Cleaner would likely be more accurate. I read the review and several others. So the basic consensus is the "glider" is irrelevant. The battery is all that matters. Somewhere around 150K-200K miles the battery catches up to the traditional car as far as environmental CO2 impact. When it catches up depends on what the source of electricity is (Coal longer, Nuclear shorter). There appears to be no agreement as to environmental impact of sourcing of raw materials. China sourced is likely an environmental disaster. After that there is prob little difference as far as country of origin. I find it very difficulty to think based on how the materials are harvested that at some point "mines" will end up to be "superfund" kind of sites on a global scale. The HTP mentioned and graphed in the article is pretty much useless to me. I can not figure out what the numbers actually mean. I tried to access the articles provided as reference, but I'm not going to buy them and from the articles I did look at it is a nebulous index that requires too many inferences and guesses for me to ascertain how meaningful it is.Would you feel better if we used "cleaner"?
The assertion regarding Tesla's lifecycle impact has been refuted by several researchers. Take a look at this study as one example. If you have a recent one that you could point me to, I would be grateful as I am genuinely interested in staying current on this topic.
REMs are absolutely a component in an EV. They are also used in ICE production. And in the refining process. And in your phone. There is some good evidence that we are moving away from some of the more difficult/polluting components in EV architectures including a steady reduction in Lithium salts required for the battery packs.
The overall assumption is that technology will improve over the next decade or so to the point batteries will be so good that all the other environmental impacts will be negated and we can all sing kumbaya. We all know where assumptions get you.
I am not a hater of green anything (I've put my $100 down for Tesla pickup) and tend fall on the tree hugger side but I am also a realist. The politics of these debates make them impossible. Should we be more conscientious and strive to protect earth as a whole absolutely. Will all of humanity be wiped out unlikely. Will some rich people on the worlds coast have there houses and condos flooded probably...The price you pay for the choice of having a beach house. That part should make the more liberal side of the debate gleeful. You would think that side would be in favor of global warming.