I think another question should be: “Who should trade in their gas powered car for an electric car?” From my calculations I think the production of an extra EV this year creates about the same amount of carbon emissions that my 2010 RAV4 20-MPG vehicle would produce in seven years. I was very much interested in your article regarding purchasing an electric car. and concluded that after considering the cost of fossil fuel generated electricity, there is no benefit over the entire life, in terms of CO2 emissions. A somewhat dated study quoted in the Economist analysed the relative cost of an EV in the U.S. Nunes resorts to an ancient “quant” tactic: When the best data will give you only a wide range of possibilities, fake precision by carrying out your conclusion a few decimal places. More importantly, we have to ask “what benefits?” Break even at 2.73 years? not 2.9675? Ms. The primary buyer may benefit from the subsidy, but he/she passes that on to the secondary purchaser in the form of a market price at sale, which will be in the range of one half the price the primary buyer paid. The owners share equally in credit for the benefits, and relative costs, if any. In my reality, any green benefits accrue to the EV. It appears the author is bestowing a dollop more “green righteousness” on the secondary purchasers of EVs, over the primary buyers. I came away from the Nunes article a bit confused. The better questions to ask would be: How do we replace car trips (combustion or EV) with more efficient and environmentally friendly modes such as trains, trolleys or bikes? Why not provide subsidies for e-bikes and pedal bikes as well? Why not consider free public transportation in cities? If we are to make our way out of the environmental crisis, neither extending the use of combustion vehicles nor providing subsidies for EVs are the right road to travel. So it is with the article entitled, “Who Should Drive an Electric Vehicle?” The article concerns research into the question, “is a gas guzzler actually better for the environment than an electric vehicle?” Apparently, the answer is “sometimes.” The piece goes on to describe research conducted as to the impact of tax credits on EV purchases and finds that the credits mostly benefit wealthy individuals. All of Nunes’s points about the need for additional subsidies-which I completely agree with-could have been made without distorting the uncontestable emissions benefits of EVs. To mitigate climate change, we need to focus on the big picture. And let’s not forget that driving less is always better for the environment, EV or not. Even if someone who doesn’t drive much buys a new EV, he will provide a benefit by creating a larger pool of used EVs, which will further drive down the price on the used market. Every new ICE car purchased locks in 15+ years of carbon emissions, regardless of how much the first owner drives it. Nunes suggesting that people who don’t drive as much “are actually better off driving a gas car if they care about the environment.” I ask, “better off” in what way? Nunes’s comments take a harmfully egoistic view of emissions reductions: focusing on how much an individual can claim to have reduced her personal carbon emissions, while neglecting the impact of lifetime emissions of EVs and internal combustion engine cars. UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy Let’s not hand consumers an excuse for continuing to support a transportation system that is simply not sustainable. In order to have a second owner, you need to have a first owner. And the suggestion that it’s the second owner of an electric car who is really helping the environment is just silly. That could add decades to the transition. We can’t wait until the grid is entirely carbon-free before we begin to convert the vehicle fleet. You also have to remember that all new cars create an energy and emissions deficit-not just electric ones. The good news is that our electricity is getting greener every day. Any assertion about the number of miles one must drive to make the electric vehicle choice a green one requires assumptions about how carbon-intensive the electric supply is. The article is also riddled with incomplete and misleading thoughts. They won’t make that transition later unless we buy electric vehicles now. We can’t get there unless the automakers invest in the transition to electric vehicles. Over time, we have to stop buying vehicles that use gasoline. How are people helping the environment if they encourage the production of more gasoline-fueled vehicles? If we have any hope of stabilizing our changing climate, we have to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels. To suggest that some people are better off burning gasoline if they care about the environment is dangerously short-sighted. " Who Should Drive an Electric Vehicle?” (September-October, page 9) certainly took a glass-half-empty approach.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |