Letter to WSJ about EVs

The article claims a Tesla model 3 would emit 36 tons of CO2 vs 78 for a Toyota Rav4 over a 200,000 mile lifespan.

Dear Editor,

Regarding “Are Electric Cars Better for the Environment?,” March 23 WSJ, let’s look at what sent us here “From Page One”, the “real impact.”

First of all, global warming or climate change, if you wish, has not been proven to be caused by human action or fossil fuel usage. Just because the Paris Accord theories are repeated over and over, doesn’t refute the scientists who point out historical data showing more extreme climate changes without human influence.

EV batteries will need replacement and that cost is not found in the researchers’ graphic. Like ethanol, conventional energy is used to prop-up its existence.

Then consider the infrastructure that would be needed to charge widespread adoption of Evs. A typical block in a city or suburb presently has enough capacity to charge one or two vehicles along with everyday life. Once the brownouts start there will be calls for massive rewiring and then the anointed solar and wind used to furnish such capacity will never keep up.

The “Real Impact” of the subsidization of green alternatives will be malinvestment directed by politics over markets.

One response to “Letter to WSJ about EVs

  1. Global cooling, then global warming, then climate change (all human-caused, of course) were the early efforts of creating an initial Covid-19 hysteria. Then came H1N1, or Swine Flu. Despite politicians and the media being in bed with flourishing these memes, they never provided sufficient panic among the public to allow for massive increases in government control. Then along came Bill Gates with his billions and control of the WHO to effectively manifest a panic regarding the “deadly” (but fictitious) virus sweeping the world.

    Unfortunately, the little Climate hysteria that was developed has not been eliminated by the focus on Covid. The world had gone too far with the climate change narrative that tens of thousands of scientists and other members of the workforce have their livelihoods dependent of maintaining the climate change fears. And so, the forecasts of climate change dangers rear their false narratives and so have some of our quite ignorant, unquestioning, perspective absence public crying about the planet’s death.

    As you know, far too much of the “science” involved with supporting the climate change dangers is manufactured or cherry-picked from masses of dats, or otherwise edited to fit a point that someone wants to make. One only has to wonder, when the Earth is about 4.17-billion years-old, why climate change promoters cherry-pick timeframes to make comparisons or that methods of taking ambient weather temperatures have only existed since about 1880.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s