New Book Calls Out 'Greenwashing' of Electric Cars

[MegalosSkylaki]

Author says environmental impact of producing alternative-fuel vehicles outweighs benefits.
By Douglas Newcomb

According to a new book titled "Green Illusions" (University of Nebraska Press), hybrid and electric cars are not any cleaner or greener than traditional fossil-fuel vehicles. Author Ozzie Zehner, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, points to the environmental side effects of hybrid and electric cars from Fisker, Nissan, Tesla and Toyota: their energy use and carbon footprint during production, the mining impact to obtain materials and even their infrastructure requirements. Zehner notes that many of his conclusions about so-called "green" cars are backed by a National Academy of Sciences report.

“Shifting from gasoline to electric vehicles is like switching a smoking habit from cloves to menthols,” Zehner said in a statement. “It isn't acceptable for doctors to promote menthol cigarettes; should environmentally minded people promote alternative-fuel cars?"

From>>>
Exhaust Notes - MSN Autos

Now I haven't read the book, err...yet...but my own sense--and looking back at the corn-onto-fuel fiasco wherein we turned our food into gasahol, raising the price of food and many believe raising the carbon footprint of the fuel in the process.

It is the total cost --including carbon footprint--that should count in evaluating the transfer from conventional to hybrid and/or electrical vehicles. I don't know if a proper accounting given the complexities and all the factors involved is possible. Remember unexpected consequences?

In any event, nobody has ever shown that conservation increases the cost or carbon footprint. Why drive from NYC to Miami for example when one can take a train and then rent a car? What's wrong with bicycles if people were educated not to be idiots on them?

Conservation is the long term solution.

MegalosSkylaki

[MegalosSkylaki]

Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism (Our Sustainable Future) [Paperback]
Ozzie Zehner
(Author

Sold by Amazon Books.

Book Description
Publication Date: June 1, 2012 | Series: Our Sustainable Future

We don’t have an energy crisis. We have a consumption crisis. And this book, which takes aim at cherished assumptions regarding energy, offers refreshingly straight talk about what’s wrong with the way we think and talk about the problem. Though we generally believe we can solve environmental problems with more energy—more solar cells, wind turbines, and biofuels—alternative technologies come with their own side effects and limitations. How, for instance, do solar cells cause harm? Why can’t engineers solve wind power’s biggest obstacle? Why won’t contraception solve the problem of overpopulation lying at the heart of our concerns about energy, and what will?

This practical, environmentally informed, and lucid book persuasively argues for a change of perspective. If consumption is the problem, as Ozzie Zehner suggests, then we need to shift our focus from suspect alternative energies to improving social and political fundamentals: walkable communities, improved consumption, enlightened governance, and, most notably, women’s rights.

The dozens of first steps he offers are surprisingly straightforward. For instance, he introduces a simple sticker that promises a greater impact than all of the nation’s solar cells. He uncovers why carbon taxes won’t solve our energy challenges (and presents two taxes that could). Finally, he explores how future environmentalists will focus on similarly fresh alternatives that are affordable, clean, and can actually improve our well-being.

Another book paired with it at Amazon argues that the usual result of increased efficiency is to drive down costs--which causes us to consume more. This is the very opposite of what we should be doing--which is to consume less. Look how efficient America is compared to much of the World-and how it disproportionately consumes compared to the rest of the World. We consume 40% of the World's medicine--yet we rank 48th in health.

NYC is soon to raise taxi fare by about 20%. This despite a Yellow Taxi medalion costs pushing $800,000 so taxi owners are certainly not going broke. Whenever that happens, subway and bus fares go up to keep pace. Now there are certain parts of the City where 30% of the passengers simple get on busses through the back exit doors without paying fares--which are $4.50 per person roundtrip. Bus drivers are told to "suggest" the passengers pay--but to keep driving. Imagine if more didn't pay. Who and how would the system be enforced and at what costs?

One can ask, "What if public transportation were made cheaper...not more expensive? How much money would be saved? What if it were "No charge", what the gridlocked City would look like?

I sat in a Target store in a poor neighborhood recently in a Starbucks watching the people --the Target customers--walk by and astoundingly the obese outnumbered the normal-weighted by about 5-to-1. I can remember when poorer people were thinner.

Why are we looking for technological solutions--biofuel, electric cars etc. when the solutions are staring us in the face?

