Posted on 04/19/2023 10:32:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We would like to think that many of the better trends and changes that have taken place in how we live have been determined by logic and governed by choice. The sad reality is that many of our preferences as a society are not organic or even the best choice when put under a microscope. Our choices or how we handle a problem often fall short. Outside influences such as politics and money often override what is best for us overall.
If this were not the case the world might be a much better place to live. It is not uncommon for those with an agenda to shape our future. Today this is evident in the area of electric vehicles (EVs) and how they are being touted as the answer to our environmental woes. While there is an argument that EVs do have a role in certain areas of our transportation infrastructure, the idea they will solve our problems is ludicrous.
It seems the decision to move rapidly towards EVs is being chosen for us and those in power are determining EV demand. This is being done by the carrot and stick method. This is a technique that achieves the desired actions from others by offering a reward (carrot) and a negative consequence by smacking them with a stick. Pain and negative sanctions can be strong motivators.
In this case, the stick is the new rules proposed by the EPA and White House to tighten carbon emissions. These aggressive tailpipe emissions standards will impact car model years 2027 through 2032. While the White House touts the changes will result in carbon emission reductions of nearly 10 billion tons by 2055 as well as save consumers an average of $12,000.
Right now, those that are hellbent on burying the internal combustion engine are cursing my stand. While I say to them, you are being deceived by those conveniently forgetting that most electricity is still generated by fossil fuel.
To those that scream about freedom of choice or how climate change is a hoax, my message is self-indulgent, and self-centered, people with the attitude the world is their oyster and the hell with everyone else should consider that how we conduct our lives may have some effect on the climate.
As a strong environmentalist, I get tired "of hearing that EVs are good for the environment. While my stand may rile those promoting EVs my attitude towards the four-door pickups driven by average citizens may anger and appall others. The fact is vehicle manufacturers maximize profits by prioritizing these big-ticket gas guzzlers. These trucks are not used for work and should carry a heavy "poor mileage tax." High-horsepower petroleum vehicles that fill our streets with engines able to get from stoplight to stoplight in the blink of an eye and the huge low MPG vehicles often occupied by one person are the bane of environmentalists.
An argument can be made that policies incentivizing electric-car production will lead to the creation of more carbon emissions during coming years than if we were to instead encourage the use of efficient gasoline engines. Electricity demand is still rising across the world, most nuclear plants getting very old, and the most ecologically friendly sources are running full out. This means the slack is being taken up by fossil-fuel-generated plants. Under the idea of, last in first out, this would mean that almost all the juice being pumped into EVs comes from fossil-fuel-generated juice.
To make matters worse, other issues exist.
Below are a few comments, or parts of comments, about EVs that have been gathered from different articles.
I have not fully researched all these but they do add to my doubts about these vehicles.
*The Greenwashing Industrial Complex is one of the evilest and most fraudulent scams of the 21st century. The pollution and environmental destruction created by the manufacturing and disposal of EV batteries, and also the magnets for power-generating windmills, is 10X worse than pollution created by fossil-fuel vehicles.
*In Germany about 40% of the energy mix is produced by coal and 30% by renewables - a mid-sized electric car must be driven for 125,000 km, on average, to break even with a diesel car, and 60,000 km compared to a petrol car. The case is similar in the U.S. but less pronounced in nuclear-powered France.
*Battery production causes more environmental damage than carbon emissions alone. Consider dust, fumes, wastewater, and other environmental impacts from cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; water shortages and toxic spills from lithium mining in Latin America, which can alter ecosystems and hurt local communities; a heavily polluted river due to nickel mining in Russia; or air pollution in northeastern China, as mentioned above.
*There isn't enough cobalt in the world to replace even half of the current ICE vehicles. Never mind the fact they have kids mining the stuff in the Congo. InsideSources, says, every EV battery contains cobalt, with most of it mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This area has been an ugly mess for years as the Congo government and armed militants duke it out over the control of mines. Much of the DRC cobalt is then hauled to South Africa and shipped to China for processing.
Also flowing into the issue of " less damaging to the environment" is something recently brought to my attention, and that is, EVs tend to rapidly eat through tires. While many people may not think this is a big deal, it is. Since electric car batteries are heavier than petrol engines they need a more robust tire. Also, because of their accelerating faster from a standstill. If you want to take advantage of that without too much wear then you need a more robust tire, these cost more, and it has been said, you are lucky if you get 20,000 miles out of a set of tires. All this is addressed at, https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-electric-cars-wear-out-tires-faster-than-fossil-fuel-cars
Like many people, I had brushed aside the thought something as common as the tire is also an environmental factor. This should have been high on my radar because years ago I was given a building simply because it had been filled with tires. The officials in my city were all over the owner to get rid of them. It cost me a bit of money and a lot of work to have them hauled away and properly recycled.
