Columnist Repeats Bogus Claim That Electric Cars Aren’t Green


Let’s not spread conspiracy theories. But there are troubling signs about the latest anti-EV op-ed.

“Electric vehicle subsidies don’t help the environment.” That’s the headline of an opinion piece you might have seen recently in your local paper. The piece by Drew Johnson first appeared in the Austin American-Statesman a month ago.

Johnson’s article keeps showing up in local papers – from Montrose, Colo. to Houma, La. That’s because the Austin American-Statesman was purchased by GateHouse Media in 2018. The Pittsford, NY-company now publishes 145 daily newspapers, 325 community publications and more than 555 local market websites that reach more than 23 million people each week. GateHouse’s influence reaches 37 states.

While Johnson arguably makes a fair criticism about EV tax credits going mostly to high-income earners, he also trots out some of the biggest whoppers about electric vehicles.T Bogu

EVs don’t help the environment much. Although they produce zero emissions once on the road, battery production for a single EV can emit up to 17.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s equivalent to the CO2 emissions released from over 1,900 gallons of gasoline.

When EVs are charged with electricity generated at dirty coal-fired power plants, they can actually produce more total emissions than certain gasoline-powered cars.

In other words, EVs don’t necessarily eliminate carbon pollution — they just shift the source of those emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant. Between 2018 and 2050, EVs will achieve a net CO2 emissions reduction of just “one-half of one percent of total forecast U.S. energy-related carbon emissions,” according to economic consultant Jonathan Lesser, author of a recent EV report published by the Manhattan Institute.

The study by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, claimed: “Widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.”

Fact Check

Andy Palanisamy, manager of Ford’s Urban Data Platform, made a post on LinkedIn last week that provides a useful dose of facts. “One of the arguments often heard in the sustainable mobility debates during the past decades is that even if we transition to electric vehicles the source of energy will still remain fossil fuels, and that means we are simply displacing the source of emissions from tailpipes to smokestacks.”

Planisamy said that this was partially true in the past when most of the power generated in the US came from coal-powered plants. “This scenario has changed dramatically and quickly,” he explained pointing to this graph from the Financial Times.

Bloomberg comes to the same conclusion. Earlier this month, the media company reported a story, “Electric Cars Are Cleaner Even When Powered by Coal.” Moreover, according to Bloomberg, electric cars will become cleaner in the coming years as utilities close coal plants and draw more energy from wind and solar farms. “When an internal combustion vehicle rolls off the line its emissions per kilometer are set, but for an EV they keep falling every year as the grid gets cleaner,” said Colin McKerracher, a transport analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

McKerracher concluded, “While technological improvements will see related emissions from combustion engines falling by about 1.9 percent a year through to 2040, pollution from electric vehicles will fall anywhere from 3 percent and 10 percent annually.”

Persistent Misinformation

As with any news these days, it’s critical to consider the source. Johnson is the founder and first president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, now known as the Beacon Center of Tennessee. The center previously ran a website called “Carnival of Climate Change.” Johnson is also credited with revealing in 2007 that Al Gore’s Tennessee mansion used roughly 20 times more energy than the typical American household. Johnson previously served as a Koch Fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies and the American Enterprise Institute, both funded by foundations tied to Koch Industries.

GateHouse Media has a mixed record on reporting about climate change. In August 2018, GateHouse published a balanced assessment of how rising seas in Florida had become undeniable, thus affecting the state’s citizen and politics. Earlier this month, the North Carolina’s Fayetteville Observer, a GateHouse Media property, published an opinion piece explaining how the fossil-fuel industry wages climate-denial campaigns.

Categories: Charging, EV Education


Leave a Reply

86 Comments on "Columnist Repeats Bogus Claim That Electric Cars Aren’t Green"

newest oldest most voted

Wow, France is really doing a great job on their grid related emissions. I wonder what they could be doing to keep carbon emissions so low?