MegalosSkyalaki

[tony_j15]

No one likes to talk about conservation because it is not easily monetized. We want products that appeal to our egos and emotions. Also, we're lazy and have given in to the idea of societal evolution where everything gets better and easier with each generation. All past great civilizations have fallen prey to the same lie, and end up collapsing in on themselves.

[Epidemic]

yeah lets give up TV, internet, consumerism, Cars. Lets implement mass transit so that a bus or train runs within a mile of every house in America every hour... Or even better lets just become Amish and forget about all modern conveniences including government health care and live a Agri based existence. Initially we will have a problem with those in the cities dying but hey whacha gonna do Mind you if we do give up the car that is 10's of millions of people out of work in the auto industry. If we gave up consumerism, we would have even more people out of work. A non consumerist green 1st world country is a dead country. At least with how money and the economy are set up today.

Of course there will be no money to tax in a non consumerist economy so we wont have public transportation, cradle to grave society.

[MegalosSkylaki]

I would draw an analogy with our technology obsessed disease management medical system instead of a disease prevention healthcare system. Lifestyle changes and dietary changes would prevent a lot of diseases--like diabetes and heart disease--yet we are obsessed with newer and better drugs and better surgeries to intervene after-the-fact which often do little to improve the quantity or quality of life.

I was thinking that an ideal system would have both a MD interventionist and a naturapathic preventionist working in tandem for every individual.

I think you are alluding Tony _j15 to the problem of Complexity wherein civilizations become so complex they collapse upon themselves. Then we should look for simpler solutions--like walking---where the outcomes can be easily foreseen, rather than even more complex solutions where the unintended consequences can't be foreseen.

MegalosSkylaki

[Epidemic]

I think you are alluding to the problem of Complexity wherein civilizations become so complex they collapse upon themselves. Then we should look for simple solutions--like walking---where the outcomes can be easily foreseen, rather than even more complex solutions where the unintended consequences can't be foreseen. MegalosSkylaki

Or you could have people pay for their own medical care and if they can't afford it they die. Thereby incentivising the poor to keep in good health with inexpensive measures like reduced gluttony, and free things like walking. Make health insurance illegal.

[GroundZero3]

Semi related

U.S. Military's Green Energy Criticized By Congress : NPR

[tony_j15]

I think you are alluding Tony _j15 to the problem of Complexity wherein civilizations become so complex they collapse upon themselves. Then we should look for simpler solutions--like walking---where the outcomes can be easily foreseen, rather than even more complex solutions where the unintended consequences can't be foreseen.

Precisely. Things become so complex that they out-run our ability to adequately understand the dangers or how close we are to the tipping point. Our problem is compounded by our lackluster education system and a citizenry who elect leaders that prefer fantasy over reality.

Epi: there is a logical flaw in your first post. You contend that x requires y, and that if we remove y, there will be no more x. This requires an extremely high correlation value to be true. Giving up cars, for example, will not wreck civilization. If it is done overnight, perhaps yes then. But not if it is done in a structured way. The problem is, if we don't immediately start working on structured solutions the whole thing is going to collapse on us. It is inevitable, and I perceive it starting within my lifetime.

GZ: great link, thanks.

[Epidemic]

I percieve it in my lifetime as well but I believe the collapse starts with hyperinflation associated with no one covering our demands for cash infusions into our economy

Although I see consumerism based economy collapsing as well eventually. I just think that it will last longer than a hyperspending government dying under it's own debt.

I think we are talking in many decades for consumerism death and I think we are within 2 decades under debt based collapse.

[pickel]

From>>>

It is the total cost --including carbon footprint--that should count in evaluating the transfer from conventional to hybrid and/or electrical vehicles. I don't know if a proper accounting given the complexities and all the factors involved is possible. Remember unexpected consequences?

.

MegalosSkylaki

You're just Realizing that ????

I know I posted something to that effect YEARSSSS ago......

[brandon184]

A Little Math Lesson: Are Used Cars Greener Than Hybrids? - Business Insider

[sharder8]

A Little Math Lesson: Are Used Cars Greener Than Hybrids? - Business Insider

Still doesn't include the cost of recycling and disposal of either type of vehicle. For an honest appraisal, that also should be included.


Harder

[tony_j15]

Assuming they actually get recycled. Around here, they go to junk yards and sit around until they are broken down for used parts. Not much carbon-footprint activity there, unless we want to get wild and count the gas usage of every person that drives to the yard for a part.

[sharder8]

Assuming they actually get recycled. Around here, they go to junk yards and sit around until they are broken down for used parts. Not much carbon-footprint activity there, unless we want to get wild and count the gas usage of every person that drives to the yard for a part.