With that in mind, below are a few of the many articles voicing pollution issues concerning tires.
Homeguides.sfgate.com claims; Toxins released from tire decomposition, incineration, or accidental fires can pollute the water, air, and soil. While 42 states regulate tire disposal to some degree, eight states have no restrictions on what you must do with your discarded tires. Even with laws in place, illegal dumping still occurs, presenting negative environmental impacts.
Tiretechnologyinternational.com states; Air pollution from tire wear particles can be 1,000 times worse than what comes out of a car’s exhaust, Emissions Analytics found harmful particle matter from tires is a serious environmental problem. What is even more frightening is that while exhaust emissions have been tightly regulated for many years, tire wear is not. With the increasing growth in sales of heavier SUVs and battery-powered electric cars, non-exhaust emissions are a growing problem.
And, www.politico.eu/article/tires, delves into how driving affects the environment in ways beyond the well-known pollutants spewing from tailpipes and leaking from engines. Tires shed tiny pieces of plastic as they wear down, accounting for about 10 percent of the microscopic pieces of the pollutant found in the sea, according to one estimate. Tire waste was addressed in the European Commission's Plastics Strategy earlier this year. The EU executive is looking into how to cut down on microplastics that may be coming from tires and is considering regulations.
Considering increased regulations, it seems unlikely that combustion vehicles will be able to reclaim much of their lost market share.
It must not go unnoticed that the President and those trying to crush the internal combustion vehicles are also playing right into the hands of the Chinese.
The other part of this price war is rooted in the reality that China must move cars to keep its people employed and take up some of the slack it is experiencing in its housing and export markets.
Regardless of what you decide is the reason for selling vehicles at cost or below, it spells bad news for American and European automakers.
“Wise” got nothing to do with it! Obviously.
For them. Yes. They stand to make fortunes in stock and kickbacks. It is all a scam and all about money and power.
Forget “wise,” is it constitutional and/or lawful?
It’s just been weeks since we were told in 10 years there won’t be enough rare earth minerals to build REPLACEMENT batteries for the e-Cars ALREADY SOLD (10 years previous to the shortage).
And they’re proposing to build STILL MORE e-Cars? That is rampant, bald-faced stupidity.
It is profitable. So, does that count as wide?
The tech is bad. Until batteries come of age, tech wise, it is a waste of money. But, the politicos pushing this crappola already have relatives invested in the primarily CCP-controlled tech and they are not gonna back off.
This is just how a collective/commie trash economy is run. Come up with a 5-year plan that the ones in power already control and kill anyone who opposes it. “Kill” is over the top? Really? Go study any attempt at any collectivist economy.
Sounds like Obama’s Cash for Clunkers round 2.
"Is It Wise For Those In Power To Push Electric Vehicle Demand?"
NO it's not wise!
But that's why state and federal lawmakers establish constitutionally undefined, so-called regulatory agencies run by non-popularly-elected bureaucrats so that career lawmakers can avoid taking responsibility for the legislative powers that voters trusted them with, wrongly weakening the constitutionally enumerated power of ordinary qualified voters by doing so.
In the case of EVs, so-called "global warming" alarmism amounts to corrupt government leaders working with likewise corrupt CEOs to abuse government power by forcing citizens to buy, through unconstitutional, unaccountable federal taxing and spending, junk science products as remedies for government-industrial-manufactured crises imo.
Agreed fully. Why should anyone “in power” be promoting ANY product? It’s also a social status thing; I remember my now former friend smugly announcing that he and his wife had put a $1,000 down payment on a Tesla to be delivered at some point in the future. Sigh... Nothing against EV’s, per se, but they’re not a panacea, and they’re NOT “zero emission”. Still astounds me that some people seem to think this is the case. That said, I do like the idea of a solar panel/battery setup at home (were they affordable), and charging up my local ride for ‘free’.
“The Greenwashing “
An earlier poster introduced the term “blackwashing” to me. Now we have greenwashing.
what makes EVs feasible?
propaganda and govt mandates
Addressing what Dems say is a waste of time because nothing they say can be taken at face value.
Climate change has become a refuge of scoundrels.
Think we can vote our way out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.