ElectricCarsUnderAttackAheadOf 2016 Presidential Campaign

[MitchJi]

Hi,
Tea-brains...

Barack Obama’s presidency still has almost two full years left to work through, the political machines of both the right and left are already gearing up for the 2016 campaign season. There will be plenty of social and fiscal issues to discuss during the 2016 Presidential campaign, and government support for electric cars are bound to come up. In fact, it already has in two separate articles attacking EVs, and this is just the beginning.

First came a Wall St. Journal Op-Ed that essentially called on Elon Musk to stop accepting government subsidies to support his nascent automaker. The second article in USA Today was written by disgraced “scientist” Bjørn Lomborg, who makes the outrageous accusation that EVs actually cause twice as many deaths as conventional, gasoline vehicles. He says it’s time to stop our “worship” of green cars, because they’re doing more harm than good.

Both articles are fairly easy to debunk in a couple of sentences. In response to the Wall St. Journal, I would say that it would be poor business practices not to take advantage of available government assistance, especially when all of Tesla’s competitors make use of the same subsidies. Tesla was provided $465 million by the U.S. government under the Advanced Technology Vehicle loan program, while Ford walked away with $5.9 billion to upgrade various factories. I’ll add a third sentence to note that the $7,500 Federal tax rebate that is available to all other automakers (set up by the Bush administration and well before Model S sales began) is rarely a deciding factor in Tesla purchases, and that this rebate has to be claimed by the buyer, not Tesla. And done.

Lomborg’s hit piece is even easier to debunk, because his credentials and previous works have already been widely rejected by the scientific community, and his ties to the Koch Brothers further make his arguments against electric vehicles highly suspect. Most importantly though, his pollution comparisons rely on the notion that all EVs are powered by coal plants. Yet nations like Norway and Germany can already generate most of their energy needs from renewable sources (albeit only temporarily in Germany’s case) and the world’s largest car market, China, has made air quality and green energy a cornerstone national policy. Just because electric cars aren’t green “enough” yet is no reason not to pursue them, because as the grid gets greener, so do EVs.

But the point of this piece isn’t to debunk to garbage articles, but rather to bring to your attention that the lies about EVs are going to start coming hot and heavy, and soon. The political machine of the right-wing in American politics is already gearing up to make an attack on electric cars, from both fiscal and environmental angles. Their information is dubious at best, and disingenuous at worst, leveling unfair accusations in an attempt to convince people unfamiliar with the technology that plug-in cars are a bad deal all the way around.

Nothing could be further from the truth though, and it’s going to be up to us to counter such blithering nonsense. Not only are electric cars cheaper to “fill up” compared to conventional vehicles, even with gasoline at $2 a gallon (and that won’t last, I promise you), they’re also cheaper to insure and have dramatically lower maintenance costs. When you compare lifetime operating costs of an EV to a conventional car, the advantages become plain even to the most ardent doubters. The market is at the point where a $30,000, 200-mile EV like the Chevy Bolt is totally doable, hindering arguments of range anxiety and high costs.

If someone starts blathering on about coal power, remind them that in 2013 just 39% of America’s power came from coal plants, while renewable sources account for about 14%. In the past four years alone 29 of these plants have converted to much cleaner natural gas, and in 2014 a record number of solar power installations went online around the country. While still a fossil fuel, burning natural gas releases just half as much CO2 (though its worth noting that methane leaks during production could reduce the environmental benefits), and though I’m no fan of fracking for natural gas, it’s the lesser of two evils compared with dangerous and oft-deadly underground coal mining.

Though the 2016 Presidential campaign season hasn’t officially kicked off, I expect to see an increasing number of EV hit pieces trying to convince the public they’re getting sold a false bill of goods. But don’t be fooled, and don’t let your friends be fooled either. Arm yourself with knowledge, and be ready to defend yourself from ignorance. This is a literal ideological war being fought in America, and electric vehicles are just one of many battles being fought.

 

[Ch00paKabrA]

There was so much good information in this article that it most definitely was able to stand alone on its merits and the facts. To me it is just distasteful when cheap pot shots are taken and fear mongering adjectives are used.

Its too bad that EVs are not embraced more. I hope that in the future they will be able to be more competitive. the only issues that I have with this article is the use of adjectives.

It’s the lesser of two evils compared with dangerous and oft-deadly underground coal mining

In 2013 there were 20 deaths. This figure includes office workers. So basically coal is not oft-deadly in the sense that the article implied. It is deadly in the pollution that it produces but no so much because it is underground.

http://www.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp

The koch brothers are all about ending subsidies. Not only to clean energy but all subsidies and they spend a lot of money to do it. Also, I don't understand why they have to be the boogie man. Sure, they spend a lot of money but nowhere near what unions spend.

It just kind of sticks in my craw when I see those things. Republicans have the Koch brothers and Democrats have Soros and the Unions. The liberal money machine is much bigger so I just can't see why you all complain so much about the Koch brothers.

The information was good though. One question that has been bugging me though is that when I look to the future of EVs I just can't help thinking that it is going to be a very slow process replacing the millions of existing automobiles currently out there.

Recently I saw a conversion kit to convert an ICE car/truck that cost around $6,800.00. If there are going to be subsidies, then it seems like it would be a practical lobbying effort to try to get the $7500.00 subsidy for a conversion as well as a new car purchase. Maybe I am wrong but it just seems like it would be faster to convert than to replace. It also might get the existing auto makers involved.