Carbon Blinders

In our first piece, we argued that the increasingly myopic focus on reducing carbon emissions is making us blind to the value of energy:

By focusing on net zero, we have implicitly chosen not to focus on what matters most - human life. The net zero movement doesn’t care about human life, even if most individuals within it do. It’s an uncomfortable reality.

Even worse than causing us to miss trends of the past, our net zero focus leads to poor decision-making in the present. Because our priority is carbon emissions, every new action must be viewed through a carbon-tinted lens. The question is how does it impact carbon emissions, not how does it impact human life.

Caring about carbon emissions is fine, placing it at the center of the altar is not.

Carbon blinders cause you to think that the primary job of a product is to have low carbon emissions — not to deliver a valuable service. Look no further than the Biden Administration's push to mandate electric vehicles for a clear example of what we mean.

Last spring, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed tailpipe emissions standards that, while “technology-neutral,” would effectively act as an EV mandate. Here’s how the White House framed it (emphasis added):

But with EV technology getting better and cheaper every day, and consumer demand rising rapidly, many manufacturers would likely rely on fully electric vehicles for compliance. EPA estimates that by 2032, if finalized, the proposed rules could result in electrification of 67% of new sedans, crossovers, SUVs, and light trucks; 50% of new vocational vehicles (such as buses and garbage trucks)

However, in a “shocking” development, it’s looking like the Biden Administration will relax the regulation in some manner before it’s finalized over the next few months.

Here’s how the NYT broke the story:

In a concession to automakers and labor unions, the Biden administration intends to relax elements of one of its most ambitious strategies to combat climate change, limits on tailpipe emissions that are designed to get Americans to switch from gas-powered cars to electric vehicles, according to three people familiar with the plan.

Instead of essentially requiring automakers to rapidly ramp up sales of electric vehicles over the next few years, the administration would give car manufacturers more time, with a sharp increase in sales not required until after 2030, these people said.

There are two things that stand out about this reporting (and the subsequent articles from other mainstream outlets):

1. The rollback is being framed primarily as a concession to automakers and unions.

2. The originally proposed standards are always referred to as “ambitious.”

When you add 1 and 2 together, you get another example of energy transition gas lighting in which there’s a collective refusal to confront reality.

Notice how no one is talking about the practical limitations of EVs. No one is talking about the fundamental limitations of battery technology. No, the problem is pesky automakers and unions. They’re slow and stuck in their ways. You should blame them, not the original standards. Those were “ambitious” and definitely not “doomed to fail.”

Our argument against EV mandates can best be summarized by this scene from Grandma’s Boy:

EVs are sweet cars. That doesn’t mean that everyone should have one. Like race car beds, they’re great for some people, but not everyone.

The public charging experience will never surpass the convenience of a petrol pump and, barring some fundamental innovation our small brains can’t currently imagine, the energy density of commercially available batteries will never be greater than gasoline. EVs are a compelling product, but they definitely haven’t improved every aspect of the vehicle ownership experience.

If you point out these realities, you’ll swiftly be labeled as a denier or delayer. Yet, there’s a silent majority that has no issue seeing these facts — people that knew the standards would be loosened because there inevitable failure was glaringly obvious. Well, glaringly obvious if you weren’t wearing carbon blinders.

In response to the regulations, nearly every major automaker was tripping over themselves to pronounce their commitment to 100% EVs. However, there was one lone wolf unwilling to participate in the empty virtue signaling. With that in mind, we leave you with this message:

Long Toyota.