‘EVs will kill us all’ – Why are haters so obsessed with electric vehicles?
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed this, but some people – no, it’s actually a lot of people – seem to really, deeply hate electric vehicles.
I know this because every time I write about one, or even mention the acronym, in a story for the country’s only national paper the comments beneath the online version of my story erupt into a frothing splurge of spleen and outrage.
I have wondered at what makes some humans so venomously vicious about the idea of cars running on electricity – other than the fact that they’re the kind of people who simply hate “change” of any kind, also sometimes colloquially known as “old people” – and that led me to wonder whether there were people who hated the original cars when they first changed the world.
Sure enough, there were plenty, particularly in America, where laws were proposed that involved any car user setting off rockets every mile that they drove and then waiting 10 minutes for the road to clear before proceeding. This was to give unhappy horse owners and pedestrians a chance to get out of the way of the evil, noisy, dust-devilling machines.
In Vermont, they actually passed a law demanding that an motor vehicle must be accompanied by a person walking in front of it at all times, waving a red flag. Even accounting for how slow cars were back then, this seems crushingly pointless and annoying.
Remarkably, some of today’s EV haters are allowed to spew forth their belligerence, not just in comment sections, but in places where they are read by screeds of sceptics just like them. I’m not easily shocked, but I do find the widely published work of Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish “author” and climate opinion giver, who is neither a climate scientist nor an economist, utterly dumbfounding. Lomborg is also definitely not a journalist – they’re slightly more attached to reality, and facts, in general – although he does appear in newspapers.
Lomborg’s hatred for EVs leaps off the page, and most recently he questioned why, if EVs are so good, we need to ban the alternatives, and why we need to subsidise them.
But that was just him warming up, because he went on to point out that EVs will kill us all. Or, as he put it: “Electric vehicles need a huge amount of battery capacity and this makes them much heavier than comparable petrol-powered cars.
“A new study shows that this weight difference alone means electric cars produce more particulate matter emissions from greater tyre, road and brake wear than petrol cars do.
“These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous for others in accidents. A study in Nature showed that, in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO2 emissions.”
I’ll just pause here while you read that sentence again. And I’m happy to wait while you Google the study in question. I’m busy shaking my head in open-mouthed wonder anyway.
Lomborg has problems with “pundits” suggesting that EV sales will dominate within a few decades (ignoring the fact that many car companies are already committed to selling ONLY electric cars by the middle of next decade, which should be fairly powerful market force) advising us that “the quiet reality is starkly different” and that that “even in 2050 more than two-thirds of all cars globally still will be powered by petrol or diesel”.
Our author friend ascribes that prediction to “the Biden administration”, but the only hits it brings up on the internet are attached to, you guessed it, Bjorn Lomborg saying it.
And here’s another “fact” he quotes, that sounds, quite literally, too bad to be true: “Ultimately, the reason electric cars are championed is because of their promised emission reductions. Yet the IEA estimates that even if the whole world achieves all of its ambitious stated electric vehicle targets by 2030, the additional saved CO2 emissions over this decade will be 235 million tons. The standard climate model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals that this will reduce global temperatures by only 0.0001C by 2100.”
Now look, I don’t want to be as horrifically one eyed and blatantly agenda setting as Mr Lomborg, so I’ll grant you he makes some valid points. EVs reduce emissions at the tail pipe – to a very neat zero – but the air pollution they are responsible for varies enormously on the where and how they draw the power in their batteries from. In some areas of China, driving an EV makes a difference, because they are getting their electricity from renewable sources, but in many places, where they burn coal in wheezy old power plants, they’re not making as appreciable a difference to CO2 levels as might be hoped.
What I don’t get is where the hatred, the bile, the determination that EVs are a bad idea, and possibly a deadly one, comes from. As a cynic, aka a journalist, I have to wonder what the agenda is, cui bono, who benefits?
Unfortunately, what I know for sure, from experience and from the many hundreds of online comments under his stories supporting him, is that there’s a huge population of old people who will swallow his tripe along with their morning kippers and smile and nod sagely in agreement.
