Think Twice Before Buying an Electric Vehicle

 

Enrico Trigoso at BasedUnderground has a report that should make every driver think twice before switching to an electric vehicle (EV):

The corporate-controlled media is finally coming around to accepting the truth about the electric vehicle (EV) revolution, which is not even close to being as environmentally friendly as its supporters and promoters claim.

Reuters published a piece this week revealing that even the smallest EV accidents, including minor fender-benders, almost always result in insurance companies having to total the entire car. The reason for this has to do with EV batteries, which are so expensive to replace that it makes more sense to just replace the entire car.

“We’re buying electric cars for sustainability reasons,” said Matthew Avery, research director at the automotive risk intelligence company Thatcham Research. “An EV isn’t very sustainable if you’ve got to throw the battery away after a minor collision.”

The battery pack in your average Tesla, for example, costs tens of thousands of dollars to replace. The battery pack alone represents a sizable portion of the vehicle’s overall price tag, it turns out.

Tesla and many other EV manufacturers have made battery packs a structural component of their cars in order to reduce costs for end consumers – but at what cost to the environment? Unless EV manufacturers change the ways in which they incorporate battery packs into their cars, all this needless waste will continue to pile up. . . .

. . .

(Related: It will never be possible for the electric grid as it currently exists to charge everybody’s EVs once gas-powered vehicles are gone.) . . .

More at the link here.

# # #

The Mask of The Green Cult

 

image credit: yuuuuup8000.blogspot

“The Mask of The Green Cult.”  Sounds like a science fiction movie.  Except that it’s all around us, for real.  Adam Vicari at American Thinker starts his essay:

For decades now, you have heard leftist ear sores bloviate endlessly about "climate change."  The world will end in a decade if we don't take action now! screams AOC.  However, the more skeptical and rational among us tend to question the true motivation of the environmentalist Green cult.

The best example of a real environmentalist was probably conservationist John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club.  Muir's work helped to establish a number of national parks throughout the country, an act that did not regress the progress of society for the sake of nature, but sought to preserve nature while simultaneously allowing industrial society to progress at a steady rate.  Thus, Muir sought to build something, while the modern environmentalist movement seeks only to destroy everything and anything that gets in the way of its climate crusade. 

Just take a look at the Sierra Club's website today, and see what its goals are for 2030.  Within the next seven years, the Sierra Club hopes to eliminate enough coal and gas in the energy sector to make for 80% carbon "pollution"–free electricity by that time, in addition to decreasing oil used in the transportation sector by 18%, ending the sale of gas appliances, and halting the fossil fuel market by banning oil and gas exports and petrochemical expansion at the same time.  This is an ambitious plan...and also a complete load of BS and magical thinking. 

Although it may not faze most people at first, notice how they call carbon a "pollutant" and claim they want to reduce it by 80% in electricity production.  Since when is carbon a pollutant?  Carbon is an element necessary to all life on earth. No organism can survive without it.  Indeed, the entire process on which all human life depends, photosynthesis, requires carbon dioxide.  In order for plants to produce oxygen for living beings to breathe, they must first collect carbon dioxide dispelled from the living being breathing the air they are producing.  Numerous studies have indicated that areas with higher carbon concentration are more green and more fertile, not less. 

So why would the Green cult want to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere? . . . .

Why indeed?  Mr. Vicari has some good guesses.  Read his column here.

# # #

It’s not about EVs. It’s about driving your car.

 

John Hinderaker at PowerLineBlog explains why we’ll never be driving electric vehicles:

Electric Vehicles Are Not The Future

The mania for electric vehicles is a fad that is driven 100% by government regulation. The consumer verdict on EVs has been in for a century. Some of the earliest cars were battery-powered, but they lost out to gasoline-powered cars because gasoline-powered vehicles are better.

Those who have been paying attention understand that there is zero chance that our existing motor vehicle fleet will be converted to EVs. Mark Tapscott sums up some of the reasons. I want to focus on just one of his points, the fact that the lithium batteries needed to replace our current vehicle fleet would require ridiculous amounts of mining of minerals, particularly lithium, the price of which is already sky-high. How do liberals intend to accomplish this unprecedented global mining project?

Answer: they don’t. Mark quotes from a report by an environmental organization:

This report finds that the United States can achieve zero emissions transportation while limiting the amount of lithium mining necessary by reducing the car dependence of the transportation system, decreasing the size of electric vehicle batteries, and maximizing lithium recycling.

Reordering the US transportation system through policy and spending shifts to prioritize public and active transit while reducing car dependency can also ensure transit equity, protect ecosystems, respect Indigenous rights, and meet the demands of global justice.

This is what liberal politicians are not telling you–yet. They don’t really plan to replace your car with an EV, they don’t want to replace it at all. . . .

"Transit equity"?  That's New World Order-speak for all of us peasants; the elites will travel in limousines and private jets. We'll ride the bus.  Read the rest of the column here.

# # #

Today is Earth Day - ahem

John R. Smith at Biz Pac Review explains:

You may have noticed that some folks “celebrate” Earth Day each April 22. Celebrants believe that the purpose of Earth Day, as quoted by a naïve liberal politician, is “to preserve the quality of our water and the air we breathe, and to protect all the natural wonders….”

It would be wonderful if that was all Earth Day was about.

But the political objective of the people who sponsor Earth Day globally is much more sinister than the preservation of our environment. Read on.

The global environmental crusade is the modern home of the socialist/communist movement. Earth Day is the creation of this movement. The purpose of the global environmental movement is to give governments control of land and resources at the expense of private ownership. They would gut private property rights. They work to create government authority over the West’s industrial production, through such mechanisms as the U.N.’s Paris Agreement and Kyoto Treaty, while exempting socialist countries like China and India. 

Their method? To blame humans and the corporate world’s industrial atmospheric emissions as the primary culprits behind global climate change. 

Their ultimate goal? To curb or crush free-enterprise capitalism.

Much more at the link here.

# # #

The Democratic party, Progressive outrage, and post-election fallout

image credit: highfieldtales.wordpress

Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and classicist. He also contributes columns to PJ Media and National Review online. Although he started off in the NeverTrump camp in the now infamous Never Trump issue of National Review, I decided to give him another look today.

His column today (“A Party of Teeth-Gnashers”) is about the fallout from the election and what has become of the Democratic party and the Progressive agenda. Here are a few paragraphs:

After the Democratic equality-of-opportunity agenda was largely realized (Social Security, Medicare, overtime, a 40-hour work week, disability insurance, civil rights, etc.), the next-generation equality-of-result effort has largely failed. What is left of Democratic ideology is identity politics and assorted dead-end green movements as conservation has become radical environmentalism and fairness under the law is now unapologetic redistributionism. The 2016 campaign and the frenzied reaction to the result are reminders that the Left is no longer serious about formulating and advancing a practical agenda. In sum, for now it is reduced to a party of teeth-gnashers.

. . .

Progressive outrage should not be taken too seriously because it is not intended to be serious. When Barack Obama invites rapper Kendrick Lamar into the White House and announces that his “To Pimp a Butterfly” is the president’s favorite song of the year — whose album cover shows the corpse of a murdered white judge, with Xs in place of eyes, on the White House lawn, as African-American youth toast his demise with drinks and cash — do we really assume that progressives like Obama believe in stopping hate speech and imagery, or perhaps even believe in anything at all?

Donald Trump, to progressives, supposedly harmed the Constitution and threatened our democracy because he would not say, after the WikiLeaks revelations, that he would accept the outcome of the election if he thought it was rigged. Yet after Clinton’s defeat, suddenly irate progressives have lodged conspiratorial charges that voting machines (miraculously only in swing states Hillary lost) were supposedly rigged, that the Electoral College should be dropped, and that electors should be bullied to ignore their pledges. Did anyone ever believe their original outrage at Trump’s suggestion that election results might be rigged? Are we now to have recounts in Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, and all the close states Trump lost, and then on into spring more recounts of recounts, until the last count achieves the desired result?

