Friday 4 June 2021

Don't be silly; electric cars aren't supposed to *work*

A lot of people expend a lot of energy trying to prove that electric cars don't work and can't work as a means of mass transportation to replace the internal combustion engine... 

But of course they don't work! 

They aren't intended to replace petrol- and diesel- powered mass transportation, but to abolish it. 

Let's back-up a bit. In the middle 1970s, it became fashionable to express concern about environmental damage - and for individuals to try and consume less

A name for this was 'voluntary simplicity' - the idea was that people could and should choose to consume less stuff - especially less high-tech, highly-engineered stuff; and thereby inflict less environmental damage. 

(There was also a New Agey kind of spiritual dimension, by which it was asserted that a more emotionally-fulfilling life would result.)

So; voluntary simplicity was a bottom-up, voluntary, reduction in consumption. 

But from the middle 1980s, this individualistic strategy based on reduced consumption was replaced by 'carbon-environmentalism'. 

Since then, an 'environmentalist' is not someone who reduces his consumption; but somebody who switches, and indeed increases, consumption - by banning, and ripping-out old technologies; and by making compulsory, subsidizing and installing new technologies (which are always less effective, more expensive, and very highly-engineered). 

Carbon environmentalism is driven from above by the totalitarian world government of multinational corporations and financiers. These make unprecedented fortunes from controlling both supply and demand in manufacturing via their control of laws and regulations. 

(There is also a Transhumanist kind of spiritual dimension, by which it is asserted that humanity can be engineered into something happier, healthier, longer-lived - and less human.)

So; carbon environmentalism is a top-down, compulsory and compelled, increase in consumption. 

In recent years; carbon environmentalism has taken on the job of reshaping global human society by multiple means. Electric cars are just an example

Establishment financiers and manufacturers are currently making vast amounts of money by harvesting subsidies to make electric cars and the global infrastructure to operate them - in context of the compulsory abolition of internal combustion engine cars by 2030 (and the infrastructure of mechanical and fuel garages). 

It has been pointed out that this scheme cannot possibly work - because electric vehicles cannot possibly replaced petrol and diesel. This is perfectly true - but it is not the point. The electric car scheme is fit for its real purpose. 

Electric cars are designed to make the ruling class a vast amount of money from subsidies in the short term, and to prevent the masses from travelling in the longer term. 

The scheme is already fulfilling its first purpose; and will - no doubt - be very effective at its second. 

So 'electric cars' are not intended to replace the internal combustion engine - but to abolish it, profitably. 

And the unprecedented fortunes being amassed, the unprecedented power and wealth of the global government, the world system of omni-surveillance and micro-control... 

All these are ultimately just means to an end.

That is; they are merely battles in the spiritual war between God and those who oppose God - which is the ultimate reality of this world. 


A said...

I was for the development several years ago (quieter, less stinky roads sound nice), it is only when understanding the spiritual dimension that it becomes apparent why this minor temporary good is being abused for evil.

All new electric cars are also being delivered as total-surveillance and tracking devices. Petrol cars aren't exempt, but it has been pushed much harder w/ electric under the guise of "new". Not only location tracking, but the new promoted and tied-in self-driving-technology regulation requires cameras literally monitoring and recording everything you do in the cabin with a camera.

William Wildblood said...

Mr Andrew makes a very good point. A lot of these proposed developments start off by appearing as positive moves to decrease pollution and restore the balance with nature or whatever. But either they are captured and corrupted or they always were means to smuggle in greater control. It is, as he says, the spiritual dimension that we should be looking at and this is not what at first it might seem.

Boethius said...

i'm in agreement with you. Slighty off topic, have you read about Olduvai Theory? If so, do you have an opinion on it?

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

I find that a LOT of people naively assume that electric cars "don't pollute," but of course the electricity for them comes from power plants. "Clean" energy sources like solar and wind obviously can't provide enough power for millions of cars, so that means coal, oil, or nuclear.

I'm not sure if electric cars would pollute less or more than conventional ones. On the one hand, using power plants rather than internal combustion engines probably allows for economies of scale and thus greater efficiency. On the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics means that energy is wasted every time it changes form, so direct (combustion powers engine) is better than indirect (combustion powers generator that charges battery that powers engine). Aside from the question of the sheer quantity of pollution produced, there's also the fact that power plants can be located in less populated areas, which seems preferable to releasing pollution directly onto city streets.

And of course there's the harm caused to the environment by battery production. According to stats I've seen, electric cars currently account for 1% of cars on the road and 60% of the lithium-ion battery market, so going 100% electric would thus require a more than 6000% increase in battery production. As you say, it's obviously not even intended to work.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Wm - There are - to put it mildly - many non-obvious costs in terms of replacing one technology with another (more highly engineered). Most people (including most intellectuals) cannot think more than one step - so how to generate the electricity doesn't matter. Those who do think ahead will assume it will come from wind and sun (i.e. more conjectural high tech stuff that doesn't actually work). Basically, lots of expensive new things - none of which work - will operate together to solve the problem... Yeah.

As I like to say - green technologies are all very effective and efficient at generating... subsidies. As those incredibly expensive and highly engineered wind turbines stand motionless and vile across our most beautiful vistas, we should be thinking of all the valuable subsidy they are generating.

William - I tried to show, by my comparison with the more-sincere voluntary simplicity/ self-sufficiency ideas of the seventies - that the modern ideas of 'carbon environmentalism' are intrinsically corrupt and totalitarian, from the beginning (e.g. the sudden switch, around 1990, from Methane to CO2 as the supposed demon gas for global warming, because with CO2 as The problem all living thing 'needed' to be controlled).

Anything based-upon Evil Lies will be evil by deep motivation.

@B - No, I don't know about it.