I really wish this misinformation would die. That claim only applies in terms of sulfur oxides, which cars don't emit in any appreciable amount. It's like saying trucks don't pollute because a single cat produces more cat poop than every truck in the world combined, as long as you define pollution solely in terms of cat poop. In reality, road transport accounts for seven times as much CO2 emissions as shipping.

> If you do some digging you'll learn that until a EV reaches 125,000 miles or so, its carbon footprint is no different than a Dodge Ram 2500

Actual lifecycle analyses put the breakeven point closer to 21,300 miles.

>But here's the rub. Most EVs will need a new battery before then, resulting in even more of a carbon footprint

As per the above lifecycle analysis, even if you were to double the battery production to account for a full battery replacement, electric cars would still have a far lower lifecycle carbon footprint than gas cars would.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk&t=59s

The video description for that TEDx (read: not TED) talk establishes that it has been flagged by TED themselves for violating their content guidelines against bad science.

I said "overall" carbon footprint. The operational carbon footprint reduction of EVs over gas cars vastly outweighs any increase in manufacturing emissions, leading EVs to have a lower net carbon footprint. It's the total carbon footprint that matters, not the footprint at any one stage.

> One thing that always gets me is carbon emissions in manufacturing. I’m not by any means against electric, but I feel like too many people look at the end product of an electric future but don’t look at the damage that can be done manufacturing it

Even if you look at manufacturing emissions, EVs still have a lower overal carbon footprint than gas cars.

No, it's reducing it in aggregate over their lives compared to gas cars.