Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

When Is A Tariff Not A Tariff?

Yesterday various news sources reported that President Biden would be placing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and some other products coming into America from China.

MSN reported:

President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced new tariffs on $18 billion worth of Chinese imports, including a sharp tax hike on electric vehicles, to help protect his administration’s investments in key sectors in the United States.

The targets of the tariffs include EVs, solar cells, steel, aluminum, semiconductors, advanced batteries, critical minerals, solar and medical products.

“American workers can outwork and outcompete anyone, as long as the competition is fair,” President Biden said in remarks delivered from the White House Rose Garden. “But for too long it hasn’t been fair.”

Hitting China’s trade policies, Biden said “it’s not competition, it’s cheating.”

“China heavily subsidized all these products, pushing Chinese companies to produce far more than the rest of the world can absorb and then dumping excess products onto the market at unfairly low prices, driving other manufacturers around the world out of business,” he said.

It all sounds very good, but what does it do?

The Conservative Treehouse reports:

Biden might as well be announcing tariffs on Chinese swimming pools flown into the USA via hot air balloon.  There will be more Chinese swimming pools delivered from China than Chinese EVs.  The Chinese EVs come from Mexico.  The tariff is fake.

WHITE HOUSE […] To further encourage China to eliminate the acts, policies, and practices at issue – and to counteract the burden or restriction of these acts, policies, and practices – the Trade Representative shall modify the two actions to increase section 301 ad valorem rates of duty for the following products from China:

    • Battery parts (non-lithium-ion batteries):  Increase rate to 25 percent in 2024
    • Electric vehicles:  Increase rate to 100 percent in 2024
    • Lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries:  Increase rate to 25 percent in 2024
    • Lithium-ion non-electrical vehicle batteries:  Increase rate to 25 percent in 2026
    • Natural graphite:  Increase rate to 25 percent in 2026
    • Other critical minerals:  Increase rate to 25 percent in 2024 (read more)

None of this stuff is coming from China. It is all coming from Mexico via transnational shipping and Chinese manufacturing in Mexico.

The article notes:

On the EV issue, this tariff approach is politically duplicitous by Biden against the backdrop of massive investment in Mexico by the three largest Chinese EV automakers. Last December, the three Chinese auto manufacturers, MG, BYD, and Chery, announced they were going to spend billions building new EV manufacturing plants in Mexico.  Each Chinese auto manufacturer was going to spend between $1.5 to $2.0 billion.

Those Mexican built Chinese EVs would pass into the USA market under current USMCA trade rules and regulations, as long as they technically meet the material origination rules.  This can make tariffs against the Chinese imported EVs a moot point, because China will be making them in Mexico (North American trade agreement).

One of the reasons President Trump said the U.S. auto industry would suffer a “bloodbath,” is specifically because the current Chinese auto companies are targeting these EVs in the $10,000 or less range.  If you want to see what it looks like when cheap Chinese EVs start to flood a consumer market, visit Russia – the Western sanctions have only increased this flow.  I can see it clear as day.

This is political sleight of hand to encourage voters to vote for Joe Biden. I don’t know if the American voters are really that dumb.

Moving Quickly In The Wrong Direction

On Sunday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the impact of the climate-change regulations the Biden administration is placing on Americans.

The article reports:

Liberals denounce Donald Trump as a would-be tyrant, but the fact is that he ruled less by executive order than any other recent president. It is Joe Biden who has discarded the Constitution and imposed a blizzard of illegal or probably-illegal regulations on the rest of us.

Lately, they have been coming so furiously that it is hard to keep up with them. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board caught up with just one set, relating to power plants. The intent of the regulations is to set our economy and our material well-being back by as much as a century:

On Thursday the Environmental Protection Agency proposed its latest doozy—rules that will effectively force coal plants to shut down while banning new natural-gas plants.
***
Barack Obama’s regulation spurred a wave of coal plant closures. Now President Biden is trying to finish the job by tightening mercury, wastewater and ash disposal standards. EPA is also replacing the Obama Clean Power Plan that the Supreme Court struck down with a rule requiring that coal plants and new gas-fired plants adopt costly and unproven carbon-capture technology by 2032.

It is interesting that the Biden administration is planning to severely limit the production of electricity while at the same time encouraging Americans to buy electric cars. If the grid will not be able to keep up with normal expected growth, how will it be able to keep up with the additional demand placed on it by electric cars?

The article concludes:

Biden’s purpose is not to benefit the climate, it is to benefit the vast “green” grift that is one of the Democratic Party’s main constituencies. The greens, but also Communist China. China controls the market for solar panels and wind turbines, and it also controls the raw materials that are necessary to produce solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and the hypothetical batteries that are the magical solution to the fact that weather-dependent sources of energy can never fuel an economy–a primitive economy, let alone a modern one.

