It Speaks To Motive

It Speaks to Motive

Eric Peters

Why are those pushing EVs not being honest about EVs? It says something about EVs – and about those who are pushing them, does it not?

For instance, if there really is a “climate crisis” – in italics to emphasis what the word is generally taken to mean, that being an imminent disaster – then why is it that high-performance and luxurious EVs are being pushed? Can we afford to indulge such  . . . luxuries, if there is a “crisis”?

Wouldn’t prudence dictate minimalist EVs that use the least amount of energy possible? So as to reduce the amount of “carbon” – their new term for what was previously (and less alarmingly, etymologically) “C02” or “carbon dioxide” – that is produced in the process?

It is a fact that every EV on the market is gratuitously wasteful of energy.

All of them use more more energy than is necessary to make a basic vehicle and to provide basic transportation – as opposed to luxurious vehicles and “ludicrous” acceleration. EV trucks tout Herculean towing capacity – however briefly – and the ability power high-draw tools all day, all of which burns up a lot of electricity and results in the “emitting”of a lot of excess “carbon.”

Speaking of that latter.

It is interesting – it speaks to motive – that the terminology used to define the debate shifts in this way, as well as the prior way. The intent is obvious. When most people hear the word carbon, what do they reflexively think of?

Why, something dirty.

That necessity rendered more so – urgently! – by characterizing what had been a “changing” climate (much too etymologically gradual to foster the necessary urgency)  into one that is in”crisis.”

One so urgent – so dire! – that it is not necessary to reduce the production of “carbon” “emissions” to the bare minimum. Instead, almost obscenely wasteful EVs are heralded as the way to salve this “crisis.”

The actual “crisis” is one of generalized affluence – too many ordinary people driving too many cars, wherever they like. It diminishes the prestige of owning a very expensive car – for those who’d prefer we walk.

And it winnows the power of those who want us to walk.

The way to salve this “crisis” is by using EVs to make it so expensive to drive that most of them – by which they mean us – can no longer afford to. So they tell us that our cars – the non-electric ones we can afford – are causing a “crisis” and that the way to salve it is by getting rid of them in favor of electric cars, knowing that most of us cannot afford to buy them and also that most of us soon won’t be able to afford to charge them, either.

You may have read about that.

Then again, probably not – because most of the same “media” outlets sounding the alarm about the “crisis” aren’t saying anything about a real one – the alarming increase in the cost of electricity, caused in part by those pushing EVs, which increases demand for electricity at the same time that the supply of it is not being increased to match.

In Britain, it now costs more to charge an EV than it does to fill up the tank of a non-EV. And in Britain, gas costs about $6 per gallon.

You get the idea.

And why aren’t people being told the truth about such facts as these:

“Fast” charging is hard on EV batteries and likely to shorten their useful service life. This is clearly stated in the manuals that come with new EVs, such as the Ford F-150 Lightning this writer test drove a few months ago (more about that, here). This means you can save time – or lose money (again) when the battery has to be replaced sooner rather than later.

You cannot fully “fast” charge an EV.

A limit – 80 percent of capacity – is built in, to (once again) avoid harming the battery and to reduce the risk of a fire. Put another way, you resume your drive with 20 percent less range than the advertised fully charged range. And since most EVs don’t start out with much range – even when fully charged – you leave the “fast” charger with the non-EV equivalent of about half a tank of gas.

This means you will be visiting the “fast” charger again, sooner. And that your waits will be longer – because you will be waiting more often.

Why don’t they tell you what it costs to charge an EV at home? What it costs to modify your home so as to be able to charge an EV at home in less time than all day long? Or that once you havemodified it, you still won’t be able to “fast” charge it at home?

Why is it that the government – the primary pusher of EVs – is so persnickety about the miles-per-gallon figures touted by manufacturers of non-electric vehicles – and recalls them when they’re off by single digits – so indifferent to range-per-charge being routinely off by double digits?

Just as it is now – finally, at last – conceded that the gene therapy drugs sold as “vaccines” did not prevent people from getting sick or spreading sickness to others, so also it is now acknowledged that EV range goes down – considerably – when it is cold. When power-drawing accessories are used. When the EV is driven uphill – and at real-world highway speeds.

These are important facts – and they are being purposefully, systematically obscured.

Why?

Well, for essentially the same reason that it was kept from people that the MRNA gene therapy drugs they were tricked (and pressured) into taking did not “stop the spread,” as they were explicitly told they would.

When you realize you’re being serially lied to, what is the proper conclusion to be drawn?

The question ought to answer itself.