Tire dust makes up the majority of ocean microplastics

To contribute some rough anecdotal evidence, when I look out the window next to where I'm sitting this exact moment I see a mix of newer and older Honda Civics, Toyota Corollas, and some older SUVs. Judging from the age of those cars, I'm going to guess that most of their current owners bought them used and not new. I do not see a single pickup truck.

I'm not going to debate that the Ford F150 dominates new vehicle sales in north America, but that's only accounting for the preferences of people who are buying new vehicles and doesn't track what the used market would buy if given unlimited options.

As for the marketing argument, there's plenty of discourse surrounding it. Most new pickups are sold with short beds and extra features which make them impractical for use by many commercial trades that do use pickup trucks. There's a question of whether the F150s popularity is because of the truck's utility or because of the aesthetic desires of purchasers.

There are other US and Canadian cities besides NYC which have that.

Agree, but that has already happened. Tires already have tax on them, which makes people replace them somewhat less, since they balance the equation cost vs risk from worn tires, particularly very large scale users like taxi companies, rental fleets, trucking companies etc. We already accept the tradeoff of for example, charging 10% sales tax on tires in return for slightly more accidents.

My point is that we might be able to rebalance it more correctly by raising prices. There could be significant pressure to reduce pollution from wear technically, pressure to drive less, but also pressure to keep tires on carts slightly longer. Given that we're still making the equation more accurate, it would still be a net gain.

You can't just say "don't do that" without also explaining why you do not advocate removing sales tax on tires, or even having negative sales tax (to incentivize more frequent & safe tire replacement). Status quo is not really a defense.

> The point, which is very well known at this point, is that manufacturing EVs actually causes much higher emissions than ICE cars. In other words, at time of purchase, buying an EV is worse for the environment than buying an ICE car.

At the point of purchase, buying a reusable water bottle is worse for the environment than buying a disposable water bottle. This is not a complete argument.

> Since EVs are cleaner to drive but not manufacturer, it takes time for EVs to emit less emissions overall. That's what I have mentioned and the chart in page 6 mentions. It takes tens of thousands of miles of use for EVs to have less cumulative emissions than ICE cars.

Vehicles last about 12 years on the road (on average in the USA). Average miles per year is over 12,000. It seems like your argument implies that EVs very very easily save emissions over their life, and probably massively since they will pay for their own emissions 4 or 5 times over their life. This assumes that EVs don't have a longer life on the road than gas vehicles, but it is reasonable to think they could last longer.

> So this is just one component that shows EVs are not strictly better.

No, it absolutely does not show that. It shows that you can arbitrarily pick a moment in time where an individual EV is behind in terms of emissions, but that over the average life they are STRICTLY BETTER. If on average they are strictly better, then net they are strictly better (this is how averages work).

> Given people usually buy new cars fairly frequently, it's very possible that EVs are a wash in terms of environmental impact

This is a very stupid thing for you to say. You don't get to just make up nonsense and draw conclusions from it. This isn't something you get to just say 'people like buying cars, therefore they won't drive them enough to save emissions'. You have to look at data and extrapolate from the data, and the data says you are just being ridiculous. The data is very clear, and you aren't even remotely close to being correct. It's extremely easy to check this. You don't care though, because you want to try to get to the conclusion that EVs are bad, rather than try to figure it out.

Watch how easy it is to check: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/business/electric-vehicle...

    All studies agree ... electric vehicles save between 50 and 70 percent CO2

To be clear, I ebike to work 9 miles each way year-round, including in rain and snow (not a lot of rain where I live, but plenty of snow in winter). I don't have kids though.

But I do live in the US where the city is fairly car-centric, and it is ludicrous to suggest as the person I first replied to did that a cargo e-bike is a full replacement for a short-range electric car like a Leaf. There are large commercial sections of my city that cannot be safely accessed by bike, as the only ways to get there include highway off-ramps that have a 12-inch shoulder, with concrete barriers to the right and cars going 50mph just a few feet to the left.

Few people would regularly bike on such a route with their children. Especially in inclement weather.

I can take care of 70% of my day to day life with my ebike. But for the remaining 30%, a car really is necessary. And that 20% is too frequent to rent, especially lacking the inexpensive carshare services of other countries.

> If a low range EV is enough 100% just buy a bike.

Pretending that a short-range electric vehicle is not useful because ebikes exist is just sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that people unlike oneself and locations unlike where one lives do not exist.