Hello Stephen, I am one of the “old people” (mid 60s) but unlike some I have totally embraced electric vehicles, having owned one for three years. Best car I have driven by some margin. Apart from the environmental benefits, the driving pleasure and experience far exceeds an ICE car. I suspect that most of the people who vehemently oppose EVs are somehow directly or indirectly associated with the fossil fuel industry.
I could have written this word for word. BEVs are just better cars, aside from the environmental benefits.
The motive is probably money from the oil and gas industry, don’t you think?
These industries have pre-written op-ed opinion pieces they send them out to journalists regularly attacking EV…because they are a threat, no not to the environment, or to people in car crashes, but to the oil and gas industry’s bottom line.
Nation states that produce oil (and fund terrorists) also spread the propaganda for their own greedy reasons.
But the economics of EVs, and alternative energy sources are winning the day among pretty much everyone else.
BTW, you should add Charles Lane who writes for the Washington Post (and goes on Fox News regularly) to your list of EV haters and non-sense purveyors.
Even EVs using power produced by coal will emit less CO2 on average, as power plants are more efficient than ICEs; in addition there is regenerative breaking. EVs also are less noise polluting. The amount of green energy increases every year.
It’s still early days for evs when emission laws came in technology grew to accommodate the factor albeit at a cost same with evs technology will move forward at a cost with governments & insurers wary of heavier vehicles in an accident but let’s hope that the poles & wires can cope at night in 30+c weather
Funny how they think oil will last forever and the fact that it takes about 6kw to produce a US Gallon of fuel. And the fact all cars are run by electricity anyway .
“All cars are run by electricity” Not yet, otherwise why do you have to fill the gas tank of an ICE car?
Paul, I think what Rob means is that we use electricity to refine the fuel etc and even to pump it into an ICE car.
Excellent and very balanced comments. Thank you Stephen.
N.B. I, too, have wondered why Bjorn Lomborg is given a credence and was quite amazed at his anti-EV article of which a report appeared recently (and sadly), in The Australian media outlet.
As a 72 year old EV fan I take exception to your premise that old people are stupid, ageism is someone will encounter if you make it that far,. maybe you should actually hunt out an old person and find out we are old, not stupid
Why have you postulated no theories at all for the main premise of your headline? A waste of time reading it.
As an ‘old’ scientist, I follow all the discussions regarding EVs. My problem with them is that they’re being foisted on us by people who often have ulterior motives. They also appeal to the inner-city elites, who always seem to have a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude to the lesser mortals and therefore like the posturing of their ‘climate-saving’ actions. Yes, the climate is changing, as it always has and always will. There is no way we puny humans will stop that, no matter which way the climate is going. There are many things we can do to stop polluting the planet. Worrying about CO2 isn’t on that list, unless you are profiting from it!
66 years old, very happy EV owner and member of the Australian Electric Vehicle Association.
For me it’s the culmination of an interest in alternative energy and transportation that goes back to the ’70s oil shocks when I was a student.
I can’t get over the pure hate either, that and the vast volume of it, often dominating comments BTL of articles on EVs and zero-carbon energy. Including innocuous, low profile Australian threads attracting invading hordes of Americans.
As for Lomberg, he seems to have given up on any veneer of credibility. Where has this concern over the weight of EVs come from when the weight of ICE cars has massively increased over the last decade or so with the shift to SUVs and now big pickups? And doesn’t he realise that virtually all braking done by EVs is regenerative, so the particle emissions from brake dust are essentially zero? If he can’t get something as basic as that right, what sort of credibility can we ascribe to anything else he’s written.
PS: with all due respect, get out of the Murdoch empire. Just by being there you’re part of the problem 🙁
As usual, Lomberg is denigrated because he has different views on how the ridiculous amounts of money will need to be spent in order to “save the planet”.
