Even if most of the energy in your state is from natural gas driving an EV is still better for the environment than an ICE car. 100%, mass transit is even better, most places in the US don't have it... during the 20 years it takes to build that train, drive an EV. scienceblog.com/electric-car...
I was addressing the "O&G" part of the message, this shifts the goalposts. Regarding your 20yr prediction, California embarked on "ZEV" laws and policies in 1994 to attempt to reap huge "zero-emission" environmental benefits from cars within 15 years. If only those efforts had gone to transit.
unfortunately we don't have a Time Machine... but we do have a planet that is burning and requires action now. Like I said, yes to trains, until there is one you have access to, walk, bike, drive an EV.
And, for the sake of the planet and the kiddos, if you're big biking and train advocate and still drive an ICE vehicle when you're not using those modes of transit, sell it! ASAP! pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/...
It's not about me (I walked away from motor vehicles), the point is about infrastructure. Highways and roads have their own carbon impact and very high monetary cost. Putting EVs on them perpetuates those things and actively interferes with building transit infrastructure. Your graphs overlook that.
It’s a study. Not mine. Of a clear path to rapidly reducing climate impact while we do the long decades+ work of improving transit and biking numbers 🤙🏽 progress, not perfection, is the only way we have the decades needed to bring transit to more than half the U.S. or biking to >1% that bike 2 work💪🏼
"A clear path" to perpetuating wasteful transport infrastructure whose externalities will continue to be ignored. The part you're missing is that I was hearing precisely these same arguments (including the "progress, not perfection" soundbite) 35 years ago. 35 years of wasted priorities.