California wants to completely ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035. A move the state can’t even support logistically.
As I recall, last summer California was begging drivers not to charge their electric cars. Because the power grid was over-loaded and failing. Thus, a move to further tax the grid doesn’t seem like the right move at all. But we’re talking about Gavin Newsom and California. Where using common sense isn’t exactly a coveted skill.
Fox News explains:
California regulators unveiled a plan to ban the sale of new gas cars by 2035 on Thursday, the state’s latest effort to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
The plan from the California Air Resources Board calls for 35% of new car sales in the state to be battery or hydrogen-powered by 2026, according to CNBC. The board will vote on the proposal in August.
The order, if enacted, would represent the fruition of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s September 2020 executive order aiming to ban new gas and diesel vehicles by 2035.
“Pull away from the gas pumps,” Newsom said. “Let us no longer be victims of geopolitical dictators that manipulate global supply chains and global markets.”
Sales of electric cars are rising in the state, representing roughly 8% of total sales in 2020 and more than 12% in 2021, according to CNBC.
The thing is, electric cars aren’t the energy innovation people think they are. And our politicians should know it. But they all buy the leftist narrative hook, line and sinker.
It’s surprising that all the “liberal bleeding hearts” back electric cars the way they do. Because they’re exactly the people who should be fighting against this revolution. Especially if they care so much about human rights and the environment.
According to The Hill:
Ironically, it was Toyota’s president and CEO, Akio Toyoda, who raised the issue of the brutal realities of PEVs (plug-in vehicles) when he recently asked whether politicians understand where the electricity to power them actually comes from.
It’s a good question and, no, apparently the politicians don’t know. Neither do the pension fund and private equity managers who use environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) criteria to justify investing in “green” PEV technology. They should know better, since their industry has made ESG a very big deal.
The answer to Mr. Toyoda’s question is natural gas, which leads to an inconvenient fact. To the extent that manmade greenhouse gases (GHGs) play a role in global warming, the increase in natural gas combustion required to power PEVs will lead to more GHGs being spewed into the air.
Granted, there may be short-term financial benefits to investing in PEVs, as long as state and federal governments pour incentives into them, and as long as corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards continue to force consumers to supplement their costs. Publicly-owned electric utilities are short-term winners as well, benefitting from customer-mandated funding of new PEV battery-charging stations.
However, as conservatives understand, the government subsidies may create short-term economic growth, but it is manufactured. Not organic. Which means it only lasts for as long as it can be manufactured. And while California believes we can just print more money when we fall short, we know that only ends in inflation. Or shall I say Bidenflation, as we’ve renamed the phenomenon.
All About the Benjamins?
Democrats may try to make this shift all about the money, yet that’s another mistruth from the left.
The Hill continues:
But what about long-term environmental and social impacts? All-electric vehicles are not more efficient than gasoline vehicles. They are natural resource-intensive, exacerbate social injustices, and make little sense unless blue-state governors stop strangling the supply of natural gas into the United States. Investing in PEVs makes zero sense under ESG “green” principles.
The misunderstanding begins with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency was wrong when it developed an “equivalent” fuel mileage calculation that claimed PEVs were three times as efficient as gasoline engines. The misinformation campaign simply reported the efficiency of driving a vehicle with a full tank of gasoline vs. a fully charged battery. It ignored the energy losses incurred when generating electricity and charging the battery. The EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), of which I am a member, recently pointed out that “PEVs do not appear to be more fuel efficient than modern internal combustion engine vehicles that are similarly equipped.”
Human rights activists should be repelled by the horrific injustices that come with battery production. The necessary lithium, cobalt and nickel are energy-intensive to mine, and the countries where these metals are harvested do not observe the same environmental restrictions as the United States. Cobalt mining in the Republic of the Congo, the country with the largest proven reserves of cobalt, has been linked to child labor deaths. Cobalt is also in short supply. Estimates indicate the worldwide reserves are woefully insufficient to meet the needs of replacing gasoline vehicles with PEVs.
As I said earlier, the power grids aren’t ready for PEV’s to take over.
Sure, a lot of upgrades can be made leading up to 2035. But at what cost?
Environmentalists should understand that the electricity needed to charge PEV batteries will not come from existing electricity generators. A transfer to PEVs would mean hydrocarbon use would decrease, but our electricity load would increase. Most new generation in this country is coming from natural gas — the most economical energy right now — and the energy that’s better able to fill the gaps created by intermittent output from solar and wind generation. But, the SAB also recognized the increased grid load “could lead to an increase in GHG emissions rather than a reduction.”
The social costs here in America also would be high. Perverse incentives created by PEV tax credits mean the rich benefit from PEVs. It’s the poor who get stiffed. The poor will pay higher electricity costs thanks to “clean energy” mandates that increase electric bills. They’ll miss out on high-paying jobs, thanks to the failure of blue-state governors to approve natural gas pipelines. Even if the poor could afford a PEV, range and performance limitations turn a long commute from an affordable, outlying community into a battery-charging budget buster.
There’s a lot of innovation and soul-searching to do before we can honestly call PEVs a “green” investment. Environmentally-friendly battery technologies must be developed. The mileage range must improve. And the “green” coalition must accept that zero-emissions nuclear power is the best choice to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Until then, it’s just a costly dream.
Put all these issues aside, and there’s still one huge issue for me. Who wants to sit at a charging station for half an hour every 300 miles? Not me. Naturally, my ride drinks gas and hauls ass, just the way I like it. If you ask me, these efforts should go towards lowering the costs of gasoline. Now there’s a problem worth solving.