People don't buy evs to save the planet

For those outside the EV world, the standard pitch for EVs focuses heavily on saving the planet. While well-intentioned, this fundamentally misunderstands how technology adoption actually works.

People didn't stop using horses for transportation because they were sick and tired of horse waste in cities (though that was a significant urban issue). They switched because cars were faster, safer, more convenient, and simply better. The environmental benefit was a side effect, not the primary driver (no pun intended).

This pattern isn't new. When electricity replaced gas lighting in homes, people didn't switch to save the environment. They switched because electric lights were superior.

Environmental appeals might work for early adopters, but mainstream buyers, who will drive mass adoption, care about more immediate benefits: Is this option obviously better than what I have now?

The true selling points of EVs are supercar-level acceleration at Toyota prices, minimal maintenance, and never having to deal with gas stations again. They're simply better cars in most ways that matter to drivers. In other words, you can get supercar performance for a fraction of the cost to buy, maintain, and fuel. This is not an environmental pitch, it's just smart math.

Focusing on environmental benefits isn't just ineffective; it's actively harmful. It frames EVs as a moral choice rather than a practical upgrade. People, as a rule, don't choose compromise when spending large amounts of money.

The best way to drive EV adoption isn't to appeal to people's conscience but to their self-interest.

Mass adoption will happen naturally once EVs deliver an undeniably better package: superior speed, adequate range, reliability, competitive pricing, and convenient charging.

The environmental benefits will follow, whether anyone cares about them or not.