Even in areas that use coal you use less overall emissions within the lifetime of the vehicle

https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM?si=l7nepxiZqoWhZrpU

Most of it is pure reduction rather than replacement. The region is pretty good at using wind and hydro for evening power but more to the point, it is hard to get across just how much that 4.6tons of co2 an average car puts out in a year.

It’s also worth noting that 4.6 tons is just tailpipe, and that it is in addition to the emissions from delivering that fuel to the pump or in manufacturing the car itself, and that thouse additional emissions alone are more than the entire lifetime emissions of an EV fed on the US grid, most of which are from generation.

Put all that together with the SF grid being less carbon intensive, and i’d guess that anywhere from 75% to 90% of those emissions are just outright gone period.

It would be even better if it was even more a move to bikes and mass transit of course, but in this case it actually is a notable drop in emissions and not just greenwashing.

Most car pollution is via use, not production. EVs are cleaner, much cleaner - regardless of grid production.

To be precise, more than 85% of a gas-powered vehicle's lifetime emissions come from using the car, not from building the car. That's according to researchers at Argonne National Laboratory. And that means the new EV, despite its manufacturing costs, will be cleaner over time. - Source

It makes sense if you think about it, what's more likely to be more efficient (and hence cleaner), burning fossil fuels in a large facility, or in a bunch of your tiny engines? As we shift to a cleaner grid, that inefficiency gets larger.

Obviously, if we can shift to more public transit, we can get even cleaner, but any replacement is helping.

One of those requires much more energy than the other