent EV owners is that they tend to replace their automobiles more frequently than average, and because the manufacturing of an EV has a larger carbon footprint than an efficient ICE powered car the emissions savings are more pronounced later in the EVs life cycle, likely when it has entered the used market. As such it will be a few years before EVs will have an impact in the broader market.

To have a serious pact on transportation emissions there has to be a concerted effort on:

* making public transit more practical to use for more people

* ensure EVs remain in use as long as possible (even more so than ICE vehicles have been) by encouraging the secondary market and repair ability (EV's ought to have 25 year expected lifetime or more)

* bring down both the size and cost of new EVs, not only to make them affordable to more people but also to improve efficiency...everywhere outside of China seems to be encouraging the exact opposite (gotta protect the profit margins!)

@chris People making more than $100K a year have larger carbon footprint than those earning below that margin. That has nothing to do with owning EVs. Airplane flights will swamp your carbon footprint. One US to Europe flight return flight is worth more than half a year of running a gas guzzler with 20mpg for e.g.

You'll have lots of correlation like that you know.For e.g.
People who drink $50 bottle of wine have a bigger carbon footprint than average

@tizan @chris probably a lot of the same people who have pot lights in their soffits so the neighbours can see their outside house walls at night

@martin_fff @chris Many of us who are in the middle or upper middle class...our carbon footprint is dominated by airflights we take not how energy efficient we are in our daily lives including putting solar panels on our houses.

The whole point is not to tell people who can afford an #EV it is no point for you do that. you should do what you can..and in the long run in will make it cheaper so that even somebody making $50K or lower a year can afford an EV.

@tizan @chris oh yes, I'm aware. LED light bulbs came out and instead of saving money people just put more lights up. flights, resort vacations, summer cabins/cottages etc. spend it if you have it. Consumerism.

@tizan @chris tourism is a helluva drug

@tizan @chris tourism is probably a factor in people not caring enough to make where they live nice enough to stay year 'round

@martin_fff @tizan @chris This article strikes me as a bit negative. Sort of seeing the glass as half empty instead of half full. Switching to an EV is still a good thing as it reduces your carbon footprint. It does drive me crazy with family and friends flying overseas practically every year just because they can afford to. We haven’t flown in over ten years for a number of reasons, climate change being a big reason. Seven years ago we bought an EV, switched to 100% renewable energy and turned off our furnace for good. It’s frustrating that so many people refuse to do anything if it costs even a cent even though lives are at stake and it’s getting worse.

@SteveInVentura @martin_fff @tizan @chris

Agree. The framing of the headline sucks. I didn't bother to read the article.

People with greater wealth have a higher carbon footprint, because of greater consumerism, greater travel, bigger homes, heated pools, second homes, boats, more cars, second and third refrigerators, and countless other reasons.

Putting EV in the headline is stupid. Correlation is not causation, and EVs have far lower emissions than ICEs.