Warmist: Alternate-fuel vehicles a waste of time — need policies to reduce driving

John DeCicco writes at Yale’s environment 360:

… the fact is that using government mandates and subsidies to promote politically favored fuels du jour is a waste of taxpayers’ money. It’s also a diversion There is no environmentally persuasive reason to rush alternative fuel vehicles onto the road. from what really needs to be done to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Examining alternative fuels as they are produced today, as opposed to how some people wish they’ll be produced in a hoped-for renewable energy future, reveals no environmentally persuasive reason to rush alternative fuel vehicles onto the road…

Instead, in order to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, action is needed on three fronts: continuing to raise fuel efficiency standards, pursuing policies to reduce driving, and, most importantly, controlling carbon upstream in the energy and resource systems that supply the fuels used downstream in our everyday lives…

Read more…

5 thoughts on “Warmist: Alternate-fuel vehicles a waste of time — need policies to reduce driving”

  2. There’s a portion of the green fleet parked out behind the building I work at. Three electric (plug in the wall style) golf carts that are constantly broken. I could probably calculate the upstream costs, maintenance costs, and repair costs with total upstream foot print for all steps to find a lifetime cost of ownership in monetary and CO2 terms, but it wouldn’t do any good for comparison because they didn’t displace anything. Whatever we were already using (evil dirty gas guzzling fords), the electric vehicles were in addition to, not instead of. Making them a 100% waste of money and unecessary polutions. There isn’t a war on science, it’s a war on government waste that is at best done to line the pockets of vested interests (Anyone ever seen a “GEM Cart” not sold to the government?), and at worst done solely to craft the requisite facade to pander to a specific faceless block of voters. If 3% of a districts voters tell a pollster they think electric cars should be supported, all a sitting representative has to do is ammend a bill to force DOD to buy 1000 electric vehicles and bam, that 3% is theirs come next election.

  3. “Action is needed on three fronts: continuing to raise fuel efficiency standards”

    http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153953/:

    “Jevons paradox (also known as the rebound effect) is the observation that greater energy efficiency, while in the short-run producing energy savings, may in the long-run result in higher energy use.”

    Ignoramus trying to impose his ignorance on all.

  4. The author makes many great points and if the governments listened, the financial savings would be tremendous. That won’t happen.
    Unfortunately, he then says that Obama’s “stronger fuel economy standards” are reducing fuel use. Passing a law or regulation declaring such standards does not solve anything–until the technology is developed to improve efficiency to meet such standards in an economically feasible manner, Obama declaring that cars will meet X mpg is meaningless.

  5. If “carbon” mattered — the writer means CO2 and perhaps CH4, of course, because C is not an element in the atmosphere — then yes, removing carbon upstream in the energy system would be desirable.
    Since it doesn’t matter, removing it doesn’t matter either. Nor does improving fuel efficiency, which has other benefits and costs, nor reducing driving and transport, which also has other benefits and costs.
    But the writer is correct about alternative fuels being expensive feel-good foolishness.

Comments are closed.