EV electric 3 bak

519 SEE MAIN FOR EARLIER

see CAFE stds // LEED

see lobby trade gp raga

CRM target breitbart facebook 2024 issue

html diesel-powered one

---

hard to understand jihad on wind aND electric cars (well except API on latter)

part is cheering Biden Dem loss?!

---

BILL MCKIBB 2 25? 26

CHINA WILL OWN AUTO SECTOR WITH ev; 3 CITIES MAKE MORE CARS THAN FORD? BETTER ONES?

CO2 PEAKED YRS EARLY?

1 IN 5 SICK DIE FROM AIR POLUT? INDIA REALLY Bad air

CHINA BUILDS = 3 COAL PLANTS ON ALT ENERGY A DAY?!

:{---

---

moraNO BS GMAIL

ford Admits Defeat Ending Production of Electric Vehicles

ByErica Smith

Dec 19, 2025

Officials with Ford Motor Company say they expect to incur $19.5 billion in charges as they end the production of electric vehicles almost a year after President Trump ended the electric vehicle government mandate signed and approved by Democratic presidents.

Creator and Publisher of the Climate Depot, Marc Morano says despite all the incentives Ford sales couldn’t get above 7 percent. “Even mandated, even with forcing people, and taking away their choice, they couldn’t get out of single digit sales.” Morano said.

He says now, reality sets in. “There’s no government subsidies coming, the EV tax credit is gone, sales are tanking.” He said.

Morano says Ford isn’t alone. Crysler and GM are also feeling the pain, forcing the companies to shift and retool their gas-powered vehicles.

Faced with mounting losses since 2023, totaling $13 billion dollars in its EV division, Ford says they will now offer gas powered, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid vehicles, aimed to pull back from loss-making assets and to redirect capital to more profitable models. “Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting. We know the US market enough where we have a lot more certainty in this second inning of reduced-emissions powertrains.” Ford CEO Jim Farley said.

Morano says this is good news for America when these so called “green” vehicles were said to be environmentally safe. “To make one TESLA size 1,000 lb. battery you had to dig up half-a-million pounds of material from the earth.” Morano said.

He says he hopes the green agenda will go away permanently and this is good news for the country.

“This is a great time for America as we are shedding this weird era that if you are not “green” you are essentially an “evil” person, and your choice was taken away.” Morano said.

He says the country has been in a “ying-yang” going back and forth the last 15 years depending on the president in office. Morano says Trump can accomplish this by one- getting rid of the ETA Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding Act and to withdraw the United States from the United Nations 1992 Rio Earth Summit Treaty which broadened the whole Net Zero Climate agenda.

---

YT MSNBC

“BIGGEST DEREG IN AM HIST BY FAR”

SO CALLED END FINDING OBAMA ERA; PRICES WENT UP FOR WORSE PRODUCT; NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW; FF SAVE LIVES; WIND INTERMITTENt MOST COSTLY; DIE NO AC HEATING; RADICal rule --> green new scam mebbe worse than rissia; jobs decimated but coming back bc tariffs; harmed car indist; ford plant wd be closed;

hated start sop feature; ev mandate; had to pay 5 trill$ for pwr stations for ev

car price up 22% biden fo gnscam

CAR START EZIER... DOW

Z HOLY GRAIL OVERREACH; SAVE 1/3 TRILL$; 2400 ON CAR; IDEOL CRUSADE REGU PWR GRAB MOST; TRILLIONS $ STRANGLED, LIMIT CHOICE; LEFTWING WISHLIST EV MANDATE ; abuse? go to church; target am dr; red tape; forced trans to ev; climate partic trOphy = startstop; bureaucrats demand; delivers wins cafe duffy ca; jobs;

restores the rule of law?!

...

TIRED OF PLAYING GAMES; EV NO ONE BOUGHT; WE HEARD YOU AND ACTED; COMMITED TO CLEAN AIR LAND AND WATER FOR ALL HARNESS AM GREATNESS? FREEDOM ABD CHOICE, RULE OF LAW CONGR NEVER MADE LAW; NEVER WAVER ON MISSION, GOLDEN AGE OF AM

SPK ONLY OF CAR EMISSION NOT PWR PLANTS?

NO THER PREZ WD DO THIS; 1.3 TRILL SAVINGS

VOUGHT

LEE FARM EQUIP JOHN DEER; SMOG NO NEED TO GO TO FINEST SCHOOL TO WORK LAWN MOWER TRMP

WINDMILL ALL MADE IN CHINA GERMANY KILL BIRDS, EYESORE; EUROPE NOT RECOG W/ WIND AND MIGRANTS; MOST EXPENSIVE ENERGY; HOPE NOT 1 BUILT; ENDNGERMENT FOR MILITARY AND AIRLINES

NO ONE DOES MORE FOR HEALTH CARE THAN GOP; DRUG PRICES, BIGGEST EVER

CARS EV NO WORK MULT COMPUTER TO SAVE TINY AMT OF GAS

---

an 10 25

An Ohio battery planned owned byGeneral Motors that President Donald Trump promised to save just confirmed they will be cutting 550 jobs and laying off another 850 employees, Newsweek reports.

The cuts come amid a slump in demand for electric vehicles. The plant in Lordstown, Ohio is a joint venture with Ultium Cells, which is in turn a joint venture between General Motors and LG Energy Solution which mass-produces battery cells for electric vehicles.

“In response to slower near-term EV adoption and an evolving regulatory environment, General Motors is realigning EV capacity,” the company said in a statement, saying it “remains committed to our U.S. manufacturing footprint.”

Newsweek notes that the recent elimination of the $7,500 consumer tax credits implemented during Joe Biden’s presidency as part of the Inflation Reduction Act has significantly impacted demand for electric vehicles, forcing companies to reassess production plans while considering further reductions in their workforce and facility footprint.

Trump held a 2017 rally near the Lordstown facility, promising residents that jobs would soon be returning to the region following years of decline.

IFrame Content

“They’re all coming back. They’re coming back,” Trump told the crowd. “Don’t move. Don’t sell your house.”

After GM announced the closure of the plant in 2018 as it transitioned toward more fuel-efficient vehicles, Trump brushed it off, telling Fox News, “It doesn’t really matter because Ohio is under my leadership from a national standpoint."

Industry insiders are reeling from the Lordstown layoffs.

“Today, we received some devastating news that weighs heavily in our hearts and our community. This is an incredibly challenging time for our local union and our membership, especially given the painful history of our former assembly plant shutting its doors," said George Goranitis, local chapter president of the United Auto Workers union.

===

— Trump administration orders states to halt EV charging programs. The bipartisan infrastructure bill that President Biden got through Congress appropriated $5 billion for the construction of EV chargers on federal highways and $2.5 billion for chargers in towns and communities. Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order cancelling those funds and shutting down the program, handing a huge and profitable win to the guy whose company owns the largest EV charging network in American: Elon Musk. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how corrupt this deal is…

---

[### Trump just declared an 'energy emergency.' Here's what it ...

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2025/01/20 › trump...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/01/20/trump-day-one-executive-orders-energy/)

2 days ago — In a Day 1 executive order, President Donald Trump withdrew from the landmark climate accord. Additional orders on energy are expected.

NO LNX WAPO

Trump just declared an ‘energy emergency.’ Here’s what it means.

In Day 1 executive orders, President Donald Trump withdrew from the landmark climate accord and pushed to dismantle his predecessor’s environmental agenda.

January 20, 2025

By Maxine Joselow, Chico Harlan and Evan Halper

During his first moments as the nation’s 47th president Monday, Donald Trump moved to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, boost domestic fossil fuel production and reverse many of former president Joe Biden’s signature efforts to combat climate change and other pressing environmental problems.

The flurry of executive orders drew cheers from the fossil fuel industry but raised fears among U.S. allies about the future of global climate initiatives. The United States ranks as the largest historical emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases, and its exit from the Paris accord threatens to derail emissions-cutting efforts during a critical four-year period.

Nations pledged in 2015 to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels — a crucial threshold for averting the most catastrophic climate impacts. But scientists recently confirmed that 2024 was the first year to surpass this threshold — and the hottest year on record.

Trump signed an executive order pulling out of the Paris climate accord during an event with supporters at Capital One Arena in D.C. He slammed the accord as “unfair” and “one-sided,” prompting loud applause from the crowd.

Later on Monday in the Oval Office, Trump signed additional executive orders declaring a “national energy emergency,” boosting oil and gas drilling in Alaska, “unleashing American energy” and stopping new offshore wind projects in federal waters. It was not immediately clear what government actions the energy emergency would entail, although Trump allies have suggested it could allow federal agencies to quickly approve pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure deemed important to national security.

In the orders, Trump directed agencies to review dozens of Biden’s environmental policies and, if possible, quickly reverse them. He instructed the Energy Department to end the Biden administration’s pause on approving new facilities that export liquefied natural gas, and he instructed the Interior Department to lift restrictions on oil and gas drilling across millions of acres of federal lands in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“We will drill, baby, drill,” Trump declared in his second inaugural address Monday, adding that the United States has “the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it.” (In fact, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have the biggest oil reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.)

It is common for presidents to sign executive orders on their first day that reverse some of their predecessors’ decisions. But the contrast between Biden’s climate legacy and Trump’s energy agenda is particularly pronounced, heralding a seismic shift in policy across the federal government.

Some of the steps outlined in Trump’s executive orders, such as ending the pause on new LNG exports, will take effect immediately. Other efforts, such as rewriting complicated regulations, could take months or even years.

For instance, it could take years for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department to weaken fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, which Biden strengthened. Though Trump has described these rules as an “electric vehicle mandate,” they do not ban the sale of new vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel.

In some cases, market forces could have a greater impact on the nation’s energy landscape than the new administration’s policies. The price of oil, for instance, tends to dictate companies’ decisions about major new investments in drilling and refining.

Trump had made no secret of his energy agenda for his first day in office, frequently boasting about his plans after his November victory over Biden.

“I will sign Day One orders to end all Biden restrictions on energy production, terminate his insane electric vehicle mandate, cancel his natural gas export ban, reopen [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] in Alaska — the biggest site, potentially anywhere in the world — and declare a national energy emergency,” Trump said in December.

Former North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, Trump’s pick for interior secretary and “energy czar,” also suggested during his confirmation hearing Thursday that the incoming administration could consider declaring an energy emergency because of soaring electricity demand.

“This is part of a larger crisis our nation is facing around electricity,” Burgum told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The energy emergency declaration relies heavily on concerns about the nation’s power grid not being able to keep up with surging demand, particularly from tech companies developing artificial intelligence. It stresses that the nation’s “ability to remain at the forefront of technological innovation” requires more energy.

In a call with reporters Monday morning, officials with the incoming administration stressed that the order is focused, in part, on keeping the United States ahead of China in the AI arms race.

The tech companies building these data centers had initially planned to power them solely with clean energy. But new wind and solar generation is not keeping up with the needs of the immense AI infrastructure, and tech companies are routinely being told their projects will have to wait years to come online.

Pulling out of Paris again

Among Trump’s initial climate moves, the decision to exit the Paris agreement stands as the most internationally consequential, reinforcing a sense that the United States is an unreliable partner in the global effort to reduce emissions. That sense had been growing even before Trump’s election, as the United States expanded its oil and gas production after joining other nations in pledging to phase out fossil fuels.

“We are back to countries performing actions in their narrow, short-term interests,” said Li Shuo, director of the China climate program at the Asia Society Policy Institute. “That will inform the judgment of all the other political capitals in the world that the zeitgeist of global climate action is not where it should be.”

In Beijing, China’s Foreign Ministry expressed concern over Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement.

“Climate change is a common challenge faced by all of humanity. No country can stand apart from it or stay unaffected,” said Guo Jiakun, the ministry’s spokesman. “Upholding the concept of a shared future for mankind, China will work with all parties to actively tackle the challenges of climate change and jointly advance the global transition toward a green and low-carbon [future],” Guo said at a press briefing Tuesday.

Though Trump announced a similar action in 2017, at the start of his first term, the circumstances then were different: A rule stated that parties could withdraw from the accord, which came into force in 2016, only once it was three years old. Because the withdrawal process takes a year, the United States technically remained a member of the agreement until Nov. 4, 2020 — one day after voters awarded the presidency to Biden.

This time, the United States will be able to exit the accord more quickly. And the move will come at a perilous time for global climate efforts.

Right-wing parties, particularly in Europe, are gaining traction by pushing back against green policies. Wealthy countries are falling well short in financing climate-related projects in poorer nations, swelling a sense of injustice between the Global North and Global South — and leaving some countries worried about the viability of future global negotiations.

“A lot of countries could use [the U.S. exit] as an excuse to do little,” said Linda Kalcher, a former U.N. climate adviser and the founder of Strategic Perspectives, a Brussels-based climate policy group.

At the same time, many countries see an economic case for the clean-energy transition — and a political opportunity to fill a power vacuum.

China might have the most to gain, policymakers and experts predict. Already, China’s share of global solar panel manufacturing exceeds 80 percent. And Chinese-made EVs are surging in competition against those of American and European automakers. The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris accord could further cement a perception of Beijing as the superpower that can help the world cope with climate perils.

When Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement the first time, a group called America is All In announced that dozens of states, cities and corporations were still committed to the pact. Gina McCarthy, the former White House climate czar under Biden and the managing co-chair of America is All In, promised in a statement to continue that fight.

“Our states, cities, businesses, and local institutions stand ready to pick up the baton of U.S. climate leadership and do all they can — despite federal complacency — to continue the shift to a clean energy economy,” she said.

===

11 24

.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg appears to have schooled Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, explaining that due to Donald Trump’s policies during his presidency China was able to establish itself as the leading producer of electric vehicles, in a rancorous interview Tuesday.

“The manufacturing recession is in your head,” Kilmeade falsely declared to the Secretary of Transportation. “It never happened.”

Secretary Buttigieg invited Kilmeade to “look it up on Politifact,” and “maybe bring it up on screen right now because there was a Trump manufacturing recession. Look it up.”

“Mr. Mayor,” Kilmeade, ignoring Buttigieg’s request and his current job title, then said, “Michigan matters a lot. That’s why you’re there, right?”

“That’s right—that, and because I live here.”

“How much did the EV [electric vehicle] mandate hurt the uh, the Kamala Harris quest to be the next president?” Kilmeade asked, mispronouncing the name of the Vice President of the United States.

“Well, first of all,” Buttigieg responded, “the statement that there is an EV mandate is a lie. You can buy a gas car right now if you want one, you can buy an EV car if you want one, and we’ll help make it cheaper.”

“Really, an incredulous Kilmeade asked. “For how long?”

“As long as you want,” Buttigieg replied. “Now, our goal with the tax supports—and by the way, you you admit, right, that you can buy a gas car if you want right now, which means by definition there’s no mandate.”

“But if he has a goal by 2035, California is gone. By 2035, New York’s gone. And do you get any incentive, Mr. Mayor—” Kilmeade said as Buttigieg talked over him.

“But you admit you don’t have to, we’re not making you buy this car or that car, right?” the Secretary asked. “Now, the goal, and I gotta be careful, right, because I can’t get into the administration side, but what I’ll say is, the goal has been to be about half and half by the end of the decade.”

After some cross talk, Kilmeade asked, “if you had your druthers, would there be combustion engines?”

“If I had my druthers, every car would be made in America,” Buttigieg replied. “Now, we know that EV technology is coming. Whether people are ready for it or not, it is coming, it’s happening around the world and Donald Trump allowed China to take the lead on EVs. I want those EVs made in America.”

“Allowing China?” Kilmeade interjected, “you guys won’t ’em mine. You will not let ’em mine in Minnesota, where the governor wants to be vice president.”

“Let’s be super clear right now,” Buttigieg said. “Let’s be very clear—Sorry, is this an interview or a debate? Can I at least finish?”

“Well, I just can’t let you throw out fallacies,” Kilmeade said. “It’s important.”

“Can I at least— excuse me? Name one statement that I just made that you would say is factually inaccurate.”

“The statement you just made that Donald Trump let China take the lead?” Kilmeade charged. “If somebody wants an EV, they should be able to get it, not get a rebate if they buy one.”

“If somebody wants an EV, they can get it,” Buttigieg replied. “And if somebody wants a gas car, they can get it, but what we’re doing is we’re making sure more of those are built in the US and here.”

Zeteo News media columnist Justin Baragona observed, “What stands out here is that Kilmeade comes across as harried, agitated and aggressive — while Buttigieg remains calm and unflustered amid the Fox host’s constant agenda-driven haranguing.”

Business Insider in December of 2019 reported: “President Donald Trump won over Rust Belt states in 2016 on pledges to revive American manufacturing. But the sector slipped deeper into a recession in November, with a key gauge of factory activity falling for a fourth straight month.”

ABC News last month reported that experts say Donald Trump’s “tariff proposals would all but certainly trigger a global trade war.”

An October, 2024 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) appears to show that by the number of vehicles produced (“registered,”), China is by far the leading global producer. And in 2023, the MIT Technology Review reported, “China [has] managed to build a world-leading industry in electric vehicles,” and, “dominate the world of electric cars.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

===

Two pro-Trump officials pushed conspiracy theory that Hurricane Helene was done through weather “manipulation”

Georgia GOP official Kandiss Taylor also alleged that Helene was created or manipulated “to keep Mark Robinson from that governorship”

Written by Eric Hananoki

Published 10/08/24 mma

Far-right commentators Kandiss Taylor and Lucretia Hughes, respectively officials for the Georgia Republican Party and pro-Trump group Veterans for America First, pushed fringe conspiracy theories about Hurricane Helene, including claiming that it “could have been done by the government” through weather “manipulation” and as a “land grab” to steal lithium.

On her podcast, Taylor also claimed that the hurricane was created or manipulated “to keep Mark Robinson from that governorship because he understands … the Constitution” and that “terrifies every single establishment politician in this country.”

Numerous conspiracy theories have circulated about Hurricane Helene and have included claims that the government somehow created or manipulated the hurricane through weather modification or weather control. (Media Matters reported yesterday that Clay Clark, a Trump event organizer and close friend of Eric Trump, also pushed the “weather manipulation” conspiracy theory.)

Taylor is the elected District 1 chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party, a “key” post in the state. She has met with former President Donald Trump and is helping his election efforts in Georgia.

Taylor has a history of making antisemitic remarks: She complained that Jewish people are “controlling everything” and alleged that “we have some Marxist trash using our R who pander to the Jews.”

Hughes is a national ambassador for Veterans for America First, a right-wing group that’s supporting Trump. The group recently said that Hughes will “speak with President Trump” at an upcoming event. The Trump campaign has touted her endorsement and listed her as part of its Gun Owners for Trump coalition. Turning Point USA, a key Trump campaign ally, also lists Hughes as one of its “activist partners.”

The two appeared on Taylor’s October 5 program, where they promoted conspiracy theories about Hurricane Helene. (Taylor’s show airs on the Stew Peters Network, an outlet led by Hitler-praising Holocaust denier and Taylor’s “best friend” Stew Peters.)

Hughes began by calling the hurricane “a land grab,” saying, “I'm so angry with all of this. This is not the United States that I grew up in. This is the United States that has gotten into bed with the global society, trying to rip us off for our sovereignty and get illegal land grabs at the same dang old time.” Taylor responded by stating: “Yeah, lithium specifically. I'm so disgusted with North Carolina and what's going on there.”

Taylor later said that the hurricane “could have been done by the government if they'd been doing the weather manipulation, which we know there were acts passed. There's been things printed and done in the legislation for weather modification. So how do we know, how do we know that all their manipulation didn't cause this?”

The government has not controlled Hurricane Helene through weather manipulation and has not attempted to steal lithium from North Carolina through this tragedy.

Further into the program, Taylor bizarrely claimed that “the whole thing in North Carolina” was somehow done “to keep Mark Robinson from that governorship.”

Video

CitationFrom the October 5, 2024, edition of Jesus. Guns. And Babies

KANDISS TAYLOR (HOST): I really did think about this, Lucretia. Like the whole thing with North Carolina, I know though it’s a grab for the land — land grab and they want the lithium. But I also believe they don't want the voters turning out that are all around Asheville. Those Republican, red voters. They didn't, they are trying their best to keep Mark Robinson from that governorship because he understands — oh, I feel the Holy Spirit — he understands the Constitution. He understands state sovereignty. He understands we are the United States of America. And as a state, we're sovereign. As a state, we should be able to function on our own. As a state, we can push back. We're joined because we choose to be. But a state has sovereignty, and Mark understands that. And it terrifies every single establishment politician in this country.

Toward the end of the show, Hughes added to the weather manipulation subject by stating:

LUCRETIA HUGHES: That's so scary, to know they can manipulate our weather. To know they have the equipment and the satellite images and the satellite stuff to do it. To know that 5G is a real thing. Knowing that HAARP antennas is literally up there in the Arctic right now. I don't understand how people not know when you can type in seeding a cloud, or rain cloud machines, and there are video after video of them turning on a big old machine. And it's huge. And next thing you know, smoke just start coming out this machine and it spits clouds, spits clouds. And they keep it on for about one or two hours and all of it just goes up in the air. He said about, he said, “I give it a day. It’s going to be two states over.” The United States has patents in the patent office for them been doing this for decades now. Decades, y'all. This ain't new.

Taylor replied by saying, “It’s not new, and we're just learning about it because they didn't want us to know about it.”

===

mma

Trump campaign echoes right-wing media’s lies about an EV mandate

Special ProgramsClimate & Energy

Written by Ilana Berger

Published 09/10/24

The Biden administration is cutting car pollution and incentivizing automakers to produce electric vehicles. Right-wing media repeatedly misconstrued these efforts, falsely claiming they were attempting to take away voters’ gas-powered cars or forcing them to buy electric vehicles. No such federal mandate exists. Yet now the Trump-Vance campaign has adopted this false claim.

## Harris has supported efforts to expand access to electric vehicles during her time as vice president, but that did not include a federal mandate

- The EPA finalized a tailpipe emissions rule in March, but it was not a mandate.In March, the EPA established tailpipe emissions standards for the auto industry in a bid to slash greenhouse gas emissions. According to NPR, “The EPA rules are not written as an EV mandate or a ban on the sale of gas cars. … Instead, the EPA sets standards that apply across an entire fleet – meaning an automaker still can make vehicles with higher emissions, as long as they also make enough very low or zero-emission vehicles that it averages out.” NPR, [3/20/24]

- E&E News clarified that “there is no EV ‘mandate’ from the administration, although President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris have backed a series of climate policies that seek to incentivize the production and purchasing of EVs.” E&E News, [9/3/24]

- The New York Times also wrote of the EPA rule that it “does not mandate sales of electric vehicles, and consumers can still buy and drive gas-powered cars.” The New York Times, [3/20/24]

- The Inflation Reduction Act allocated billions toward supporting the adoption of EVs through tax credits, loans, and funding for charging networks, critical minerals, and battery manufacturing. Harris cast the tie-breaking vote that passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which created $47 billion in EV investment on top of tax credits and loans. Atlas EV Hub, [9/2/22; accessed 9/6/22; Twitter/X, 8/7/24]

- Harris also oversaw parts of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that distributed funding to school districts for electric buses and to states for EV charging stations.The act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provided $7.5 billion to build a network of charging stations, and $900 million of that went to the electric school bus initiative. AP News, [12/13/21; Spectrum News, 5/29/24]

## Right-wing media falsely claim that the Biden-Harris administration has already implemented an EV mandate

- Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Fox contributor Tammy Bruce claimed that “the EV mandate” is an example of Harris “moving money into these Green New Deal projects.” On The Evening Edit, Bruce said that Harris admitted during her CNN interview that “the Inflation Reduction Act was about moving money into those, that New Green Deal projects.” “Yeah, and that’s what this administration is all about … pushing money into these programs. The EV mandate’s a great example of it,” said Perry. Fox Business, *The Evening Edit*, [8/30/24]

- On Newsmax’s American Agenda, right-wing commentator Tom Del Beccaro said, “Michigan really should be easy for Trump at this point. They — Kamala put in the EV mandates. She’ll do it again, and the EV mandates have been a disaster.”Newsmax, *American Agenda*, [8/29/24]

- The Washington Examiner falsely characterized tax credits in the IRA as an “EV mandate.” “Kamala Harris’ EV mandate costs taxpayers $7,500 and Ford $44,000 per car,” the article said. “Kamala Harris has debuted yet another 180-degree policy reversal via press release,” the article said. The Washington Examiner, [8/28/24]

- Fox host Sean Hannity called the EPA rule a “ban” and claimed that the administration is “finding any way they can to trick you, the American people, into supporting something that many Americans don't want.” Fox contributor Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, said, “I think all of us want to do something about carbon emissions, etc., but the best way to do it is not through command and control mandates that will not work.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [3/20/24]

## After a Harris campaign official said Harris does not support an EV mandate, right-wing media insisted that she could not change, or has not changed, her position on the issue

- In August, Harris’ director of rapid response, Ammar Moussa, wrote in an email to supporters that “Vice President Harris does not support an electric vehicle mandate.” The Hill, [8/29/24]

- On Hannity, Fox host Jeanine Pirro said that Harris “can’t say she is against the EV mandate when she is the one who, I believe, sponsored the bill. And in addition to that, the bill had times built in where, after 2030 you had to have only 50 percent of the cars could be fossil fuel or gas-fueled, and by 2040-45 -- I mean, these are not flip-flops, Joe. These are lies."Fox News, *Hannity*, [8/29/24]

- On The Faulkner Focus, Fox News contributor Steve Hilton claimed that Harris “does want to take away your car.” Hilton said, “They claim that it’s not a mandate because it’s not mandating what you buy, it only mandates what can be sold. As if there is a difference between those two things. … As far as it stands today, Kamala Harris does want to take away your car, she does want to take away your truck.” Fox News, *The Faulkner Focus*, [8/28/24]

## Former President Trump and his running mate JD Vance have adopted the false right-wing media claim that there is a federal EV mandate and that it is negatively impacting voters

- At an August 8 press conference at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump said that if Harris becomes president, “everybody’s going to be forced to buy an electric car, which they're not going to do, because they don't want that. People want gasoline-propelled cars. They want hybrids. They want to have everything, and they want electric.” Politico, [8/8/24]

- In March, when the Biden administration finalized a new Environmental Protection Agency rule that set strict limits on pollution from new gas-powered cars, Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the move a “job-killing electric vehicle mandate at the federal level.”FoxNews.com, [3/28/24]

- Trump’s official campaign account posted on X: “Crooked Joe Biden’s INSANE and RADICAL EV mandates will BAN your gasoline-powered vehicles and force you to buy expensive and unreliable electric vehicles. President Trump will always protect your FREEDOM to drive what you want!”Twitter/X, [3/20/24]

On Facebook, content trashing electric vehicles reliably draws engagement

07/03/24

### Right-wing media use Tesla strandings in Chicago to bash electric vehicles

01/19/24

### As a climate-fueled heat wave stresses California's electric grid, right-wing media are disingenuously attacking electric vehicles

09/02/22

mma 7 24

in a new analysis of electric vehicle-related content on Facebook, Media Matters found that negative stories made up the vast majority of content, particularly on right-leaning and politically nonaligned U.S. news and political pages, a trend which does not align with the optimistic outlook of EV adoption and technological advancements.