At a certain point tony, they will be crushed and sent off to recover what ever is still usable. I see semi's routinely, loaded with crushed cars going through town to where ever. I also know the local yards send truck loads of batteries and tires off for recycling.

Speaking of which . . . I found bags of decorative mulch made from shredded tires at Home Depot this spring. Not the fire hazard bark mulch is, competitively priced, and a nice warranty to boot. Bark mulch typically lasts 1-2 years here before breaking down or blowing away . . . and sometimes igniting.


Harder

[Whir]

The problem with any kind of technology like this is that it never starts ahead of the one it replaces. It needs time and research to really push ahead.

One study I wrote an article on suggested that it would take about 40 years to get to the point where a hydrogen economy would supplant the petroleum economy, and that was only if we actually started funding the science and development of the hydrogen producers and consumers. Needless to say, people don't want to work on something that isn't going to directly benefit themselves -- to hell with their kids and their kids' kids after all.

Green automobiles will continue to not be any better than modern petroleum automobiles until they need to be, ie when we run out of oil.

[Epidemic]

Whir,

I am not sure what you are talking about. Cars replaced horses when they became better than what they were replacing, cheap and reliable enough purly based on market forces.

When gas is too expensive the cheap side of the equation will come into play. Right now we have an expensive alternative with large upfront costs, mild performance complaints, and reliability is fine. The way I see it unfolding is Gas prices will rise another inflationary adjusted 2 bucks a gallon and alternative propulsion will start to look better and then the market will start to shift. We are on the cusp of change no super human tech is needed.

As for new technology. Europe has insane gas prices an even with that incentive they have not exactly been developing new tech they have smaller and more fuel efficient. But there is a market for new super tech and for some reason industry is not meeting that with new products. Why? Perhaps new tech is not ready even with a market for millions and millions of units open for the taking. R&D has not yet produced a product that can surpass fossil fuels.

Perhaps what you are asking for is the equivalent of replacing the horse in 1890 with the car. Or replacing steam engine trains with diesel electric trains. Yeah the tech existed in its infantcy to do so but it was not there yet. We still need carbon nano tube batteries, or a new method of extracting hydrogen or a new method of cellulose based alcohol production to be developed.

Can you just throw money at the problem or do you have to wait until someone stumbles on it.

[pickel]

Assuming they actually get recycled. Around here, they go to junk yards and sit around until they are broken down for used parts. Not much carbon-footprint activity there, unless we want to get wild and count the gas usage of every person that drives to the yard for a part.

By going to Used Auto Parts For Less - Pull-A-Part , I keep my 1993 Stealth, 1991 Firebird and 1978 Chevy pickup alive and well, The money I save over new parts( Idle speed control ..new $ 385.00 , a good used one $12.00 ), and the satisfaction of NOT being ripped off by repair shops. Thus giving me MORE discretionary money to buy other things , like a new roof for my house and Karate lessons for my Grand daughter.
If it wasn't for my wife and daughter, I NEVER would have bought a new Maxima and Altima.
Two plastic POS, IMO.
The Stealth ,actuality, gets better gas mileage than either of the new cars and is a hell of a lot more fun to drive. Which, IMO, is what driving is all about.

[Epidemic]

Yeah but when you are having fun driving the Stealth you probably get worse mileage then boring driving the Maxima

[tony_j15]

At a certain point tony, they will be crushed and sent off to recover what ever is still usable. I see semi's routinely, loaded with crushed cars going through town to where ever. I also know the local yards send truck loads of batteries and tires off for recycling.

Serendipity: I got caught behind a flat-bed semi this morning coming into work that was loaded with crushed cars.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Cars replaced horses when they became better than what they were replacing, cheap and reliable enough purly based on market forces.

But did that change happen overnight? No! Like Whir said, there was close to 50 years (guessing) between the time cars were invented and when they became mainstream. It took many years because we had to figure out how to build them cheaply and reliably, then create a network of roads to sustain them, come up with traffic laws, and build an infrustructure of oil to supply them. The same will happen with hydrogen, or whatever else we go to.

[pickel]

Yeah but when you are having fun driving the Stealth you probably get worse mileage then boring driving the Maxima

Try reading my post again, S L O W L Y !!!

The Stealth gets over 30 mpg @ 75 mph. And 25 MPG @ 90 mph.

The best the Maxima can is 27 mpg.