Good News: Your Stupid Electric Car is Damaging the Environment

Posted by on Jul 07, 2015 at 6:49 am

Obviously we need to spend billions more subsidizing these useless vehicles so we all feel good about ourselves.

They have been hailed as the environmentally-friendly solution to getting around towns and cities.

But new research has found electric cars have an overall impact on pollution that may be worse than gas-guzzling vehicles.

The study looked at US vehicle emissions on a county-level to map where gas cars and electric vehicles cause the most damage to the environment.

It found that in the east of the US, the impact of charging up EVs overnight does more harm to the environment than going to the petrol station.

Is the science settled? Because if it is, shut up, denier.

‘What we find is that the benefits are substantially different depending on where you are in the country,’ study co-author Stephen Holland of the University of North Carolina, told CityLab.

The real big take-home message is: location, location, location.’

Just imagine the emotional conflict sure to affect the environmental wackos:

‘Because electric vehicles, on average, generate greater environmental externalities than gasoline vehicles, the current federal policy has greater deadweight loss than the no-subsidy policy,’ the authors write.

‘It’s kind of hard to beat gasoline’ for public and environmental health, said co-author Julian Marshall, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota.

‘A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean … are not better than gasoline.’

Marshall should expect a lot of grief from the psychotic left for saying that.

13 Responses to “Good News: Your Stupid Electric Car is Damaging the Environment”

  1. Leftie Mongtard on 7/07/15 at 9:39 am

    But the government is working on a magic unicorn fart powered car that recharges by plugging into the halo Dear Leader wears.
    Plus a free rainbow flag and decal comes with every smart car purchase. Since we all belong to government we must do our part to build utopia.

  2. mbruce on 7/07/15 at 10:02 am

    Teen there is the battery disposal problem, they are vicious little bundles of toxicity.

  3. Chris M on 7/07/15 at 12:53 pm

    This news is based on the eastern US reliance on coal fired electricity. Nuclear power would solve this. Also, there is no battery disposal problem.

  4. Advo on 7/07/15 at 12:55 pm

    I’ve never seen anyone talk about the ground level ozone production from the electric motors on these cars. Anyone know what ozone levels would be if several thousand gasoline powered cars were replaced with electric powered cars?

    Given the ozone problems many cities already have most of the summer, I’d have to think it would get much, much worse.

  5. richard mcenroe (@richard_mcenroe) on 7/07/15 at 1:30 pm

    This is not even taking into account the horrific ecological damage manufacturing those deep cycle batteries causes.

  6. Bill H on 7/07/15 at 5:15 pm

    Just imagine the emotional conflict sure to affect the environmental wackos:

    There’s not going to be any emotional conflict. They see no tailpipe, they see no emissions. Having been a car electrician for a little while now, I could explain to them how it all works, but I’ll be better off taking to a plate of lime Jello salad.

  7. Bill H on 7/07/15 at 5:28 pm

    This news is based on the eastern US reliance on coal fired electricity. Nuclear power would solve this. Also, there is no battery disposal problem.

    Fantastic. YOU get the people associated with nuclear power and the Watermelon faction in this working together towards that solution. You get the government to permit it. You get the environmentalists to accept it. You get the general population to understand it.

    Lord knows we’ve tried.

  8. chuckR on 7/07/15 at 6:02 pm

    Google engineers worked for years on determining which alternative energy source offsets their corporate carbon footprint the most. For the complete life cycle, the answer is none, not wind turbines, not solar panels. Right now the best you can do is some reduction via natural gas supplanting coal, if carbon reduction floats your boat. And of course nuclear. I wish these guys would do a complete life cycle cost and environmental analysis on electric cars too.

  9. Jon Brooks on 7/07/15 at 10:18 pm

    I haven’t looked into the following idea yet since I just got it, so bear with the feeble first pass of it.
    What would happen if, like a thermocouple alloy such as chromel-alumel or iron/constatine which generate a few millivolts at the bead to generate a current thru a meter etc. whatever. What if you were to find a good combo or alloy pair that was ultra cheap to produce and when you built a new structure, down below the foundation would be giant plates the size of the lot maybe. It would be stored/installed/planted at a depth such that it was always 55 deg say (which is what I heard someone mention once below the frost line in some plaes). Next your building is built with special concrete that contains the anode or cathode (depending on what the buried one is). You short the two components together with a really big copper strap (think thermocouple bead only muuuuuuuuuuuuch bigger) and connect your house to the + and – terminals in the electric room. It wouldn’t be a 24/7 like solar either just generating during the temp swings of the day. This could further charge battery banks in conjunction with the solar
    panels.

    Me I hope to someday go out in the backyard and give the home sized fusion nuke a kick when the voltage dips, then feed some more garbage into the Mr. Fusion.

  10. Jon Brooks on 7/07/15 at 10:36 pm

    (cont’d above)

    And in the wintertime? Just switch the polarity of your home :)

  11. Heartlander on 8/08/15 at 12:15 am

    And ethanol is another big scam that is WAY worse for the environment than plain old gasoline. Our grandchildren are going to CURSE us for ethanol, as Iowa keeps washing what was the richest topsoil on planet earth down the hillsides by the ton into the Mississipi River and out into the Gulf of Mexico. All to grow corn for that damn ethanol — which, on top of everything else, shortens the lifetime of automobile engines and decreases miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency. A more insane policy is hard to imagine.

  12. Bill H on 8/08/15 at 4:00 am

    I haven’t looked into the following idea yet since I just got it, so bear with the feeble first pass of it.

    I just had visions of Young Frankenstein :)

    “It……..could…………WORK!!!!!!!