Extreme Temperature Diary- May 16th, 2018/ Topic: Bullshit

Wednesday May 16th… Dear Diary. The main purpose of this ongoing post will be to track United States extreme or record temperatures related to climate change. Any reports I see of ETs will be listed below the main topic of the day. I’ll refer to extreme or record temperatures as ETs (not extraterrestrials)😊. Here is today’s main climate change related topic:


Today I felt a need to use a harsh word for a title addressing an article obviously expressing a false or deceptive narrative in association with electric vehicles verses internal combustion engines, or as I will abbreviate and refer to them, ICEs. I suppose I could use the same title for many of the blatantly false sites, such as watt’supwiththat, which argue against anthropogenic global warming occurring in the first pace, but let’s stick with the electric vehicle issue today. The article I will be shooting holes through by Jonathan Lesser is: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660 

Here is the item that let me know about the article:

How can Politico, in good conscience, publish the blatantly false work of a pro fossil fuel shill? EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions in use. They are x2 to x3 more efficient than ICEs. Mated to wind or solar they produce zero carbon emissions. Your article is utter bullshit.

First, what is wrong with these two paragraphs from Lesser’s article?
What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.
That might sound counterintuitive: After all, won’t replacing a 30-year old, smoke-belching Oldsmobile with a new electric vehicle reduce air pollution? Yes, of course. But that’s also where many electric vehicle proponents’ arguments run off the road: they fail to consider just how clean and efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle subsidies and mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a new gas car. And new internal combustion engines are really clean. Today’s vehicles emit only about 1% of the pollution than they did in the 1960s, and new innovations continue to improve those engines’ efficiency and cleanliness.
Here I have to chuckle. The author obviously does not consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant. If CO2 were not a pollutant there would be no overwhelmingly need to replace ICEs with electrics. Usually in an article like this there is a kernel of truth imbedded within a mask of lies. As far as soot and other chemicals go, yes today’s ICE vehicles do emit far less pollution than their counterparts in the 1960s.
So why does Lesser state that more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution? Next I will refer to this paragraph:
And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources. Those are getting cleaner, but we still generate power mainly by burning fossil fuels: natural gas is our biggest source of electricity, and is projected to increase. And coal, while still declining, will remain the second largest source of electricity for some time. (Third is nuclear power, which doesn’t generate emissions but has other byproducts that worry some environmentalists.) Even with large increases in wind and solar generation, the EIA projects that the nation’s electric generating mix will be just 30% renewable by 2030. Based on that forecast, if the EIA’s projected number of electric vehicles were replaced with new internal combustion vehicles, air pollution would actually decrease—and this holds true even if you include the emissions from oil refineries that manufacture gasoline.
Simply put Lesser claims that ICEs emit less CO2 than electrics charged off grids, most of which primarily remain generated from fossil fuels (mainly coal). Here we see another few kernels of truth. Yes, if I used an electric vehicle here in Atlanta most of the electricity generated to power the thing would come from coal. Eventually all power generated in the state of Georgia will be green, all is hoped. A minor point is that the coal fired plant where this electricity is generated emits localized chemical pollution, not what occurs massively from ICEs on Atlanta’s clogged roads. If Atlanta had all electrics on the road there would not be and warm season pollution ozone alerts. We just saw a few of these when it got hit last weekend. Here is some information that I don’t have any qualms with😊: https://www.tripsavvy.com/ozone-out-there-2677328
What Causes Ground-Level Ozone?

Ground-level ozone is formed by a reaction between certain chemicals and nitrogen when there is sunlight. These chemicals are created by automobiles, trucks, and buses; large industry; utility companies; gas stations; print shops; paint stores; cleaners; and off-road equipment, such as aircraft, locomotives, construction equipment, and lawn and garden equipment.

Battery operated cars do not produce ozone. It behooves power companies to switch to green power ASAP, which from what I am reading most are doing so. The faster switch to green energy takes the rug out from Lesser’s arguments. 

