Anti-EV contributors and the (ir)relevance of their comments
Discussion
"Net zero has cost 220B so far..."
'I don't want to have to change my lifestyle to be able to accommodate a car'
`I could install a home charger now, but that means converting the back garden to hard standing, not impossible and possibly on the cards one day, but it is an inconvenience and cost I don't want right now.'
ICE and EV transport are shining examples of technology, which itself is the practical application that comes from our increased understanding of science. We have long since got past the point of getting teeth pulled by the local barber and we defer to someone educated and trained in dentistry.
Why do otherwise rational people seem to get unscrewed by the impact of life threatening events: Covid (anti-vaxers flailing for justification in the face of undeniable science)? Or in this case, global warming?
We don't need to `believe', we don't need even need to understand it. We just need to have the humility to understand that there are others that do...
We don't have to have faith in one extreme argument because the entire scientific community is aligned and in agreement. The effects of global warming are beyond discussion. Is it because it's not going to happen to us but to our kids, or our kids' kids? Unfortunately for them our lack of `belief' in science makes not one iota of difference. Science doesn't care, science is.
Or is it really all about me?
'I don't want to have to change my lifestyle to be able to accommodate a car'
`I could install a home charger now, but that means converting the back garden to hard standing, not impossible and possibly on the cards one day, but it is an inconvenience and cost I don't want right now.'
ICE and EV transport are shining examples of technology, which itself is the practical application that comes from our increased understanding of science. We have long since got past the point of getting teeth pulled by the local barber and we defer to someone educated and trained in dentistry.
Why do otherwise rational people seem to get unscrewed by the impact of life threatening events: Covid (anti-vaxers flailing for justification in the face of undeniable science)? Or in this case, global warming?
We don't need to `believe', we don't need even need to understand it. We just need to have the humility to understand that there are others that do...
We don't have to have faith in one extreme argument because the entire scientific community is aligned and in agreement. The effects of global warming are beyond discussion. Is it because it's not going to happen to us but to our kids, or our kids' kids? Unfortunately for them our lack of `belief' in science makes not one iota of difference. Science doesn't care, science is.
Or is it really all about me?
AIUI your point is that it is an established scientific fact that pumping carbon out the ground and blasting it into the atmosphere causes global warming. And thus opinions of anti-EV, anti-Net Zero commentators are irrelevant compared to this reality.
"Why do otherwise rational people seem to get unscrewed by the impact of life threatening events"
I can think of a couple of reasons.
First, there's been a history of telling people what to do "because science", and not all such policies have stood the test of time.
In the 1970s the Malthusians told us that the planet was becoming overpopulated, and population control was vital to human survival. Not just science, nay simple mathematics proved it. One government listened to them; in the past decade the Chinese government have rapidly pivoted from their disastrous One Child Policy, through the short-lived Two Child Policy, and now promulgate a Three Child Policy. It would be funny were it not for the human suffering behind it.
In 2009 my parents took up the scrappage scheme to trade in two older petrol hatchbacks (which did about 35mpg) for diesel VWs that did about 50, sincerely believing, as we were all told, that these would be more environmentally friendly. Today they have to pay an extra charge each time they drive into London for their (cars') environmental sins. My mother asked how much I'd had to pay to drive in to the family Christmas party in my similar-era 5.4L V8 AMG, and was unamused when the answer was nowt.
Similarly, parents were until recently told on no account to allow their child to encounter peanuts until their third birthday, for fear of triggering an allergy. It now seems that this advice was precisely backwards, as "early exposure before the age of five to peanuts and eggs is linked to a reduced likelihood of developing an allergy."
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/whats-behi...
So that's three cases in our lifetimes of "scientific" policies telling people what (not) to do, which have been not just dropped but literally reversed later, replaced with precisely the opposite policy.
Secondly, the promotion of EVs and Net Zero goals often (though not always) comes bundled with a number of other policies which take aim at people's freedom to enjoy their lives, such as to go on holiday or eat a burger. Almost everyone has a limit on what they're prepared to sacrifice, so most people end up unwilling to accept the full "Net Zero" agenda.
