> what is the "emissions deficit" of a small electric scooter?
I'm sure it's unintentional but it's not clear to me what you're asking. So a range of possible answers:
1/ I don't know because they don't tell us what it is.
2/ It's the sum total amount of emissions directly caused by its production divided by the number of units produced. See also: carbon offsetting on planes.
3/ It's a number greater than zero and given that the electric scooter in question does not appear to be obviously replacing a car but walking or cycling, it's a meaningful question to ask.
> Even combined with mass transit, surely the power consumed is miniscule compared with driving alone in a car, and the car is many times the initial manufacturing cost in metal parts, motors, even batteries.
This is totally true, but I don't think it's anything to do with my point, which is:
> It should be mandated that if you want to appeal to green-fingered consumers with your marketing, you have to state the emissions deficit from which your product operates and how many years it would take to recover from it with typical usage.
I don't disagree with anything you say about your Boosted Board being better for the environment than your Mazda 5. But it's nothing to do with my point.
> but honestly your comment sounds a lot like concern trolling to me.
I legitimately care that people are allowed to market goods as being environmentally friendly or "low emissions" without having to substantiate the emissions which go into their manufacture. Especially when they seem to me to be marketed as an alternative to cycling or walking, which seem to be obviously low-emission.
> If there's anything out there which needs an "emissions deficit" sticker to help dissuade conscientious purchasers, lets start with private automobiles.
Again you're not really arguing the point, but sure, I think this is a good idea (?). Especially for cars marketed as environmentally friendly but which come at a significant creation cost.