He is no climate denier and simply advocates that we should learn to live with it and spend the money on getting third world populations out of poverty
I’m almost old, not stupid – it’s worth noting you did not equate old with stupid in your balanced article. However, I have been driving an EV for seven years now and have saved soo much money not buying fossil fuel, dinosaur juice, not to mention servicing costs, that my EV ownership experience has cost me around 20% less than if I had owned an ICE vehicle. I almost forgot to mention how much more powerful my EV is when compared to a similar sized ICE vehicle with a V6 engine. Then there’s the superior driving experience of an EV and the personal satisfaction of knowing I’m not contributing to the damage of the atmosphere when I charge my EV from my home solar and battery storage system.
People like Bjørn and his sad groupies will be consigned to a comical footnote in history like the red flag-waver in front of an ICE vehicle. It’s a comforting thought that the victors always get to write history – goodbye ICE vehicles and Bjørn.
My main opposition to EVs is mostly practical, I’m seeing the electrical grid be sabotaged at the same time people are told go buy EVs.
Mandate all new vehicles that can sold must be EVs by a certain date. Varies by country.
Shutting down powerstations with no direct replacement to immediately take over the base load. Build the replacement first not after.
Places like California and others in the US, have gone down this route already and have had to tell their populace NOT to charge their EVs because their grid won’t cope. Look up the California blackouts and the issues they’re having. We are setting up the same situation here.
The tech isn’t there for decent range for our biggest selling models ie. hilux ranger other tradie Ute’s.
For example a loaded Electric F150 has a range of less than 200km once this is 350+km loaded up it’ll be acceptable. But 500km fully loaded is where it needs to get to.
How about long haul trucking range especially in Australia if there isn’t 1000km+ it’s not feasible.
The small polluters have a current solution in small EVs. Tesla model 3 Nissan leaf Toyota prius. Etc. The biggest polluters have the problem of the tech not scaling up to be feasible. Trucks and ships. Everything including your EV needs these to transport them.
The grid is not ready. It’ll need to be expanded drastically but it’s being shut down. And don’t bother saying but wind turbines but solar. They are not a baseload replacement. Coal, gas, hydro( I have 2 locations that I think would be suitable 1. Wollondilly river just below the wingecarribee junction. This’ll be a pumped hydro system, this would also shore up the warragamba water supply and serve as flood mitigation. 2. On the Mann and Boyd rivers at Newton Boyd to make a huge dam)or NUCLEAR (my preference) These are grid baseload sources. Solar and wind are not, they are supplementary sources. At least until we have proper battery banks that store a minimum of 72 HOURS of grid wide power. Not minutes or just to smooth out peaks and dips like South Australia’s tesla battery bank.
Lithium batteries are not suitable for grid storage. They are too volatile and expensive. Look more along the lines of Ambris molten metal batteries or sodium salt.
What about the lack of ex vehicle lithium battery recycling. Who is doing it in australia and making a profit without substantial subsidies?
Where is the expansion of mining for the metals needed? Forecasts for copper in particular will see a major shortage within 10 years. It takes 8-10 years for a new copper mine to start production.
How much land is going to be cleared or taken from farming to make way for wind turbines, solar farms and batteries?
What about the environmental impact of wind turbines on birds, bats etc?
How about a fire in a grid scale battery bank what is the pollution impact going to be?
Who is going to make all the batteries? 70 million new vehicles annually plus grid storage. Currently 6 million EVs annually. Call it 12 times current volume.
These are some of the issues coming to the fore with the expansion of EVs at the same time as the push toward renewable energy. A conversation on one needs both to be discussed.
What are the solutions and when will they be implemented?
Dear Phil
when you say “The grid is not ready. It’ll need to be expanded drastically but it’s being shut down. And don’t bother saying but wind turbines but solar. They are not a baseload replacement. ”
(1) Yes the grid does need a lot of work, that’s because for decades now there have been political blocks put on the work that we needed to happen because of climate change denying politicians, that is not a fault of EVs, it’s the fault of the morons who refused to accept science.