Some of them may thus feel it safest to loudly reject everything associated with said agenda, rather than risk granting credibility and support to people and ideas they don't trust and don't want constraining their lives.
So bottom line, the desire to protect their lifestyles motivates people to reject the science of global warming, and the history of scientific policies being disproven and reversed gives them the justification they're looking for to do so.
Now personally I'm on my second EV, I think they're great for most driving. My approach is to be pragmatic and look for common ground, and when it comes to a smooth, silent car that costs pennies to fuel yet leaps to 60mph in under five seconds, that's definitely common ground between what I'm looking for and the mandate to reduce carbon emissions. I'm also optimistic that in other areas, better alternatives to burning fuel are coming in. It doesn't hurt that the only minister in the current government with a clue is the one working on net zero.
However, I try to be open-minded enough to understand how others may feel.
I think the best approach is to be humble about what we know - "we don't know exactly how things will pan out, but there's enough evidence that we think it's safest to look for ways to reduce carbon emissions". To be flexible about the solution, and to emphasise the all around benefits of the cleaner approach, rather than making people feel they're being lectured, scolded, or forced into something they don't want.
"Why do otherwise rational people seem to get unscrewed by the impact of life threatening events"
I can think of a couple of reasons.
First, there's been a history of telling people what to do "because science", and not all such policies have stood the test of time.
In the 1970s the Malthusians told us that the planet was becoming overpopulated, and population control was vital to human survival. Not just science, nay simple mathematics proved it. One government listened to them; in the past decade the Chinese government have rapidly pivoted from their disastrous One Child Policy, through the short-lived Two Child Policy, and now promulgate a Three Child Policy. It would be funny were it not for the human suffering behind it.
In 2009 my parents took up the scrappage scheme to trade in two older petrol hatchbacks (which did about 35mpg) for diesel VWs that did about 50, sincerely believing, as we were all told, that these would be more environmentally friendly. Today they have to pay an extra charge each time they drive into London for their (cars') environmental sins. My mother asked how much I'd had to pay to drive in to the family Christmas party in my similar-era 5.4L V8 AMG, and was unamused when the answer was nowt.
Similarly, parents were until recently told on no account to allow their child to encounter peanuts until their third birthday, for fear of triggering an allergy. It now seems that this advice was precisely backwards, as "early exposure before the age of five to peanuts and eggs is linked to a reduced likelihood of developing an allergy."
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/whats-behi...
So that's three cases in our lifetimes of "scientific" policies telling people what (not) to do, which have been not just dropped but literally reversed later, replaced with precisely the opposite policy.
Secondly, the promotion of EVs and Net Zero goals often (though not always) comes bundled with a number of other policies which take aim at people's freedom to enjoy their lives, such as to go on holiday or eat a burger. Almost everyone has a limit on what they're prepared to sacrifice, so most people end up unwilling to accept the full "Net Zero" agenda.
Some of them may thus feel it safest to loudly reject everything associated with said agenda, rather than risk granting credibility and support to people and ideas they don't trust and don't want constraining their lives.
So bottom line, the desire to protect their lifestyles motivates people to reject the science of global warming, and the history of scientific policies being disproven and reversed gives them the justification they're looking for to do so.
Now personally I'm on my second EV, I think they're great for most driving. My approach is to be pragmatic and look for common ground, and when it comes to a smooth, silent car that costs pennies to fuel yet leaps to 60mph in under five seconds, that's definitely common ground between what I'm looking for and the mandate to reduce carbon emissions. I'm also optimistic that in other areas, better alternatives to burning fuel are coming in. It doesn't hurt that the only minister in the current government with a clue is the one working on net zero.
However, I try to be open-minded enough to understand how others may feel.
I think the best approach is to be humble about what we know - "we don't know exactly how things will pan out, but there's enough evidence that we think it's safest to look for ways to reduce carbon emissions". To be flexible about the solution, and to emphasise the all around benefits of the cleaner approach, rather than making people feel they're being lectured, scolded, or forced into something they don't want.
Very good @samoht.
You missed a couple. At one of the very early COVID briefings one of the government scientists said that washing your hands was the best way to stop the spread and that the disease was not being transmitted via aerosol.
This turned out be utter b
ks.
And one of the most revered medical professors in the UK who was doing the rounds at the time declared with the utmost confidence that there'd be no second wave.
Ditto too.
You missed a couple. At one of the very early COVID briefings one of the government scientists said that washing your hands was the best way to stop the spread and that the disease was not being transmitted via aerosol.
This turned out be utter b
ks.And one of the most revered medical professors in the UK who was doing the rounds at the time declared with the utmost confidence that there'd be no second wave.
Ditto too.
Policy is always a political/economic/cultural compromise, often made in a hurry. In the best case (i.e. rarely), it is founded on the available data and its rigorous interpretation based on the scientific method. But even in the best case, binary decisions ("Do we evacuate the town or not?", "mask or not", "close the restaurants?") will not be perfect in hindsight. Add to that a media ecosystem where the most sensationalist outlet gets the ads (or is run by billionaires), hunting for sound bites carefully separated from the context...
It would be alarming if the science-based interpretation didn't change when new facts emerge. And it would be "pigs flying above frozen hell", surprising if the elite didn't throw the experts under the bus when asked afterwards why they made the decisions they made. See e.g. the group of Italian geologists who got sentenced even if only one of them talked to the media. Even he presented an interpretation of data that wasn't on the fringes of the expert community without presenting possible alternative interpretations (not a great approach as far as science goes, but also a possible reason why he was chosen in the role)
As for EVs and keeping heads in the sand: change takes mental energy, especially when it requires letting go of things that have become part of the identity. Fossil fuel cars, organic food, alcohol or quick fashion - all bad for the planet, your health and/or your wallet. All to remain popular in the foreseeable future.
It would be alarming if the science-based interpretation didn't change when new facts emerge. And it would be "pigs flying above frozen hell", surprising if the elite didn't throw the experts under the bus when asked afterwards why they made the decisions they made. See e.g. the group of Italian geologists who got sentenced even if only one of them talked to the media. Even he presented an interpretation of data that wasn't on the fringes of the expert community without presenting possible alternative interpretations (not a great approach as far as science goes, but also a possible reason why he was chosen in the role)
As for EVs and keeping heads in the sand: change takes mental energy, especially when it requires letting go of things that have become part of the identity. Fossil fuel cars, organic food, alcohol or quick fashion - all bad for the planet, your health and/or your wallet. All to remain popular in the foreseeable future.
Edited by PetrolHeadInRecovery on Thursday 21st August 22:52
@samoht
All reasonable and well articulated; Government policy hasn't always been a good interpretation of current best scientific thinking and we should be in no doubt that very few politicians care for our future beyond their own future as a result of the next election.
Government mandated birth control policy was as you state, horrific, but the consequences of the utterly self-absorbed Catholic church result in much suffering too. The population was heading towards a bad future and the rate of expansion was curbed. Does that mean the statistics/science were wrong or that we were able to change course as the result of recognising the risk?
Covid, infections grew very quickly and the best responsible governments could do was triage until the research efforts yielded conclusive results. Washing your hands is not a daft idea (compared to injecting `something like bleach'), but any politician stating opinion as fact is a risk. It is likely a scientist would have said `at this time there is no evidence to suggest' etc. but even then Joe public would have interpreted this as `he said it's OK...'. And now despite a million dead in the US its department of health is now run by an anti-vaxxer and the Sec Defense doesn't wash his hands because he `doesn't believe in germs'.
But rather than Covid as an example of how government recommendations misled people, the fact that multiple research groups were able to synthesise and mass produce effective vaccines that quickly was a testament to what science can do.
Unlike the rapid onset of Covid, the evidence for Global warming being correlated with fossil fuel emissions spans many decades. Certainly there have been efforts to disprove the established cause and effect (as there should be), but none stand up under examination. Today we have unanimous agreement throughout all the experts in the field. Unlike Covid, this is not a fast moving analysis. One cannot in all seriousness point to the entire scientific community and say `well there will probably be a U-turn next year'.
