The Left has been pushing electric vehicle mandates for years.
'We must get to net zero emissions!' they scream (as they set a Tesla ablaze). But this writer wonders what the 'follow the science' crowd will say about this study that shows their beloved EVs aren't as green as they'd like:
A recent study found that in two-thirds of U.S. states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars do.https://t.co/RVTiaqdzxh
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) April 9, 2025
We're not at all surprised.
Here's more from the Financial Post:
The main environmental selling point of electric cars is that they don’t pollute. But although it’s true their engines don’t produce CO₂ while driving, they do emit carbon in other ways. Manufacturing them generates emissions — especially producing the batteries, which requires lots of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. As a result, even an electric car recharged with clean power in B.C. will, over its life, emit about one-third what an equivalent gasoline car does. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.
In some parts of the world — India is an example — so much of electricity comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its life will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.
But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 — nearly 10 times as much — which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electric vehicles would have been bought anyway, Canada likely has spent nearly 20 times too much cutting CO₂ with electric.
Recommended
This writer laughed. Hard.
Because -- once again -- the Left's policies are based on what makes them feel good, regardless of outcome.
Especially now that the left has started setting them on fire.
— Queen Velvet (@TMIWITW) April 9, 2025
What's the carbon footprint of a burning Tesla?
It's because EVs, with their batteries, are heavier than combustion engine cars - causing increased tire and road wear.
— bzn2sfo (@bzn2sfo) April 9, 2025
They also require electricity to charge them, which requires things like coal and gas power plants.
Hybrids and battery electrics are evolutionary dead ends. The only practical path for electric vehicles is hydrogen fuel cells. Research and development needs to go into the large scale production and distribution of hydrogen fuel.
— Gerry Proctor (@Proc10588Gerry) April 9, 2025
The technology is just not there yet.
When will someone invent/produce a filter that reduces harmful emissions from gas or diesel engines to next to nothing? Combustion engine vehicles have already undergone tremendous development in regards to mpg and other factors during the past 30-40 years.
— K. Andersen (@kimander23) April 9, 2025
Gas-powered vehicles have gotten cleaner and more efficient.
This is awkward. https://t.co/9ee2H4m7r9
— Bobo from Texas (@BoboFromTexas) April 9, 2025
Quick! Someone do a welfare check on Greta Thunberg!
Here you go folks, the facts about EV that nobody talks about
— Steen Hansen (@SteenHansen59) April 9, 2025
Read it for yourself https://t.co/NMkfisjYft
And the fact that the minerals required to make the batteries require harmful mining practices and are a limited resource.
Who could've guessed...
— [email protected] (@thebubblerdotco) April 9, 2025
All the research and data that never hit the media told us this years ago. https://t.co/nzQogAsx5M
Lots of us knew this and were criticized for saying it.
But we were right. Again.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member