The Democratic party leadership is no longer an alternative to corporate wealthy America, but is corporate wealthy America, albeit in a new garb of jeans and flip-flops, Silicon Valley–style. The small-business person, assembly-line worker, and non-government wage earner mostly now vote Republican. 

Progressivism is a pyramidal capstone of wealthy elites who have the influence and money to embrace boutique positions and the cunning to profess egalitarianism, all while they lead private lives that would otherwise be condemned as illiberal and apartheid-like. So affirmative action ends up providing high-cheekboned Elizabeth Warren entry into Harvard Law School, the same way that progressive investigative journalism is reduced to Politico’s “hack” Glenn Thrush (who asked the Clinton campaign to fact-check and approve his article), and in the manner that philanthropy is reduced to the Clintons’ piling up of millions by selling influence. We are a long way from Harry Truman’s working classes.

. . .

The Democratic party for now is reduced to a loud racist/sexist/homophobe broken record that fewer and fewer are listening to — including many of the Democratic elites who continue to play it.

Hanson is not completely sold on Trump, though, as you will gather if you read the rest here.

# # #

Your dishwasher is not broken

Photo credit: www.pinterest.com

A little household break in this wild run-up to the mid-terms...

The EPA cannot stop meddling, and even though the phosphates were eliminated from your detergents over four years ago, I am still doing battle with our dishwasher. Glassware doesn’t come out bright and clean but often has a dull haze. Occasionally, particles stick to the dishes. I have known for several years that it’s not the dishwasher. From Mona Charon at theSpokesman-Review blog: 

Our dishwashers are fine. The reason our dishes are dirty is that the environmentalists have succeeded in banning phosphates from dishwashing soap.

There are interim and ongoing remedies. None of them are energy efficient or what the green environmentalists would approve of.

PROBLEM: My dishwasher repairman suggested the All-In-One Finish detergent along with a super rinse. It’s better than the regular products. But half the time, when the wash cycle is finished, lots of soapsuds remain.

A SOLUTION: Close the door and run the “Rinse and Hold” cycle one or two times until the soap is gone. Open the door to let the dishes dry.

PROBLEM: Glassware comes out of the wash cycle with a haze; dishes have bits of food stuck to them.

A SOLUTION: Empty the dishwasher and run a complete wash cycle with no detergent. Close the detergent tray so you can hear when it flips open. When it does, open the door (slowly to interrupt the water flying all over the place) and dump in one cup of white distilled vinegar. Close the door to resume the cycle, and check in on the proceedings after several minutes. If the water is very soapy, it’s because the vinegar is breaking up caked detergent and grease in the dishwasher mechanisms. Repeat wash cycles with vinegar until the water runs clear in mid-cycle. 

ANOTHER SOLUTION: Buy Tri-sodium phosphate by the bag at your local hardware store. Add it into the wash cycle at the same as the detergent is released, or add a pinch into the soap compartment. (Disclaimer: This is not intended to be legal advice.)

ANOTHER SOLUTION: Use disposable paper plates. More trash, of course. Plastic plates and utensils would be even worse.

ANOTHER SOLUTION: Find detergents with higher phosphate content. It used to be easy to buy commercial products on the web. But most of the vendors have started asking for identification to prove you are ordering the product for commercial use. 

Restaurants are exempt from all this nonsense, which rather proves the obvious: Reducing or eliminating phosphates from detergents result in dishes that are not clean. The EPA was worried about negligible, and in some cases, hypothetical damage to the environment by phosphate run-off, but they won’t be happy until we cast our dishwashers into the landfills of history. In the meantime, the EPA rules are counter-productive, resulting in more water and electricity consumption and yet more dirty dishes.

Another phosphate resource, ActiveRain, is here.

# # #