Indeed. IN 2017 71% came from nuclear energy. Hydro at 10.1% wind was 4,5% and coal less than that. So they do some things good. And nuclear isn’t that scary. But it’s just costly.

Sounds good. I’ll let the DOE know they can put a few million tons of nuclear waste we currently have no place for in your basement. Thanks bro.

France actually does great with reprocessing their nuclear fuel for reuse. Very little waste. It’s too bad that fear and over-regulation killed nuclear in the US. Modern reactor designs are incredibly safe, but people still think they’re all like Chernobyl.

France has solved the problem of nuclear waste. Sorry you (along with the mass media) didn’t get the memo.

“Bataille’s law specifies 2006 as the year in which parliament must decide which laboratory will become the national stocking center” It talks about 2006 as the future. What year was this article written in? No indication. This also does not say that “France has solved the problem of nuclear waste.” It says they intended at the time to build labs to work on it.

In fact…no they don’t. I was raised in France and followed very closely the Nuclear debate there. They had a lot of problems, and not only financially speaking. They still don’t know where to put the most dangerous waste. And the “best” part is yet to come with the decommissioning of more and more nuclear plants built in the 70’s and 80’s, some before their final life expediency because of severe defects in several reactors vessels. And some have been built in seismic areas or are very sensible to flooding which could result in Fukushima like accidents.
All in that, the decommissioning of each nuclear plants will cost almost the same that their construction! Its only because tax payer money is going heavily to compensate all the hurdles that the nuclear is still viable in France, at least in its actual form. It is because of that they decided to substitute at least half of their nuclear plants by renewable energy in the next 15 years.

Not in anybody’s basement but yes in a basement. Put it in a cavern and watch it. We need about 100 years of fission power. We need to survive the next 100 years: it will be rough.

What are people doing with the much larger mass of toxic coal tailings with infinite half-lives? Nothing.

For example:

As it turns out, France is the only country with a near zero carbon electrical grid. People praise Germany blah blah blah but they ‘re still behind.

Once fossil fuel use, including gas, is zero: then let renewables take over nuclear. Until then, we need maximum effort on both. Time to butch up about fission. This is a civilizational extinction event.

Wrong. See Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Paraguay, etc.

Most countries just don’t have the hydro capability that those countries have, Sanoj. The US is destroying dams to allow for fish to get to lost spawning streams, so our hydro was static for 30 year but is actually going down slightly over the past couple years. But in the past 60 years the US has gone from getting 30% of its electricity from hydro to just 6%.

As opposed to few trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide and other toxic gases into the atmosphere for our children to inhale on daily basis, including stuff like sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxides, arsenics and cyanides?
At least radioactive waste can be refined and diluted until it’s usable in medical and commercial applications, and it’s bot like there is a shortage of desert wastelands to be used for their storage until a better solution is found, which can’t be said about exhaust gases, can’t dilute the atmosphere or a class-5 hurricane coming at a coastline in 4-5 days time.
Have a look at how much pollution comes out out of a single container cargo ship or cruise ship, and u will look at thing a bit differently.

Nuclear is far less scary than the average person makes it out to be, but it is so costly that it really worth discussing. The money spent on a couple plants could easily upgrade grids and install huge amounts of wind and solar.

And while nuclear isn’t the boogieman some want it to be, the fact that it does have risks and pollution that wind and solar don’t isnt a big help.

Just because we put radioactive waste somewhere away in a field or in some underground cave doesn’t mean problem is solved or that these indirect costs are not part of the total cost of operation equation.

So we should solve the problem with next generation reactors that uses that so called “waste” as fuel instead… 😉 Free fuel for thousands of years.

They keep talking about it for some time now, it would be nice to finally happen…and even from these you would still have waste.

Let’s solve the problem by just inventing something cheaper and cleaner….like wind, solar and storage.

Pumped hydro / tidal is also a good to add to the mix.

It’s bizarre how commercial nuclear power is the only industry where any toxic waste at all, even when it’s relatively a very small amount, is deemed “unacceptable”.

