“Are electric cars indeed green?” a U.S. Congressional Budget Office study found that electric car subsidies “will result in little or no reduction in the total gasoline use and greenhouse-gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.” -- The studies reveal at best that the "lifetime difference in greenhouse-gas emissions between vehicles powered by batteries and those powered by low-sulfur diesel is hardly discernible"... at worst, "the sorcery surrounding electric cars stands to worsen public health and the environment rather than the intended opposite."
I recommend the well researched article that makes a rock solid case against policies that push electric cars as a reaction to global warming. It's worth your time but don't be fooled, the author is a global warming alarmist who makes his case against electric cars only to follow it with legislative plans to attack the manufacturing of cars overall. In fact using the author's analysis and concern for CO2 admissions, you would conclude that all manufacturing needs to be heavily regulated or cut back to make an impact on "global warming gases."
The author's conclusions should stand as a sober warning to all of us who care about economic stability. This is a glimpse into where Global Warming Alarmist will take us if we allow Man Made Global Warming Theory to be taught as fact and used as a political tool to transform human life on this planet. The author recommends that instead of focusing on electric cars what we should do is "prioritize the transition to pedestrian- and bike-friendly neighborhoods... better land-use planning to reduce suburban sprawl and, most important, fuel taxes to reduce petroleum dependence."
While the picture he paints of futuristic green cities may sound attractive to the rising generation who has been indoctrinated to believe that Man Made Global Warming is going to destroy life on planet earth, his proposal for how to accomplish his Green World Order would play out like a fascist nightmare few young people today have even contemplated. As is the instinct of "progressive liberals," he calls for "legislation" and "policy" to bring about migration to Green Urban Centers. The use of government policy to "reduce urban sprawl" and to curtail manufacturing can only mean one thing -- The government must be given the power to control every aspect of life that would be necessary to accomplish it.
In his Green Utopia those who don't want to live in a tightly packed urban center in a small flat in some "sustainable" high rise would be enemies of the state, outlaws, forced to live a lifestyle they hate or face the consequences. It's hard to imagine how he would propose the government curtail manufacturing and the impact that would have on our quality of life in America and our economic stability. Predictably the author takes no thought for the reality that any so-called Global Warming is in fact a Global issue and can't be solved by Americans handing over their freedom to his central planning schemes.
As with all Global Warming Alarmist this author falls short of describing the kind of world government he must certainly envision if he is in the least interested in seeing his world come to fruition. Even massive central planning schemes in the western world will make only marginal decreases in CO2 in worldwide output. Will China (where most manufacturing occurs) go to any great lengths to reduce it's green house gases? What about other growing manufacturing countries, who will regulate them?
What would this rising generation really be willing to give up to get a glimpse of what this Green world looks like? Would they submit to the fascist schemes of a international environmental police vested with the power to control every detail of where and how people live across the globe. The ironic thing is that any chance of that working out to the benefit of humanity is as inconceivable as the picture he paints of what his "Green" world looks like.