"So inefficient, so toxic, and so inconvenient are electric cars that no one wants them. They are not books to scrolls or cell phones to landlines, the electric car is a CFL bulb. Over engineered, inconvenient, toxic, and not readily adopted because the technology it is attempting to replace is known to be more reliable, more convenient, less toxic, and generally speaking, more affordable."
Recently, Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary of
the US government, compared people who are slow to adopt electric car
technology to people unwilling to give up their landlines in favor of a cell
phone.
This comparison is an excellent jumping off point to discuss
the real problem with slow adoption of the electric car.
When a new product emerges on the market, once word has
gotten round of the product’s existence, the people of the earth make the final
judgement on whether or not that product is useful and effective. We no longer
carry around scrolls, for example, because books turned out to be more useful for
carrying information on the printed page. One doesn’t need to unroll their fifteen-foot
scroll to find a specific passage, you simply turn to the correct page and
there is your passage. Books were such an improvement over their predecessor
the scroll, that adoption was rapid and unfettered. No global mandate was
required for us to abandon our use of scrolls and begin using books instead.
The new product was a superior product. Human beings, being
very adept at recognizing efficiency and improvement in their immediate and
daily existence, picked up the book with rapid acceptance. The scroll became an
artifact. No mandate required. Just a better product.
As Pete pointed out, cell phones happened in a similar way.
At first, they were a bit pricey, but even people who couldn’t afford one saw
their utility, and as soon as the price came down, pretty much everyone bought
one. Land lines began fading soon thereafter, and though the technology still
exists and can be accessed, few people avail themselves of it, the cell phone basically
killed off the landline in almost all cases. And again, there was no mandate,
there was never a government demand that everyone ditch their landlines and
instead pick up cell phones.
How is this possible then that everyone made the change
without a government mandate? Well, that’s because cell phones are a better
product. Everyone could see that. You didn’t need to propagandize people to
make them believe cell phones were better, the cell phone was actually a better
version of a phone. Anyone could see that being able to take your phone with
you was going to free up untold amounts of time and allow for a more mobile
population. This was appealing to people, so they adopted it. No mandate
needed. Just a better product.
Sometimes, new technology arrives on the scene and it isn’t
immediately and broadly adopted, even after the best efforts of central
planners to encourage adoption. Many of you reading this will have the evidence
of this type of historical error in judgment in your garage junk drawers: the
CFL bulb.
The compact fluorescent bulb was hailed as the savior of the
planet when it was first brought to market. The citizens of the world were
going to save energy, save money, and save the planet by switching from those
inefficient incandescent bulbs to the more efficient CFL bulb. So purifying and
uplifting was this environmental cure that we began to divert our tax dollars
to subsidize the purchase of the CFL bulb. Why did they need to be subsidized?
Well, the cost of manufacturing a CFL bulb was orders of magnitude higher than
manufacturing an incandescent bulb. Incandescent bulbs, on the other hand, are cheap to make because
they are simple, using simple materials, requiring minimal energy inputs to
produce. CFL bulbs carried in their chassis a mini ballast, highly technical
glass manufacture, and of course, toxic gas. Never mind that those who decided
to compel a shift from incandescent to CFL bulbs don’t generally consider the
input energy and materials needed to manufacture a CFL bulb when they calculate
how much “energy” such a bulb will “save.” Manufacturers were
compelled to switch products, even to the point of incandescent bulbs being
outright banned, putting bulb manufacturers out of business and leaving their
employees looking for work. In this way, the CFL bulb was effectively mandated
(though replaced by the LED bulb before the ban came into effect).
But why did the CFL bulb need to be subsidized, mandated,
and have its competition literally banned from production? Wasn’t it better
tech? Why didn’t the people adopt it immediately and with joy?
CFL bulbs sucked. That’s why. The light they emitted was
sickly, the length of time they took to warm up was unlivable, and to top it
all off, if you broke one you had to call in a hazmat team because these new
environmentally friendly bulbs were actually full of toxic gas. That’s why you
still have some in your junk drawer, because you can’t just put them in the
trash, and the recycle centers are inconveniently located, so we all have these
permanent, fragile, toxic residents in our junk drawers and garage cupboards
because we’re trying to save the planet!
This is the same future that awaits the electric car. So
inefficient, so toxic, and so inconvenient are electric cars that no one wants
them. They are not books to scrolls or cell phones to landlines, the electric
car is a CFL bulb. Over engineered, inconvenient, toxic, and not readily
adopted because the technology it is attempting to replace is known to be more
reliable, more convenient, less toxic, and generally speaking, more affordable.
And just like the CFL bulb, the electric car is being enabled through
subsidies, mandates, and the abolition of competition, and even still, people
aren’t buying it. It’s not that people are slow to adopt electric cars because
they are too dumb to see the advantages. The electric car is not being adopted
because the people are too smart to fall for such useless and expensive tech.
