Politically correct CO2: EPA to overlook EV emissions

Not only is carbon dioxide physically invisible, when the EPA chooses, it’s also invisible for regulatory purposes.

The EPA is proposing to pretend that there are no CO2 emissions associated with electric vehicles (EVs).

As part of its upcoming proposal for corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE), the agency intends to propose standards that would be projected to achieve, on an average industry fleet wide basis, 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025. To help automakers meet that standard, the EPA intends to pretend that EV charging produces no CO2 through at least 2021.

But as JunkScience.com has pointed out (SeeDetailing the greenwashed Chevy Volt“), cars like the Chevy Volt may actually produce more CO2 from charging than they would from simply running on gasoline.

It will be interesting to see if the enviros whinge about politically correct CO2 — much of which comes from enviro-hated coal-fired power plants.

4 thoughts on “Politically correct CO2: EPA to overlook EV emissions”

  1. EV and modern PZEV ICE powered cars are NOT equal. The EVs don’t pollute, and neither do PZEVs. But EVs don’t also clean up the AIR, while PZEVs do so. PZEV ICEs take in dirtier Air, and process it to produce motive power, and expel cleaner Air than what they started with, EVs don’t do this.

    Meanwhile California’s CARB is preparing to require all cars PZEVs as a requirement, while 25% of California’s cars, (the newer ones), are already such vehicles.

    So PZEV ICEs do more for the environment than EVs.

  2. ” MS” has posted an interesting article over at The Hockey Schtick hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-cost-estimate-to-replace-battery-on.html
    that says that “a new battery for the Nissan Leaf, the world’s top-selling electric car, costs more than double past estimates.”
    To wit, if regularly given a quick charge, the battery degrades and needs to be replaced – at a cost of £19,392 – “after a few years.”
    That alone is about 5 times the cost of my used 2002 Honda Civic (32 mpg).

  3. A similar argument is put forward against Incandescent Light Bulb Bans in some states, but for the opposite reason (i.e. emission-free electrity usage)
    So that ironically the early 2011 light bulb ban in low electricity emission British Columbia may increase CO2 emissions,
    since the heat of the old bulbs may be replaced by oil/gas heating which gives off the emissions, as institutionally researched http://ceolas.net/#li6x

    As an aside,
    CO2 emission is of course often called “CO2 pollution”
    (also compare with all the “clean” energy etc language,
    or for that matter “energy saving” rather than fluorescent light bulbs
    – when did you last ask for an “Energy Wasting Light Bulb Please” in a store…)

    The argument regarding “CO2 pollution” is that although CO2 is a natural atmospheric gas, too much of it is bad.
    This can of course be applied to anything you choose, as in a commercial:
    “Girls, did you know that too much water is bad for your skin?”
    Too much peace, too much love is bad for the planet too – darn pollution 😉

  4. The Chevy Volt, America’s first coal-powered car. Not a bad idea, using domestic coal to power cars, actually…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.