Some actual facts to dispel the myths:

1. The amount of waste produced by nuclear power plants is extremely tiny when compared to fossil-fuel power plants. Orders of magnitude smaller volume.

2. About 90% of the waste from nuclear power plants can be recycled, as France does.

3. The remaining 10% which can’t be recycled, can be dispersed into tiny particles embedded in glass blocks, where it will remain stable indefinitely… as the French also do.

The only problem with nuclear waste is a political one, not a technical one.

You are only talking about the high level waste. The spent fuel. The substantially larger amount of waste is low level, which is also highly dangerous and is piling up by the ton.

It’s a tricky subject….let’s ask Cernobyl residents how long it took them to clean it up…wait, never mind.
You see, people are jumpy when it comes to nuclear because it’s one of the few industries that will make people move out of a wast area for the next 1000 years. Evan the waste collection sites will never be inhabited ever again. I cringe when people say this is a cheap form of energy. Include disposal and waste storage in the prices and let’s see how cheap it really is.

It’s turning an enormous problem into a small problem.

I read in France we have the project to close 4 to 6 nuclear plants by 2028, replacing them renewables.

France uses a lot of nuclear power, zero CO2!
But involves other issues.

9.1% of their electricity generation is thermal and does produce CO2. Also they have a lot of fossil use in home heating and other places, and a high concentration of diesel vehicles.

Too bad that France has given in to the widespread anti-nuclear-power hysteria, and is no longer building new emissons-free nuclear power plants providing clean power to the grid. 🙁

But fortunately, France still gets the majority of its grid power from existing nuclear power plants.

Many Germans and also other people have a great fear when it comes to nuclear power because there are a few very old nuclear reactors in Belgium and France that constantly have minor or bigger emergency shutdowns. After over 40 years some of those reactors are not in a very good condition anymore. If something happens it could be disastrous. But they’re still not shutting them down. And as we know with nuclear reactors. All catastrophes are caused by human error. And they’re not very transparent when it comes to reporting incidents. They’re to confident in letting them run. Hopefully nothing happens. But there’s a big IF as always with nuclear.

Nothing. All that stuff is from 70-80’s
Which means they lost know how on how to build that stuff again, and now all such projects are way over budget and way over time.

they use nuclear plants to produce energy. Period

National Center for Public Policy Research. That is all you have to know about the agenda behind that op-ed.

Yep, hard right, Exxon Mobil funded organization which conveniently is also into climate change denialism:

No doubt they are loyal foot soldiers in the Koch Heads campaign against all things sustainable including EVs and RE. while extolling the virtues of fossil fuels..

Here is the official state of U.S emisssions and the forecast, published today by the EIA. And a comprehensive analysis of the role electric vehicles will play in the future:

It makes some pretty untenable assumptions about EVs, IMHO. Look at the Reference Case assumptions for EVs on p. 127: They don’t have U.S. BEV sales hitting 1M until almost 2030, but with current growth rates, that will happen in 2020 or 2021. They have gasoline-powered light vehicles retaining ~70% market share until 2050!

EIA has a terrific record for underestimating EVs. You don’t suppose the people working there come from the oil industry, do you?

While the number at the end may be bogus the premise is broadly correct. In many places it can be worse to drive an EV than an ICE vehicle. That’s not to say it’s the case in most places, or will still be in the future however. China is one such place where EV’s are more about moving fumes out of cities than necessarily reducing overall pollution. While there is still a big push for renewables they have a major reliance on coal power which means the energy going into an EV may well be more polluting than an ICE vehicle. Close to home, my home province in Canada is the same. In most of the country it is better to run EV’s than ICE, except Alberta, where an over-reliance on coal (and poor quality at that) means the electricity grid is extremely dirty and you will be producing more CO2 running a smaller EV than an ICE equivalent. The solution is to go onto a renewable tariff – pay a little more for electricity, but ‘get’ 100% renewable energy. That’s what I’m on now, and would solve the issue for those that want an EV for environmental reasons. Just… Read more »

I can’t make a gallon of gasoline from some panels on my roof or windmill in the yard. I can’t even search for raw crude if I wanted to.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the point being made?