Scientists are not trying to determine whether the sea will rise, but how fast it will rise and how much of the global population will be displaced, how much of the global food supply will be interrupted etc. It is no longer a question of `is this a real trend and will it be good or bad?', it more a question of `just how bad and how soon?'.
So... I wasn't commenting on government policy as much as addressing the many comments posted on this sub-forum by non-EV users with no personal experience of EVs yet some strong unfounded opinion against. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions deserve respect. I admire your efforts to be open minded, but at what point do we look around and say I'm OK that your actions are endangering my grandkids. Are we not morally obligated to argue the case?
All reasonable and well articulated; Government policy hasn't always been a good interpretation of current best scientific thinking and we should be in no doubt that very few politicians care for our future beyond their own future as a result of the next election.
Government mandated birth control policy was as you state, horrific, but the consequences of the utterly self-absorbed Catholic church result in much suffering too. The population was heading towards a bad future and the rate of expansion was curbed. Does that mean the statistics/science were wrong or that we were able to change course as the result of recognising the risk?
Covid, infections grew very quickly and the best responsible governments could do was triage until the research efforts yielded conclusive results. Washing your hands is not a daft idea (compared to injecting `something like bleach'), but any politician stating opinion as fact is a risk. It is likely a scientist would have said `at this time there is no evidence to suggest' etc. but even then Joe public would have interpreted this as `he said it's OK...'. And now despite a million dead in the US its department of health is now run by an anti-vaxxer and the Sec Defense doesn't wash his hands because he `doesn't believe in germs'.
But rather than Covid as an example of how government recommendations misled people, the fact that multiple research groups were able to synthesise and mass produce effective vaccines that quickly was a testament to what science can do.
Unlike the rapid onset of Covid, the evidence for Global warming being correlated with fossil fuel emissions spans many decades. Certainly there have been efforts to disprove the established cause and effect (as there should be), but none stand up under examination. Today we have unanimous agreement throughout all the experts in the field. Unlike Covid, this is not a fast moving analysis. One cannot in all seriousness point to the entire scientific community and say `well there will probably be a U-turn next year'.
Scientists are not trying to determine whether the sea will rise, but how fast it will rise and how much of the global population will be displaced, how much of the global food supply will be interrupted etc. It is no longer a question of `is this a real trend and will it be good or bad?', it more a question of `just how bad and how soon?'.
So... I wasn't commenting on government policy as much as addressing the many comments posted on this sub-forum by non-EV users with no personal experience of EVs yet some strong unfounded opinion against. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions deserve respect. I admire your efforts to be open minded, but at what point do we look around and say I'm OK that your actions are endangering my grandkids. Are we not morally obligated to argue the case?
Edited by ShortBeardy on Thursday 21st August 23:46
ShortBeardy said:
"Net zero has cost 220B so far..."
'I don't want to have to change my lifestyle to be able to accommodate a car'
`I could install a home charger now, but that means converting the back garden to hard standing, not impossible and possibly on the cards one day, but it is an inconvenience and cost I don't want right now.'
They all sound like reasonable statements to me. Just because you've decided that now is the right time to buy an EV doesn't mean that everyone else has to do so at the same moment. Why do so many people seem to think they should be in charge of the decisions of others? Maybe just run your own life and accept that other people can do the same. They are going to do so anyway, whether you accept it or not.'I don't want to have to change my lifestyle to be able to accommodate a car'
`I could install a home charger now, but that means converting the back garden to hard standing, not impossible and possibly on the cards one day, but it is an inconvenience and cost I don't want right now.'
Richard,
I was not saying people should do as I do. I was asking the questions:
Why when faced with relatively simple things we go to `an expert' (a medical doc., a dentist, a tax advisor, a mechanic...), yet when faced with with an existential (but not immediate) threat we revert to `my mate Paul', or some other random piece of unsubstantiated BS?
