Press "Enter" to skip to content

Electric cars not zero emission; California's policy model a disaster – The Manila Times

First word
YOU can't hide or run from the truth. “The truth will out,” as Shakespeare said. Eventually, people will figure out what you did, and they'll expose your actions.
We've all had the experience of trying to keep a lie quiet. In most cases, that leads to creating more lies to cover up the old lies. As a result, you end up in a vicious cycle of lying, and people eventually figure out that you're lying about your actions.
The truth behind the phony facade of climate change and green transition is coming out in a big way, particularly in some countries and states that have wagered big on electric cars and green policies.
Two new reports in the “Issues and Insights” website spell out the facts.
In the article “Electric cars are not zero-emission vehicles” (Sept 14, 2022), James D. Agresti writes that in the face of California's decision to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, 100 percent of new car sales from that date will be required to be emission-free, like electric cars. But here's the thing, electric cars are not completely emission-free, they are not zero-emission vehicles, Agresti writes.
In reality, electric cars emit substantial amounts of pollutants and may be more harmful to the environment than conventional cars.
Deceptive narrative
The notion that electric vehicles are “zero emission” is rooted in a deceptive narrative that ignores all pollutants which don't come out of a tailpipe. Assessing the environmental impacts of energy technologies requires measuring all forms of pollution they emit over their entire lives, not a narrow slice of them. To do this, researchers perform “life cycle assessments” or LCAs. As explained by the Environmental Protection Agency, LCAs allow for the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life cycle, often including impacts not considered in more traditional analyses….
An assessment published by the Journal of Cleaner Production in 2021 shatters the notion that electric cars are cleaner than conventional ones, much less “zero emission.” The LCA found that manufacturing, charging, operating and disposing of electric vehicles produces more of every major category of pollutants than conventional cars. This includes: an increase in fine particulate matter formation (26 percent), human carcinogenic (20 percent) and non-carcinogenic toxicity (61 percent), terrestrial ecotoxicity (31 percent), freshwater ecotoxicity (39 percent) and marine ecotoxicity (41 percent) relative to petrol vehicles.
Foreshadowing that result, a 2018 report by the European Environment Agency warned that studies on the “human toxicity impacts” of electric vehicles were “limited” and that electric cars “could be responsible for greater negative impacts” than conventional cars.
Similarly, a 2018 article in the journal Environmental Research Letters stated that a failure to account for the “environmental implications” of mining lithium to make batteries for electric cars “would directly counter the intent” of “incentivizing electric vehicle adoption” and “needs to be urgently addressed.”
China dominates the global supply chains for green energy components not merely because of cheap labor but because they have lax environmental standards that tolerate the pollution these products create. Thus, China supplies 78 percent of the world's solar cells, 80 percent of the world's lithium-ion battery chemicals and 73 percent of the world's finished battery cells.
Highlighting the implications of “China's role in supplying critical minerals for the global energy transition,” a 2022 study by the Brookings Institute found that “continued reliance on China” will “increase the risk that sourcing of critical minerals will cause or contribute to serious social or environmental harms.” It also documents that the US and other wealthy nations have been unwilling to accept these harms on their own soil.
Calling electric cars “zero-emission vehicles” is a lie.
The harms of this deceit extend well beyond pollution. This is because electric cars are more costly than other options, and that's why people rarely buy electric cars unless governments subsidize or mandate them.
Regardless of whether these additional costs are paid by consumers or taxpayers, they make people poorer because these expensive cars ultimately travel fewer miles for every dollar spent.
Such policies that increase the costs of living have contributed to making California the state with the highest real poverty rate in the nation.
Despite its “green” agenda, California dominates the American Lung Association's list of cities with the poorest air quality in America.
California's 'nuttiness'
The “Issues and Insights” editorial board published the following editorial critical of California's energy policies, “California's green energy model a disaster” on Sept. 9, 2021.
Americans are now being told that California's crazy energy policies would be a good model for the rest of the nation. Have these people seen what's going on there?
California's plan to ban all gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 and replace them with electric vehicles “could be” a model for the rest of the nation, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently said.
She didn't mean that as a warning, but you should know: It is one.
“I think California really is leaning in. And of course, the federal government has a goal of — the president has announced — by 2030 that half of the vehicles in the US, the new ones sold, would be electric,” Granholm added.
Get that? She's saying the federal government, already trying to destroy the auto industry and ruin the oil industry through insane regulations and restrictions that have pushed energy costs to prohibitive levels, hasn't gone far enough.
Cali's nuttiness has only just begun under far-left Gov. Gavin Newsom, but already it's wreaking havoc on the state's economy. No sooner had California issued its new rules moving the state toward all electrical vehicles than it was slammed with record heat.
What business would want to relocate to California or expand there if it can't be guaranteed a steady, reliable supply of reasonably priced energy? The answer, of course, is no business would.
The truth is, California is anything but a model for others to emulate. However, it is a perfect model for what other states — and the federal government, for that matter — should not do.
Along with soaring energy prices, Californians are now dealing with rolling blackouts and threats of future shortages, even as the state government vows to push forward with plans to force all of its citizens into electric vehicles.
Simply put, the state doesn't supply enough electricity to do the job. And it won't be able to do so with just wind and solar. Even worse, California is already dependent on others for what energy it has.
California is the nation's largest importer of electricity.
California desperately needs more energy, including low-pollution fossil fuels, more nuclear power, hydroelectric plants, LNG. Even slow growth demands more power. Unfortunately, the only thing scarcer in California than cheap, plentiful energy is common sense.
California is hemorrhaging businesses and population, as soaring taxes, nanny-state socialism, rampant public drug abuse and exploding violent crime rates make the once Golden State increasingly unlivable.
Unsolicited advice for BBM, Mayor Binay
This column is unsolicited advice for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Makati Mayor Abigail Binay.
Why Mayor Binay? After she boldly declared a state of climate emergency in Makati, she announced that the city government will invest in electric cars and vehicles as a major part of her battle plan to wrestle down the emergency.
President Marcos will leave tomorrow for the US where he is scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly in its yearly debate/colloquy among heads of states and governments.
He has said several times that climate change is a priority issue for him and his administration. And he has flirted with some of the policy ideas that have spawned the energy crisis in Europe today. BBM must surely be aware that the climate agenda is principally driven by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
He could ask Mr. Guterres why the UN climate movement does not answer major challenges to the UN pronouncements on the climate, such as the loud World Climate Declaration of 1,200 scientists and professionals from all over the world, and the current developments in California that caricature the nostrums of the UN.
While in the US, BBM and his team should consider taking time to inquire into the situation in California today arising from the nutty green agenda of Governor Newsom. There are tens of thousands of Filipinos living in the state amid reportedly unlivable circumstances.
[email protected]