This article originally appeared in EVs and Energy.
This is a thread I contributed to today with a fellow on an electric-vehicle list.
It's an example of what I do every day. It's weird, but I spend a lot of time commenting on various websites and in response to all manner of people who for some reason find fault with electric vehicles. Whether it's because they don't understand the truth of the technology and are therefore just ignorant, or they have some malice toward what it means politically to switch away from oil to electricity, they are compelled to spend energy fighting this technology.
Anyway, the following consists of three emails with someone who took issue with EVs without responding to direct questions. You may enjoy reading them.
Paul
******
Oliver,
You state, "Although our military may be used in some fashion to help protect our oil interests and plays a factor in our low priced oil, I do not readily accept the numbers you provided."
Fine, tell me the number you do accept. You cannot be saying that you think this number is zero, can you? Is the life of a soldier worth zero? Or, was the trillion dollar cost of the Iraq war (so far) not based in fact? Do you have another number to share? Or, are you suggesting that the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil? Which is it? What are your numbers?
You state, "I happen to feel that there are many other concerns facing the world far more serious than reducing our use of oil."
So? Does this mean you do nothing about our use of oil because there are other concerns that are more serious? Can you not multi-task? Do you not brush your teeth because there are more important things than brushing your teeth?
Just because there are more important things than reducing our use of oil does not excuse any of us from reducing our use of oil. The problems associated with the use of oil are massive and far reaching. They include enormous pollution of our biosphere, the weakening of our economy (the purchase of foreign oil is a full 45% of our foreign trade deficit!), and the national security issues that come from funding our enemies by purchasing oil from them. Maybe you can list a few problems that are worse than these (I have a hard time coming up with any), but for you to claim that you can't be bothered doing
anything about it sounds pretty insincere.
You state, "Any saving of oil that I personally contribute to is so minuscule that it is meaningless."
Boy, this is a great statement! I assume you don't vote either? Are you teaching your children that anything they do to make the world better is "meaningless" because, "hey, you're only one person"? Way to go, dad.
You state, "The day you convince high school kids across the nation to ride bikes, walk, or take the school busses to school instead of driving their cars I will consider limiting my use of fuel."
This is the noise Republicans and other climate change deniers make when dismissing our attempts to pass measures that will limit CO2. They say the same thing about China and India. "We won't make a move to do the right thing till they do it first". These are not the words of a good citizen.
Paul
Oliver,
You state, "And, be careful in accusing me of contributing garbage. I have found when someone is only interested in furthering their own views they tend to call other people's views garbage. Respect another man's opinion and you will advanced your cause further.
I used the term because I'd asked you at least twice to tell us why you refuse to count the externalities in your calculations. You never responded until now, and the response, I must say, leaves a lot to be desired. I considered your remarks to be garbage because you were stating things that were just not true and you were refusing to answer specific questions. When you respect others by answering their questions, others might treat you with respect.
You state, "The bottom line is that if you begin with the carbon infrastructure that is already in place and the present cost at the pump to the customer and compare it to the cost of unsubsidized batteries it is more expensive to operate an electric car over a ten year period than a comparable gasoline car."
True.
It's also true that if you ignore the external costs of dirty energy for over a century and millions die in the meantime, and you just keep on ignoring these unpleasant realities, that you can keep on going as though there are no problems - until your kids have to go die in a war over oil, until your wife gets cancer and dies, until your nation's economy collapses and you are fighting for survival with all the crazies out there with guns. Yes, these things are indeed true.
Paul
******
(In response to Oliver's contention that Nissan wasn't serious about their EV program)
Whatever. If you knew anything about the auto industry and how hard it is to design, produce and market a new car, especially one with a completely different type of drivetrain, you'd be more willing to cut Nissan some slack. But if you want to be angry at them, fine. It's not going to hurt them one bit. We're going to be sold out on the LEAF for at least two years, and probably more. Your comment that "Nissan may have to pull the plug on the whole deal" is crazy talk. Nissan is spending multiple billions on the EV bet. They are "all in" as they say.
-- Paul Scott
******
Oliver,
You state, "Although our military may be used in some fashion to help protect our oil interests and plays a factor in our low priced oil, I do not readily accept the numbers you provided."
Fine, tell me the number you do accept. You cannot be saying that you think this number is zero, can you? Is the life of a soldier worth zero? Or, was the trillion dollar cost of the Iraq war (so far) not based in fact? Do you have another number to share? Or, are you suggesting that the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil? Which is it? What are your numbers?
You state, "I happen to feel that there are many other concerns facing the world far more serious than reducing our use of oil."
So? Does this mean you do nothing about our use of oil because there are other concerns that are more serious? Can you not multi-task? Do you not brush your teeth because there are more important things than brushing your teeth?
Just because there are more important things than reducing our use of oil does not excuse any of us from reducing our use of oil. The problems associated with the use of oil are massive and far reaching. They include enormous pollution of our biosphere, the weakening of our economy (the purchase of foreign oil is a full 45% of our foreign trade deficit!), and the national security issues that come from funding our enemies by purchasing oil from them. Maybe you can list a few problems that are worse than these (I have a hard time coming up with any), but for you to claim that you can't be bothered doing
anything about it sounds pretty insincere.
You state, "Any saving of oil that I personally contribute to is so minuscule that it is meaningless."
Boy, this is a great statement! I assume you don't vote either? Are you teaching your children that anything they do to make the world better is "meaningless" because, "hey, you're only one person"? Way to go, dad.
You state, "The day you convince high school kids across the nation to ride bikes, walk, or take the school busses to school instead of driving their cars I will consider limiting my use of fuel."
This is the noise Republicans and other climate change deniers make when dismissing our attempts to pass measures that will limit CO2. They say the same thing about China and India. "We won't make a move to do the right thing till they do it first". These are not the words of a good citizen.
Paul
Oliver,
You state, "And, be careful in accusing me of contributing garbage. I have found when someone is only interested in furthering their own views they tend to call other people's views garbage. Respect another man's opinion and you will advanced your cause further.
I used the term because I'd asked you at least twice to tell us why you refuse to count the externalities in your calculations. You never responded until now, and the response, I must say, leaves a lot to be desired. I considered your remarks to be garbage because you were stating things that were just not true and you were refusing to answer specific questions. When you respect others by answering their questions, others might treat you with respect.
You state, "The bottom line is that if you begin with the carbon infrastructure that is already in place and the present cost at the pump to the customer and compare it to the cost of unsubsidized batteries it is more expensive to operate an electric car over a ten year period than a comparable gasoline car."
True.
It's also true that if you ignore the external costs of dirty energy for over a century and millions die in the meantime, and you just keep on ignoring these unpleasant realities, that you can keep on going as though there are no problems - until your kids have to go die in a war over oil, until your wife gets cancer and dies, until your nation's economy collapses and you are fighting for survival with all the crazies out there with guns. Yes, these things are indeed true.
Paul
******
(In response to Oliver's contention that Nissan wasn't serious about their EV program)
Whatever. If you knew anything about the auto industry and how hard it is to design, produce and market a new car, especially one with a completely different type of drivetrain, you'd be more willing to cut Nissan some slack. But if you want to be angry at them, fine. It's not going to hurt them one bit. We're going to be sold out on the LEAF for at least two years, and probably more. Your comment that "Nissan may have to pull the plug on the whole deal" is crazy talk. Nissan is spending multiple billions on the EV bet. They are "all in" as they say.
-- Paul Scott
Comments