EV opponent talking points?

EV opponent talking points?


Hello there. New to this subreddit. What are common talking points from opponents of electric vehicles? And possibly the subsequent rebuttals? Knowing opposing arguments and how to counter them (with sound facts) will help educate everyone.

For example:


View Reddit by Loud-Gur7407View Source

Read it Too  All about Chinese EV maker BYD and its plans to be the largest EV company in India - Times of India

6 thoughts on “EV opponent talking points?

  1. Something titled “The Big EV Lie” really comes across as propaganda rather than opinion, but at least the video itself is not that bad. So let me make a few comments in response.

    First, some points of agreement:

    (1) The video does not say that you should NOT get an EV car. If you want one, get one. Likewise, let me point out that you do not have to be an evangelist. People who do not like EVs are not your “opponents”. You buy what you like, and let them buy what they like.

    (2) The video acknowledges various advantages of EVs.

    Now some polite rebuttal:

    (1) Nobody is forcing anyone to buy EVs. If we all agree that we all buy whatever we want, we will all be happier.

    (2) EVs are not being touted as the savior of the planet. There is no single thing that we can do that will stop human-induced climate change, but there are a dozen different things that we can do, each of which will contribute a little bit, and EVs are one of those. In addition to EVs, we need to insulate our homes better, we need to replace furnaces and ACs with heat pumps, we need to build more solar power and wind farms, we need to build more public transit infrastructure, etc etc. In his own video, even as he says that EVs are “not the problem” (minute 6:00) he is also showing a plot that shows that “Transportation” is indeed a very large slice of the problem. Indeed, “Transportation” is the second largest slice in his own plot.

    (3) The complaint that “EVs also use fossil fuels” has been repeated a million times, and the response is well known. Annoyingly, this single claim basically makes the entire video. So let’s see:

    (3.1) First of all, even if 100% of electricity came from fossil fuels, EVs would still be an improvement because EVs are more energy efficient. This because:

    (3.1.a) A large fossil fuel plant is more efficient than one that is forced to be small enough to fit inside a car engine.

    (3.1.b) An EV converts energy into motion a lot more efficiently because no energy is lost to heat, or idling the engine, or through thermal expansion, etc. The energy losses of an internal combustion engine are much greater than those of a battery and electric engine.

    (3.2) Secondly, not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. I live in windy state in the US midwest where 45% of the electricity comes from wind, and only 35% of electricity comes from fossil fuels (the remainder is a combination of nuclear and other smaller sources).

    (3.3) You can’t just paint an entire country with a single stroke. Even if most of the electricity in the US as a whole came from fossil fuels, that certainly is not true for every single person in the US. It certainly is not true for me, and I live in a red state. It’s just a red state that happens to be windy so they’ve built a lot of wind farms because wind is honestly cheaper.

    (3.4) Even if most of your energy came from fossil fuels, that would not be an argument against EVs. If 85% of your energy comes from fossil fuels (as is the case in West Virginia, one of the most pollution-friendly states), your EV would still be 15% better than if you used 100% fossil fuels. And that’s before accounting for the greater efficiency that I mentioned in (3.1).

    (3.5) A lot of countries have a lot of sunlight, or a lot of wind, or both. The US, for example, is basically divided down the middle where the Eastern half is very windy and the Western half is very sunny. Across most of the US, one of the two technologies will work well, and nowadays both technologies are cheaper than even natural gas (which is the cheapest fossil fuel).

    (3.6) At 8:00 he says “imagine how much energy we would need if we converted all those cars into EVs.” —- We would need exactly the same energy that we need now! The ICE cars that we have now literally require energy. Moving from ICEs to EVs does not increase the total amount of energy needed. In fact, it decrases it slightly (point 3.1) and allows you to move at lest some of it out of fossil fuels (points 3.2 – 3.5).

    (4) Environmental damage from mining Cobalt, Lithium, etc is a legitimate concern. But note that it has nothing to do with climate change. People arguing against EVs very often conflate things that are entirely unrelated, as if all things are “pollution” are essentially the same. They are not.

    (4.1) Secondly, a lot of the research on battery technology right now is precisely centered on reducing the reliance on those particular elements. For example, one of the selling points of GM’s new “Ultium” batteries is that they drastically reduce the need for those metals. Some other competitors have managed to reduce them even more than GM has.

    (5) Cars do NOT get all the press attention or legislation. Most of the government intervention is NOT on EVs. Most of the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act is NOT about EVs. The problem of climate change is complex and requires many incentives, and legislation reflects that. If HE thinks that most of the press and legislation is about EVs, that probably just reflects the type of media that he consumes.

    I’m going to stop here. I’m tired. Hope this helps.

  2. Why waste your time and energy? They are not asking / arguing in good faith, and you can’t change their minds. It doesn’t matter anyway because EVs are coming and ICE is on the way out, and nothing can stop it. After years of having these arguments, I’m loving where things are and where they are going. This is what I do nowadays: Tell them that EVs are coming, ICE is dying, and there’s nothing they can do about it, so they can either get onboard or get left behind. If the person happens to be a typical white conservative, I tell them that the majority of people want EVs, and therefore they are a minority (this really gets them triggered). Standard reply to any straw man argument they put up about charging times, environmental impact, etc. is, “that’s been disproven, it’s fake news.” Remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  3. This video is actually not bad as far as this sort of ilk goes. Still, lots of problems with it. First he constructs a straw-man of an EV evangelist that he then knocks down with electricity still produces pollution and harms the environment. He states a lot of good facts, misses some facts and then goes on to get the analysis completely wrong about why EVs are a good thing.

    Everything considered, as long as someone isn’t calling for the banning of EVs I could care less. No matter what petrol heads do, the EV will dominate in the next decade or two. If you agree with than analysis, I’m not sure that 95% of his points even matter. The fact is pollution reduction is simply one reason to own an EV and for most people the least important. They are going to win no matter how wrong this guy or those like him are about recycling or the importance of removing pollution from our cities.

  4. >will help educate everyone.


    literally life and death shit going on.. but freedom.

    now you want to “take away my guns and muscle cars”


    …but see, unlike the pandemic.. there’s a whole other half can’t wait to get infected.

    superspreader dealerships? where can I get in line?


    after that.. herd immunity will kick in..

    when most of the herd stops buying gas.. the rest have to adapt or walk.


    there’s no urgency to change minds right now.

    and it’s not even practical.. don’t need more buyers right now.

Comments are closed.