For example, if you need a heart bypass, you don't think, my mate at the pub can put stents in... So why in the case of vaccinations during a pandemic or Global warming is there a tendency to ignore experts? Surely we still value their expertise, so what's changed?
Do you knowingly stand by and watch the bus driver take us all over the cliff together? Or say `Er hang on a minute'?
We're all in the same bus.
I was not saying people should do as I do. I was asking the questions:
Why when faced with relatively simple things we go to `an expert' (a medical doc., a dentist, a tax advisor, a mechanic...), yet when faced with with an existential (but not immediate) threat we revert to `my mate Paul', or some other random piece of unsubstantiated BS?
For example, if you need a heart bypass, you don't think, my mate at the pub can put stents in... So why in the case of vaccinations during a pandemic or Global warming is there a tendency to ignore experts? Surely we still value their expertise, so what's changed?
Do you knowingly stand by and watch the bus driver take us all over the cliff together? Or say `Er hang on a minute'?
We're all in the same bus.
Silvanus said:
Count897 said:
Global warming is the biggest scam of our times, pity the eco loons that buy this nonsense like a religion.
So regardless of what the causes may be, you don't believe the climate is changing?Cristio Nasser said:
It’s futile to engage with such entrenched opinions. They’ll be dead before it affects them anyway.
There have always been people who find wild conspiracy theories easier to stomach than accepting that science has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt something which challenges their entrenched world view and/or way of life. Another prime example would be young-earth creationists.Regarding the original question, to an extent it does go both ways. Whilst there are a fair number of vehemently anti-EV people who post complete rubbish, there are also some (admittedly fewer) people who wont accept that EVs still have very real drawbacks compared to ICE vehicles for some people's use-cases.
Edited by kambites on Friday 22 August 06:21
Count897 said:
Global warming is the biggest scam of our times, pity the eco loons that buy this nonsense like a religion.
That statement isn’t correct.1. Scientific Consensus
• Over 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and largely driven by human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.
• Multiple independent bodies—including the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office—all confirm the evidence is overwhelming.
2. Observed Evidence
• Global average temperatures have risen about 1.1°C since the late 19th century.
• Glaciers and Arctic sea ice are retreating.
• Sea levels are rising (~20 cm since 1900).
• Extreme weather events (heatwaves, floods, wildfires) are becoming more frequent and severe, consistent with climate models.
3. Not a Scam
• While there can be disagreements about policy solutions (e.g., carbon taxes, subsidies, regulations), the science showing that human activity is warming the planet is solid.
• Calling it a “scam” ignores decades of peer-reviewed research across physics, chemistry, geology, and atmospheric science.
4. Why the “Religion” Claim Appears
• Some critics frame climate action as a “belief system” because it requires collective behavioral changes (similar to how religion shapes social norms).
• But unlike faith, climate science is based on measurable, testable, and evidence. Predictions from past decades (about warming trends, ice melt, etc.) have come true with remarkable accuracy.
Conspiracy threads already exist in the np&e section (where easily ignored)
Cristio Nasser said:
Silvanus said:
Count897 said:
Global warming is the biggest scam of our times, pity the eco loons that buy this nonsense like a religion.
So regardless of what the causes may be, you don't believe the climate is changing?I think it's the denial aspect that we're transitioning to a ZEV future which is most bizarre.
There still seems to be an expectation that the whole silly idea will be put to bed. Admittedly, there seem to be far fewer saying that now, but they do still exist.
When you have Mercedes looking to collaborate with their arch nemesis BMW on petrol engine supply because independently the companies cannot justify ongoing development and production costs alone, then that says it all. From a business model perspective, sharing on commoditized, outgoing tech for economies of scale makes sense, they sure as hell aren't doing that with EV powertrains where their real opportunity for competitive advantage lies.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/merced...
There still seems to be an expectation that the whole silly idea will be put to bed. Admittedly, there seem to be far fewer saying that now, but they do still exist.
When you have Mercedes looking to collaborate with their arch nemesis BMW on petrol engine supply because independently the companies cannot justify ongoing development and production costs alone, then that says it all. From a business model perspective, sharing on commoditized, outgoing tech for economies of scale makes sense, they sure as hell aren't doing that with EV powertrains where their real opportunity for competitive advantage lies.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/merced...