Why is Biden destroying our electrical grid and dragging the United States back into the 19th century, to the immense benefit of the Chinese Communist Party? Occam’s Razor suggests that he is doing it on purpose. Even Joe Biden isn’t dumb enough to fail to understand where these policies are leading. I don’t know whether it is sheer, malicious anti-Americanism, or whether the millions of dollars that Biden and his family have gotten from China have made him the Manchurian Candidate. But, one way or another, the disastrous consequences of the Biden administration’s energy policies are obvious to anyone who pays attention.

Including, even, Slow Joe.

If No One Wants It, It Won’t Sell

On Sunday, Breitbart posted an article about the problem Ford Motor Company is having selling electric vehicles.

The article reports:

Ford Motor Company reported a whopping $132,000 loss on each electric vehicle (EV) sold during the first three months of 2024, amassing a $1.3 billion loss.

The auto manufacturer’s electric vehicle unit revealed Thursday that they experienced a 20 percent decrease in sales volume and were forced to slash prices due to low consumer demand, CNN reported.

Keep in mind that the Biden administration has set a goal of half of all new cars to be electric by 2030. That is only six years away.

The article concludes:

Ford announced earlier this month that the company will delay producing two new electric models, opting for hybrid vehicles instead. 

“Many companies rushed in too fast with E.V.s that were too expensive and there was not as much of a market for them as they thought,” Sam Abuelsamid, transportation and mobility analyst at research firm Guidehouse Insights, told the New York Times. “That’s made it a lot tougher to sell those vehicles.”

At this point I would like to mention that I think the electric Ford Mustang is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. I understand that its get-up-and-go would put my Mustang to shame, but it just doesn’t have the right look!

Freedom’s Death Knell

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

There is an old saying “Death by a thousand cuts,” which of course means slowly destroying something by small increments. Well, the Biden regime’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is at it again, diminishing your freedom one regulation at a time. They recently announced new, impossibly restrictive emission standards that will, they hope, force more people to buy electric vehicles (EVs). This, in spite of strong evidence, that less than 15% of the American people have any desire to buy an EV. Dictators do not care what you think.

What is worse, you are already paying for every EV sold in America through subsidies and other government programs and incentives. The Texas Public Policy Foundation reported that as much as $48,000 of the cost of an EV is paid by you the taxpayer spread over 10 years, not the owner. This amounts to $22 billion of your taxpayer money. This is similar to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, which does not forgive anything; it merely passes the debt onto other taxpayers. That is how Marxism works, and how a regime stays in power, by using government actions to buy votes.

Who is buying these EVs you might ask? Well, it is primarily wealthy Democrats in blue states like California, Washington, New Jersey, etc. The ten states with the lowest EV ownership are red states. See a pattern here of the Democrats rewarding themselves?

The new unattainable emission standards are expected to result in one-third of all cars manufactured will be EVs by 2027 and two-thirds by 2032. Not only will this restrict your ability to find and purchase an internal combustion vehicle, but will dramatically raise the price due to lack of supply to meet the demand. The Biden regime is also extending these impossible emission standards to trucks, including long haul trucks. The American Trucking Association stated that the new EPA standards are “entirely unachievable.” Imagine driving across country in an 18 wheeler and having to stop every 200 miles, find a charging station, and wait several hours before you can start up again. Think what this will do to the cost of moving goods. By the way, the Biden regime’s EPA announced these new restrictions a few days after the Hertz rental company announced they were selling one-third of their Tesla EV fleet because no one wanted to rent them. They also fired the executive who was responsible for the shift to EVs.

So here is the bottom line. This country was founded on freedom and liberty. Conservatives want to preserve our county and its freedoms. Purchasing an EV should be a free choice–not a government mandate. We are in the era of “Big Government” that the Founding Fathers warned us about. Marxism is government control of all aspects of people’s lives. Restricting travel is taking away our freedom one piece at a time. It is past time for all conservatives to band together and insist that the size of the federal government be dramatically reduced. Start by eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency (Dictatorship), the Department of Education, and firing the new 85,000 IRS agents. It is now or never.

The New Definition Of Low Income

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the Biden administration’s continuing push to convince Americans that electric vehicles are a good idea. The mental and verbal gymnastics in this effort are becoming comical.

The headline of the article reads:

Biden Admin Classifies Martha’s Vineyard, Elite Locales As ‘Low-Income’ To Push EV Charger Subsidies

The article reports:

The Biden administration is classifying some of the country’s most elite and exclusive locales as “low-income” areas, making them eligible for electric vehicle (EV) charger subsidy programs.

The administration’s EV charger tax credit program — made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill — is specifically designed to route subsidies to “low-income” or “non-urban” areas of the country. The “low-income” emphasis for eligibility aligns in spirit with the Biden administration’s wider pursuit of so-called “environmental justice,” which is effectively the combination of social justice ideology and green policy.

Numerous elite hangouts and locales — including Montauk and Fishers Island in New York, and parts of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket in Massachusetts — are among the areas that the administration has classified as “low-income” and eligible for receipt of EV charger subsidies, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) interactive eligibility map.

