Electric cars are not the solution to climate change. But right wing politicians whose souls are bought by God knows what- and their legions of scared and confused followers are NOT helping.
However maybe they are right in this respect- perhaps owing electric cars does make a small but to them sinister statement- your terra firma is changing- your way of life is slipping through your hands- and radical change will be the only hope of survival- and curtailing of personal freedoms in lieu of collective sanity- a necessity in a world where each day is a struggle for climate survival. And failing to see the threat now- like a ship of fools- they invite their own undoing.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Electric cars are not the
only solution for climate change, it is
a part of the solution. This is where we need to be clear. If the total amount of green house gases emitted can be reduced, it will help climate change and EVs can help with that, but EVs alone will not solve the problem. The key is smart reduction in both the production and consumption of energy, Including electricity. That can be achieved by increasing the energy efficiency in appliances and devices we use (and EVs are more efficient than ICEs in that respect), develop alternate sources of energy production with less emphasis on fossil fuels, further push reuse/recycling etc. You have to solve the global warming issue on multiple fronts and if a person does not believe in global warming, they will support any of the initiatives. Elon Musk to give his credit, has recognized that. So while he is working on the consumption angle (reduction of emissions by switching to EVs), he also is working on the production angle (solar city). His Boring company wants to increase the use of mass transportation which is more efficient than individual transportation.
Further, the opposition to EVs come from many different angles, and I classify them in three categories and some people can be in more than one category
- Producers and distributors of fossil fuels and the equipment that use or generate fossil fuels and all those who support these activities. I use this is an expansive sense so it includes the oil companies, the oilfield support companies, ICE manufacturers, coal producers, the corn lobby. It may include employees and families of such companies and even may include the employees of associates and the support system, e.g. the sandwich shop that is patronized by the employees of say, an oil refinery. These companies and people have a direct economic impact if there is shift away.
- Consumers of fossil fuels who believe that the alternative will be costlier, not as effective and will have a direct and indirect economic impact on them. For example, if a old coal fired power plant is to be shut down and replaced by a newer solar or gas fired plant, there is a capital investment that will have to happen and the power company may want to raise prices now for all customers, even though there may be savings later. on Again, not going into the question whether the raise in cost justified and reasonable, there could be an impact on costs to customers and hence the protest.
- The skeptics, who do not believe in what the government tells them or are skeptical of what they believe the elites are telling them or have strong beliefs and values that come from their cultural identify. If you believe, for whatever reason, that the government is not truthful about your rights, you will not believe them on climate change.
There is an overlap between the groups and if you are able to unify these three groups together and convince them that their livelihood and/or their way of life is under threat, you have a very potent and powerful voting bloc that will push back against the rest. If I am politician, this may be the group I want to target as long as I can get some other voices to support me. If polls are to be believed, this is a vocal minority. And history has shown time and time again, that a vocal minority can prevail over a silent majority.
The answer is both education and market forces. There needs to be more effective ways of getting the message out on climate change. Second is a market demand for say EVs. Tesla has shown that their is a market for EV's and is large. As more manufacturers get into it, the market will actually expand and more people will change allegiances. For example, if there is more EV assembly plants, there are more producers and distributors of EV's who will speak against forces allayed against them. A great example of this was personal computing devices in the early 80s. The Macintosh established there was a market for a good product (compared to Commodore and Atari). IBM got into the market, but in a crucial mistake for IBM, they allowed Microsoft to sell the Operating system to the likes of Compaq and Dell and hundred others. The rest is history.
So, the minds of those against EV's is not going to change in a day. It is a combination of factors that will do it. Once a critical mass is achieved, the voice of the flamethrowers and demagogues will start to diminish. But today, the combined effect of the three groups above, is pretty potent, especially as they have been united to a large extent.
). Not saying it is right or wrong,