Currently the vast majority cannot make their own electricity either, however most people have access to a renewable electricity provider that they can sign up to.

That’s right. You also can’t fly just by thinking happy thoughts. So what? Also, a windmill is good for milling grain but a wind turbine is what you want for electricity.

You said it Roy.
They can take my solar panels from my cold, dead hands…

China has a big problem and is not CO2. They are making the ev push so they can see the sky again, for crying out loud! These places in US that you talk about have very low numbers of evs anyway so they really don’t matter in this discussion. A state that wants to go green tends to do it on all fronts.

Presumably we want those places to increase the number of EV’s? Or should they just continue driving around with ICE vehicles?

They are very relevant to the discussion, however – and this is one of the points missed by all the commentators and downvoters so far- people need to realise this is the case, or it’s not going to help anyone. People also need to realise that those locations aren’t the norm – and that is the main issue with the article, while they put those identifiers in there (“can” and “necessarily”) it doesn’t quantify the reality.

If you’re driving an EV for environmental reasons then this is an important discussion to have, and rather than just brush it under the carpet there should be a rational discussion about it. That discussion will help in the long run – as I’ve said so many times now, not least because people may decide to switch to renewable energy overall, rather than stick with an especially dirty grid.

And yes, I understand China has a big problem with overall air pollution, hence the term fumes not CO2, and pointing out they want to move emissions out of the cities…

You are making some assumptions on your posts that get you the downs. That “especially dirty grid” in US is not really an actuality…the very few remaining states that eat coal for lunch are turning to nat gas fast. The other big assumption you make is that the other side wants to actually debate with facts all of this ev and green energy push. Not my observation.

Alberta is 45% coal, 40% gas and 15% renewables in electricity generation:

Maybe 8-10 years ago that premise might be close to true. But today I would argue that the premise is not correct at all unless one fudges the numbers as much as possible in order to make it so. Like if you compared the brand new most efficient Prius running on the cleanest gasoline in the US against the oldest most inefficient EV you can find running on electricity derived from the dirtiest coal plant in India. But of course that would be apples and oranges. You would have to compare like vehicles in like age and like segments in like countries to establish if the premise is broadly correct. So let’s pick the US. And for the premise to be correct we will use the average US grid and we’ll compare a BMW 330i against a Model 3 since they are similar in class and performance (Model 3 is quicker). These numbers are from the US Department of Energy’s site Fueleconomygov site which has an app that compares vehicles side by side for well-to-wheel emissions of all fuel types and vehicles. 2018 BMW 330i 2.0L automatic: Combined MPG: 27 Tailpipe and Upstream GHG: 395 g/mile Lifetime operating emissions 200,000… Read more »

That’s fine, but again irrelevant to the point I was making. I’m not talking about the average American, i’m talking specifically about specific sections of the the world (you can include specific parts of the US in this) where the power grid is especially dirty.

I suspect people are not actually reading the post properly (as expected) and just blanket assuming I’m advocating EV’s aren’t generally greener.

As an example, have a look at the GHG emissions of Alberta’s power grid. It’s bad enough that the break even point of like for like vehicles is in the region of a full size/superduty pickup truck – a segment that isn’t available in BEV form yet.

Now, hopefully that will change in the future, BUT for those that want an EV and live in areas of the Canada/US/world that have such a bad energy grid I suggest you voice your opinion with your wallet – get solar if you can afford it, alternatively get on a renewable tariff. That way your money goes directly towards reducing pollution from your local power grid and helps further renewable electricity generation.

To go further into what I’m talking about here is a link to a map of Canada’s electricity grid emissions per province.

Canada as a whole emits around 150g CO2 per kWh, however that varies from 1kWh in Quebec where hydroelectric is the main provider of electricity, to 790g in Alberta.

