Wobbly Premise for EV Acceleration

The recently announced goal by the Biden administration that 50 percent of new vehicles be electric by 2030, his “EV Acceleration Challenge”, is unaffordable, unrealistic, and irresponsible. And it’s all based on a shaky premise.

As your District M Senator, I cannot ignore this, especially when I realize the impacts on Alaskans.

I cannot walk away quietly from this issue when I’ve been getting deluged with contacts from extreme environmentalist activists, whether in regard to the Willow project, the prospects of the state managing the wetland permitting process instead of the federal government, or whatever is the hot issue of the day pertaining to climate change.

I cannot stand by when I am seeing so many being duped, especially young people.

So what’s the problem with the “EV Acceleration Challenge”?

It’s Unaffordable

Yes, the cost of EVs have come down some but they are still unaffordable for most Americans, and it is unfair for taxes paid by low-income and middle-income earners to be used to incentivize and subsidize the transition via monetary support to companies to manufacture EVs and to high-income earners to purchase EVs.

We should leave the expansion and adoption of EVs to the free market, not put a financial burden on Americans and direct their tax dollars this way, all while the national debt is approaching $32 trillion.

If the sky were falling, that might be one thing. But it’s not. In fact, it is pie-in-the-sky dreaming to think that Americans will be willing and able to pay more for a car in the midst of an inflationary period to achieve a 50% EV goal.

It’s Unrealistic

How would you like to drive from Anchorage to Haines in an EV? How about from Palmer to Missoula? Even from Los Angeles to New York? The lack of charging stations is a real problem, and the fix won’t be resolved in a few years for millions of Americans (including Alaskans) to get where they need to go.

Incredibly heavy subsidization (back to the unaffordability aspect) might get us closer to the installation of the quantity and density of charging stations the effort would require, but the level of subsidization it would take is simply not realistic to power millions of drivers over millions of miles of roadway (234 million drivers in US drive a total of 3.2 billion miles each year).

And what about the extra draw on the electric grid when most generation is powered by natural gas – and the Biden administration is pushing to reduce natural gas consumption?  We’ve got a troublesome dichotomy here, folks. How unrealistic (or dare I say ridiculous or even asinine?) is all of this? Can I get an amen?

It’s Irresponsible

We haven’t even talked yet about accessing the key elements, the rare minerals to manufacture the EVs. We’re not accessing them here in America. The EV acceleration effort is making us subservient to China because that is where we are accessing them. This extra dependency that President Biden’s effort creates puts the US at risk regarding national security and the balance of power on the global stage. The United States is a stabilizing force in our world. Do we want to disrupt that and wreak havoc?

And here at home, if we artificially advance the adoption of EVs, do you really want to be dependent on the despotic President Xi in order to drive to work or to get your groceries? Should all our military personnel stationed across our country be dependent on Xi Jiping to get where they need to go each day? I think not!

Add to this that the clamp down on mining and resource development in the US increases these same activities in other nations besides China – other nations where there is little care for the environment like we require here. The forced EV acceleration is out of alignment with what is prudent and responsible stewardship of our environment on a worldwide basis. Again, irresponsible.

Wobbly Premise

Not only is the taxpayer-advanced and infrastructure-lacking effort ill-conceived and problematic, but the entire basis for it is also on shaky ground. Why is the EV effort before us in the first place? Haven’t you heard: it’s because life on earth will end if we don’t stop climate change! I’m not being facetious. This is what we are being told. And please know that I am no fool; I can read temperature charts and can see changes have occurred. I am not oblivious to the fact that there’s melting ice. I am certainly not a scientist but I know about carbon levels.

But I also know only a few decades ago scientists were warning of a looming ice age. Mic drop.

We were fed hogswallop back then, so we need to proceed with caution now. We’ve been warned that unless we act quickly the earth will expire, that the clock is ticking, that we’re all going to die. I freely admit, I am not prepared – or equipped – to write a treatise to lay out why we should question the rhythm of the current doomsday drum nor am in a position with my legislative schedule to research and construct a diatribe against those claiming we must change our ways.

What I am prepared is to do is list 50 predictions by respected scientists and leaders in recent decades that have not come true. You can then make the call as to whether the alarms being rung now should be questioned.

Before I do post this list, however, I’d like to show you a quick visual that, although it just represents one tiny segment of the climate and carbon discussion, it speaks volumes that things just maybe aren’t going to Hades in a handbasket – at least anytime soon.

Our planet is greener and more productive than it was 1000 years ago, even 50 years ago. More food is being produced on less land for more people than in the past. CO2 is plant food, a major one. According to a study published in Nature Climate Change, nearly half of the earth’s vegetated lands have shown increased greening the past 35 years – due in large part because of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Remember 4^th or was it 5^th grade science? Plants absorb carbon dioxide. Maybe instead of worrying about dying because of increased levels of carbon, we should rejoice that it will help us grow food and provide resources for making products we need. And if you don’t believe me, you can read about it from experts here.

I will leave you with some food for thought: the list of 50 climate predictions by famed scientists and respected leaders that have failed to materialize in recent decades. Chew on the list and then ask yourself if questioning the theories and predictions we hear today is wise. I want a pristine environment just as much as anybody, and I don’t mind pitching in to do my part, but let’s be smart about it.

If we’re not more certain about the rhythm of the doomsday drum, maybe we should march to a different drum and question the basis for the massive push for EVs in short order. It’s quite conceivable the entire premise for the rapid production and forced adoption of electric vehicles is wobbly at best.