Since 2021, the Biden administration has allocated billions of dollars toward meeting the ambitious goal of making half of all new cars sold electric or hybrid over the next few years. Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS Act have provided tax credits and other incentives to jump start electric vehicle sales and infrastructure such as charging stations, domestic battery manufacturing, critical mineral acquisition, in addition to preparing the automotive industry workforce for the transition.

In March, an Environmental Protection Agency rule setting strict limits on pollution from new gas-powered cars primed automakers for success in meeting these goals.

Biden’s EV push will continue to play an important role in the upcoming presidential election. Former president and current GOP candidate Donald Trump has insisted that Biden’s policies benefit China, which makes up the largest share of the global EV market. In March, while talking about the current state of the auto industry, Trump declared, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” Economists disagree.

The comment tracks with years of outrage and opposition from Republican politicians, right-wing media, and fossil fuel industry surrogates, who have often disparaged the new technology and related policy and misleadingly framed the EV push as a threat to American jobs and national security.

Constant attacks on EVs from the right have helped fuel a politically divided market, where people who identify as Democrats are now much more likely to buy them or consider buying them, while nearly 70% of Republican respondents to a recent poll said they “would not buy” an EV. So far in 2024, headline after headline announced EV sales slumps and proclaimed that “EV euphoria is dead,'' despite reports of “robust” growth. In February, CNN changed a headline about EV sales on its website from a success story to a failure. Despite the positive long term outlook for EVs based on indicators like sales and government investments, the discourse around electric vehicles is often pessimistic.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more visible than on social media.

Media Matters compiled and analyzed Facebook posts related to EVs from U.S. news and political pages between January 1 and June 1 of this year and found that the majority of posts framed EVs in a negative light. The analysis also found that negative posts earned more than triple the interactions that content with a positive or neutral framing earned.

Media Matters also isolated Facebook posts from right-leaning U.S. news and political pages. In both this data set and the data set that included pages of all political leanings, the subject we saw the most was automakers or car rental companies rolling back their commitments to selling EVs.

## Key findings
- Between January 1 and June 1, 81% of the posts analyzed were related to sales setbacks, performance or charging issues, or other negative press. These posts had over 1.3 million interactions, accounting for 79% of total interactions related to EVs.

- Posts related to automakers or car rental companies rolling back their commitments to selling EVs made up over a third of this content. Another popular topic focused on performance issues sometimes exacerbated by cold weather, which made up 20% of posts related to EVs.

- Nearly three quarters (74%) of EV-related posts on nonaligned pages (neither left-leaning or right-leaning) had a negative framing. These posts generated 83% of all interactions on EV-related posts from nonaligned pages.

- Out of the top 100 posts related to EVs on right-leaning pages, 95% were negative. Of the negative posts, 43% were related to automakers or car rental companies rolling back their commitments to selling EVs -- these posts earned over 477,000 interactions.

## Posts that were negative about EVs — covering sales setbacks, performance issues, charging issues, and other negative press — earned 79% of total interactions, or 3 times more than content that had a positive or neutral framing combined

While EVs are experiencing some growing pains, particularly in the U.S., BloombergNEF recently found that “EV adoption is still growing, despite the mixed near-term outlook.” Despite what Canary media calls “day-to-day messiness of the transitioning auto industry” the reality is that “more than one-fifth of the vehicles sold worldwide will be an EV or a PHEV this year. In 2018, just about 2 percent of cars sold fit into this category.” If EVs in the U.S. follow an S-curve trajectory, which has been established by EV markets in China and Europe, rapid growth is likely in the coming years.

However, on Facebook Media Matters found that this “day-to-day messiness” appears to be getting much more attention than the big picture. Negative stories related to EVs represented 81 out of 100 posts and generated 1.3 million interactions. That’s far more than more positive stories (15% of interactions) or neutral stories which presented both pros and cons (7%).

Even though EV owners are largely satisfied with their purchases overall, the emerging industry is still responding to challenges. These issues, particularly frustration with charging networks, which increase concerns about driving range, are a speed bump on the road to electrifying transportation.

Facebook users were drawn to news stories about Teslas breaking down in the cold, or people waiting in lines for hours to charge their EVs.

Some of the positive stories, which were apparently largely overlooked, included news of expanding charging networks in states like Florida, Michigan, and California. In another post, President Joe Biden declared that “the future of electric vehicles will be made in America by union workers.”

## Posts about automakers or car rental companies rolling back their commitments to EVs drove engagement
In 2024, auto giants like Ford and General Motors, which are at the forefront of the transition to EVs in the U.S., announced they would be delaying the rollout of new electric models or cutting back on production commitments because of lower than anticipated demand.

The top post on right-leaning pages during the study period, which was posted by Breitbart and earned 58,283 interactions, highlighted that Ford lost $1.3 billion on EVs in the first quarter of 2024. Anothertop post, from a local Fox affiliate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, featured a story with the headline “Hertz selling 20,000 EVs from rental fleet; will invest in gas-powered vehicles.” This post earned 76,224 interactions.

The rental car company later announced it would be selling more EVs after it made a deal with Tesla to offer the cars to renters and the value of the cars went down. On top of that, Tesla has had its own challenges. In April, the company reported that its first-quarter earnings plunged by 48%.

Stories about automakers and EV sales garnered 675,188 interactions (38%) compared to content about charging infrastructure (164,150 interactions, or 9%) or even EV trouble in cold weather (295,794 interactions, or 17%).

When looking at the top 100 posts from right-leaning political pages only, Media Matters found a similar pattern. Posts related to automakers or EV sales garnered 477,233 interactions (45%). Posts about charging infrastructure earned just 7% and posts about performance issues, particularly in cold weather, earned 10% of interactions. The remaining posts covered an even wider range of different topics.

Importantly, EV sales are still growing, despite setbacks. In May, Ford reported a 65% increase in hybrid and EV sales. Also in May, Bloomberg reported that “EV sales are still booming for most automakers — even if Tesla is in a nut.” The article pointed out that, “Six of the 10 biggest EV makers in the US saw sales grow at a scorching pace compared to a year ago.”

On the predicament at Hertz, CNN reportedthat the problem,“wasn’t necessarily that the cars were electric, and customers simply do not want to drive electric cars. The problem was how Hertz handled the fleet in general.” For example, Hertz did not have charging stations at its rental locations, and the company has been mired by other issues as well. This important context was largely omitted from the post text, headlines, or first paragraphs of the top posts Media Matters analyzed. On Facebook, the optimistic long-term outlook on EV growth was largely ignored.

## Politically nonaligned pages — not just right-leaning ones — helped drive engagement around negative stories

* Right-wing media have been driving anti-EV sentiment (with help from fossil fuel industry allies) since the start of Biden’s term. This trend was clearly reflected in Media Matters’ analysis. Out of the top 100 posts related to EVs on right-leaning pages, 95% were negative, earning over a million interactions in 2024 so far.

But on Facebook, politically nonaligned pages fed into this trend as well. Nearly three quarters (74%) of EV related top posts on nonaligned pages had a negative framing. These posts generated 83% of all interactions on EV-related top posts from nonaligned pages.

Some of the same headlines that received attention on right-leaning pages also got attention on nonaligned pages. Several local news outlets highlighted Ford and Hertz’s losses, along with other problems related to EVs struggling to charge in cold weather.

Our analysis indicates that media on Facebook are not contextualizing conversations about the so-called EV sales slump, and other problems that most nascent technologies inevitably face. The nation is undertaking a massive and necessary transition to electrify the transportation sector, reduce car dependency, and expand access to public transit. Transforming the transportation sector in this way will not only cut planet-warming carbon pollution, but will also improve health outcomes for many Americans.

## Methodology
Using CrowdTangle, Media Matters compiled a list of 1,773 Facebook pages that frequently posted about U.S. politics. For an explanation of how we compiled pages and identified them as right-leaning, left-leaning, or ideologically nonaligned, see the methodology here. The resulting list consisted of 771 right-leaning pages, 497 ideologically nonaligned pages, and 505 left-leaning pages.

===

ab 6 24

Buttigieg dismantles MAGA lawmaker’s 'factually incorrect' claims at EV hearing

transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania) have a history of clashing on environmental policies and electric vehicles, and the two of them butted heads once again during a congressional hearing on Thursday morning, June 6.

When Perry grilled Buttigieg, he responded to the far-right MAGA congressman's claims about the Biden Administration's "dictatorial" policies on electric vehicles — and gave him a thorough fact-check.

The Democratic transportation secretary told Perry, "Given time is limited, I will confine myself to addressing the factually incorrect portions of what you have said — beginning with the assertion that EV sales are going down. They are, in fact, going up."

When Perry claimed that those EV sales are "government sales," Buttigieg responded that he was referring to "private sales too."

"More private citizens buy EVs than government purchases," Buttigieg told Perry.

The Biden transportation secretary went on to tell Perry, "Let me address the second factual mistake in these remarks, which is that EV costs are getting higher. They are, in fact, getting lower, and according to J.D. Power, have now reached parity or are slightly lower than gas-powered cars."

Buttigieg also address EV sales for 2024's first quarter, adding, "The third incorrect assertion you made is that sales dropped in Q1; they did not drop in Q1 compared to the previous year."

*Watch the full video below or at this link.

---

desmog 4 24

fossil fuel interest groups have mobilized quickly to oppose a new rule issued by the Biden administration designed to speed up America’s transition to hybrid and electric vehicles.

The rule, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized on March 20, limits emissions from tailpipes on new cars, starting in 2027.

Well before the EPA finalized the new standard, powerful corporate lobbies like the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) had already promised to spend at least a million dollars campaigning against the rule by falsely portraying it as a “ban” on new cars. The group’s warn viewers that their freedoms and choices “will soon be taking a back seat to big government.”

The EPA predicts that the change would result in around two-thirds of new vehicle sales being hybrid or electric by 2032 — up from around eight percent today.

Beyond stopping more than 7 billion tons of carbon pollution, the agency predicts that the rule could save drivers more than $60 billion in fuel and maintenance costs, according to an EPA fact sheet that accompanied the final rule. The pollution reduction benefits would particularly benefit Black and brown communities because they are disproportionately likely to suffer from air pollution.

“These strongest-ever pollution standards for cars solidify America’s leadership in building a clean transportation future and creating good-paying American jobs,” EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement.

Compared to the EPA’s initial proposal, the final rule was scaled back to give car manufacturers more time to comply, but the New York Times still described the new standard as “one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history.”

The heads of AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute (API) — the leading trade group for the oil and gas industry — declared in a joint statement that the rule “will unequivocally eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade.”

In February, AFPM had already begun portraying the rule as a “car ban” and announced a “seven-figure issue campaign” featuring TV and digital ads, as well as billboards and text messages. Some of the efforts target electoral swing states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The group also launched a website that warns readers, in all caps, to “keep the government’s hands off our cars!”

Despite the industry’s attempt to misleadingly brand the new standard, “this is not a ban of internal combustion engines,” Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan, said in a statement.

Last year, AFPM spent nearly $7 million lobbying the federal government — more than any year in its history — according to OpenSecrets.

The top two bills the group reported lobbying for are designed to prevent the EPA from finalizing or enforcing vehicle emissions standards. Both bills passed the House last year. (Chevron, API, Koch Industries, and Marathon Petroleum are among the other industry groups and companies that lobbied for these bills last year.)

In addition to lobbying Congress and running million-dollar public influence campaigns, corporate trade groups have increasingly used lawsuits and the threat of costly, time-consuming litigation to stop or delay climate-related regulations.

Earlier this month, for instance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized a long-delayed rule that requires public companies to disclose some of their emissions and climate risks that could impact their businesses. While the published rule was substantially weaker than what the SEC originally proposed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was among a handful of conservative interest groups that immediately challenged the measure in court.

Another recent EPA rule targeting methane emissions also met with opposition from Republican officials and oil and gas interests, according to Politico.