There are major variations in most larger countries (including the US). That means that while in most locations in a country it would be “greener” to drive an EV, in other parts it is not. If you live in one of those parts of your country then you should realise that buying an EV isn’t going to do anything environmentally in the short term, unless you consider where your energy is coming from, and how much CO2 is being generated.

And just to drive the point home – if you do live in one of those parts then spend a little more and a renewable electricity tariff, meaning your EV will actually help reduce CO2 production.

Whether or not you are correct depends on what pollution you are talking about. If you are talking about sulfur, particulate, nitrogen, ect, then yes, coal is more polluting.

But that is not the pollutant that most here are concerned about. CO2 presents such a broad based threat that it is an overriding concern. On that basis, no coal in the US plant will emit more CO2 to power an EV than the most efficient ICE will produce.

Well let’s see… the Union of Concerned Scientists says the “long tailpipe” myth is exactly that — a myth. And they show both figures and a map (see below) to prove it. Contrariwise, some random guy on the internet who calls himself “Andy” says it’s true.

Who to believe? Who to believe? 🙄

Is that the latest? I thought they updated this map and it was even better now?
EDIT: Here’s the map as of March 2018. Prob even better today.

I was just looking for that…. Thanks. Yes, it has gotten better, and that is based on 2016 power plant data. Even RMPA and SPNO managed to jump from 35 MPG equivalent to 46 MPG equivalent. And some of the states in those regions have been building solar and wind like crazy.

You read wrong. This is the newest considering only 3 particularly efficient EV of their choice :
– Tesla Model 3
– Hyundai BEV
– Prius Prime.

The real one is the blue one which uses the data from the average EV in USA.

The blue chart is outdated, and just an fyi it isn’t average either but weighed average by sales. With Tesla Model 3 being #1 and Prius Prime being #2. Your weighed average wouldn’t look that different.

Just after the blue chart from 2016 there is this text :

“The maps shown above are based the efficiency of the average EV. However, there are now options on the market that are even more efficient. Using one of these more efficient EVs (Hyundai Ioniq BEV, Prius Prime, and Tesla Model 3) means lower emissions. With these cleaner EVs, 99 percent of the country is in a region where electricity emissions would be lower than a 50 MPG gasoline vehicle.”

And then there is the orange chart with the following legend :

“The most efficient EVs are much cleaner than even the best gasoline cars in many regions of the US. Currently the most efficient EVs are the Hyundai Ioniq BEV, Tesla Model 3, and the Toyota Prius Prime (while operating on electricity).”

WOW…big jump in numbers!
And let’s not forget, this is only about CO2…and CO2 with water vapor are probably the least harmful compounds that come out of the tailpipes.

“i’m talking specifically about specific sections of the the world (you can include specific parts of the US in this) where the power grid is especially dirty.”

Repeating the EV-hater “long tailpipe” myth doesn’t make it any more true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

We don’t get to vote on scientific fact, and it’s not mere opinion. It’s either true or it’s false. What you’re saying is false for every single region of the U.S., and I seriously question it’s true anywhere.

“I suggest you voice your opinion with your wallet – get solar if you can afford it”
….and over 40% of EV owners in CA also have solar power. That was from a 2016 survey. Both solar and EVs have grown significantly since then.

Tesla better outlast 14 years. There’s how lot of Toyota’s and Honda’s of the 90s still on the road and a lot of Explorers of the 2000s still in use

“In many places it can be worse to drive an EV than an ICE vehicle”

Half of EVs sold in the US are in California. In CA about half of EVs are in Northern California where we get 0% of our electricity from coal. Statewide we get 4.1% from coal with that dropping below 2% later this year and to 0.5% 2 years after that. By 2024 coal will provide 0% of our electricity. That’s by law and with only three contracts remaining it is a done deal.

