"over 50% of a car's lifetime emissions happen before it leaves the factory."

Totally wrong, it's only 20%

Think about it - if most of emission wad in production, electric cars would make no sence, they have higher production footprint and lower running footprint

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/201...

I'm not discounting it. I just care more about point-source pollution than carbon footprints abstracted across a global supply chain.

The footprints can be reduced at scale over time, whereas these cars will be continuously producing more pollution as they age.

This is a really misguided opinion. Even an EV still has a significant carbon footprint in terms of electricity production. While it is possible to reduce or negate this with renewables in the future, its much less likely that building them now has a less significant carbon footprint. Plus, the old ICE vehicles people are driving are still providing lots of value with their cost already sunk. Its not like a lot of people are daily driving their classic Impala from the 60s.

> I'm not discounting it. I just care more about point-source pollution than carbon footprints abstracted across a global supply chain.

Pardon me, but isn't that the definition of 'discounting'?. As in, you're ignoring that portion of the carbon footprint.

> The footprints can be reduced at scale over time

Which arguably supports driving older cars longer because not only does it reduce the overall frequency of car manufacturer, it also pushes that manufacturing process further into the future when the environmental impact of manufacturing a replacement would be lower.

Yeah, blast furnaces aren't exactly carbon neutral.

Cars get recycled though, maybe not to automotive steel grade, but autos are more like metal storage than metal destruction.

Metals can be recycled perfectly to space/medical/marine/any grade, they do not degrade like plasics. You can get a collection of metal scraps and produce pure elemental iron if you want