Building out a nationwide charging network is a key supporting plank of the Biden administration’s EV agenda, but the charging infrastructure that currently exists is concentrated in wealthier, more densely-populated coastal regions of the country. The Biden administration’s tax credit program is designed to blunt the costs of charger construction specifically in non-urban, less wealthy parts of the country that would be less likely to install them.

“This tax credit provides up to 30% off the cost of the charger to individuals and businesses in low-income communities and non-urban areas, making it more affordable to install EV charging infrastructure and increasing access to EV charging in underserved communities,” the White House stated on Jan. 19.

To meet the “low-income” definition, a given Census tract must have a poverty rate of 20% or more. Alternatively, an area can qualify if the median family income is below 80% of the median family income in the wider metropolitan area or in its state if a given Census tract is not part of any particular metropolitan area, according to section 45D(e) of the Internal Revenue Code.

In practice, however, the latter definition for a “low-income” area enables places that may not be colloquially considered “low-income” to qualify for the credit by virtue of being located in a wealthy state or metropolitan area.

Some of these ‘low-income’ areas include homes worth over a million dollars. Unfortunately, this is simply another example of the Biden administration paying off its wealthy donors.

Please follow the link to the article for further details. Many of us would love to live in some of the low-income areas that are getting the tax credits.

Want A Good Deal On A Used Electric Vehicle?

On Tuesday, Autoblog reported the following:

Electric vehicles were already considered unappealing by a section of the car-buying public. Now their image could take another hit as rental giant Hertz dumps 20,000 of them, mainly Teslas, for gas-powered cars.

Hertz, the largest U.S. fleet operator of EVs, has blamed the sale on high repair costs and weak demand for the vehicles it offers on rent.

Analysts and industry experts believe the move will affect the second-hand market for EVs and dissuade buyers who are already rethinking big purchases due to higher borrowing costs.

“The larger impact of Hertz EV fire sale is the perception hit to the technology,” said Karl Brauer, analyst at used-car aggregator iSeeCars.com.

“Mainstream consumers are already hesitant to buy an EV, and this news only supports their concerns.”

The higher costs associated with repairing EVs stem from a lack of sufficient expertise in dealing with such vehicles and challenges in getting the replacement parts as they are still very new, industry experts said. 

Hertz CEO Stephen Scherr flagged elevated costs caused by damages to certain EVs, particularly Teslas, last year at a conference. In announcing the liquidation of Hertz’s EV fleet, Scherr also blamed the high repair costs on Tesla for not offering to discount bulk purchases of replacement parts the way other automakers do.

Tesla and Polestar, whose cars are popular with car rental firms, did not respond to a request for comment. Car rental firms Avis and Enterprise also did not respond to a query on their EV strategy.

I love the concept of an electric vehicle. I love the idea of being able to park my car in the garage at night and have it fully charged in the morning–never having to stop for gas. However, I worry about fire danger–I don’t want my house to burn down because I didn’t want to buy gas. I also worry about the rising cost of electricity and how economical an electric car would be in the future. I also worry about having to spend thousands of dollars to replace a battery on a used car. Until those issues are addressed fully, I will simply stand back and admire the acceleration that comes with an electric car.

The Problems With Electric Vehicles Are Becoming Obvious

WITN posted an article on Wednesday about the impact of the current cold snap on electric cars.

The article reports:

OAK BROOK, Ill. (WLS) – Tesla drivers in the Chicago-area are complaining about charging stations not working due to the extreme cold, leaving them with dead batteries.

Many Tesla owners were stranded Monday with dead batteries from the cold and not enough working charging stations at a location in Evergreen Park, Illinois. For most of the day, the temperatures were expected to be below zero with wind chills from -25 to -35 degrees.

“Our batteries are so cold it’s taking longer to charge now. So, it should take 45 minutes, [but] it’s taking two hours for the one charger that we have,” said Tesla owner Brandon Welbourne. “I have seen at least 10 cars get towed away from here because the cars, they died, they’ve run out of battery.”

In nearby Oak Brook, some drivers who went looking for a charge waited hours.

“Right from outside the highway, there’s a whole line of cars, over 20 cars, all Tesla cars … and every single car is a Tesla in this whole parking lot,” said Tesla driver Sajid Ahmed. “We’re waiting and waiting for over an hour. It’s unfortunate that these cars are sitting dead in the spots.”

For many drivers, it was too late. Their cars died during the long wait, and they had to leave their vehicles stranded and wait for the stations to get up and running again.

We should also note that charging an electric vehicle is not the five minute process that filling up your gas tank is–in cold or hot weather. Green energy is a nice theory. However, until we perfect it, we really shouldn’t encourage drivers in parts of the country where the weather is extremely cold to invest in electric cars.

