Saturday, October 12, 2019

The Tesla and the environment, guest blogger Michael Smith

“For what must be the millionth time, I just ended a discussion with a leftist acquaintance in a frustrating and disappointing manner.

There was a particular local situation, one of which we were in violent agreement that doing something was needed. The position my acquaintance was that while we agreed something needed to be done, every workable solution proposed was rejected with the position of "Something needs to be done, just not that."

Her proposed solution was the most unrealistic, unworkable and fairy tale action imaginable - but it made her feel good, so that was on what she based her support.

We ended a similar discussion last week when she asked me when I was going to get rid of my carbon emitting pickup.

Predictably, I replied "When I want a newer one."

I then asked her if she understood the ethical and environmental damage necessary to construct her Tesla - she, like many of her camp, drive these EV's around town thinking they are the leaders in saving the environment without realizing that the cobalt used in her car battery had a real chance of coming from a mine in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where child labor (as young as 4 years old) is exploited or that nickel mining and refining are especially dangerous to the environment, especially when you consider that a significant amount comes from countries significantly less concerned about the environment than the US. I also noted that the rare earth metals critical to battery production likely came from a strip mine in China where environmental protection doesn't even make the list of priorities.

I asked her if she knew that it was a near certainty the electricity she used was generated by fossil fuels as over 70% of Utah's electricity is generated by coal burning power plants and that even if it was wind generated, the carbon cost to construct and then decommission a windmill (they are burying the fiberglass blades in landfills) is far more than it saves over its operational life.

I told her about a study by the US Energy Information Agency that indicates widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide, when compared to the current internal combustion production (which produces about 1% of the pollution of the cars of the 1960's), will likely air pollution.

Yet she still rides the moral high horse because she chooses to ignore the total cost of her decisions. Apparently saving the planet means that you do things that make you feel good and you just can't be too concerned about what damage your feel-good emotions do "over there".

Most of this crap is just to make wealthy white suburbanites (who can afford such things) feel good about themselves without actually accomplishing a damn thing.

As Reagan said, "...they just know so much that isn't so."”

No comments: