Dr. Lomborg's positions are among the most pragmatic and rational that I have heard between the two extreme environmental religions (humans will permanently destroy the environment / humans cause no environmental harm). How can Lomborg be considered biased? He used to be one of the extreme environmentalists, and he is convinced human activity has increased global CO2 emissions and temperatures. What facts in the article are we disagreeing with?
It usually follows that something that costs more also consumes more resources. An electric car costs more money and consumes more resources initially. This most salient point is expressed at the conclusion of Lomborg's article:
Quote:
Yet the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors TSLA -0.36% . This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.
The electric car might be great in a couple of decades but as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. That requires heavy investment in green research and development. Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.
|
The thrust of Lomborg's argument is not that electric vehicles are just as bad, or worse than gasoline vehicles, but that we could spend our money more efficiently to improve the welfare of people everywhere. Is anyone bold enough to disagree with this?
What is most appalling is that almost nobody bats an eye at the fact that the US government steals $7,500 from tax payers (that's me and you) every time an electric vehicle is sold. How can a person (Obama) or even a huge group of people justify the forceful redistribution of money from an individual to another individual that happens to want to purchase a particular type of vehicle? I could understand how some might violently oppose this theft.
Cut subsidies for oil companies, agriculture (ethanol), and electric vehicle manufacturers and let the consumer bear the real cost. Electric cars, renewable energy, and "sustainable practices" are an inevitable outcome for a species that looks forward to the future, not the outcome of saviors from Washington DC.
That said, I am seriously considering the purchase of a new Nissan Leaf, assuming the long-term financial math works to its favor. If I could vote against the insane federal subsidy, I would. Since it's already here, I will take advantage of the credit.
Check out the trailer for a favorite documentary of mine called
.
If you really want to attack Lomborg's credibility, you will want to learn what his major arguments are.