No vehicle has zero emmissions due to manufacturing, for maintenance etc. The electricity is not zero emmissions either. First of all, it’s not 100% renewable and second, even if it was we’d at least have emmissions for manufacturing and maintenance of solar cells, turbines etc.
Furthermore, emmissions is not only CO2. There’s also microplastics and - in case of combustion engine cars - you still have harmful substances when burning the (hypothetically existing) e-fuels.
BEVs aren’t perfect, but the overall energy required during the lifecycle is significantly lower. And energy in this context more or less equals harm to the environment.
From my perspective, no form of transport should be labeled zero emmissions, but if we allow that label it should be only granted to the most efficient options per sector which is BEVs for cars.
I’d count my bike as ultra-low emissions since I use vegetable oil for the chain. Plus bikes improve the traffic situation in cities as Paris, Copenhagen and Amsterdam show.
Yes, defintely. In comparison to bikes, electric cars definitely aren’t zero emmisions. And even bikes have more emissions in comparison to no transportation at all. That’s why I’d prefer an objectively calculated number on the label rather than just ‘zero’. That number should ideally contain emmisions from production, maintenance and usage based on certain normalized assumptions.
While “less sick” is technically “healthier”, if you live near a highway you really should be thinking in terms of degrees of sickness, because that thing will be harming you. Also, consider how your life expectancy is being reduced considerably thanks to vehicle noise, which is barely different between ICE and EVs at highway speeds
No vehicle has zero emmissions due to manufacturing, for maintenance etc. The electricity is not zero emmissions either. First of all, it’s not 100% renewable and second, even if it was we’d at least have emmissions for manufacturing and maintenance of solar cells, turbines etc.
Furthermore, emmissions is not only CO2. There’s also microplastics and - in case of combustion engine cars - you still have harmful substances when burning the (hypothetically existing) e-fuels.
BEVs aren’t perfect, but the overall energy required during the lifecycle is significantly lower. And energy in this context more or less equals harm to the environment.
From my perspective, no form of transport should be labeled zero emmissions, but if we allow that label it should be only granted to the most efficient options per sector which is BEVs for cars.
I’d count my bike as ultra-low emissions since I use vegetable oil for the chain. Plus bikes improve the traffic situation in cities as Paris, Copenhagen and Amsterdam show.
Yes, defintely. In comparison to bikes, electric cars definitely aren’t zero emmisions. And even bikes have more emissions in comparison to no transportation at all. That’s why I’d prefer an objectively calculated number on the label rather than just ‘zero’. That number should ideally contain emmisions from production, maintenance and usage based on certain normalized assumptions.
There are also lakes of used oil and mountains of parts ICE generate while on the road.
Agree, but if you live next to a highway, zero emissions means you’ll be healthier. So in that way the label makes sense.
While “less sick” is technically “healthier”, if you live near a highway you really should be thinking in terms of degrees of sickness, because that thing will be harming you. Also, consider how your life expectancy is being reduced considerably thanks to vehicle noise, which is barely different between ICE and EVs at highway speeds