The true environmental damage from EV mandates
by Timothy Page
As Vermont’s ban of the sale of all new internal combustion vehicles by 2035 shows, the push for electric vehicles (EVs) has gained significant traction. Government has been pursuing mandates to encourage the shift from internal combustion engines to electric alternatives. While the claimed intentions behind such policies are commendable, what about the unintended consequences?
Mandating electric vehicles can actually harm the environment overall.
Production and Disposal of Batteries:
One of the key drawbacks of EVs lies in their reliance on lithium-ion batteries. These batteries require significant amounts of rare earth metals, such as lithium and cobalt, which are extracted through environmentally destructive mining practices. Additionally, the manufacturing process for these batteries generates substantial carbon emissions.
Moreover, the disposal and recycling of spent batteries pose significant challenges, as they contain hazardous materials that can harm the environment if not handled properly.
Energy Production and Distribution:
While electric vehicles produce zero emissions during operation, the electricity used to charge them often comes from non-renewable sources. In many regions, coal and natural gas power plants still provide a significant portion of the electricity grid. Consequently, mandating EVs without a corresponding shift to renewable energy sources simply transfers the emissions from tailpipe to smokestack. This leads to an indirect increase in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating the very problem electric vehicles aim to solve.
Strain on Infrastructure:
The mass adoption of electric vehicles puts immense strain on existing infrastructure. Charging stations require substantial energy supply, increasing the burden on the electrical grid. This demand for electricity necessitates the construction of new power plants or the expansion of current facilities, potentially leading to further environmental degradation. It also raises concerns about the equitable distribution of charging infrastructure, as underserved communities may face limited access to charging stations, hindering the widespread adoption of EVs.
Raw Material Extraction:
To meet the escalating demand for electric vehicles, the extraction of raw materials required for their production, such as lithium and cobalt, intensifies. As previously mentioned, these materials are often obtained through environmentally damaging practices, including deforestation, habitat destruction, and water pollution, disrupting delicate ecosystems and threatening biodiversity. This directly undoes the improvements which EV advocates claim to pursue.
Overall Lifecycle Impact:
When considering the entire lifecycle of electric vehicles, including production, use, and disposal, the environmental benefits become more complex. While EVs offer reduced emissions during operation, the environmental costs associated with battery production, energy generation, infrastructure demands, and raw material extraction must be taken into account. Failing to consider these factors holistically can lead to misguided policies that inadvertently harm the environment rather than improve it.
Mandating electric vehicles as a solution to combat climate change is a well-intentioned effort. However, it is crucial to recognize and address the potential negative consequences that arise from focusing solely on EVs without considering the broader environmental impact. Achieving true sustainability requires a comprehensive approach that embraces renewable energy sources, responsible mining practices, and thoughtful infrastructure development. By carefully considering the complex trade-offs, we can chart a path towards a future that truly benefits the environment, and those of us who live in it.
Conservation, not a continuation of rampant consumerism, is the key to actual progress. Use what one has until it breaks, maintaining and repairing, rather than replacing. Minimize the excess. Unfortunately, this age-old wisdom is no longer promoted like it once was, because it doesn’t make more money for those in power, on either side of the aisle. However, it is what works, not only for our wallets, but for our world as well, and perhaps even our souls.
For a more humorous approach to the topic, I recommend this video for your enjoyment and edification:
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Energy, Environment, News Analysis
EV’s are a bad joke.
Don’t have the exact figure but roughly 70% of roads in Vermont are unpaved. My township it is about 82% by mileage. Excluding the federal interstate. These vehicles are very heavy for their size(wheelbase & tiresize) and cause a tremendous amount of road damage to unpaved roads.
We don’t have the money for paving roads. We can barely pay our police!