People aren’t adopting electric cars because electric cars suck. Just like the
CFL bulb.
Now, if you like torque and rapid launches, then electric
cars are for you. No one can deny the incredible torque and launch times
electric cars can achieve. But that’s not how the electric car is being
marketed in the main. We are being told that the electric car is the future
because it is more environmentally friendly. This is wholly and entirely poppy-cock.
There is not one single thing about an electric car that is more
environmentally friendly than a gas car. Not one thing.
There are lots of folks who buy electric cars because they
are perennially in 2nd or 3rd place in the unending race
against the proverbial Joneses. The fancy polished plastics and glittering
widescreen tv in the dash bedazzles them into thinking they are
modern and stylish for driving around in what amounts to a near-future heap of
toxic waste. Like the CFL bulb, our yards and driveways will eventually be
littered with inoperable electric cars, as they prove too expensive to maintain
and too costly to recycle, they’ll sit like toxic bulbs in our junk drawers,
slowly disintegrating into microplastics, and always remaining a terrifying
fire hazard.
The electric car is not cut out to replace the gas car.
There are a few uses here and there where an electric vehicle might make sense,
so I see no reason to ban them as an option, but the people of the earth can
see through the façade they’re being sold. No one wants to be trapped in the
path of a hurricane awaiting a charging station. Anyone who has been without
power for more than a couple days knows that in a post storm scenario, gas
products work, electric products don’t, period, full stop. Gas products work,
electric products don’t.
But aren’t electric cars more environmentally friendly when
it comes to CO2 emissions? Well, they effectively move the production of CO2
from the tailpipe to some other location, either a power plant, or a windmill
or solar panel manufacturing facility. It doesn’t reduce anything, but it does
shift it to a different location. I will caution anyone concerned about the
quality and cleanliness of the environment to try not to maintain a myopic focus on reducing the quantity of a life affirming gas in our atmosphere that
allows plants and animals to flourish on earth. If, in your concern for
reducing this harmless and life giving gas, you are willing to strip mine
cobalt and lithium in massive pit mines using child slave labor, pour massive
concrete foundations in previously arable farm land to support toxically
manufactured windmills that produce less energy than they required for
manufacture, leaving toxic solar panels strewn about the once beautiful
countryside, leaching toxic silicates into the soil as they deteriorate, then maybe
you have mixed up your priorities a bit. You aren’t going to save the planet
through manufacturing. You’re not going to save the planet by building out new
infrastructure. Extruding more plastics and strip mining more toxic heavy
metals will never save the planet.
The electric car is either a short-term profit center for
enterprising marketeers who will not be on the hook for dealing with the mass
of toxic waste their products will have created before the public finally notices
their being sold a Betamax, or, they’re a totalitarian government’s wet dream,
in which no one can travel freely unless granted access to the electrical grid.
Gas cars are better. In every way. They provide more
freedom, they are less toxic, drilling for oil is far less destructive to the
environment than mining for battery commodities, gas cars can be worked on and
repaired more easily, and maintaining a running car for many years is the most
efficient way to maintain a car. Buying new cars every couple of years is the
least environmentally friendly thing you can do. An electric car only becomes
more efficient than a gas car after the 300,000th mile. Try to find a used
electric car that has that many miles on it.
Stop trying to make electric cars happen. They’re
inefficient, toxic, and less reliable long term than any current internal
combustion technology. If electric cars were better than gas cars, we’d all buy
them within a year. It’s been a couple decades now that they’ve been trying to
force electric cars down our throats and we simply don’t want them. To the Pete
Buttigieg’s of the world, it’s not because we’re too dumb, it’s because we’re not
falling for it. We’re actually able to discern a better product from an
inferior product. Electric cars are an inferior product that are less
environmentally friendly than gas cars when their whole lifespan is taken into
consideration. Electric cars may relocate CO2 emissions from the tailpipe to
the power plant (or the Chinese solar panel manufacturing facility), but for
the tradeoff of re-locating our CO2 emissions we are asked to give up too much.
We don’t like the risk of being stranded, we don’t like that we’re more likely
to need a new car sooner, we don’t like that we’ll be more dependent on FEMA after
a storm event, the list goes on and on. But mainly, we don’t like being told an
outright lie: that there is something environmentally friendly about electric
cars.
Human beings can analyze cost and benefit quite well when
either their pocketbook or their safety is on the line. Electric cars make us
less safe, cost more, and are more destructive long run to the environment.
It’s time to park electric cars in our junk drawers so we, as a society, can
move on. A more efficient tech likely exists, but to find it, we need to first stop
spinning our wheels on the dead-end street of electric cars.