I make money off green credits and the move to renewables and electrification.
But, especially in the EV debate, I refuse to go in on "global warming". BTW: we call it climate change now, as it confused some people when we still have two days of snow in the winter.
Partially because it's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't agree with a scientific consensus, and partially because some counter arguments are actually very valid. If you get an EV to replace your diesel but then take the plane to Madrid with your family instead of the car, you're not offsetting anything.
Tailpipe emissions is usually where it's at when I'm discussing with these people and being an "early adopter", you're being talked to about it more than you'd think at first.
About 5 years ago my neighbor (very nice guy, we get along great) argued that an EV isn't really a car and it's not really doing anything for the environment. Now I know he doesn't really care about the whole global thing, and he dismissed "tailpipe emissions" as largely irrelevant, so I proposed him this:
We've got three cars here, a diesel (his), a hybrid (his wife's) and EV (mine), put one in the garage along with our kids and turn it on for an hour. Pick one.
Then you make the point of thousands of diesels driving past the school both or kids go to every single day.
I've made this argument or a similar one several times since then and I've never had anyone at least consider what I'm saying thoroughly.
Climate change is like geology, evolution or even round earth to some people, the scale of it is just too big to understand without trusting a source they're unwilling to trust for some reason.
But put them in a room with a running diesel for an hour and the concept becomes very clear, very fast.
But, especially in the EV debate, I refuse to go in on "global warming". BTW: we call it climate change now, as it confused some people when we still have two days of snow in the winter.
Partially because it's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't agree with a scientific consensus, and partially because some counter arguments are actually very valid. If you get an EV to replace your diesel but then take the plane to Madrid with your family instead of the car, you're not offsetting anything.
Tailpipe emissions is usually where it's at when I'm discussing with these people and being an "early adopter", you're being talked to about it more than you'd think at first.
About 5 years ago my neighbor (very nice guy, we get along great) argued that an EV isn't really a car and it's not really doing anything for the environment. Now I know he doesn't really care about the whole global thing, and he dismissed "tailpipe emissions" as largely irrelevant, so I proposed him this:
We've got three cars here, a diesel (his), a hybrid (his wife's) and EV (mine), put one in the garage along with our kids and turn it on for an hour. Pick one.
Then you make the point of thousands of diesels driving past the school both or kids go to every single day.
I've made this argument or a similar one several times since then and I've never had anyone at least consider what I'm saying thoroughly.
Climate change is like geology, evolution or even round earth to some people, the scale of it is just too big to understand without trusting a source they're unwilling to trust for some reason.
But put them in a room with a running diesel for an hour and the concept becomes very clear, very fast.
plfrench said:
I think it's the denial aspect that we're transitioning to a ZEV future which is most bizarre.
There still seems to be an expectation that the whole silly idea will be put to bed. Admittedly, there seem to be far fewer saying that now, but they do still exist.
When you have Mercedes looking to collaborate with their arch nemesis BMW on petrol engine supply because independently the companies cannot justify ongoing development and production costs alone, then that says it all. From a business model perspective, sharing on commoditized, outgoing tech for economies of scale makes sense, they sure as hell aren't doing that with EV powertrains where their real opportunity for competitive advantage lies.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/merced...
Yes that seam to be the case when manufacturing in Europe, but I see the gearbox manufacturer ZF is simply moving out of German to Asia. The rest of the world must have demand for ice style gearboxes.There still seems to be an expectation that the whole silly idea will be put to bed. Admittedly, there seem to be far fewer saying that now, but they do still exist.
When you have Mercedes looking to collaborate with their arch nemesis BMW on petrol engine supply because independently the companies cannot justify ongoing development and production costs alone, then that says it all. From a business model perspective, sharing on commoditized, outgoing tech for economies of scale makes sense, they sure as hell aren't doing that with EV powertrains where their real opportunity for competitive advantage lies.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/merced...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff