Of all the misinformation, propaganda and outright spin we face on a daily basis, nothing can compare to the pap being spewed by the electric vehicle lobby.
Typical of climate crazies, they make outrageous claims as to the imminent death of our planet, claims that must be pushed further into the future when the appointed dates for climate Armageddon come and go with nothing more than slight ripple in our existence.
We all were going to be living in a veritable water world by now with all the polar ice melted due to global warming. Or maybe our world would be smoldering cinder. Remember opportunist Al Gore and, more recently, the screaming girl?
Then, having changed the buzzwords to climate change, we were to perish from brutal storms – winter, spring, summer and fall.
Floods alternating with droughts, warm when it should be cold and vice versa, that was our inescapable fate. If only more of us would leap on the electric vehicle bandwagon, all could be saved.
The climate crazies have revealed themselves to be hypocrites and massagers of the facts on many fronts, none more transparent than their changing opinion of Elon Musk.
Back when Musk’s Tesla company was selling EVs based mostly on monstrous tax credits offered by Uncle Sam, anyone who dared define Musk’s status as anything less than environmental god was promptly canceled.
But Musk bought Twitter, rebranded it as X and, more importantly, restored free speech on the social media platform. Environmental zealots, like most of their left-wing brethren, can’t stand when their claims are subjected to statistical analysis. They can’t win in open debate, and so there must be no debate, lest the sheeple take off their blinders and realize they’re consistently being sold a bill of goods.
But the EV propaganda continues, even if Musk has been relegated to Hillary’s Undesirables category.
Traditional auto manufacturers are rushing to field EV fleets, even if they are losing money on the endeavors almost across the board. No matter. They are bowing to wishes of their political masters that the internal combustion engine will be the death of us all.
Intellectually challenged sorts such as Clueless Joe Biden wants half of the cars sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030.
Sounds good, until you crunch the numbers.
Where will all that additional electricity generation capacity come from? It’s been calculated that keeping an EV charged for a year is equal to running 50 refrigerators per household. Our electric grid already creaks and groans during periods of high demand, and consumers are asked to sit in the dark, either sweltering or freezing depending on the season, that the grid might remain operational.
Too many EV types think electricity magically appears from those outlets in the wall.
But we’ll just add more wind and solar power, the EV types insist. Already that has been proven to be a pipedream. Those “renewable” sources are not dependable, being subject to the whims of nature.
And how is most electricity currently generated? Why, by burning fossil fuels. But you’re not supposed to look behind that curtain.
The long-term cost of EVs also has come under scrutiny. They tend to cost more upfront, but the promoters argue that is offset in part by tax credits ranging up to $7,500. But why should I as a taxpayer subsidize your purchase?
Worse, EV promoters conveniently look the other way regarding the high cost of battery replacement, and the matter of what to do with the expended battery packs. There currently is an image of an invoice making the internet rounds of a nearly $30,000 charge to replace an EV battery pack.
No less a left-wing fact-checking operation that Snopes has been forced to concede it is accurate. But, but, but, but, they argue, it’s not for the current GM product.
So what? I checked the VIN on the invoice and it is for a 2012 Chevrolet Volt. The invoice cites 70,489 miles. In just 11 years and 70,000-plus miles, a $30,000 maintenance fee. And you don’t get tax credits for that.
The propagandists insist the bill is less for newer cars. $20,000? $15,000? $10,000? It’s still a lot.
And this doesn’t even factor in the reality that EVs don’t perform well in the real world. Heat or cold can drastically reduce their range. Ford’s electric pickup truck sees its range drop dramatically while towing or hauling a large load, just the things you might buy a truck to do.
Also, at least one test found it hard to recharge the thing at most stations with a trailer hitched on the back.
Speaking of charging, recently our beloved Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm organized a four-day dog and pony show designed to demonstrate the utility of EVs on a road trip.
The group was accompanied by a reporter from National Public Radio, ordinarily a reliable propaganda arm.
But this reporter told the truth. She recounted how the Granholm caravan (no Teslas, likely for political reasons now that Musk has left the reservation) didn’t get the expected range. When a need to recharge was anticipated and advance people saw a lack of charging outlets, a dirty internal combustion car was sent to block access to a charging station so that it was ready when Queen Granholm arrived. If you have advance people to block out charging space for you, you are a candidate for an EV. Otherwise, not so much.
The aggrieved family, with a baby in its car, didn’t like sitting in the Atlanta heat waiting for the charger while the Queen arrived, so they called the police.
Two more points about the EV lunatics:
First, they might do well to consider the environmental damage done by lithium miners in pursuit of the battery metal.
Also, they might take the time to read and think about a story from leftist outlet MSN.com, that a full 20 percent of the so-called “early adopters” of EVs — the crazed virtue-signalling types who couldn’t wait to be the first on their block to save the environment — are opting to go back to traditional internal combustion engine transportation now that the hype of EVs has fallen victim to the reality of the experience.
Sam Ross Jr's site 