NG, which was over60% just a few years ago, is dropping like a rock. In 2017 I believe it was about 33%. I haven’t seen numbers for 2018 yet but fossil fuels continued to decline.

“In many places it can be worse to drive an EV than an ICE vehicle.”

It’s amazing that the EV-hater crowd is still getting mileage out of the tired old “long tailpipe” myth about EVs.

The Union of Concerned Scientists says that even in places where grid power comes mostly from coal, it’s still cleaner (on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions) to drive a BEV than a gasmobile, when comparing cars of similar power in their motors. Now, if you compare a tiny fuel-efficient gasmobile to a honkin’ big luxury BEV, then yeah, the gasmobile is better for GHG emissions in areas where the grid is particularly dirty.

But you have to get very, very far away from a true apples-to-apples comparison before you can find even a cherry-picked case where it’s not cleaner, over the expected lifetime of a car, to drive a BEV.

“Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.”

“The Union of Concerned Scientists says that even in places where grid power comes mostly …”

That is from 2015 and it is possible their data on regional grids is older. Regardless energy grids in the US have been getting significantly cleaner. Both ERCT and SPSO have added significant amounts of wind power in thelast4 years.

Even under Vlad’s minion’s auspices coal plants are closing at record pace in the US.

According to those charts, there is no place where an EV isn’t cleaner than an ICE, even China. The grey line for the Average ICE is always higher than EVs.

Actually, the latest data shows even in China where their coal isn’t as clean and beautiful as ours, EVs are less polluting than ICE vehicles. Granted, in many cases only slightly less. However, no other country in the world is pushing harder to move away from coal.

If all ICE vehicles could maintain the emissions level they have when brand new throughout their life they might have a stronger case. But, with the average age of an automobile in the US now north of 11 years there are lots of out of tune ICE vehicles polluting our air. Personally I am far more concerned about the toxic emissions of old out of tune ICE vehicles than lifetime CO2 emissions.

Yup. When I took Environmental Science in college back in the mid-seventies, the professor said that 10% of vehicles on the road emitted 90% of the pollution. Of course that was back before everyone was focused on CO2, but for actual pollution — toxic gases, carcinogens and the like, and not mere CO2 — I think that’s probably still the case, for gasmobiles and diesel trucks. If you look at the cars and trucks which have visible exhaust, visible because it’s so dirty, nearly all of those vehicles are older ones.

Tax them more money

They are cars, they are not green by default. At best they are not as bad as combustion cars. You don’t need to be a genius to figure out that your tyres end up as plastic pollution. Except for the parts you actually burn. So even if we would end up having the whole production and recycling as well as the fuelling on renewable energy they are still cars polluting the environment.

If you want to stop pollution completely then eliminate everyone. The goal here is to reduce pollution… which gets harder to do with an ever growing world population.

Exactly. If we can halve the GHG impact from cradle to grave of each vehicle we produce going forward and don’t double our population we at least have reduced our impact overall from today’s numbers in the light transportation sector. That’s going in the right direction at least. The alternative of punting and doing nothing is a crappy option.

Actually we need to figure out ways of replacing the polymers we use with variants that will break down or mineralise.
But to achieve this we first have to acknowledge that it is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
The claim that EVs are somehow green is just ridiculous. They are simply less bad.

“less bad” is called “better”. Use it.

The misinformation is not going to change anything. Going green is now cheaper than going dirty. The Train has left the station. Get ready to enjoy the cleaner air.

Think tanks should go in dustbin of history. Science and facts and a broad consensus run by the data should be used

In Los Angeles County four million people living in unincorporated areas can now purchase 100 percent renewable and have it delivered through SCE. It’s the result of California’s Community Choice Aggregation Law. By March the 25k miles per year I put on my Bolt will not be from fossil fuels.

I just signed up for sce’s 100% green rate. Only 1,000 households signed up. For those without access to community choice.

My area in N.Cal has similar options. My 100% renewable/carbon neutral power costs a mere 2% more than the standard PG&E power. That’s $3 on my $150 power bill. TOTALLY worth it! Not everyone has that option, but you’d be surprised what is available to you if you research it.

It’s silly people use ridiculous jargon like pollution shifting and usage of coal power. Total nonsense. Coal is dead, and it isn’t even due to it being dirty. It is dead because it is too expensive. For new coal power generation in US, the cost is 9.51 cents/kwh, compared to onshore wind at 4.80 cents/kwh and solar pv at 5.91 cents per kwh (and this is without any subsidies for solar and wind). This is a 3X cost drop for wind in 8 years and 7X cost drop for solar within the last 8 years. Why would anyone may double the price for coal? The only thing keeping coal alive is: 1) Local coal industries with government protection 2) Old coal powerplants are already capitalized But that means no one is going to build any new coal powerplants in US. So once they retire, they are done. But of course it won’t even get to that point. Once renewable energy drops below 3.5 cents per kwh, it is game over. Because at that point, new solar and wind would be cheaper than even capitalized coal. I expect that to happen within the next 5 years. Meanwhile, coal is going downhill,… Read more »

To be entirely fair the renewable ought to be priced including 24 hour storage for baseloads, but the direction is clear.

If aqueous sulfur flow batteries ever work and get cheap, it will be over for most everything else.

You don’t need 24 hour storage for base load. 2-6 hours is considered more than enough.

The concept of baseload is pretty flawed, that is how the grid was in the past. But a smart grid doesn’t need baseload.

But even then, LION battery prices have dropped 6X in the past 8 years. So storage is getting cheaper rapidly too.

“electricity generated at dirty coal-fired power plants”

Ever notice that certain folks only refer to “dirty coal” when it is being used to charge an EV? And that all the rest of the time they call it “Clean Coal”? It is amazing at how fast that coal gets “clean” the instant it isn’t being used to charge an EV.

“electricity generated at dirty coal-fired power plants”

Glad he identified exactly what needs to be cleaned up. It is not the EV….

I’m surprised he doesn’t know they are using clean coal…it’s what the pres said.

Honestly, I don’t care. I am saving money and it is legal. If it was that bad, the government won’t allow these things on the road.

While the part about EVs drawing energy from the grid and battery production was part of the article, the main point was that taxes are being used to subsidize the rich when they buy expensive luxury EVs like Teslas. And that main point, while briefly mentioned in the InsideEV piece, seems like a very sound and logical conclusion based on the numbers he cites that 80% of EV buyers make over 100k per year.

Valid point, however $100k per year is misleading. To the average Joe, that is high. In my area, where EVs are numerous, $100k income leaves you in the poor house.

Your point would be valid if Tesla was to only ev manufacturer….they are not…so you don’t have a point. You don’t have to be rich to buy or lease a $30k car.

so the point is: an opinion is valid as the other… We have the right to decide for ourselves. I don’t think that EVs are better than latest ICE cars, THOSE NUMBERS PROVE IT. Manhattan Institute made more valids analisys then competitors, so the comment “Conservative think tank” isn’t valid to consider their analisys wrong, because conversely the analisys coming from Bloomberg are for sure just opinion and projections from a magazine that lately missed EVERY provision about Tesla, about policy, about climate change; AND Bloomberg, Michael, the billionaire and owner of is actively involved to sell you the lie about global warming to spend for his own political carreer. Time to face reality: scientists clearly say global warming isn’t going on. Just politicians, enviromentalists, journalists continue to sell you these news to ask for more taxes climate-related, more products climate-related, more news climate-related. Sorry but all this has nothing to do with co2 or global warming or climate change related to human-activity. ALL SERIOUS SCIENTISTS FROM MIT-Boston TO TOKYO DENY ANY PROOF OF HUMAN_RELATED GLOBAL WARMING: repeat NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. FIND ONE, REAL ONE, AND THEN REPLY IN A LAB AND I PERSONALLY GIVE YOU A NOBEL PRIZE.… Read more »