Embracing CO2

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D   

The environmental extremists would have us believe that CO2 is a destructive force for the earth and must be controlled if we are to survive. Recently, a group of scientists not only refuted this notion but stated that increasing levels of CO2 will actually be beneficial to mankind. How is it possible that completely opposite views can exist among climate scientists when the media is constantly telling us that manmade CO2 emissions as an existential threat is “settled science”? The actual truth of this debate would not be so critical if the Biden regime were not using it to completely transform our energy production into something that can never support our industrial society and will destroy our standard of living.   

Recently, Patrick Moore, the chief scientist of Ecosense Environmental, stated that “There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change”.  Just like the Left used fear to get us to use noneffective masks and shut down our economy, the socialist environmental extremists are blaming climate change and so-called disasters on burning of fossil fuels. The truth is that due to modern industrialization using fossil fuels, there have been dramatically fewer deaths from weather factors. For example, in 1925 there were 484,880 reported worldwide deaths from weather factors compared to 14,893  in 2020, in spite of a dramatic increase in the use of fossil fuels. While it is true that humans do not need CO2, the plants we rely on for food absolutely do. The plants use the CO2 for food and produce oxygen in return. Nice reciprocal arrangement, don’t you think? In fact, commercial greenhouses often pump CO2 into their atmosphere in order to dramatically increase plant growth. In past epochs, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was many times higher than today.   

While scientific debate is generally a good thing if it leads to truth, the problem is the Biden regime has decided what is true and anyone with an opposite view is called a “climate denier” and punished. Typical socialism where the government knows what is best for us and you better comply. The actions the Biden regime are taking (with the concurrence of some Republicans) will destroy our way of life and lower our standard of living. The inflation we are experiencing is a clear example. Like all socialist governments it is all about controlling the people. From eliminating gas stoves and pushing electric vehicles as well as taxpayer subsidized wind and solar energy our freedom to choose is being taken away. 

We must fight back against this attack on our freedom. How? First, we must elect candidates who recognize the hoax of manmade climate change, such as Donald Trump who pulled our country out of the damaging Paris Climate Accords. Second, we must get our elected officials to reverse green energy policies that subsidize wind and solar and electric vehicles. If you want an electric vehicle, no problem, just do not expect others to help pay for it. Third, state and federal environmental agencies must be stopped from issuing draconian regulations. Cummings Diesel company was recently required to pay a two billion dollar fine for not complying with an EPA regulation. Fourth, the NC General Assembly must repeal the mandate that requires a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030. 

The ultimate issue is freedom of choice versus government control. It is up to us. 

Tell Us Something Without Actually Telling Us Something

Recently WWAYTV3 in Wilmington, North Carolina, reported that Hertz is cutting back on its rental of electric vehicles.

The article reports:

Hertz, which has made a big push into electric vehicles in recent years, has decided it’s time to cut back. The company will sell off a third of its electric fleet, totaling roughly 20,000 vehicles, and use the money they bring to purchase more gasoline powered vehicles.

Electric vehicles have been hurting Hertz’s financials, executives have said, because, despite costing less to maintain, they have higher damage-repair costs and, also, higher depreciation.

“[C]ollision and damage repairs on an EV can often run about twice that associated with a comparable combustion engine vehicle,” Hertz CEO Stephen Scherr said in a recent analyst call.

And EV price declines in the new car market have pushed down the resale value of Hertz’s used EV rental cars.

“The MSRP declines in EVs over the course of 2023, driven primarily by Tesla, have driven the fair market value of our EVs lower as compared to last year, such that a salvage creates a larger loss and, therefore, greater burden,” Scherr said.

Simply put, people are generally willing to pay a certain amount less for a used car than for a new one. As the price of new car goes down, that also pushes down what people are willing to pay to buy a used one.

As of now, electric cars are not the answer to green energy. There are serious ethical questions about the mining of the lithium that is used to make the batteries, and there are safety issues–don’t try to evacuate from a hurricane in an electric car if the puddles you are driving through contain salt water–that can cause the car to ignite. Iceland successfully uses hydrogen as fuel for its busses. There are other options for cutting pollution than electric cars.

Return of Frankenstein?

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D 

We all remember the Frankenstein story where the main character attempts to create life from the remnants of the deceased in his laboratory. It did not turn out well. The Epoch Times (a great conservative weekly newspaper), recently published an article about laboratory created meat that is being produced in a couple of laboratories in this country as well as few other countries.   

The article related that the FDA (Federal Drug Administration), recently gave its approval for the labs to market and sell this artificially created meat to Americans on the open market. The exact process of creating this involves taking cells of real meat and somehow adding other components to resemble real meat. I assume the actual details of the process are proprietary and not public knowledge.   

Why is this being done you might ask. The reasons, as with a lot of things that have the potential to destroy our country as we know it, are based on preventing that ongoing hoax: manmade climate change. Apparently, the environmental extremists do not like raising real animals for meat since they exhale CO2As with all of the other climate change solutions this will have a severe negative impact on not only the farmers and ranchers who raise animals but on the transportation, animal feed. and food processing industries putting millions of people out of work. Moreover, the laboratories which produce this artificial meat will require extensive electrical energy to operate. Having raised beef cattle and chickens myself, I can assure you that they require little other than green grass and access to pastures. As this absurdity expands, undoubtedly with extensive taxpayer subsidies, our food supply becomes concentrated into large factories that are more easily subject to attack and disruption that the widespread farming industry. So far, there are only two places, namely, Singapore and the United States, which have sanctioned artificial meat products.   Singapore does not have extensive pasture land like we have and may therefore be excused for this absurdity. I am reminded of a movie named “Soylent Green” starring Charlton Heston, where the bodies of the deceased were being processed into food for the masses. Under Biden, the impossible is becoming probable. Scary. 

This is another, scary example of an out of control bureaucracy that must be reined in!  Another example, is the recently announced plan by the Biden regime’s Department of Transportation to require all auto manufacturers to install electronic control devices in your vehicle which will monitor your location and control your speed to conform with the speed limit of the road you are traveling. In addition, they are planning to mandate fuel efficiency standards that are impossible to meet with internal combustion engines thereby moving to all electric vehicles without actually issuing a mandate. A recent article in the Epoch Times estimates that for every electric vehicle that sells for $53,000 that we the taxpayers contribute $47,000 in subsidies and tax breaks. Sound fair to you? 

If you value your freedom and your country as you have known it, this has to be stopped. Biden has the gall to attack President Trump as a threat to our democracy and freedom while he and his minions are the greatest threat this country has ever seen. We must fight back. Get involved before it is too late. 

Some Glitches In The Technology

On Friday, The American Thinker posted an article about a man launching his jet ski into the water at a boat ramp. That really doesn’t sound like an article for The American Thinker until you look into the details.

The article quotes a Facebook post by an organization of firefighters in Hollywood, Florida:

On Sunday Oct 1st, a Tesla Model S [sic] was attempting to back a jet ski into the water at the Polk Street boat ramp, when it lost traction and slid into the inter-coastal [sic]. The salt water reacted with the the [sic] vehicle’s electronics causing them to short, sparking a fire that burned underwater for an extended period of time.

The fire was allowed to burn underwater until it extinguished itself. And even then, it had to be loaded carefully onto a special carrier, and followed by the Fire Engine to the impound lot, where they’ll keep the vehicle isolated for a few days in the very real possibility of re-ignition. EVs have been known to reignite even after the initial fire has been extinguished.

The article also quotes Autoblog:

The wife backs the trailer and jet ski into the water, the husband gets the jet ski into the water. While the husband is on the water on the jet ski, the Tesla begins flashing a warning to the wife to get out of the Model X. The car’s electronically powered doors are closed, and whatever malfunction is occurring won’t permit the doors to open. Apparently, the wife didn’t know about the manual release for the doors, so the husband rocks up and gets her out before the Model X ends up submerged.

The article concludes:

As the firefighters’ Facebook post also noted, the uniqueness of EV fires is creating a “whole new level of hazard” to fire prevention and fire service apparatuses:

This is an issue with all Electric Vehicles, not just Tesla. And their prevalence is adding a whole new level of hazard to the Fire Service, causing Fire Departments worldwide to rethink how they mitigate electric vehicle emergencies.

If this occurrence isn’t just another datum point in the obvious trend proving that avoiding battery-powered cars is the way to go (for the sake of humanity and the environment), and shoring up the reality that the left always has the stupidest ideas, then I don’t know what is.

This story could have had a very different ending. Thank God that the husband was quick to unlock the door.

 

 

All Politics Is Local

On Friday, The Patriotic News posted an article about the recent elections in Green Charter Township in Michigan. The voters there were not happy with the actions of their governing board, so they voted ALL of them out of office.

The article reports:

The good people of Green Charter Township, a small rural community north of Grand Rapids, ousted all five of the board members in a special election held Tuesday. They swapped the five, all Republicans, for candidates who ran without party affiliation. To show they meant business, the townspeople immediately called in locksmiths to change the locks on the main government building. 

The residents took such drastic action in opposition to the construction in their town of a $2.3 billion EV plant by a company, Gotion, that has links to China

Voters were angered that the now-ousted board moved forward with the project despite severe backlash from the community. At a hearing last year, one resident remarked, “My family members fought communism, and you’re bringing it right here.”

Another resident, Harry King, said, “Right now, we are not on friendly terms with China. They are threatening us. I consider them the enemy. I don’t want them here, either.”

The plan for the Michigan plant, and another targeted for Illinois, has reportedly caught the attention of congressional Republicans, who have called on the Treasury Department to investigate Gotion. In response, the company remarked, “We are a multinational company and don’t believe in political posturing and are still committed to bringing thousands of jobs to the state of Michigan.”

The residents realize that their fight is not yet over, but they are prepared to continue their opposition to the plant.