And on March 6, barely a month after the EPA finalized a separate rule limiting soot pollution, API, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber were among eight trade groups that sued the agency in the D.C. Circuit court.

‘Prepared to challenge it in court’

In a blog post, AFPM claims that the EPA “does not have authority to overhaul the U.S. economy or transportation system or compel — directly or otherwise — the use of EVs to address vehicle emissions.”

Similar objections to the authority of federal agencies to issue regulations have found a receptive audience among the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

If the EPA doesn’t undo the tailpipe emissions rule, “our organizations are certainly prepared to challenge it in court,” the AFPM and API CEOs said in the joint statement that followed the announcement.

In attacking the rule, corporate interest groups like AFPM are following a well-trod path of fighting new climate regulations on every playing field they can find.

During the Trump administration, AFPM helped lead a successful effort to weaken previous EPA fuel efficiency standards. The group helped marshal Republican governors to advocate for the rollback, while also supporting Energy4US, a front group that encouraged Americans to flood the EPA with public comments, as DeSmog previously reported.

“One of the big advantages that oil industry lobbyists like AFPM have is money, and AFPM certainly isn’t afraid to use it,” Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at the investigative outlet Documented, told DeSmog in an email.

“Million dollar ad campaigns are an unfortunately common way for groups like AFPM to pressure legislators and regulators by raising the political temperature on an issue. Litigation slows things further, leading to years of delays in implementation.”

===

heated gmail 4 23

financially-motivated EV misinformation comes from both sides of the aisle (the lane?). Industries that see EVs as a threat exaggerate their harms in a bid to get you to hate EVs. And industries that profit from EVs greenwash their benefits in a bid to get you to love EVs.

Most often, you can recognize EV misinformation by its attempts to promote black and white thinking. It’ll either be “Electric cars are bad and gas cars are good” or “Electric cars are good and gas cars are bad.”

But the truth is, when it comes to the environment, there really is no such thing as a “good” car. The real question is: how bad are these cars in relation to one another? This is where most EV misinformation lies.

Misleading: It’s more environmentally harmful to make an EV than a gas car.

This statement, by itself, is technically true. ”To run, EVs require six times the mineral input, by weight, of conventional vehicles, excluding steel and aluminum,” the Washington Post reported in 2023.

That’s because each EV has a 900-pound battery block containing roughly 353 pounds of crucial materials or metals including cobalt, nickel, lithium, manganese, aluminum and copper. Gas cars don’t have that, so it’s less emissions-intensive to create a gas car than an electric car.

What’s misleading about the statement is not the statement itself, but the context in which gas car proponents say it. Usually, they’re saying it to convince you that electric cars are way worse than gas cars for the environment. And that’s just frankly illogical, because the vast majority of pollution that comes from cars does not come from making the car. It comes from driving the car.

Screenshot: Outside Magazine

If you’re only buying a car to simply look at it and never drive it, then absolutely, it would be way more environmentally-friendly to buy a gas-powered car.

But if you do, in fact, intend to actually drivethe car you buy, then an EV is going to be the less environmentally harmful choice—even if coal is part of your local electricity mix.

That’s not according to me, either. That’s according to a peer-reviewed study funded by the Ford Motor Company, a company that makes most of its profits from gas-powered vehicles.

That study, conducted by the University of Michigan, found that EVs become less emissions-intensive than gas cars after “1.4 to 1.5 years for sedans, 1.6 to 1.9 years for S.U.V.s and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks, based on the average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States.”

A chart from the Fuels Institute study shows the emissions differences between gas cars (ICE), hybrid cars (HEV), and electric cars (BEV). Source: Fuels Institute

Another study, conducted by Ricardo PLC for the nonprofit Fuels Institute, similarly found that driving a gas car is far worse for the planet than EVs, even when coal is part of the electricity mix.

Over 200,000 miles of driving, it found, a gas car emits 66 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, while an EV using the current average U.S. electricity mix emits 39 tons. In states that already have low-carbon electricity, an EV becomes less emissions-intensive than a gas car within 19,000 miles.

As time goes on, experts expect that it will take less and less driving time for EVs to become cleaner than gas cars. That’s not only because the electricity mix is expected to become cleaner; but also because the majority of battery materials used to make the cars are likely to be recycled.

Recycling and reusing the minerals used to make EV batteries “will drastically cut down the amount of wasted material compared with fossil fuels which disappear invisibly but harmfully to heat the planet,” the Guardian noted in December. The story cited data that suggests that “after recycling, battery material waste over an electric car’s life will be about the size of a football, or 30kg, by 2030.”

Of course, we all know how trustworthy corporations have been about recycling. But the point stands: anyone who says the creation of EVs makes them environmentally worse than gas-powered vehicles is either misinformed or trying to mislead you.

Myth: Because gas-powered cars are worse for the environment, we don’t need to worry about the harms of EVs.

Gas-powered cars are worse for the environment than EVs. But this does not mean EVs are good for the environment. Anyone telling you that is either misinformed or trying to mislead you.

In a recent investigation of this same debate, the Guardian found that gas vehicles were worse for the planet than electric vehicles. But it also ended on this important note: “the green credentials of electric cars [do not] absolve the buyers of battery minerals of responsibility for abuses in the supply chain.”

As Washington Post climate advice columnist Michael J. Coren wrote last year:

Mining minerals is never a clean affair. Cobalt from Congo, lithium and graphite from China, nickel from Indonesia and Russia, and battery supply chains that run through Xinjiang, in the Uyghur region where forced labor has been rampant: All of these have immediate problems, which The Washington Post explored in our “Clean Cars, Hidden Toll” series. Guinea, home to the world’s largest bauxite reserves for aluminum, yields misery for local communities. Nickel refiners in Indonesia are adopting a risky technology. Mineworkers in South Africa, the world’s largest producer of manganese, face neurological ills.

“The transition to low-carbon fuels is not a magic bullet with no negative outcome," Sergey Paltsev, a senior research scientist at MIT, told Cohen. “There is no free lunch. But it’s much less harmful than if we stay with fossil fuels. That’s the conclusion.”

Misleading: The U.S. electric grid can’t handle widespread EV adoption.

HEATED reader Oscar asked us to research the widespread claim that a large increase in electric vehicle adoption would place massive stress on the U.S. electric grid.

Oscar also wanted to know how much current U.S. infrastructure would need to be updated to accommodate a massive increase in EV adoption.

For a really detailed answer to both questions, I recommend reading this 2022 article in Scientific American, “Why Electric Vehicles Won’t Break the Grid.” But if you don’t have time, here’s the gist in one quote:

“We can’t just sit back and say, ‘OK, the grid can handle it; it’ll take care of itself,’” Baldwin added. “It will take attention, and it will take some adjustments to how things have been done in the past, but all in all, I’m optimistic that this is something that we can do.”

A big conclusion I took from the article is how much gas car proponents are exaggerating the strain on the grid from EVs:

In California—the national leader in electric cars with more than 1 million plug-in vehicles—EV charging currently accounts for less than 1 percent of the grid’s total load during peak hours. In 2030, when the number of EVs in California is expected to surpass 5 million, charging is projected to account for less than 5 percent of that load, said Buckley, who described it as a “small amount” of added demand.

But as people continue to buy EVs—and they are, across the world—it’s true that utilities will need to make adjustments to accommodate increases in demand. But experts say it’s not the huge deal gas car proponents are making it out to be.

“We’re talking about a pretty gradual transition over the course of the next few decades,” said Ryan Gallentine, transportation policy director at Advanced Energy Economy. “It’s well within the utilities’ ability to add that kind of capacity.” …

That success will hinge on utilities being proactive in planning for millions of additional EVs on the roads in the coming decades. It will also take some adjustments, experts said. EV owners and utilities must take advantage of up-and-coming charging technologies that will save the grid from unnecessary stress.

More EV claims, untangled

The Guardian’s “EV mythbusters” series, written by financial journalist Jasper Jolly, has been incredibly helpful in furthering my own understanding of EV misinformation.

Here are some of the questions Jolly tackles, and key quotes from his findings if you don’t feel like reading the whole thing:

Do electric cars pose a greater fire risk than petrol or diesel vehicles?

Key quote:“‘All the data shows that EVs are just much, much less likely to set on fire than their petrol equivalent,’ said Colin Walker, the head of transport at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit thinktank.” However: “There is also a definite puzzle for firefighters, as battery fires require more water to put out, can burn almost three times hotter, and are more likely to reignite, according to EV FireSafe.”

Is it right to be worried about getting stranded in an electric car?

Key quote:“Banishing range anxiety is tricky because it relies on electric vehicles’ use patterns as well as the charging network. It is not yet possible to say that every journey is well served … Most authorities are clear, however, that range anxiety should not be a problem for most people.”

Are electric cars too heavy for roads, bridges and car parks?

Key quote:“Some car park owners may be affected, and if electric trucks are heavier when they become widespread that could add to road maintenance costs.

But almost all of the direct costs will be borne by infrastructure maintenance budgets. The ECIU’s Walker said concerns about extra weight for EVs were simply “massively overstated”. However, he added that carmakers do have a responsibility to produce smaller electric cars, after years of focusing on the most profitable SUVs.”

Do electric cars have an air pollution problem?

Key quote:“It is certainly the case that ever heavier cars almost certainly produce more [tire] particulates. Electric cars are – for now – heavier still than equivalents. But even so, [tire] pollution appears roughly comparable between petrol, diesel and electric cars.”

Are electric cars too expensive to tempt motorists away from petrol and diesel vehicles?

Key quote:“For mostly urban drivers in cities such as Los Angeles, it “makes a lot of sense” financially but it is another calculation for Texas highway drivers, Shivers said. “It’s going to be very person-specific because everybody’s case is different,” he added.

Will hydrogen overtake batteries in the race for zero-emission cars?

Key quote:“The answer is no,” said Liebreich, without a moment’s hesitation. Carmakers betting on a large share for hydrogen are “just wrong”, and heading for an expensive disappointment, he added.

mma 3 24

on February 25, CNN published a piece on electric vehicles outlining the reasons that sales, which are trending upward and reached record levels in 2023, are not as high as analysts once predicted they’d be. The next day, a new headline appeared above the article that radically altered the main takeaway of the story without any new information added.

Here are the two headlines that appeared on February 25 and 26:

Why did CNN change “No, electric vehicle sales aren’t dropping” to “How EVs became such a massive disappointment”?

The article describes an emerging industry responding to new challenges. The original headline, “No, electric vehicle sales aren’t dropping. Here’s what’s really going on,” aptly characterized the moment this technology is in: Sales of electric vehicles are still climbing, even as the auto industry experiences and responds to growing pains.

The following day a new headline accompanied the piece that radically changed its tone: “How EVs became such a massive disappointment.” To support the negative new framing, CNN added a line to the piece saying “But the EV market has nevertheless become a major disappointment.” The change recharacterized the main findings — that while some automakers are currently scaling back production, EV sales are “up 40% from the same quarter a year before” and “hit a record last year” — to emphasize the “disappointment” arising from the mismatch of expectations and reality.

And while a note on the changed article reads, “This story and its headline have been updated to reflect context about EV sales expectations,” no new information or data was added to the article that would support a different conclusion.

No, EV’s are not a massive disappointment. Here’s what’s really going on.

The article does a fair job assessing the challenges currently facing the EV industry, “including vehicle price, lack of charging capacity and confusing tax credit rules,” and discussing why, despite strong sales, the industry is lowering future estimates.

But for each one of these challenges, which are consistent with the speed bumps that inevitably come with the development of new industries and products, the article also details the proactive ways the industry is responding.

Regarding the challenge of vehicle pricing, CNN points out that “most electric vehicles currently on sale in America are on the more expensive side of the automotive market.” The article then addresses the industry’s response, describing how automakers are cutting prices to move current EV models and working to make future models less expensive.

The article describes “continued lack of public charging” as another challenge, while laying out the ways industry is responding to it:

Automakers are finally taking major steps to do something about that, tapping into newly available federal funds, plus their own money, to install more chargers.

BMW, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, and Stellantis have come together to create a joint venture that plans to install about 30,000 chargers across the United States and Canada.

Also, to make things simpler for drivers, every major automaker in the US has agreed to switch over to the same charging standard used by Tesla, still the largest seller of EVs. That means that, in a few years, almost all EVs sold in America will have the same type of charging port and use the same type of charger.

CNN also acknowledges that confusion around tax credit rules is contributing to lower sales estimates. The article then explains how the industry is adapting in order to simplify the process for consumers, allowing more people to take advantage of credits that offset the cost of new electric vehicles.

The reality and response from the industry never suggest that EVs have become a massive disappointment, and it is unclear why CNN decided to characterize them this way after the article was published.

The altered headline was a gift to climate deniers looking to obscure the benefits of EVs

On X (formerly Twitter), some bad faith actors, including climate deniers Marc Morano and Steve Milloy, weaponized the new “massive disappointment” headline to bolster their attacks on Biden’s climate proposal to transition to electric vehicles.

