Electric Vehicles: Costly Virtue Signaling Forced on America by Left

T. A. Gardner said:
tumblr_mjo1g7rr371qlirvbo3_1280.jpg

Picher Oklahoma...

NCMA0080.jpg

Thompson Manitoba Canada...

foggy_nikel-kopi.jpg

Norilsk (aka Nickelograd) Russia...

All you do is trade one sort of pollution for another that is far worse.
Click to expand...
You consider water to be 'pollution'??? That's what is coming out of these stacks!
T. A. Gardner said:
EV's are electronic. EV's are pollution magnets bigtime.
Click to expand...
Define this 'pollution'.
T. A. Gardner said:
Nickel, lead, lithium, silicon, cadmium, and a plethora of other hydrides and metals all of which are toxic
Click to expand...
Nickel isn't toxic. Lead isn't toxic. Lithium is toxic. Cadmium is toxic, but not used in EVs. Some hydrides are toxic, others are not. Some metals are toxic, others are not.
Aluminum foil you purchase at the grocery store, for example, is food grade. Nickel is probably in your coin stash at this moment. So is silver and copper. YOU work with aluminum and copper. Do you have three eyes yet?

This is not an argument for or against the EV. It's just buzzwords.
T. A. Gardner said:
EV's won't "save the planet"
Click to expand...
This is correct. The planet doesn't even need 'saving'. It's quite big enough to take care of itself.
T. A. Gardner said:
nor will they cure so-called anthropogenic climate change.
Click to expand...
Obviously, since there is no such thing, except as a religious chant. Climate cannot change.
T. A. Gardner said:
The climate will change
Click to expand...
Climate cannot change.
T. A. Gardner said:
regardless and we'll be stuck with more Picher's and Norilsk's...
Click to expand...
The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion, just like the Church of Green, the Church of Covid, the Church of Perversion, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Hate, and of course the Church of Karl Marx.
 
volsrock said:
The Staggering Ecological Impacts of Computation and the Cloud

Anthropologist Steven Gonzalez Monserrate draws on five years of research and ethnographic fieldwork in server farms to illustrate some of the diverse environmental impacts of data storage.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/...writes that,kilograms of water to manufacture.



Environmental impact of IT: desktops, laptops and screens

https://www.it.ox.ac.uk/article/environment-and-it
Click to expand...

Please describe this 'ecological impact'. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. It cannot warm the Earth. It has no capability to do so.
 
volsrock said:
WHOOPS




What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

As for greenhouse-gas emissions, my analysis shows that electric vehicles will reduce them compared to new internal combustion vehicles. But based on the EIA’s projection of the number of new electric vehicles, the net reduction in CO2 emissions between 2018 and 2050 would be only about one-half of one percent of total forecast U.S. energy-related carbon emissions. Such a small change will have no impact whatsoever on climate, and thus have no economic benefit.




So, if electric-vehicle subsidies don’t help the environment, what—or who—do they help? Most electric-vehicle buyers are far wealthier than average Americans. A nationwide survey in 2017 found that 56% had household incomes of at least $100,000 and 17% had household incomes of at least $200,000. (In 2016, median household income for the US as a whole was less than $58,000.) So it’s fair to say the subsidies disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who cannot afford to buy even subsidized electric vehicles or live in their own homes to take advantage of residential chargers or solar panels.

Not only that, the wires and charging stations needed to charge all those electric vehicles will be paid for by all ratepayers, further raising electric rates. And as more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, the costs to provide them back-up power will fall on those who cannot afford to do so.


In effect, the wealthy owners of electric vehicles will enjoy the benefits of their clean, silent cars, while passing on many of the costs of keeping their vehicles on the road to everyone else, especially the poor.



To be sure, electric cars are impressive. Some are quicker off the line than a Formula 1 race car. But there is no economic or environmental justification for the many billions of dollars in subsidies that America is already paying to speed their adoption.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660/
Click to expand...

CO2 is not pollution. It is a naturally occurring gas essential for life to exist on Earth.
It has no capability to magickally heat the Earth.
 
volsrock said:
The Left likes to treat skeptics of electrical cars as if they were Luddites. Truth is, making an existing product less efficient, but more expensive, doesn’t really meet the definition of innovation.

Even the purported amenities and technological advances EV makers like to brag about in their ads have been a regular feature of gas-powered vehicles going back generations. At best, EVs, if they fulfill their promise, are a lateral technology.

Which is why there is no real “emerging market” for EVs in the United States as much as there’s an industrial policy in place that props up EVs with government purchases, propaganda, state subsidies, cronyism, taxpayer-backed loans, and edicts. The green “revolution” is an elite-driven, top-down technocratic project.

And it’s increasingly clear that the only reason giant rent-seeking carmakers are so heavily invested in EV development is that government is promising to artificially limit the production of gas-powered cars.

In August 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emission. California claims it is banning combustion engines in all new cars in about 10 years. So, carmakers adopt business models to deal with these distorted incentives and contrived theoretical markets of the future.

In today’s real-world economy, Ford projects it’s going to lose $3 billion on electric vehicles in 2023, bringing its EV losses to $5.1 billion over two years. In 2021, Ford reportedly lost $34,000 on every EV it made. This year, it was losing more than $58,000 on every EV. In a normal world, Ford would be dramatically scaling back EV production, not expanding it.

Remember that next time we need to bail out Detroit.

And the fact is that if EVs were more efficient and saved us money, as enviros and politicians claim, consumers wouldn’t have to be compelled into using them and companies wouldn’t have to be bribed into producing them.


https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07...y-virtue-signaling-forced-on-america-by-left/
Click to expand...

Remember, Ford didn't take any bailout money. That bailout money went to Chrysler, and I think mostly to GM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top