Why do you find it necessary to respond to a post about an article that you didn't even read? Can we say, "Jumping to conclusions"? Right or wrong, you should read the original article before jumping on the poster.From the retarded 'junk science' site you linked to...
"It seems EVs are only cleaner if powered by a clean energy source."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......well - DUH!
How retarded do you have to be to not understand that fact in the first place.
Of course electricity coming from coal fired power plants is 'dirty'. Coal is the most polluting source of energy.
The anti-science douche-bag who spews 'junk science' (quite literally) tries to distort the scientific study by twisting the results to supposedly indicate that "electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars" but that is a lie as it stands. To be correct, it should read: 'electric cars can cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants but electric cars can also cause almost zero harmful pollution if the electricity comes from non-polluting renewable sources like solar and wind energy'.
Absurd, ridiculous distortions of fact like this are the reason Malloy's site is truly 'junk' science.
double standards again. I didnt read the OP article but I assume it found that chinese electric cars are powered by electricity from coal fire plants and therefore they are responsible for that fraction of pollution. reality. why do you think it is OK to compare fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions to reality based observations? why are possible doomsday scenarios with little chance of coming to pass so much more important to you that actual day-to-day observations? warmists always seem to think their explanations of evidence that is equivical is more intelligent than other explanations that dont draw catastrophic conclusions. even though their predictions are wrong time after time. there is a lot of junk science in climate science and most of it is CAGW agenda driven.
OK, I read it. same old story of how an electric car is only as clean as the power it is being run on. and the materials it is built with. wind and solar are no panacea and they are not scaleable to our needs, and they have undesirable side effects that many people choose to ignore.
how is that jumping to conclusions?