The environmental costs of EV batteries that politicians don't tend to talk about - eviltoast

Along with the massive recent manufacturing investments in electric vehicle (EV) technology and talks of a greener, decarbonized future, there are some not-so-green problems.

In its latest New Energy Finance report, Bloomberg News predicts there will be some 730 million EVs on the road by 2040. The year before, Bloomberg predicted half of all U.S. vehicle sales would be battery electric by 2030.

In Canada, too, there’s talk of a big economic boost with the transition to EVs — including 250,000 jobs and $48 billion a year added to the nation’s economy through the creation of a domestic supply chain.

Governments have already invested tens of billions into two EV battery manufacturing plants in southwestern Ontario. However, they come with the environmental dilemma of what to do with the millions of EV batteries when they reach the end of their life.

“The rules are non-existent,” said Mark Winfield, a professor at York University in Toronto and co-chair of the school’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. "There is nothing as we talk to agencies on both sides of the border, the federal, provincial, state levels.

“In the case of Ontario, the answer was actually that we have no intention of doing anything about this.”

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The negatives of ICE cars and EVs are not comparable. EVs are an important solution against climate change, ICE pollutes much more. One lithium battery is not the same as literally 10 years of directly burning oil, the rest of the car takes the same ressources to build in both cases.

    Daily reminder that “batteries are the devil and EVs pollute just as much as ICE” is pure oil industry propaganda.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      You’re missing my point. EVs do provide some value in their immediate offset of Carbon. No question. My point is that on a broader scale, unless we REDUCE OUR DEMAND for individual transportation, and have systems in place that can replace that need, any solution we offer is going to be hugely environmentally detrimental. if 100 people need 100 cars to live, that’s still 100 cars we have to produce. If 100 people can get by on 3 busses and 15 EV scooters, we are better off.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, I’m correcting you on things that you are presenting as ground truths. I’m not missing anything, my comment only pertains to your two first sentences which are completely false.

        You can make your point without lying and being a mouthpiece for the oil industry.

        • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          More vitriol please.

          How are they false? You still need metal, rubber, and plastics to make an EV, in similar quantities to create cars, because you are creating cars. There is an environmental impact associated with this.

          As I said, you certainly get the C offset due to not burning fuel, and definitely helps, but it’s not a be all end all solution.

          As I continue to say, we need a holistic approach to the climate crisis, without oil.

          I don’t know why you think I’m a o&g mouthpiece, when I would happily watch those companies and Petro states beg for alms down by the river.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            EVs aren’t perfect but they certainly are much better imo.

            A car free society is 100% the end goal but we need to transition through EVs, we simply can’t cling on to gas any longer. It’s going to take too long to switch for us to just ignore the impact gas has on our environment while we do so.

            Both types of vehicle have their manufacturing environmental costs but there is a vast difference between the cost of a lithium battery and literally taking oil and burning it. Presenting both as having the same environmental cost is precisely the type of misinformation the oil companies are peddling.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      EVs only really fix the tail pipe emissions and replace that problem with battery disposal.

      Just focusing on EVs still require car centric design which wastes urban space on parking lots, promotes urban sprawl instead of density, creates toxic dust from the tires, requires energy to clear roads of snow (often includes salting the earth), and will wear out roads at a faster rate than ICE cars due to the EVs higher weight.

      Yes some people will need EVs and we should develop them for those people, but building walkable cities and reliable public transit would do far more for reducing carbon/energy usage.