The climate has always been changing. That is a well-known fact.
Nobody is arguing otherwise, but climate skeptics love their strawmen with this statement. The question is not whether the climate is warming or cooling, but whether it is warming or cooling too much, and it appears that it is, and that humans are the direct cause of the vast majority of that warming.
Claiming that there is 'too much' warming is an unscientific statement. Climate alarmists usually support such statements by comparing the current temperatures to cherry-picked points in time when the annual average atmospheric temperature was at its minimum in the history of observations or by referencing cherry-picked minimum estimates of historical temperatures before systematic instrumental readings began. Additionally, when presenting estimated historical data, the alarmists conveniently omit showing error ranges on hockey stick charts, which can impact the overall perspective of the data.
As a physicist by education, I find it concerning when someone who claims to be a scientist presents their measurements or model predictions without including error bars on their charts.
I do not see how burning hydrocarbons to mine, refine and transport elements for EV battery production helps in reducing CO2 emissions.
Surely you can see the simple relation of fixed cost + ongoing cost, it is not just a fixed cost. Call it K1+nK2, and K3+nK4 is cost of fossil car, both sum of manufacturing and running emissions over 'n' years, if K1+nK2 is less than K3+nK4 then extra CO2 emissions to produce EV batteries can be a net winner.
In Europe the figure 'n' is about 2-3 years for EV batteries. In China it is closer to 3-4 years due to higher levels of coal on Chinese powergrid. Still, a car lasts ~15 years, so generally a winner.
Indeed, the question of the million (or billion) tons of CO2 is closely tied to the K1...K4 factors. However, we must approach the estimates provided by BEV manufacturers' lobby with caution as they may not be entirely reliable. Independent sources suggest that accurate estimations are challenging, often leading to wide ranges for the carbon footprint of BEV batteries. Some estimates place the carbon footprint at around 100-200 kg of CO2 per kWh of battery.
Taking the average value of 150 kg/kWh, we can calculate that a typical small sedan BEV, like the Tesla Model 3 with an 82 kWh battery, emits approximately 12 metric tons of CO2 during the production of its battery.
To put this in perspective, burning one gallon of petrol produces about 9 kg of CO2. Thus, the production of the Model 3's battery is equivalent to burning about 1,300 gallons of petrol.
Comparing this to a modern ICE vehicle, like the VW Jetta with a mileage of 35 mpg, it would drive about 45,000 miles (approximately 75,000 km) on 1,300 gallons of petrol.
Considering that the average annual mileage driven in the EU is 11,300 km, a brand new Tesla Model 3 causes as much CO2 pollution as the average similar-sized car in the EU over a span of 6.5 years. In China, the time frame is also 6.5 years, while in the US, it's 3.5 years.
However, it's important to remember that we have only addressed the impact of K1 and K3 variances here. K2 and K4 remain unexplored factors. In countries like China, Russia, and India, where fossil fuels dominate electric generation, Tesla is unlikely to catch up with comparable ICE vehicles before the battery needs replacement or the vehicle is scrapped.
Furthermore, we must not ignore the additional resources required for BEV infrastructure, such as new generation plants, charging stations, grid enhancements, transformer upgrades, etc. This leads to doubts about whether the BEV revolution will significantly reduce the carbon footprint of car transportation at all.
If you, unlike me, are concerned about CO2 emissions and believe that moderate climate warming is harmful to the planet, it's worth considering the implications before investing in a BEV. Choosing to keep your current ICE vehicle may at least spread the release of CO2 over many years.