Link to full report is in the press release: http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/news/1644/lowcvp-study-highlights-importance-of-measuring-whole-life-carbon-emissions/

Over 130,000 km before an electric car nets a savings in CO2 emissions against a petrol car. No electric car is going to last that long. They're WORSE for the environment than fuel vehicles.

"The study - which has been widely picked by UK national and international media - says that electric and hybrid cars create more carbon emissions during their production than standard vehicles – but are still greener overall."

Yes, once you drive one over 130,000 km, it makes up for the CO2 during production. Good luck getting even your second set of batteries (which nullifies the argument completely) to even get you that far.

Hyundai now has a lifetime warranty for its hybrid batteries.

Very interesting report. Well, I didn't get a link to a proper paper but, never the less, it's an interesting study.
The also post a rebuttal (or at least a cautionary tale) as a response to their increased media coverage:
http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/news/Response%20to%20Press%20Coverage%20on%20Life%20Cycle%20CO2%20Report.pdf

The essence of it is that the study assumed that the battery of the car had to be replaced once throughout the lifetime of the car (which essentially doubles the emissions from it). I don't know much about it but the letter suggests that this isn't an accurate portrayal.

Also, I didn't look too hard but I couldn't see where they said the electricity was coming from.

"Try their actual Website above. That si the official .gov website for them. I think they know more about their organization than wikipedia does."
"Care to link to the actual laws rather than send us to a front page?"
This, don't have time to navigate through shitty government websites.

"It's already been more studied than any other pipeline. I haven't looked into it, but it wouldn't surprise me if the regulations keeping immediate approval of the project are only about three years old, if you catch my drift."
Today was Obama's third state of the union, if thats a hint.

"Oil is becoming obsolete no two ways about it. Better just do the right thing and try to stop using it now. No need to lose our god damn minds fracking the shit out of Canada, shipping it across our heartland and burning that shit into our atmosphere.
As said earlier, humans will come up with alternatives to oil when we need them, not when its at its peak.

"Let's try nuclear power instead, thanks, and start looking for ways to make China pay it's share of the damage it will eventually wreak."
NUCLEAR POWER FTW! (During our energy unit in grade 11 physics one of our assignments was about sustainability. We were given the task to collectively determine what was the most environmentally sustainable cost effective energy resource. We were each split into teams:
Pro-Coal
Anti-Coal
Pro-Nuclear
Anti-Nuclear
Pro-Geothermal
Anti-Geothermal
Pro-Wind
Anti-Wind
Pro-Solar
Anti-Solar
Environmentalists
Economists
Construction
City hall (this was the group I was in, which unlike the rest of the groups, didn't do research but had to summarize what was said)

At the end we came to the conclusion that Nuclear was the best resource to use. Keeping in mind this was over a year before Fukushima, we might have voted differently had it been afterwards.

I just realized how off topic this is.

"PS I'm a realist. I know the environment is going to go to hell no matter what we do."
So allowing America to loose its competitive advantage by heavily restricting environmental laws is realistic? I'm sorry but do you know how much this would kill our economy?

post more later, to tired.