An EV will consume fewer fossil fuel resources than an infernal-combusted equivalent over its perhaps 10 to 20 year lifetime.
But most of the roughly 4 tonnes of CO2 it will generate just to come to market will be in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And this bit matters more than the first.
Somewhat less fossil fuel is better than nothing. But we need to be heading towards *radically* less.
How shall we do that?
https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/116294326872514865
…FWIW, here are some thoughts:
Massively invest in electrified public transport and distribution systems, especially those for food. Use human power as much as possible for ‘last mile(s)’ delivery*.
Do this ahead of radically disincentivising private vehicle ownership. Make it progressively punitively expensive over relatively few years.
Massively incentivise producing the lightest vehicles possible.
*Other than our own bodies, the lightest, most efficient vehicle known to us is the bicycle
@mpospese @urlyman Yes, like I said - heavy-transport vehicles. Anything weighing more than ~800kg, so you're looking at golf buggy sizes of vehicle, or a (Leyland) Mini.
There are good arguments for their being available, not least of which would be improving access generally for disabled people and those with limited mobility (long COVID and ME sufferers among others).
I think it's insane that a vehicle weighing 1700kg can be considered a "small" vehicle.
Agreed.
Reminds me of the ‘Use Less guide to transport’: https://www.uselessgroup.org/about-us/our-vision/use-less-live-well/transport
To a first approximation, all modes of transport lead to approximately the same greenhouse emissions for each kilogramme-kilometre (see Figure 1). This unfamiliar unit is important – the energy required to move people and things, and the consequent emissions is a function of two main variables – the weight and the distance, and of course the weight includes the weight of the
Jonathan Schofield
Mark Pospesel 
Brad Macpherson
tivasyk