I guess getting scammed by the trumps?

Fair point on the readability of the first paragraph, I’ve edited a little bit to clarify it’s about pollution. And I’m agreeing with you on the first paragraph, construction of EV does induce more or equal pollution, but it’s different sources of pollution, EV have the availability to have the most important part (batteries) easily recyclable. Once enough batteries hit the market to meet demand, recycled batteries could replace the majority of the market, replacing mining. Or new batteries; sodium? Who knows, the future could hold some wild advances!?

The big part of a power grid source is that it can be modular, in a area still running on coal can shut down dirty power plants and connect clean ones, a ICE will stay a ICE until you get a new car, which the current argument is that the production of cars is dirty and should be reduced as much as it could - I agree on that

I can’t quite understand the final paragraph… I don’t understand the 50% and 0%, and while walkable cities are good to strive for, it’s comparing apples to oranges.

While it could have been phrased differently, I very well did believe you could be arguing in good faith, there has been such a mix of people who have genuine concerns, and others that want to believe it’s a fad for one reason or other. But I would like to say I genuinely do hope you’re in the first group.

In this case, even without fire it would still be good. You’d want to hit the productive parts which would be hard to replace, and not necessarily the easily replaceable fuel tanks. The amount of fuel lost is one hit, while pretty can be replaceable, but if you make that surviving batch of fuel the last batch…

Now I’m going to go off on some non sourced reporting here because it was given to me in a car-radio news, but the pollution caused by the construction is about equal if not a little more, but different; in terms of EV’s than ICE. However the expected lifetime use of a EV is expected to make up for that and more to a end result of less than half at a minimum before needing disposal. By your own argument you are aware the vast amount of emissions are from the ICE use itself.

Speculation: with new battery technology increasing over time, that lifetime gap may even increase.

This is all of course if you’re arguing in good faith and are willing to also recognize the difference between generalized ‘pollutants’ and environmental impacts and carbon impacts.

That’s kind of the whole point of that phrase being highlighted. It’s not that anyone actually thinks that because young J.D was asked about sucking dicks and he said no, that he’s magically removed of all homosexual thoughts, and to be gay you need to like sucking dicks.

The implication is highlighting to be that he could be repressed bi or gay from his grandmothers rhetorical question.

Who be brushing teeth BEFORE breakfast?

Thanks peter

I’m pretty sure I remember reading that identical plot of relationshipadvice on the site-that-shall-not-be-named. 90% chance it was fake but the ending was a nice read with the guy realizing he’s bi, and actually hits it off with one of the guys his mom picks.