A new report on transportation and infrastructure has revealed an issue we’ve covered in the past. Electric vehicles (EV) can have a larger carbon footprint than those with traditional gasoline engines.
It’s really just a point of order. Carbon Dioxide has little to nothing to do with temperature changes in Earth’s atmosphere. All the data tells us that CO2 responds to natural temperature changes, not the other way around. But you’ll never get the Pharisees of settled science even to debate it.
We are left with pointing out other obvious issues. EV batteries (pre and post-production processes) are awful for the environment. The EV solution is so expensive as to be almost prohibitive without forcing us to pay to backstop this part of the climate cult narrative.
And, like Obama, they are not the messiah “we were waiting for.”
In 2015 an EIA report declared that this emperor had no clothes. All that extra money redirected to purchase these cars has little to no hope of being recovered from fuel savings.
The ABMRC Report referenced above declares the current EV landscape is creating more CO2 than gas-powered vehicles.
On average, in NSW, Victoria, ACT and Queensland, petrol vehicles “provide less CO2 than electric vehicles”, with ABMARC linking the emissions disparity with “Australia’s continued reliance on coal-fired power stations”. The consultancy firm also notes that the Australian Average Diesel emissions data was “heavily skewed by light commercial vehicles (utes) and larger SUVs”.
The report also questions the efficacy of redirecting billions into the charging infrastructure needed to address any accelerated use of EVs.
It’s an aspect of an issue that has plagued the movement from the start. To the degree that the people benefitting most from the taxpayer incentives are folks least in need of financial support. EV’s are (up to this point) an environmentally meaningless elitist fad pushed on working-class folks who are paying for them without ever buying them, just like Democrat-run government.
Add to this the other, other (other) foot dropping. EV’s will use less liquid fuel whose purchase provides tax revenue to the insatiable beast of government. So, the more expensive tax-subsidized vehicles, energy, and infrastructure will also need new taxes to offset lost gas tax revenue.
For nothing. Well, not exactly.
If you look at it all from 30,000 feet, it’s another example of classic left-wing, knee-jerk, governing. We’ve created this perception of a problem, decided it’s an immediate crisis, and expect you to pay for our poorly thought out “solution.” And if you ask questions, (about the problem or the solution), we’ll smear you as an apostate and pillory you in public until you relent.
It’s not about the environment.
I’m not saying there’s no future for EV. At some point, the free market may solve the problems if they are problems anyone besides the elites scrabbling for power want solved. But if governments continue to force taxpayers to subsidize mandated innovation, it’ll take longer, cost more, and do less.
Besides, this is really just another leftist cart before the horse scenario that kills the horse and leaves you to push their load to a destination that doesn’t even exist. Which is entirely the point.
The chest-pounding is not meant to do anything other than get you hitched to their wagon and keeping you there.
Notions of planet-saving (which they demand you pay for) are just the bait for their trap.
| WUWT