To expand on what Red said above, EV’s cause damage to paved roads as well, due to their weight, not to mention that, unlike ICE vehicles which pay to maintain the roads through the gas tax, EV’s make no contribution to this. Then, if you search the web, you will find that insurance is much more expensive since even a minor fender bender could damage the battery compartment that insurance companies won’t take a chance with expensive repairs and will just total it out. Their weight is a problem for accidents; a fully loaded, extended range Hummer EV weighs 12,000 pounds. How would you like to get run into by one of those in your Honda Civic? There is a Youtube video of a much lighter Rivian crashing through a metal guard rail, continuing through a concrete barrier and finally resting on top of a third barrier. Forget resale; whose going to pay much for a used EV when at some point during ownership you’ll likely have to fork out $20,000 or more for a replacement battery. Contrary to popular belief, repairs are relatively frequent and more expensive to accomplish than on an ICE vehicle. Of course there is also the initial cost of purchase. Without subsidies they would be way more expensive than they already are. Personally, I resent having to pay taxes so that some lawyer can save money on a car that I will never be able to purchase myself.
We of course forgot about the burns underwater and random stuff.
Thanks for that reminder Red. EV’s burn very hot and can burn under water because the lithium does not need oxygen to burn. I read of one report where a man burned to death in his EV because, since everything, including the door locks/latches are electrical, he could not get out of the car when it caught fire.
This EV mandate is a joke, first off if all the Federal incentives we gone so would the sales, Then you have Vermont’s electrical infrastructure, which will not be able to handle the load capacity with these mandates, so you’ll need to upgrade the power sources, and that means more taxes, folks !!
Yes, Vermont’s snowy winters, dirt roads and let’s not forget mud season, EVs would be something I’d want…………. no thanks.
We have fools in charge, working for an agenda and not its citizens, Wake up people.
Fools, Maybe. Corrupt & Indentured to the donor class- Definitely.
BEV vehicles do indeed have a place, even in Vermont- but the practical and economic limits of these vehicles- along with the environmental impacts far outweigh any “carbon- offset” gains. It is always important to remember the ultimate goal of the ‘Climate Change™’ promotors is not an energy system that changes the global climate. The goal of the ‘climate change’ group is to create a carbon trading system; a new financial mechanism (a global tax program) to control human activity on a world-wide basis. This system also needs a digital identity in order to work.
these crooks pushing this agenda need to pull their pea brain out of their tail pipe/// this as been a dirty joke from the very beginning and never made any sense///
Although most everything written in the article and comments is correct, no one has addressed the real bottom line.
It’s all about restricting our ability to travel, without “technically” restricting our ability to travel. How far you can go depends on stopping somewhere to recharge. Probably 70% of the car buyer market can’t even afford an EV, so again, you’re stuck. Makes us deplorables far easier to round up if we can’t go anywhere or if we can’t go any appreciable distance.
smart cities///
I suggest this article for you edumacation.
Hidden Behind Climate Policies, Data From Nonexistent Temperature Stations https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/hidden-behind-climate-policies-data-from-nonexistent-temperature-stations-5622782?utm_source=andshare
“Mandating electric vehicles as a solution to combat climate change is a well-intentioned effort.” I disagree with this statement, there nothing well-intentioned about going along with the delusion of man made climate change (unless of course you want to talk about geoengineering). EVs are not really about the climate or environment, they are about control. In keeping with the WEF plan to limit and control ownership of all things, EVs fit beautifully into the scheme. There is no remote chance that everyone that currently owns an ICE vehicle will be able to own an EV, there just isn’t enough raw materials or electrical grid infrastructure, hence ultimately people will have to share vehicles not own one. EVs will be easily shut down when the overlords decide they don’t want you traveling, say like during the next “panicdemic”. EVs would be laughable if it wasn’t for the insidious underbelly of the whole scheme.
And while our overlords believe that they can control the sheeple here, what about the sane states that say no way. So, VT builds a no internal combustion engine mandate and gas stations dry up and so does tourism. You Mr., Miss or Mrs. can’t have the vehicle you need but, those coming in from other states to recreate and use our environment can. There will be gasoline for them!
These people know that none of this works but, in the meantime let’s soak it for all it’s worth. the money is flowing even though the state is broke. Just look at the retirement trust funds, our roads and infrastructure. The grid needs a billion, the pensions need a few billion and the VT legislature is going to save the planet. Makes me feel all fuzzy, how about you!
Every parent that reads this and has children in the public school should make them read this article and then write an essay why it’s wrong. Make them think for themselves because the schools aren’t teaching them how to think on their on! Do it!
Edit, on their own!