The article concludes:

Political newcomer Corri Riebow, who ran for the clerk position in the special election and won, said of the town’s brand new government, “We just plan on making it as difficult as possible for them to continue their process. They don’t even have a sight planned, they don’t have permits yet, so, we’re not their friend.”

This is what can happen when voters understand the issues and get involved.

Something To Think About If Your Live Near The Coast

I live in North Carolina. North Carolina is part of hurricane alley. We can count on at least one or two hurricanes during the hurricane season. The hope is that they will brush by without much damage or that they will come in over land and weaken before they get here. However, if you live near an ocean or brackish river in a place prone to hurricanes, there are some things you need to consider before climbing aboard the electric car bandwagon.

On Saturday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

Hurricane Idalia and subsequent floods have created an electric vehicle (EV) fire risk in Florida as batteries exposed to saltwater become susceptible to combustion, based on statements from one of the fire departments in the state.

“WARNING. If you own a hybrid or electric vehicle that has come into contact with saltwater due to recent flooding within the last 24 hours, it is crucial to relocate the vehicle from your garage without delay. Saltwater exposure can trigger combustion in lithium-ion batteries. If possible, transfer your vehicle to higher ground,” Palm Harbor Fire Rescue (PHFR), Florida, said in an Aug. 31 Facebook post.

“This includes golf carts and electric scooters. Don’t drive these through water. PHFR crews have seen numerous residents out in golf carts and children on scooters riding through water.”

The issue with saltwater is that even if the water dries off, the residue can remain, potentially triggering electrical connections within the EV battery, which eventually sparks into a fire. In the post, PHFR pointed to two Tesla EVs in Dunedin that had caught fire.

The article concludes:

The problem of EVs catching fire was a major issue in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian in 2022. In a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) following the hurricane, Florida CFO Mr. Patronis called the potential of EV fires a “ticking time bomb on our hands.”

“I joined North Collier Fire Rescue to assess response activities related to Hurricane Ian and saw with my own eyes an EV continuously ignite, and continually reignite, as fire teams doused the vehicle with tens of thousands of gallons of water,” he wrote.

“I was informed by the fire department that the vehicle, once again reignited when it was loaded onto the tow truck.”

According to the State Fire Marshal’s Office, 21 fires have been associated with electric vehicles following Hurricane Ian.

Even without being submerged in water, EV fires are now a major concern in several places. In New York, there were 220 fires last year due to electric batteries in e-micromobility devices, up from just 44 in 2020.

“These fires are particularly severe and difficult to extinguish, spreading quickly, and producing noxious fumes,” officials said in a news release.

In a report on safety recommendations, the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) warned that “lithium-Ion batteries are known to unexpectedly reignite (without warning) minutes, hours, and even days after all visible fire has been put out.”

The batteries “can enter an uncontrollable, self-heating state. This can result in the release of gas, cause fire, and possible explosion.”

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Full Steam Ahead–Right Over The Cliff

On Sunday, Just the News posted the following headline:

Harsh reality: Midwest states’ infrastructure ‘below average’ for transition to electric vehicles

The article reports:

The Great Lakes states, let alone the nation, don’t have the infrastructure necessary for the transition to electric vehicles, a car search and research company reported.

BMW Group, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz Group and Stellantis NV announced Wednesday they’re collaborating to install 30,000 high-powered charge points in urban and highway locations, beginning in summer 2024, with private and public funding,

iSeeCars.com Executive Analyst Karl Brauer said it’s not enough.

The seven companies announced their venture, which should be established this year, would begin opening stations in summer 2024. The networks would be powered solely with renewable energy. All battery-powered electric vehicles that use Combined Charging System or North American Charging Standard will at least meet the U.S. National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program’s requirements.

Brauer told The Center Square in a statement July 26 that the most daunting challenge for the electric vehicle transition is the lack of charging infrastructure to satisfy the current 5% new vehicle market share of EV drivers.

If we don’t have enough charging stations when only 5% of cars are electric, how are we going to handle a situation where 70% or more of cars are electric? There is also the problem of electric cars and extremely cold weather. The batteries in electric cars lose their charge very quickly in cold weather. At least half of America experiences cold weather during the winter. I remember many New England winters where the temperature in January did not exceed 9 degrees. Upper Michigan also has extreme winter weather. Unless the technology is significantly improved, electric cars are not a good idea. Our power grid, which is not adequately protected against solar flares or EMP attacks can barely handle the load on peak days. Do you remember the residents of California being asked NOT to charge their cars because of an overtaxed electrical grid? Remember the winter brownouts in North Carolina last year?

Unless we admit that green energy is not a workable alternative to fossil fuel, we will become a third-world country with brownouts and limited access to electricity. Electric cars will only make that situation worse.

 

Sometimes The Contrast Is Amazing

On Wednesday, The Federalist noted:

According to the contemporary left, it’s “authoritarian” for local elected officials to curate school library collections but fine for a powerful centralized federal government to issue an edict compelling a major industry to produce a product and then force hundreds of millions of people to buy it.

Lately, the federal government seems to believe that it can control the tiniest details of the lives of Americans. Covid was a glaring example of this–you can’t work in certain places unless you have an untested vaccine, you can’t go to church, but you can go to a casino, children can’t attend school, etc. Well, the federal government got away with all those unconstitutional acts, so it’s going to try more. Hang on to your car–they are coming for it if it’s not electric.

The article reports:

President Biden is set to “transform” and “remake” the entire auto industry — “first with carrots, now with sticks”— notes the Washington Post, as if dictating the output of a major industry is within the governing purview of the executive branch. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing draconian emissions limits for vehicles, ensuring that 67 percent of all new passenger cars and trucks produced within nine years will be electric. This is state coercion. It is undemocratic. We are not governed; we are managed.

In fascist economies, a powerful centralized state — often led by a demagogue who plays on the nationalistic impulses of people — controls both manufacturing and commerce and dictates prices and wages for the “common good.” Any unpatriotic excessive profits are captured by the state. All economic activity must meet state approval. And crony, rent-seeking companies are willing participants. Now, I’m not saying we already live in a fascist economic state. I’m just saying the Democratic Party economic platform sounds like it wishes we were.

The article concludes:

“I want to let everybody know that this EPA is committed to protecting the health and well-being of every single person on this planet,” the EPA’s Michael Regan explained when announcing the edicts. No one is safer in an EV than a gas-powered vehicle. The authoritarian’s justification for economic control is almost always “safety.” But the entire “safety” claim is tethered to the perpetually disproven theory that our society can’t safely — and relatively cheaply — adapt to slight changes in climate. If the state can regulate “greenhouse gases” as an existential threat, it has the unfettered power to regulate virtually the entire economy. This is why politicians treat every hurricane, tornado, and flood as an apocalyptic event. But in almost every quantifiable way, the climate is less dangerous to mankind now than it has ever been. And the more they try to scare us, the less people care.

So let the Chinese communists worry about keeping their population “safe.” Let’s keep this one innovative, open, and free.

Elections matter, and the 2024 presidential election REALLY matters.

The Government Giveth And The Government Taketh Away

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced Friday that it would propose rules that would make it more difficult for a number of new electric vehicles (EVs) to qualify for tax breaks, according to a news release.

Starting April 18, the IRS will enforce a domestic sourcing requirement for minerals and components used in EV batteries, the agency said. Analysts say that a number of new EVs won’t qualify for a clean vehicle tax credit of $7,500 that was implemented under the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed last year.

…To qualify under the new rules, the IRS said that an EV must have a battery capacity of at least 7 kilowatt hours, have a gross vehicle weight of fewer than 14,000 pounds, be “made by a qualified manufacturer,” and those vehicles have to go through a final assembly in North America. The vehicle also has to be new and the seller has to report “your name and taxpayer identification number to the IRS for you to be eligible to claim the credit,” the release said.

It also said there are price and income caps, including $55,000 for sedans as well as $80,000 for trucks, vans, and SUVs. A list of EV manufacturers was placed on the IRS website.

The article concludes:

John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, told the outlet that he believes only few of the 90 or so electric vehicles that are on sale in the United States will be eligible for the tax credit starting next month.

“Some EVs will certainly qualify for a partial credit. Given the constraints of the legislation, Treasury’s done as well as it could to produce rules that meet the statute and reflect the current market,” he warned to Reuters.

How many of us can afford to pay upwards of $55,000 for a vehicle? What is behind this push for electric vehicles and the gradual phasing out of gasoline-powered vehicles? The automobile is a major part of American life.

According to House Grail:

In 2017, the average US household owned 1.88 cars. The average US household consisted of 2.54 people which means the average American owns 0.74 cars, although this includes children that would have been too young to drive.

If approximately 75% of the population are old enough to drive, then the driving population owns 0.99 of a car each, on average.

What would be the impact of ending the sale of cars with gasoline engines and replacing them with cars the average American cannot afford? The impact would be the loss of individual freedom. Trips to the grocery store to pick up one or two items would be a thing of the past. Trips would have to be carefully planned. How often would families be able to get together? The family is the building block of our society, what happens when family dinners on holidays are no longer possible?

The push for electric cars is a sham. It is a reach for further government control and less freedom for Americans. Putting cars out of the financial reach of average Americans is not a good idea.

Back To The Drawing Board?

On Tuesday, The Blue State Conservative posted a sad tale on its website. It was the tale of an environmentally conscientious consumer and his Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup.

The article reports:

Yet another electric vehicle disaster is making the rounds on the internet, this time as a YouTuber with over 1.4 million followers tried towing an ancient 1930s Ford Model A truck with a contemporary Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup. Despite setting the bar ridiculously low – he just wanted to tow it just over 100 miles round trip – the entire experiment failed in a spectacularly “complete and total disaster.”