(2) the baseload myth is just that, a total myth created by climate change deniers, baseload is the lowest average electrical input, the Base Load required to run the grid effectively, Baseload usually happens around 3 or 4am and is easily covered by renewables.
The current problem is supplying peak power and that is something that has been created by private companies running electricity supply for profits not supply stability
So many coal fired power stations are breaking down and are un relyable, the gas ones are massively expensive.
Please read Superpower by Ross Garneau if you are actually interested in facts and evidence over bullshit and lies 🙂
Thanks for highlighting Lomberg. The man does not deserve any space, didn’t we try to ban him from coming to Australia?
I’m about to turn 70 and will buy an EV next year. The where I live coal country central QLD are anti climate change, anti EVs and anti renewables yet they complain about high fuel prices,high electricity prices, go figure.
Have any of you so called young people ever realised that as a 54 year old we had no mobile phones and computer games air conditioning and all the other luxuries of today when we grew up a family was lucky to have one car and you were lucky to even meet some one who had been overseas who is really the cause of the problem you spoiled brats
Please do go on. And tell us what your
First house cost and how rough it is not having a mortgage.
Hey Stephen. Closed-mindedness isn’t a function of age; suggesting that is bigoted. Some of us older people built the Internet, the Web and the technology behind EVs. One of Tesla’s original founders in close to 70. It’s as bad as staying “young people…insert negative stereotype”.
I can’t speak for him, but my first house cost about 8 times my gross annual income and took 17 years to save for.
Two of my children have bought houses at a much younger age than I was able to.
They did it by scrimping and saving and going without, without help from me, that I was not in a position to provide had they needed it.
Certainly there are a number of people my age who did very well over their lives, just as a lot of young people today will.
Why is “some one who had been overseas who is really the cause of the problem”?
Not all good ideas originate in the U.S.
Please go on, and tell us how you had no mortgage as well? Boomers have so much to complain about.
Could you just give us a break from “Heroic Greens fighting the Evil Empire of Big Oil” stuff?
EV are currently a fashion product for the well off who are greedily consuming the world’s resources but want to pretend that they are not.
There are plenty of reasonable, first and second order environmental problems with EV voiced by intelligent people who have been demonised by this piece of greenwash.
EVs are not perfect as they are, but ICEs are worse. Road transport is responsable for 15% of climate gas emissions. To avoid an economic and human catastrophe, all actions of achieving negative emissions need to be taken as soon as possible.
I’m always thankful to the “well off” early adopters of any technology as they are subsidizing it for the rest of us. At the very least they are creating a pool of used EV’s.
Hey Stephen. Closed-mindedness isn’t a function of age; suggesting that is bigoted. Some of us older people built the Internet, the Web and the technology behind EVs. One of Tesla’s original founders in close to 70. It’s as bad as staying “young people…insert negative stereotype”.
Older people are not all closed minded, but most closed minded non-thinkers and fear mongers ARE old. Discuss.
Maybe it’s less to do with a hatred of EVs, and more to do with the way governments are forcing through legislation supporting them.
EVs are cool tech, but so far from ready for widespread adoption as the main modes of transport that it such forcing is absolutely egregious.
EVs are not the only answer, there are many reasons why some people don’t want them. There are people who just can’t afford one, people that live in a flat and have no where to charge one, and people who drive lots of miles in a week that just need to top up and go. I am in the UK and we was supposed to have much more infrastructure for hydrogen, which I plan like many to be my next car.
This article is not great, it seems to be based on opinion than fact, and uses someone who certainly doesn’t speak for us all who don’t want an EV. I am in my 30’s btw and I fail to understand the use of age, age has nothing to do with it.
They hate EVs because they are told they hate EVs
They are afraid of anything new so it’s easy to teach them to be afraid and to hate.
It’s so much easier to teach someone to hate and fear than it is to teach them to accept new things and ideas.
They are told they hate EVs by the fossil fuel industry and the few very very very rich people who control that industry