The transition to EV’s is a key pillar of the Biden administration's plan to combat the climate crisis, as the transportation sector is one of the largest contributors of climate change-causing pollution. But the benefits of the technology don't end there. While upfront costs for EVs are currently higher than for gas-powered cars, they are often cheaper when comparing costs over the course of the vehicles’ lifespans. Furthermore, the production costs of EVs continue to fall, and in the next decade EVs are expected to become cheaper to produce than gas cars.

In addition to long-term financial savings, EVs offer health benefits, as well. Reporting on an Environmental Protection Agency proposal that supports EV growth, The Detroit News noted that by 2055, the proposed rules would “remove nearly 10 billion tons of carbon emissions … reducing fine particulate matter in the air that can have negative health effects and potentially saving up to $1.6 trillion.” Indeed, one recent study estimated that up to 20,000 people in the U.S. die each year due to “transportation air pollution.”

Finally, a transition to EV's would make drivers less vulnerable to high gas prices and the whims of the global oil market. Reporting on the EPA proposal, MarketWatch noted that it “would strengthen American energy security by reducing reliance on 20 billion barrels of imported oil.”

===

Marc Morano

Weekly update ⋅ February 16, 2024

America is Wasting Over a Trillion Dollars on "Green" Programs | NewsRadio 740 KTRH

NewsRadio 740 KTRH

According to Marc Morano from The Climate Depot, the bill was merely a disguised 'green pork barrel' falsely labeled as the 'Inflation Reduction ...

WaPo: Wear Clothes Made From Human Hair to Save the Earth

One America News Network

WaPo: Wear Clothes Made From Human Hair to Save the Earth. with Marc Morano. An error occurred. Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or ...

DC Jury Found 'Hockey Stick' Critics Defamed Scientist. What Does That Mean For Scientific ...

The Daily Caller

... Marc Morano, a former senior staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who later founded ClimateDepot.com, told the Daily ...

Inflation Reduction Act's 30C EV Charging Tax Credit - One America News Network

One America News Network

To watch the full show, head over to OAN Live where you can download the OAN Live app to gain access to all our exclusive full-length content. Share ...

---

evang {talk?] radio?

Another Climate Summit - VCY.org

VCY.org

Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot says, “COP 28 is shaping up to be a doubling down on the green agenda despite the massive failure on a ...

penna Dexter

It’s December: time for another UN climate confab. Global socialists who see a climate emergencyin every heat wave are meeting in Dubai for the 28^th annual Conference of the Parties. Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depotsays, “COP 28 is shaping up to be a doubling down on the green agenda despite the massive failure on a grand global scale.”

These conferences have no effect on climate. They have sparked little significant change in energy consumption. People who have to live with these agendas are starting to push back. Three thousand U.S. auto dealers are asking President Biden to let up on his aggressive electric vehicle push. EV’s are piling up on dealers’ lots. They’re losing money on every EV sold.

Wall Street Journalcolumnist Gerard Baker observes God’s “wicked sense of humor” in that, on their way to the summit, “members of the planetary emergency rescue elite” ran into the early arrival of winter — a facet of the climate they could not control. They were stranded in Munich, where a snowstorm dumped 17 inches on the ground and forced cancellation of most outbound flights.

The private jets and snowbound adventures of attendees is just the beginning of their hypocrisy.

That so much time and money is spent on these conferences would be laughable if the climate mandates were not so damaging.

The Hillpoints out that U.S. climate envoy John Kerry has said, “There shouldn’t be any more coal power plants permitted anywhere in the world.” And yet he’s pushing what Gerard Baker describes as “some grand new partnership with China, which ”is becoming one giant coal-fired power station.”

A Bloombergreport predicts that “developed nations will be told to curb their excessive appetite for meat.” A UN report for mayors recommended a limit of three new clothing items per person per year by 2030 to fight climate change.

Apparently, climate bureaucrats are not content with the destruction of the American auto industry.

Fox is misleading about the cost and popularity of EVs

A common refrain from Fox is that electric vehicles are too expensive to compete with gas-powered cars, or that consumers in general just don’t want them.

While their upfront costs are currently more expensive than gas-powered cars, EVs are cheaper than gas-powered cars over their entire lifespan. Furthermore, the production costs of EVs continue to fall, and in the next decade EVs are projected to be cheaper to produce than gas cars.

In addition to long-term financial savings, EVs have numerous health benefits, as well. Reporting on the EPA proposal, The Detroit News noted that by 2055, the rules would reduce “fine particulate matter in the air that can have negative health effects and potentially saving up to $1.6 trillion.” Indeed, one recent study estimated that up to 20,000 people in the U.S. die each year due to vehicle pollution.

In terms of popularity, while EVs made up just 6% of total vehicle sales in the U.S. in 2022, this figure is double the amount from 2021 and likely only getting higher. By 2030, EV sales could make up nearly 40% of total passenger car sales in the U.S., according to analysis by S&P Global (without factoring in the proposed EPA standards). Research from Goldman Sachs estimates that EVs will constitute half of global car sales by 2035, and 60% of sales by 2040.

Fox contributor and former Trump economic adviser Steve Moore: “Only 6% of the car sales are EVs, so they're basically telling the American consumers, ‘We're going to build the cars you don't want.’ I mean, how stupid is that?” Fox Business, The Bottom Line, [4/10/23]
Fox anchor Harris Faulkner: “Six percent of all new cars are EVs. That is a huge sign that people don't want this.” Frequent Fox guest Steve Forbes agreed that people don’t want EVs: “The fact they have to keep forcing people to do it shows that, again, people don't want it because they don't like the short distances, they don’t like having to charge an hour, hour and a half. People don't have garages to charge these things.” Fox News, The Faulkner Focus, [4/12/23]
Fox anchor Sandra Smith downplays the costs, popularity, and market share of EVs: “In these big American cities, people are scared to take public transportation because of rising crime rates coast-to-coast. … Why aren't we addressing that rather than pushing for these EVs that are not popular, they’re expensive, and the president’s own energy administration right now is forecasting they’ll only be a mere 10% of the American car market by the year 2050. So, if they were liked, if they were affordable, if they were efficient, wouldn't there just naturally be demand for these cars?” Fox News, America Reports, [4/12/23]
Fossil fuel shill and writer Robert Bryce: “This is very much a class issue. And it's not just about the affordability of the vehicles themselves, it’s about the upgrades to the grid that we’re all going to have to pay for through the rate base and through our taxes.” Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, [4/12/23]
President and CEO of Celebrity Motor Cars Tom Maoli suggests that car companies don’t even like EVs: “You know it’s interesting because while you’re saying that the car companies are trying to push EV, it's really the government that’s pushing it. The car companies don't want it. Nobody has figured out how to make money on this venture. … The consumer is not buying into it. They’re coming into the showrooms, they’re afraid of them.” Fox News, Fox & Friends, [4/13/23]

Fox portends that it's strictly government regulations, and not market forces, that are pushing EVs on Americans

Whether Fox wants to admit it or not, major automakers including Ford, GM, Stellantis, Toyota, and Volkswagen already have aggressive goals for EV sales in the next decade. Additionally, climate-focused media outlet Heatmap reports that the EPA “expects that automakers are collectively on track for 44% of vehicle sales to be electric by 2030 without any changes to emissions rules.” Federal regulations will certainly prod automakers to manufacture more EVs, but to say that major automakers focused on the global market are moving to produce more EVs solely because of U.S. regulations is false. As part of this narrative, Fox figures are also claiming that this new rule is an affront to personal liberties. This is straight fearmongering, as the rule does not ban gas-powered cars or force people to give theirs up.

Investment adviser Gary Kaltbaum: “We have a government now that’s coming out with some more dictates that are going to try to force you to maybe buy something you don't want to buy when there’s no demand there.” Fox News, *Your World*, [4/10/23]
Fox Business host Sean Duffy denounces the Biden administration’s “attack on gas-powered cars.” “The Biden administration is back at it again using crazy regulations to push their radical green agenda,” Duffy claimed. “The EPA now reportedly getting ready to roll out some of the most aggressive climate regulations ever this coming Wednesday, continuing their attack on gas-powered cars.” Fox Business, *The Bottom Line*, [4/10/23]
Fox News anchor Sandra Smith: “If you create the cars people want, they'll demand them. You don't have to mandate them.” Fox News, *America Reports*, [4/10/23]
Fox Business anchor Larry Kudlow states that the EPA is “taking away our free choice.” Kudlow said, “You know the problem with EPA and radical climate change in general is? They are taking away our free choice. So, if you're fed up with a bunch of left-wing central planners jamming stuff down your throat, well, then vote no.” Fox Business, *Kudlow*, [4/11/23]
Fox contributor Steve Moore suggests an ulterior motive to the emissions proposal: “So this isn't about cleaning up the atmosphere. This is about a radical climate change plan that is going to force people to buy cars they don't want to. I think the Biden people have really stepped in it on this one. Because, as I said, people don't want the government telling them what kind of car they can buy.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [4/13/23]
Fossil fuel shill Steve Milloy: “Electric cars are so popular government has to mandate them and subsidize them. Look, this whole rule is a failure.” Fox News, *Fox News @ Night*, [4/13/23]
Fox contributor Phil Flynn says that Americans are “not ready” for the EV transition. “We are not ready for it and they are coming for your car, Sandra, you better lock your garage,” Flynn said, later adding “When the government starts meddling in the free markets and starts to try to pit winners and losers, there is always going to be a backlash that hurts the American people and that's what we’re seeing right now.” Fox News, *America Reports*, [4/13/23]
Fox Business host Brian Brenberg suggests this is not about EVs but rather controlling peoples’ movement: “Americans are not going to have the choices they have now about what they drive and how they do that. The fact is, Sean, what the president's actually trying to do is not get people into EVs but get them out of cars. He wants to control this whole supply chain. And the point is, the government's going to control how you get around, not you. And that, look, that's the stock and trade of every totalitarian government is to control the means of movement.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [4/14/23]

Fox is insinuating that EVs are worse for the environment than gas cars, and that only China benefits from this proposal

An MIT article from October 2022 stated that “although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.” EVs also don’t have the deadly tailpipe emissions associated with gas-powered cars.

Additionally, claims that only China benefits from this proposal are overstated. While China does control much of the supply chain for EV materials, the U.S. is taking steps to develop its own domestic supply chains (thanks in part to the Inflation Reduction Act) to reduce its reliance abroad. Automakers are also rethinking their supply chain strategies and investing in mines to secure the resources needed for scaling up electric vehicle production.

Finally, in addition to the numerous health benefits that come with reducing gas-powered car use, a transition to EVs would mean drivers would be less vulnerable to high gas prices and the whims of the global oil market. Reporting on the EPA proposal, MarketWatch notes that it “would strengthen American energy security by reducing reliance on 20 billion barrels of imported oil.”

Fox host Will Cain suggests this plan only gives power to China: “In China, either through its own domestic geography or through its colonization of the world like Africa, has control of those raw materials as well. … If we move in this direction, we're giving that power, we're taking it from ourselves and giving it to China because of their dominance of those raw materials.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends Weekend*, [4/9/23]
American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers states that we are “sacrificing American energy independence” to China.“Doing this the way that they're doing it, which is really just to focus on tailpipe emissions, rather than the emissions that actually exist when you create a vehicle from the very beginning, these electric vehicles, while great technology, most those key components continue to be made in China. We shouldn't just be looking at this from the perspective of emissions, but we should also look at it from a national security perspective. We should not be sacrificing American energy independence to a regime that is certainly hostile to American interests.” Fox Business, *Mornings with Maria*, [4/10/23]
Fox co-host Brian Brenberg suggests this new proposal just gives China more power: “This is what I meaned, mixed up. We're talking about China's desire to dominate on the world stage, and we have a industrial policy by the Biden administration that wants to throw power to the Chinese by increasing emissions standards and, at the same time, handing all sorts of American taxpayer subsidies to Chinese companies in the U.S. for battery power and for battery production.” Fox Business, *The Big Money Show*, [4/10/23]
Fox correspondent Jackie DeAngelis insinuates that only China will profit: “Basically with this EV push and the green push in general — our solar panels, a lot of them come from China, as well — you’re basically selling out this country so that China can profit from this. It’s absolutely insane to me.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [4/11/23]
Fox host Brian Kilmeade: “You can sleep well at night knowing that you're driving an electric car and other people’s lives are being ruined and countries are being destroyed, while China pays them and profits.” Fox News, *The Story*, [4/12/23]
Fox anchor Dagen McDowell: “We, by this electric vehicle boondoggle, are handing power and our borrowed money to China.” McDowell said: “We have taken a hammer to one of our greatest resources, our energy economy, our fossil fuel economy. We have lowered our standard of living, and so we have ceded power and prosperity to nations that hate us, to Iran and Russia, by reducing our energy output, our oil and natural gas output here, and then in turn we — to Sean's point, we, by this electric vehicle boondoggle, are handing power and our borrowed money to China.” Fox News, *America Reports*, [4/12/23]
Fox host Sean Hannity: The electric car push only helps China. “The push for electric cars also threatens national security,” Hannity claimed. “Experts warning now it will make us more dependent on China giving them more leverage over this country. Now, as-powered cars, they are just the latest thing that they want to ban.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [4/13/23]

Fox is using good old-fashioned climate bashing to advance their anti-EV agenda

As usual, Fox is downplaying the seriousness of climate change by suggesting that these rules won’t do anything to help fight climate change. However, The Washington Post noted that the proposal is “large enough to avert the equivalent of two full years of nationwide carbon emissions, according to EPA estimates.” This proposal would thus go a long way in helping the U.S. — which is the world’s largest historical carbon emitter — to advance its climate goals. Additionally, as climate change requires a global, collective response, the U.S. would also be following in the footsteps of the European Union, which recently proposed even more-stringent requirements for tailpipe emissions.

Fox host Greg Gutfeld: “None of their predictions have come true. None of them.” Gutfeld continued, “They are forcing America to do this crap over one, less than a percent Celsius. Less than a percent Celsius. It has no effect. And in fact, as this climate gets warmer, people's lives improve. That's a fact. That's a fact. People die from cold weather more frequently than warm weather.” Fox News, The Five, [4/12/23]
Fox host Jesse Watters suggests that climate change is like a religion: “It’s not going to lower the Earth's temperature at all. All it does is make the donors happy because this is a religion to them, and it makes my guys in Detroit happy because they sell these things, and we pay for half of it. It’s the taxpayers subsidizing this ‘green revolution.’” Fox News, The Five, [4/12/23]
Fox contributor Jason Chaffetz argues the proposal is part of a climate denial conspiracy theory related to the 15-minute city idea: “And the only thing they want to ramp up is their goal of limiting your mobility. This is not a mistake. As Laura [Ingraham] discussed last night with famed U.K. professor Norman Fenton, these moves are essential in order to bring about the end game of climate fanaticism — so-called 15-minute cities.” Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, [4/12/23]
Fox’s Dagen McDowell: “There is no climate crisis. This is all about removing your choice and ending your ability as an American to decide what the hell kind of car you want to drive.” Fox Business, The Bottom Line, [4/12/23]

---

https://www.mediamatters.org/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-host-claims-climate-change-improves-peoples-lives

mma 4 23

GREG GUTFELD (CO-HOST): The green movement is tied up in knots right now.Electric cars exploit cheap human labor in Africa and in China. The climate predictions are falling apart. The smart folks are flocking to nuclear andidentity politics stole the thunder from the climate agenda. And how do you know that?

You've got to look atESG, right? Equity social governance. Why are they packed together like that at companies? It's because you couldn't do climate on its own because no one bought it. So what they did is they married it to race and they married it to gender, so if you come out against ESG, it's about you being a bigot, not about you being smart about the climate.

None of their predictions have come true. None of them. They are fighting. They are forcing America to do this crap over one -- less than a percent Celsius, less than a percent Celsius. It has no effect.

And in fact, as this climate gets warmer, people's lives improve. That's a fact. That's a fact.People die from cold weather more frequently than warm weather, so give me your cancer B.S.

---

https://boingboing.net/2023/03/01/u-s-post-office-orders-9250-electric-vans-and-14000-charging-stations.html

---

https://www.alternet.org/postmaster-general-to-be-fired/

ev fleet a go?

---

regular readers of the denier roundup know this already, but former journalist John Stossels is now a leading disinformation producer, regularly featuring fake experts who just-so-happen to be, like Stossel, all Koch’d up.

By Climate Denier Roundup

But today’s COP, Look, Listen provides some new information on Stossel’s conflicts of interest and his latest high-traction disinformation video, which “racked up $_{803k views / 60k likes on YouTube}_$ , 674k views / 23k interactions on FB, and909k view / 21k like on Twitter, where it was also the second most-shared post in the ‘anti-green tech’ narrative. In addition, it is being circulated as text via the Koch-funded disinfo media system, with Reason,the Daily Caller andthe Daily Signal all publishing the piece as op-eds.”

The video was “the first in a series” attacking Electric Vehicles, and “featuresMark Mills of theManhattan Institute, who Stossel fails to disclose has received over $1.3 million from Koch foundations since 2014 – see tax filings of Charles Koch Foundation and Charles Koch Institute for further detail. John Stossel’s brother Thomas is also a former senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.”

Unsurprisingly, “the 5-minute segment is rife with already-debunked disinformation. Mills claims that it takes mining ‘500,000 pounds’ of minerals to produce an EV battery, a point that has been comprehensively fact-checkedby AFP andUSA Today. He also alleges that the adoption of 500 million EVs would only ‘reduce world oil consumption by about 10%.’ The roughly 16 million EVs on the road already have reduced oil demand by 3.5% in total, so 500 million would certainly lower emissions by more than an additional 6.5%.”

Stossel and Mills want viewers to think EVs are no cleaner than fossil fueled cars, but “Argonne National Laboratoryproduced a model and have a whole page set upto do exactly this calculation. They found that EVs generally emit far less carbon over a 12-year lifespan.'[ani grx]

what’s more, “even in a coal-only grid, EVs come out better for the environment than diesel or petrol alternatives. In addition, a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that over their lifetime, EVs produce 50 percent less Greenhouse Gasses than gas or diesel cars. No matter where in the US, an average EV is cleaner than an average gas car, and for 90% of Americans the average EV is better than even the most efficient gas alternative.”

Whoops!

Surely Stossel’s failure to do any sort of journalistic fact-checking of his guest was just an innocent mistake, right?

Perhaps! Maybe Stossel deserves the benefit of the doubt, those of you more kind and forgiving than us may suggest. But consider Stossel’s history, and see if you’re still feeling generous:

Failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest is the norm for Stossel’s content and guests. In 2017, when his company JFS Productions was revealed as a top contractor of the Charles Koch Institute, a syndicated op-ed defended the Koch family from public criticism. In 2022, a two-part video series from Stosel featured Johan Norberg (senior fellow at the Cato Institute) and Texas Tech University professor Ben Powell, who is among those involved in a controversial department that has received over $6.5 million from the Charles Koch Foundation. Powell is also an officer of the Koch-funded Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE).

In 2019, a Stossel $_{video}_$ was critically fact checked, prompting him to unsuccessfully sue Facebook for defamation. The video featured a panel consisting entirely of professional climate disinformers affiliated with the Cato Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), The Heartland Institute and the Manhattan Institute.

Stossle’s “Center for Independent Thought” is also totally dependent on the same funders of the groups whose representatives he promotes as “other recent donors to Stossel’s Center for Independent Thought include,” Cato and CEI funding Claws Foundation, Cato, CEI and Heartland funding JP Humphreys Foundation, Cato and Manhattan funding Jewish Communal Fund, Cato, CO2 Coalition, CEI, Heartland and Manhattan Institute funding DonorsTrust, and Cat, CO2 Coalition and Manhattan Institute funding Thomas W. Smith Foundation.

Those funders, according to the bulletin, “plus the Charles Koch Foundation, gave a combined total of $1,494,688 to Stossel’s Center from 2019-2020, worth 40% of its $3,783,057 revenue in that two-year period.”

So while “Stossel tries to maintain his image as a reporter, and judging by his large audience across platforms is largely succeeding in that goal. The content itself, however, is far from adhering to journalistic standards from both a factual, ethical and financial standpoint, and should be exposed at every possible opportunity.”

Normally “exposing yourself” is considered a bad thing, but in this context, it’s about the most ethical thing Stossel could do, and the only way to regain any sense of credibility if he actually wanted to be a journalist again.

(Originally appeared at DailyKos)

---

11 22

https://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=aa514bcc34&e=6b22ffb724

California Climate Measure Fails After ‘Green’ Governor Opposed It in a Campaign Supporters Called ‘Misleading’

BY LIZA GROSS

Proposition 30 would have taxed the state’s wealthiest residents to subsidize EVs, charging infrastructure and wildfire protection. But public support flagged after Gov. Newsom became the face of the opposition.

---

Literally don't understand what that means': Pete Buttigieg buries MTG's bizarre attack on electric cars

Bob Brigham Raw Story

October 04, 2022

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg responded to fears of emasculation voiced by Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) during a Tuesday appearance on Fox News...

---

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/climate-fueled-heat-wave-stresses-californias-electric-grid-right-wing-media-are

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/north-carolina-republican-charging-stations/

somewhere is going to pay to rip them out? id biz eg rest has one, must report on bill cost to consumers.

---

Climate deniers are going all in with disinfo for COP26 (Sorry, Teslas really do produce fewer emissions)

TAGGED:COP26, DENIAL, TESLA October 27th, 2021

As the world gears up for the COP26 climate negotiations in Glasgow next week, deniers are already laying the groundwork for the disinformation they’ll peddle in a hopefully-vain attempt to recreate their success in using Climategate disinformation to disrupt the Copenhagen COP.

While every year brings a new and exciting display of denial, a few recent stories stand out as top candidates for the fossil fueled opposition to latch onto when confronted with the possibility that letting polluters profit our planet to death is a bad idea.By Climate Denier Roundup

Though we can expect some totally-unhinged and unsubstantiated claims about banning beef, one of the biggest recurring arguments is also one of the most misleading, that the Texas blackouts offer a warning of what climate policies will make common.

For example, Sean Spicer, who hasn’t quite danced his Trump-stained reputation clean yet, has a new book out, and the Koch-funded RealClear ran an excerpt. It opens with a heart-tugging story about a 12 year old who died of hypothermia, and then quickly exploits the child’s death to score cheap, and completely false, political points. The 80+ deaths “were caused by political decisions,” Spicer writes, and “the tragedy of the Texas blackout was partially the result of the growth of the green energy industry.”

But the majority of the responsibility for the blackouts can be laid at the fossil fuel industry’s failure to do the one thing it claims it does best: Be reliable.

That reliability claim is also at the core of another strain of disinformation we’re seeing around COP26, which is the suggestion that the Teslas parked at the Gleneagles Hotel that the VIPs will use in Glasgow are going to be charged by diesel generators. “Couldn’t make it up,” one viral tweet claimed.

It was used as the basis for a ZeroHedge story, and the same narrative has been picked up by the UK’s Spectator magazine, and the climate denial blog Watts Up With That.

The problem? Well, it turns out you could make it up, and they did, as it turns out it’s Jaguar-brand electric vehicles they’re using, not Teslas, and while the COP26 crew may use supplemental generators to charge the vehicles somewhere, Gleneagles Hotel has denied setting up any chargers, while conference organizers told Alastair Dalton for the Scotsman that any spare generators are going to be filled with cooking waste oil, AKA biodiesel, not petroleum-based diesel.

Although unreasonable for faux-populist conservatives to attack the rich elite pushing for climate action, it does seem odd that they’re apparently incapable of doing so in an honest way, despite that being so very, very easy to do.

For example, a recent New York Post op-ed does a fine job of criticizing the billionaire boy’s club of Bezos, Musk, Gates, and Jobs(‘s widow), but also throws in some fakery for good measure.

While Paula Froelich is correct that “the electric cars made by Musk’s Tesla are not emissions free,”she then goes on to claim that the Wall Street Journal showed that “building one of his cars actually generates more emissions because of the metals needed for its lithium-ion batteries.”

But when you click through to the WSJ story, the subheadline notes that while “there are caveats”, “EVs produce fewer emissions overall than their gas-powered counterparts.” That’s because while the manufacturing of an electric vehicle requires more materials than a gas-powered car, the pollution from refueling far outweighs that initial difference.

Drive a Tesla for more than (at most) 20,000 miles, and you’ve broken even on emissions.

Drive it for a car’s average lifespan of 150,000 miles, and not only has the EV cost you less in ownership (because electricity is cheaper than gas) but you’ve also generated less than half as much pollution.

So if they had ordered and produced new electric cars for the COP26, and then immediately scrapped them afterwards, then yes, that would be hypocritical and wasteful. But the UK government has already said that the cars “have all been sourced from existing fleets in the UK,” so there’s not even that initial manufacturing pollution to count, dramatically improving the emissions footprint.

But, as one local environmental campaigner, Colin Howden, told the Scotsman, what they could’ve done to reduce emissions even further (and avoid this issue all together) is have the dignitaries take advantage of the “fleet of new electric buses” in Glasgow.

(Originally appeared at DailyKos.)

---

last week, President Biden signed an Executive Order encouraging U.S. leadership in the clean car sector with a goal of half of all new car sales in the U.S. being zero-emission by 2030. It took them a few days, but deniers seem to have assembled their response by cobbling together a mix of old lies, new misrepresentations, and bizarre logical fallacies.

:{:{}:

For example, a response that in any sane outlet might be praise for Biden’s plan was published in the Koch-funded RealClearEnergy as an attack: President Biden’s Electric Car Future is Union Made. Bruce Yandle, a fellow at the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University, is upset that Biden invited three major U.S. car companies to attend the announcement because they were the largest employers of workers in the United Auto Workers union, and didn’t invite non-American companies with non-union workers to his event promoting good American jobs.}:

By Climate Denier Roundup

Obviously, it’s no surprise that a Koch crony is anti-union and anti-EV, unless you confuse organized labor with organized denial.

Speaking of organized denial, while the once-Koch-funded Daily Caller has since basically given up on regular climate denial reporting, and its IPCC story was a straightforward rip-off of the AP’s “code red” coverage (sans any Koch-network denial quote, because no-pay, no-play, we assume). The Caller still occasionally publishes guest opinion pieces and ran one from Charlotte Whelan of the (pro-Covid) Independent Women’s Forum andSteamboat Institute (which is hosting Marc Morano and a slate of other rightwing pseudostars at an upcoming festival).

Whelan is also upset the White House invited union workers to its pro-union-jobs event, and adds (with a deliberately misleading citation) the claim that “it could take more than 15 years to recoup the upfront extra costs in fuel savings. The average American certainly can’t wait that long to ‘make back’ the additional upfront cost” But the work cited (an NRDC post based on a peer-reviewed study) doesn’t even measure how long it would take to recoup the upfront cost of an EV with cheaper charging and a more efficient propulsion system. The study did, however, use 15 years as the unit of measurement for a car’s life. So the calculations show that over an average 15-year lifespan of ownership, it can be almost $15,000 cheaper to go with an electric car.

Over at theKoch-funded Heritage foundation’s media arm, their policy analyst Katie Tubb makes a similar claim about EVs being for rich people, which we’ve addressed before as part of their propaganda campaigns, as well as the old racist dog whistle about China.

Finally, we get to a new name to us, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who wrote that Biden’s move was “costly and counterproductive” in the industry-funded Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

After a column defending the auto industry from 5G in January, and another in March with the phrase “nothing beats personal vehicles for social distancing.” Furchtgott-Roth makes similar points to the other professional disinformers in her most recent City Journal piece, but she also a:{dds a particularly baffling claim that because “the United States has achieved energy security by becoming a net exporter of oil and natural gas,” then “mandating sales of electric vehicles would weaken that security.”}:

But if exporting oil makes us stronger (by her logic) then wouldn’t having more of it to export because our own cars are using less of it be a good thing, that would make us stronger?

Why would someone write something so inane and illogical, despite a byline that includes “former deputy assistant secretary for research and technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation” and “adjunct professor of economics at George Washington University?” Those are both legitimate organizations, not industry-funded disinformation operations!

Well it turns out that the DOT appointment was made by notoriously-bad-hiring-manager Donald Trump, and prior to that, Furchtgott-Roth was an economist for the American Petroleum Institute, proving once again that when someone says something stupid about EVs, it’s probably on purpose.

(Originally appeared at DailyKos.)

---

920 icn

in a Bold Move, California’s Governor Issues Ban on Gasoline-Powered Cars as of 2035

BY: DAN GEARINO

The order, issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday, is the first of its kind in the United States. But it is bound to draw legal challenges.

---

who killed wiki:

reminder:

CA CARB) passed the zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate in 1990 which required the seven major automobile suppliers in the United States to offer electric vehicles in order to continue sales of their gasoline powered vehicles in California. Nearly 5000 electric cars were designed and manufactured by Chrysler, the Ford Motor Company, General Motors (GM), Honda, Nissan, and Toyota; and then later destroyed or donated to museums and educational institutions...The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after relentless pressure and suits from automobile manufacturers, continual pressure from the oil industry, orchestrated hype over a future hydrogen car, and finally the George W. Bush administration.

A portion of the film details GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no consumer demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and destroy them...

---

5/20

desmog

Colorado is moving ahead with a plan to get nearly 1 million electric vehicles (EV) on its roads by 2030 and, for the first time, has adopted a long-term goal of transitioning to 100 percent electric and zero-emission vehicles.

---

vw port battery? 320

---

320 desmog

s this week the U.S. Senate tries to advance stalled bipartisan energy legislation, the American Energy Alliance (AEA) last week announced its latest initiative opposing any tax credit extension for electric vehicles (EV) in that bill.

Through a series of digital ads, the group, which receives a substantial share of its donations from an oil refinery trade group, is calling on Senate Republicans to squash a proposed amendment expanding the number of vehicles eligible for the credit.

READ MOR

https://www.ecowatch.com/european-green-deal-exxon-lobbyists-2645438998.html

The European commission's effort to transition the 27-country economic bloc from a high-carbon to a low-carbon emitter in a few decades received input from the fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil in the weeks prior to its passage, according to a watchdog that monitors lobbying activity, as The Guardian guk] reported.

As Common Dreams reported, a report released last week by InfluenceMap revealed that Exxon lobbyists met with commission officials in November to request an extension of the Green Deal's carbon pricing policy, known as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), to tailpipe emissions.

The report revealed that just ahead of the December announcement of the Green Deal, Exxon lobbyists met with Frans Timmermans, a member of the commission's cabinet, after the company avoided penalties for failing to attend a hearing on climate denial, as the EU Observer reported.

As InfluenceMap wrote in its report:

"In the meeting, the lobbyist for ExxonMobil tried to stall an overhaul of the transportation sector. ExxonMobil representatives pushed for the EU Commission to change its approach to climate regulation in the transport sector, including removing the EU's strict CO2 vehicle tailpipe standards, in what appears to have been an effort to stall a push towards electric vehicles. A direct extract from the meeting notes indicate the un-named ExxonMobil officials argued that the EU should: 'Give serious consideration to extending ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) beyond stationary sources. Tail pipe emission legislation should be substituted with power plant to wheel emission regulation.'"

According to The Guardian, the maneuver aimed to tamp down knowledge about the carbon footprint of driving a combustion engine running on fossil fuels. And the lobbying effort seems to have worked, since the European Commission did not include plans to phase out combustion engines. It also did not include cars running on fossil fuels in its carbon-pricing plan.

Furthermore, the move aims to create unrest that would be politically unfeasible. The only way for a carbon-pricing plan for tailpipe emissions to be influential is for it to make greenhouse gas emissions very expensive. Yet, that type of action that transfers costs to consumers has been the bedrock of protests like the Yellow Vests protests in France, which stemmed from a proposed tax on diesel and gasoline, as the EU Observer reported.

Edward Collins, a director at InfluenceMap, said the document "represents yet another evidence piece" of ExxonMobil's efforts to protect its profits by thwarting meaningful regulatory action and shifting the focus to long-term technical solutions, as The Guardian reported.

The lack of decisive and meaningful regulatory actions that would change the transportation sector and the energy infrastructure of Europe in the immediate future drew the ire of climate activists, as EcoWatch reported. The Green Deal requires that European countries reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which many scientists say is too late to stop the climate crisis.

"Net zero emissions by 2050' for the EU equals surrender. It means giving up," Greta Thunberg and 33 other youth climate activists wrote in an open letter published Tuesday and reported by Reuters. "We don't just need goals for just 2030 or 2050. We, above all, need them for 2020 and every following month and year to come."

As Common Dreams pointed out:

"Exxon's attempt to further weaken the European Green Deal represents 'a shift from the propagation of climate science denial towards a range of more subtle tactics and narratives to distract policymakers and the public away from an urgent and robust policy intervention on climate on the scale recommended by the IPCC's 2018 special report on 1.5 [degrees Celsius] warming,' said InfluenceMap."

European Commission Proposes Sweeping European Green Deal

ew 1119

EU Parliament Declares ‘Climate and Environmental Emergency’

Polling Experts Bash Koch-Funded Electric Car Survey as 'Highly Biased' and 'Highly Misleading'

desmog 1/20

---

Electric Vehicles for Uber and Lyft? Los Angeles Might Require It, Mayor Says.

:{:{BY: LESLIE HOOK, FINANCIAL TIMES}:

L.A. has big plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but requiring EVs for rideshare services would also radically change the economics of the business. Read More}:

:{:{}:

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/electric-car-tax-credit-trump-2641647250.html

[pix trump tours the Shell Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex with Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Shell Oil company President Gretchen Watkins and Shell Pennsylvania Vice President Hilary Mercer in Monaca, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 13, 2019. NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP via Getty Images]

:{:{}:

By Dana Drugmand

The oil industry, a staunch opponent of electric vehicles (EVs), received an early Christmas present from the White House as President Trump reportedly intervened to quash an EV tax credit expansion from inclusion in a government spending package.

The tax credit is meant to help offset the upfront cost of electric vehicles and boost the EV market. Consumers who purchase an EV can currently claim a credit up to $7,500, and the credit phases out once auto manufacturers sell 200,000 qualifying vehicles. Tesla and General Motors have both hit the 200,000-vehicle cap and had lobbied for an extension. A bipartisan proposal called for allowing a $7,000 credit for an additional 400,000 vehicles sold.

That proposal, introduced earlier this year as the Driving America Forward Act, was rolled into a broader package of incentives for renewable energy that proponents hoped to pass as part of an end-of-year spending deal. But groups tied to the Koch network and backed by oil industry funding worked hard to kill the clean energy incentives. These groups sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week urging the Senate to oppose any bill that includes an EV tax credit extension.

Ultimately the EV provision was dropped from the spending package. According to Forbes, "In last-minute negotiations over a massive package of spending bills designed to avert a government shutdown, the EV provision was lost in the shuffle and that was the outcome Republicans and President Trump wanted."

Trump specifically pushed for excluding the EV tax credit, as Bloomberg reported.

"There has been extreme resistance from the president. I don't know why the White House would want to stop jobs and the future of the auto industry," said Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, one of the original sponsors of the Driving America Forward Act.

According to Bloomberg, White House pressure was a key factor in eliminating the EV tax credit extension: "White House officials warned lawmakers that if they tried to expand the electric vehicle credit as part of a compromise spending bill, it could tank the measure, according to two people familiar with the matter. The issue is particularly heated in the West Wing and among conservatives who view the credit as mainly benefiting rich Californians and Tesla."

The American Energy Alliance, the main recipient of grant funds from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a major oil refinery trade organization,was one of the chief groups working to defeat the EV policy. In a press release, the AEA responded to the news by thanking the president and applauding him for "holding the line."

"President Trump stuck to his guns against a Congress hell-bent on saddling the cost of the Green New Deal on middle class American taxpayers. Companies like General Motors (GM) and Tesla have been clamoring for more taxpayer dollars to prop up their subsidy-based business model by doing everything in their power to influence our legislative process in their favor. But common sense has prevailed. President Trump deserves all the credit for holding the line on the electric vehicle tax credit expansion," AEA President Thomas Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries, said in a statement.

While AEA is calling the defeat of the EV tax credit extension a "holiday reprieve for taxpayers," the move is perhaps more accurately described as a holiday gift to the oil industry, which continues to bask in billions of dollars in federal subsidies each year.

Reposted with permission from DeSmogBlog.

https://www.ecowatch.com/electric-cars-public-opinion-polls-2641161506.html

Dana Drugmand

Fossil fuel interests appear intent on swaying public opinion about the electric vehicle tax credit, based on recent polling on the policy. A deeper look at these efforts reveals oil and gas funding behind the groups conducting the polls and blatant bias in the polling methodology, according to experts.

Survey results commissioned and publicized by the American Energy Alliance (AEA) seem on their surface to indicate that a majority of respondents are not thrilled about subsidizing EVs purchased by other consumers, particularly wealthy Americans. However, according to polling experts who reviewed the survey for DeSmog, the questions were designed to solicit a certain response and produce results to serve a predetermined narrative that supports the oil industry's interests. According to polling expert Ed Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, the surveys relied on "highly biased questions designed to elicit highly misleading answers."

Who Is Behind the 'Highly-Biased' Anti-Electric Vehicle Poll?

The organization that commissioned the surveys, AEA, is funded by oil interests including the Koch network and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the nation's leading trade group of oil refiners. The group is touting these findings from recent polls in Maine, Michigan and South Dakota, saying the results are consistent with those from surveys they commissioned in nine other states.

"This is further evidence that efforts to compel taxpayers, ratepayers, workers, and consumers to pay for the choices of others, and the preferences of government bureaucrats, are doomed and will lead directly to voter resistance," said Thomas Pyle, president of AEA. "The citizens of Maine, Michigan, and South Dakota see an expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit exactly for what it is: a giveaway to rich Californians and large,already prosperous corporations."

Pyle's statement, and the survey questions themselves, are loaded with misleading information. The tax credit's stated purpose is to lower the cost of electric vehicles, which is critically important for low-to-moderate income Americans. Automakers don't claim the credit, consumers do, including those who opt to lease an electric vehicle. But Pyle appears to disregard these points in an attempt to drum up opposition to the policy.

Pyle's approach makes sense within the context of his and his organization's backgrounds and former lobbying clients, as well as those of the firm conducting the surveys.

The American Energy Alliance is a 501(c)(4) organization — meaning it is not required to disclose its donors — and is the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research. IER supports "free-market energy and environmental policy" and was formed in 1989 from a predecessor organization founded by petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch. Donors to IER include oil and gas interests such as the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and Charles Koch Institute as well as ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute. The AFPM oil refiners trade group is also a major donor, having given three times as much to the American Energy Alliance compared to any other organization, according to the most recently available tax records. AEA, is a former lobbyist for Koch Industries, the largest privately owned energy company in the U.S. Pyle has also lobbied for the Big Oil trade association formerly called the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which is now AFPM. Both Koch Industries and the members of AFPM like Exxon make billions in profits from fueling internal-combustion engine vehicles, so policies supporting vehicles not fueled by their products, like the EV tax credit, threaten their bottom lines.

MWR Strategies, the firm conducting the surveys on the EV tax credit, is a research, communications and lobbying company whose clients include electric utility and energy companies with clear fossil fuel interests. For example, TECO Energy — owner of natural gas businesses in Florida and New Mexico — paid MWR $80,000 just this year. Among other energy and utility corporations paying MWR are ENGIE, Public Service Enterprise Group/PSEG Power, and Southern Company. Notably, Koch Industries has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the firm from 2008 to 2016, OpenSecrets data reveals. Other petroleum corporations and trade associations like El Paso Corp. and AFPM's predecessor National Petrochemical & Refiners Association have previously retained MWR.

Michael McKenna, president of MWR Strategies, is an energy lobbyist who led Trump's Energy Department transition team, and, as E&E reported, is "well-known in Republican energy circles" and was recently tapped to serve in the White House as an advisor to the president. McKenna previously worked at several other research and communications firms including Luntz Research Companies, founded by notorious climate denier Frank Luntz (who only recently announced he was wrong and has shifted his views).

The MWR Strategies website does not have information about current work, rather the "current" section is a list of links to polling on climate and energy topics dating back to 2008 and earlier. These "polls" are structured in much the same way as the polls about EV tax credits, with questions focused on the (debunked) premise that addressing climate change is too expensive and even asking about the "certainty" of climate science (exploiting scientific uncertainty has been a key strategy of the fossil fuel industry's well-documented disinformation campaign).

MWR's polling strategy appears to be posing misleading questions, some with inaccurate information, in order to garner a particular response. For example, in the firm's March 2008 poll on global warming, one question asked which is more important, addressing global warming or reducing reliance on foreign energy sources — which is a false choice given that renewable energy sources like solar and wind would do both. In another survey from 2006 on energy, the statement "liquefied natural gas cannot explode like gasoline" was posed to respondents. This is also misleading because while the liquid itself won't explode, blasts can occur at LNG sites and associated vapors are combustible.

How MWR's EV Tax Credit Survey Misleads Respondents and Deceives the Public

In the recent surveys MWR conducted on the EV tax credit, one of the statements that respondents could agree or disagree with was, "It is not right for GM to ask taxpayers for a tax credit." General Motors is lobbying to extend and expand the electric car tax credit, but the automaker would not actually claim the credit — consumers would.

Another question claims that "the average buyer of an electric car makes more than 150 thousand dollars per year," a claim that is demonstrably false. When pressed by DeSmog for a citation or clarification, McKenna responded through a media relations contact, pointing to the often-debunked Manhattan Institute report by Jonathan Lesser called "Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicle Subsidies."

That report actually cites a 2013 UC-Davis study that examined "the characteristics of 1,200 households who actually purchased a new plug-in vehicle in California during 2011-2012," finding that "46 percent of electric car drivers in California alone had incomes above $150,000." This study, now six years old, does not translate to the statement regarding an "average buyer" that was presented in the survey. In effect, the survey question was premised on a falsified statistic from an outdated data set that only included California.

Excerpt of misleading questions from the MWR poll about consumer attitudes toward the electric car tax credit.

Polling and communication experts told DeSmog that these EV tax credit surveys should not be considered legitimate measures of public opinion. Many of the questions are actually statements that respondents can agree or disagree with. But according to polling expert Joshua Dyck, associate professor of political science at UMass Lowell and director of the Center for Public Opinion, "Agree/disagree items are not a legitimate way to determine public opinion on policy issues."

"There is a well known response bias for respondents in surveys to agree to prompts in questions structured as agree/disagree items," he said. "This is known to survey researchers by the term 'response acquiescence.' In order to get at how respondents actually feel, you should allow respondents to pick from balanced options. I wouldn't put much stock in the agree/disagree items in this survey."

Ed Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, also said these surveys were designed to be misleading.

"Unbiased survey questions intended to elicit people's opinions about or support for a proposition (such as a proposed public policy) can be done in one of two ways. The proposition can be stated in neutral, factual terms with or without the leading arguments both for and against the proposition," he explained. "The questions on AEA surveys did not state the facts about the propositions, but instead made negative claims about the consequences of the propositions. Therefore, people were responding to the negative statements made about the proposition, not the proposition itself."

Ed Maibach, a climate change communication researcher at George Mason University.

This response to negative statements gives the misleading appearance that there is little public support for the EV tax credit. "Elected officials who are concerned about voter opinion should probably think twice before expanding favorable tax treatment for electric vehicles. Voters in each of the 12 States we examined are very skeptical of them," MWR's McKenna said in a statement about the poll.

But as Maibach explained, this is probably not true. "The poll done for AEA was not intended to determine how people actually feel about public policies in support of EVs, rather it was done to give the impression that people do not support use of public resources to support EVs," he said.

Maibach's Center for Climate Change Communication, along with Climate Nexus and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, did a poll in July of 820 registered voters in Michigan on their attitudes towards various climate policies. According to the results, "Michigan voters favor expanding the tax credit for those who purchase EVs — close to two-thirds (66 percent) agree the federal tax credit for EVs should extend beyond each manufacturer's first 200,000 vehicles."

Pyle, AEA's president and former Koch lobbyist, told E&E News he stands by his surveys finding little support for the tax credit, adding that he is "not concerned about what the greens think about our work."

But Maibach pushed back against this statement. "The problem with his poll is not that 'the greens' don't like the findings," he said. "The problem is that his findings are bogus, because they asked highly biased questions designed to elicit highly misleading answers."

Reposted with permission from our media associate DeSmogBlog.

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/09/19/koch-network-structure-social-change-kill-electric-car

quite long, see kochademic

If it feels like the oil industry’s attacks on the burgeoning electric car market are well coordinated, that’s because they are. The industry is following a blueprint laid out decades ago, and refined ever since, by Koch network insiders.

In a revelatory article, published in Philanthropy Magazine in 1996, an executive vice president of Koch Industries named Richard Fink laid out a three-tiered integrated strategy for promoting libertarian ideals and free-market principles, and, in doing so, protecting the Kochs’ sprawling petrochemical refining and shipping businesses.

Fink, who also led the Charles Koch Foundation, described the strategy for investing the Kochs’ fortunes through grants and financial support to organizations and individuals at different stages of policy development and implementation, from universities to think tanks to advocacy groups, all of which, in Fink’s words, “present competing claims for being the best place to invest resources.” Rather than prioritize grantmaking to one of these levels, the Koch network has invested heavily in all three.

Describing this “Structure of Social Change,” Fink writes:

“At the higher stages we have the investment in the intellectual raw materials, that is, the exploration and production of abstract concepts and theories. These still come primarily (though not exclusively) from the research done by scholars at our universities …

In the middle stages, ideas are applied to a relevant context and molded into needed solutions for real-world problems. This is the work of the think tanks and policy institutions …

But while the think tanks excel at developing new policy and articulating its benefits, they are less able to implement change. Citizen activist or implementation groups are needed in the final stage to take the policy ideas from the think tanks and translate them into proposals that citizens can understand and act upon.”

Today, as the federal and state governments consider their roles in accelerating adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), particularly in light of the climate crisis, we can see the effectiveness of these investments play out in the public policy debates.

Whether through highly-coordinated attacks on the federal EV tax credit or interventions in arcane proceedings in state public utility commissions (PUC) — and through public and covert efforts to spread disinformation — the beneficiaries of the Kochs' strategic funding are working to slow the transition to zero-emission, plug-in vehicles, effectively preserving the market demand for the refined petroleum products the Koch empire is selling.

Academia: The 'Intellectual Raw Materials' for the EV Fight

The Koch network has spent decades investing in colleges and universities, often times funding faculty positions or free market centers and programs and staffing them with ideologically aligned academics. In recent years, this funding has come under considerable scrutiny, and much has been reported on the strings attached to funding of programs like the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University, and the Department of Economics at Florida State University.

By design, this is an “investment in the intellectual raw materials,” as Fink wrote, “that is, the exploration and production of abstract concepts and theories.”

The abstract nature of such academic exploration makes it a little harder to see the impact of the Koch network’s investments in universities on a single policy issue as discreet as transportation electrification. But not impossible.

...

Senator John Barrasso and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board are once again attacking the federal electric vehicle tax credit, and are once again relying on easily debunked talking points born of the Koch network’s influence machine.

Senator Barrasso has reportedly sent a letter to Republican colleagues in the Senate, advising them not to extend the electric vehicle (EV) tax credit.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board cheered Senator Barrasso’s act in an editorial published Tuesday. The deception and falsehoods are so rife in the WSJ editorial that it that begs for rebuttal. So here goes.

desmog 919

Drivers of electric cars are being unfairly punished by punitive fees in several states, according to a newly published analysis by Consumer Reports. Legislators in 26 states have enacted or proposed special registration fees for electric vehicles (EVs) that the consumer advocacy group found to be more expensive than the gas taxes paid by the driver of an average new gasoline vehicle.

These punitive EV fees have been pushed in many states by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the corporate-funded group which produces model legislation and voted on a model resolution supporting “equal tax treatment for all vehicles” — a move that bears the fingerprints of the fossil fueled–Koch network.

---

dereg

sign of great things to come

A California-based firm has attracted $64 million in financing to expand its network of electric car charging stations, reports TechCrunch. Volta Charging, which is already running hundreds of charging stations in 10 states, will use the funding “to expand the company’s network of free, advertiser sponsored charging stations…to cities where it already has a presence, as well as moving into new markets.”

With transportation beginning to overtake the power sector as the industrial world’s leading source of climate-heating carbon pollution, automakers are investing billions in electric vehicles, as Reuters reported in April.

Building networks of charging stations that rival the distribution and number of gasoline and diesel fuel stations is key to quelling “range anxiety” among potential EV owners, and improving sales.

Thus many companies are diving into the charger network market, according to Consumer Reports, automaker VW among them: The firm “is spending $2 billion to build the infrastructure as part of its settlement with the US government over its diesel-emissions cheating scandal.”

In May, as Quartz reported, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (a business information service for paying clients, linked to the same company that produces Bloomberg News), forecast that EVs on the road would hit nearly 550 million globally by 2040, or just over 30 percent of passenger vehicle

Koch-Funded Groups Still Begging Congress to Kill the Electric Car Tax Credit

vast majority of Americans have a positive impression of electric vehicles (EVs), according to a newly released nationwide survey of registered voters by Climate Nexus.

The poll, conducted in partnership with Yale University’s Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, finds that 77 percent of American voters have a positive opinion of electric cars. This strong majority carried across all demographic groups, with seven out of every 10 self-identified Republican voters viewing electric vehicles positively.READ MORE

---

https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/the-electric-vehicle-revolution-will-come-from-china-not-the-us/

The electric vehicle revolution is coming, but it won’t be driven by the U.S. Instead, China will be at the forefront.

My research on EVs, dating back a decade, convinces me that this global transformation in mobility, from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric ones, will come sooner than later. The shift is already happening in China, which is the world’s largest automobile market, with 23 million cars sold in 2018. As Western countries approach peak car ownership, there are still hundreds of millions of Chinese families that don’t own a car at all – much less two or more.

Many of them are buying electric cars. By 2015, electric vehicle sales in China had surpassed U.S. levels. In 2018, Chinese sales topped 1.1 million cars, more than 55% of all electric vehicles sold in the world, and more than three times as many as Chinese customers had bought two years earlier. U.S. electric vehicle sales that year were just 358,000.

A key element of an electric vehicle’s price is the cost of its batteries – and China already makes more than half of the world’s electric vehicle batteries. Battery prices continue to fall; industry analysts now suggest that within five years it will be cheaper to buy an electric car than a gas- or diesel-powered one.

Forecasts predict the Chinese producing as much as 70% of the world’s electric vehicle batteries by 2021, even as the demand for electric car batteries grows.

...

EV electric 3 bak

Two pro-Trump officials pushed conspiracy theory that Hurricane Helene was done through weather “manipulation”

Trump campaign echoes right-wing media’s lies about an EV mandate

Related

‘Prepared to challenge it in court’

Misleading: It’s more environmentally harmful to make an EV than a gas car.

Misleading: The U.S. electric grid can’t handle widespread EV adoption.

More EV claims, untangled

Why did CNN change “No, electric vehicle sales aren’t dropping” to “How EVs became such a massive disappointment”?

No, EV’s are not a massive disappointment. Here’s what’s really going on.

The altered headline was a gift to climate deniers looking to obscure the benefits of EVs

penna Dexter

Share this:

Organization History

What does VCY stand for?

Fox is misleading about the cost and popularity of EVs

Fox portends that it's strictly government regulations, and not market forces, that are pushing EVs on Americans

Fox is insinuating that EVs are worse for the environment than gas cars, and that only China benefits from this proposal

Fox is using good old-fashioned climate bashing to advance their anti-EV agenda

Literally don't understand what that means': Pete Buttigieg buries MTG's bizarre attack on electric cars

Climate deniers are going all in with disinfo for COP26 (Sorry, Teslas really do produce fewer emissions)

Who Is Behind the 'Highly-Biased' Anti-Electric Vehicle Poll?

How MWR's EV Tax Credit Survey Misleads Respondents and Deceives the Public

Academia: The 'Intellectual Raw Materials' for the EV Fight

sign of great things to come