Youtuber Tyler Hoover says in the video, seen below, that “[i]f a truck towing 3,500 pounds can’t even go 100 miles — that is ridiculously stupid. He then highlights the basic argument against EVs. “This truck can’t do normal truck things. You would be stopping every hour to recharge, which would take about 45 minutes a pop, and that is absolutely not practical.”

He says of the exercise: “My plan was to make two trips up today,” he said. “About 32 miles each way, so that’s about 64 times two: 128 miles round trip.”

This is the video:

I think we have a little more work to do before we commit entirely to electric vehicles. If you want a truck to do truck things, obviously at this time an electric truck is not your answer.

Some Things Generally Overlooked In The Electric Car Discussion

Electric cars came on the scene a number of years ago. The idea of plugging your car into the outlet in your garage rather than having to look for a gas station is attractive. Also, depending on the price of electricity vs the price of gasoline, an electric car could save you money. However, the basic laws of physics get in the way.

On Friday, The Patriots Business Alliance posted an article about electric cars. The article discussed the physics and business aspect of the cars:

Does the move to electric vehicles result in a reduction in the total energy necessary to achieve the same result? Simple answer, no. In its simplest measure, it will take the same amount of energy to move “X” number of pounds from point A to point B if all the other variables are the same. Now, is there any evidence that how that energy is applied or utilized really makes a difference? Not as far as I have found.

So, for the vehicle type that the “green” energy advocates consider to be the best result, the plug-in hybrid, where does this energy come from? We will examine only the US model at this point. This is the US electrical supply in 2015 by generating source- Coal = 33%, Natural gas = 33%, Nuclear = 20%, Hydropower = 6%, other renewables = 7% including, Biomass = 1.6%, Geothermal = 0.4%, Solar = 0.6% and Wind = 4.7%, and last but least, Petroleum = 1%. From this information we have to see that the plug-in hybrid is first and foremost a coal, natural gas and nuclear powered vehicle. But that’s just part of the equation because this doesn’t take in to account the amount of energy that is lost through the transmission process. Most people don’t understand, or even consider, that the amount of energy that is fed in to the transmission grid is reduced by the amount of energy consumed in the transmission process before it reaches the point of use. But in evaluating the “greenness” of the plug-in hybrid this must be considered because it is part of the equation. Also, the plug-in hybrid still must have a supplemental internal combustion gasoline engine in case you need to go farther than you can go on a charge.

That is a whole lot more technical information than my brain can handle, but if I understand it correctly, the bottom line is that an electric car does not actually conserve energy.

The article further explains:

Now, let’s look at a practical example, the Chevy Cruze, a standard gasoline-powered vehicle, and the Chevy Volt, the plug-in hybrid version of the same car. First is the weight- Chevy Cruze- 2835#, Chevy Volt- 3543#. WOW! The immediate thing you know is that it’s going to take 25% more energy to drive the Volt than the Cruze just because of the added weight from the batteries. Did you, or anybody, ever even consider this in the conversation? I’m just guessing the answer to that question is NO. Next is the price- Chevy Cruze- $18, 120, Chevy Volt- $33,220. WOW!! For the privilege of using 25% more energy to achieve the same result, you get to spend ~45% more to purchase the vehicle. Can you say, “What a bargain!” And we haven’t even mentioned the crony capitalism that is put in place to at least make you think you’re getting a kiss while you’re getting screwed.

The article concludes:

There is another element of this situation I would like to address in closing and that is how the plug-in hybrid in general removes you, the consumer, from the market when it comes to the purchasing of your vehicle fuel. Good or bad, with the plug-in hybrid you’re tied to government-controlled electric rates for the pricing of your vehicle fuel. In the last 24 months the price at the pump of gasoline has gone down over 40% where your price per/KW of electricity has actually increased. Just something you can think about when you have to spend more “green” to fuel your electric car. Are you feeling really green yet? Or just hosed?

Green energy is just another highway to increase government control of our lives.

 

Who Gets Green Energy Money

Yesterday Steven Hayward posted a story at Power Line about a Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley study showing who gets the tax credits associated with green energy. The results of the study are not surprising, but provide another example of excessive government spending helping people who really don’t need help.

The article reports:

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

Logically this is not surprising. Lower income people are not likely to pay the extra money for an electric car (or have a charging station). Lower income people are less likely to own their own home. People on welfare have no incentive to reduce their energy bills–welfare is paying for them. On the other side of the equation, most upper income people are in the habit of taking advantage of any ‘free’ money offered to them. Many upper income people have financial advisers who are paid to follow government tax programs and rebate programs. Upper income people may also have the money on hand to do the capital improvements required to get the tax credits, lower income people may not. Generally speaking I favor tax credits, lower taxes, etc., but I resent the fact that the tax code is used to control behavior–that is why it is so long. It really is time to build a tax code with two or three deductions that everyone can understand and that results in everyone paying some taxes. We all need skin in the game so that when our legislators start giving money away to people who do not need it, everyone will complain,.