{"id":285840,"date":"2023-10-30T20:25:25","date_gmt":"2023-10-30T19:25:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=285840"},"modified":"2023-10-30T20:25:30","modified_gmt":"2023-10-30T19:25:30","slug":"the-political-risks-of-mandating-evs-for-everyone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=285840","title":{"rendered":"The political risks of mandating EVs for everyone"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The realities of physics and engineering mean that politicians pushing for an all-EV future run a high risk. Quite aside from the eventual discovery that EVs will disappoint with only a tiny impact on global CO2<\/sub>\u00a0emissions, the bigger impacts will come as consumers find vehicle ownership costs and inconveniences both escalating.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From\u00a0CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This essay is based on the opening remarks delivered at a recent <\/em>SOHO Forum Debate<\/em><\/a> on electric vehicles.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we could imagine a time machine bringing to New York City an American citizen from the 19th<\/sup> century, odds are the one thing that would seem the most amazing about our time would be the proliferation of the personal automobile. Big buildings, big cities, roads, and nighttime illumination would all be imaginable, even if different looking and greater in scale. But the one thing radically different about modern daily life is the convenience and freedoms that come from a car.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, that 19th-century citizen would probably be puzzled by people staring at glowing rectangles in their hands. In fact, the personal computer and the personal car are co-equal in their transformative impacts. MIT historian Leo Marx put it well when he wrote that: \u201cTo speak . . . of the \u2018impact\u2019 of \u2026 the automobile upon society makes little more sense . . .than to speak of the impact of the bone structure on the human body.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The centrality of the car in the social and economic structure of society is evidenced by how citizens have voted with their pocketbooks. A car is the single most expensive product that 98% of consumers ever purchase. Over 90% of American households own or have access to a car. Average household spending on personal mobility is the second biggest expense after mortgage or rent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there\u2019s nothing to the trope that the rising generations will abandon automobiles. A recent MIT analysis found Millennials exhibit no difference in \u201cpreferences for vehicle ownership\u201d and, in fact, drive more miles per year than Boomers. As for Gen Zs, the share of cars bought by that cohort has increased five-fold in the past five years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, to finish framing why cars matter, let\u2019s consider what used to be called telecommuting, Zooming, and remote working, especially following the epic exodus caused by the destructive Lockdowns of 2020. Surveys show the lockdowns accelerated a trend that was already underway, one of a huge swath of Americans moving to suburbs or rural areas. It\u2019s a trend that invariably leads to a greater need for cars and distances driven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now come politicians in a dozen states \u2014 and the EPA via a creative exercise of regulatory authority \u2014with plans to ban the right to purchase a car with an internal combustion engine, the kind of car that 98% of Americans own and the kind of car that 98% of average-incomed Americans still buy. The goal of the bans is not, we\u2019re told, to deny any citizen the ability to own or afford a useful car. Instead, as everyone knows, it is in service of the goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by mandating the use of so-called zero-emission electric vehicles. EVs for all. The process of \u201ctransitioning\u201d to EVs for everyone, everywhere, we\u2019re also told, will be painless because EVs are inevitably taking over the entire automobile market because they are \u2014 it is said \u2014 simpler, better, easier to use, and \u201ccleaner.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And now the Orwellian-named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) promises a gusher of money to induce that transition. Let\u2019s stipulate the obvious \u2013 one doesn\u2019t need subsidies and mandates to convince people and businesses to buy products that are inherently radically better and cheaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, assuming that the inflationary legislation isn\u2019t reversed by a future Congress, the IRA\u2019s push for an energy transition will deploy $2 to $3 trillion (when it\u2019s fully \u2018costed\u2019 to include unfunded mandates and in-perpetuity subsidies), half of which will be for EVs and related infrastructures. You can buy a lot of obeisance with that kind of money. With so much money combined with political mandates and PR momentum, we should not be surprised to find no automaker dares avoid genuflecting to the grand vision of an all-EV future. But money can\u2019t buy a change in the laws of physics and underlying engineering realities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ostensible inevitability, the enthusiasm, the subsidies, and the mandates for EVs are anchored in three claims:<\/p>\n\n\n\n