The article ends here:

Electric vehicle subsidies and mandates share an unfortunate, and all too common trait with other government policies: They’re based on “conventional wisdom” that turns out to be wrong. Wealthy consumers who have purchased Teslas and Chevy Bolts primarily to signal their green bona fides for their friends and neighbors, and who have socialized many of the costs of their purchases to those who are less well-off, might wish to take a closer look at the numbers. Their hands may not be quite so clean as they believe.


Well now. We have a claim that government incentives for battery operated cars are hurting the poor by redirecting funds via “socialized” programs. This is sneaky bullshit. Earlier Lesser states, “So it’s fair to say the subsidies disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who cannot afford to buy even subsidized electric vehicles or live in their own homes to take advantage of residential chargers or solar panels.” Let me get out my little violin. If Lesser thinks  that the less fortunate among us are entitled to have personal transportation, then he should state that. I doubt , though, that Lesser believes in socialism to that degree. Life can be hard and unfair. It’s true that any initial program to incentify electrics would divert funds from other programs, but sacrifices do need to be made to insure that civilization can chug along not impeded by the worst effects of climate change. Battery operated vehicles are part of the solution.

Lastly one can tell if an article such as this is real bullshit if it doesn’t acknowledge how bad climate change is as an existential threat at all in it’s body. Sadly this is the case with John Lesser’s  piece.

Dear diary. I was going to end my post here but after looking at Dr. Michael Mann’s Twitter feed this afternoon I stepped in more bullshit:

Stay tuned for these great followup op-eds:
“Objects are falling, but Not Because of Gravity”
“Continents are moving, but Not Because of Plate Tectonics”


In this case at the end of the article the author Fred Singer poo poos the melting of the Ross Ice shelf in Antarctica contrary to information and data from most glaciologists:
“We can see melting happening right now at the Ross Ice Shelf of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Geologists have tracked Ross’s slow disappearance, and glaciologist Robert Bindschadler predicts the ice shelf will melt completely within about 7,000 years, gradually raising the sea level as it goes. 
“Of course, a lot can happen in 7,000 years. The onset of a new glaciation could cause the sea level to stop rising. It could even fall 400 feet, to the level at the last glaciation maximum 18,000 years ago.” 
“Currently, sea-level rise does not seem to depend on ocean temperature, and certainly not on CO2. We can expect the sea to continue rising at about the present rate for the foreseeable future. By 2100 the seas will rise another 6 inches or so—a far cry from Al Gore’s alarming numbers. There is nothing we can do about rising sea levels in the meantime. We’d better build dikes and sea walls a little bit higher.” 
This poop poop falls in the category of acknowledging data showing sea level rise but going against all peer reviewed literature stating that the cause is carbon pollution. The physical/physic excuses noted by Fred Singer don’t make much sense. I note a bit of cherry pickng here since Singer only refers to a period from 1915-1945:
“I chose to assess the sea-level trend from 1915-45, when a genuine, independently confirmed warming of approximately 0.5 degree Celsius occurred. I note particularly that sea-level rise is not affected by the warming; it continues at the same rate, 1.8 millimeters a year, according to a 1990 review by Andrew S. Trupin and John Wahr. I therefore conclude—contrary to the general wisdom—that the temperature of sea water has no direct effect on sea-level rise. That means neither does the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.”
Once again we see a short article that denies potential serious ramifications of climate change. I wonder what Mr. Singer will think of this article as he notes waters getting piled higher and deeper as the 21st century rolls along? I’d like to a fly on his wall, or in this case his manure pile, if he lives to regret typing this piece.
Well I’m tired of messing with the unsightly muck here, not to mention it stinks, so I’ll have a cleaner post tomorrow.😉     

(If you like these posts and my work please contribute via the PayPal widget, which has recently been added to this site. Thanks in advance for any support.)

The Climate Guy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *