Editing EV POD

[[Category:Radio Episodes]][[Category:Podcast Episodes]]
The following is a collection of the materials used in creating the thirty-second episode of the [[CitizenReaganPod|Citizen Reagan podcast]] about the [[Reagan Radio Commentaries|Reagan's Radio Commentaries]].

==Audio==
<HTML>
<CENTER><iframe title="Where's the Beef?" allowtransparency="true" height="150" width="50%" style="border: none;" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player" src="https://www.podbean.com/player-v2/?i=cxmpd-1069cfe-pb&from=pb6admin&download=1&share=1&download=1&rtl=0&fonts=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif&skin=3&btn-skin=9"></iframe></CENTER>
</HTML>
==Transcript==

<DIV STYLE="width: 80%">
This is the Citizen Reagan podcast and I need to get in the habit of doing a few things with every episode, like asking you to rate and review the podcast with whatever services you use. Like asking you to share us with your friends, family, complete strangers and your worst enemies, I don’t care really, just as long as you share it. Like telling you that you can find past episodes, transcripts, research and more on a wiki on my webspace. The address for the wiki is [http://www.poorrichardsprintshop.com/wiki www.poorrichardsprintshop.com/wiki] but if you just visit [http://www.poorrichardsprintshop.com poorrichardsprintshop.com], I have a variety of other projects there. I sell digitally restored books, magazines and pamphlets. I have constructed an archive of old pulp short stories. I accept donations through [http://ko-fi.com/poorrichards Ko-fi], if you're willing help out. It’s all there on the website. Now, with that out of the way, let's get to Reagan.

In a previous episode entitled "[[InterventionPod|Stop Government Intervention]]" I mentioned how government interferes in the free market by picking winners and losers. One such example is when the Obama administration was interested in backing a replacement for the internal combustion engine. General Motors, at the time, had a prototype hydrogen fuel cell SUV and was prepared to go forward, but if they retooled their factories for it and government backed a different idea (which they eventually did) GM would be finished. I suggested I might take an episode of my podcast to give my take on electric cars, and here we are. I will also reiterate and expand upon a couple of the questions I had pertaining to the Green New Deal, which related to a different episode.

The root cause of all this is, say it with me, c-c-c-control. No, not climate change, it's about control. Climate change is a handy fear that they can throw at you to think that if we don’t allow them to change things, we’re all going to die. Trouble is, what they think is the right way to fix the problem has the potential to kill lots of people anyways, but I’ll get to that a little later.

The woke, the enlightened, the leftist ideologue, the tree-hugger, whatever you want to call them, they believe that electric cars are going to be part of the solution because the internal combustion engine just puts too much pollution into the air. All the millions of vehicles on the road throughout the world (but mostly in the United States, because that’s the only place where our politicians really have any control over things) are contributing to the death of the planet in less than 10 years. Think I’m exaggerating? I’ve got some audio.

From [https://www.inverse.com/article/52659-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-climate-change Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]:
<BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re, like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>

From [https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/europe/biden-climate-envoy-john-kerry-warns-world-has-nine-years-to-prevent-catastrophe-1.1153474 John Kerry]:
<BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>3 years ago, scientists gave us a pretty stark warning. They said we have 12 years within which to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Now we have 9 years left and I regret that my country has been absent for 3 of those years. We have a president now, thank god, who leads, tells the truth and is seized by this issue. President Biden knows that we have to mobilize in unprecedented ways to meet a challenge that is fast accelerating and he knows we have limited time to get it under control.</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>

From [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI Al Gore]:
<BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>The U.S. Naval Postgraduate School has a team that integrates the US Navy's nuclear submarines that go under the ice cap and satellite measurements that are calibrated to work with it. And based on that they said actually 2008 had a smaller minimum probably than 2007 and these are figures that are fresh... I don't know if they've been... I don't know when they were released but I just got them yesterday from Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Postgraduate School and this is the volumetric record of the ice and some of the models suggests to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during summer... during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years. Bob used the figure of 2030 and the volumetric analysis leads this... Dr. Maslowski to make that projection we will find out."</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the way, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesław_Masłowski Dr. Maslowski's] prediction that Gore just quoted, was made in 2007 and Gore was repeating it here, at the UN Copenhagen Climate conference in 2009.

From scientist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPqXmkWXfs Guy McPherson]:
<BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>Paul: We are heading for mass extinction, there you go, that's it, end it there as humans destroy our own habitat. That is the no holds barred message from climate change expert Guy McPherson from the University of Arizona. Some label him an ecoterrorist, other say he’s an anarchist, but could he just be a realist? Guy is in New Zealand on a speaking tour and joins me now. Guy, great to see you again.
Guy: Likewise Paul.
Paul: Last time I spoke to you, 2014 and you, uh,  snatched any hope of a future from me and my family, it was doom and gloom. Has anything changed since then in your account of things?
Guy: Oh yes, the situation is far worse  than it was then.
Paul: Ok, ok, ok. So, essentially, to paraphrase, we’re just all wasting our time even talking about climate change and global warming and sea rising.
Guy: Well, I'd appreciate the opportunity for people to know what's going on in the world. That’s why I do what I do, so I don’t think we need to not talk about it. I think we need to let people know what is underway.
Paul: But it’s futile?
Guy: Well, action is futile except with respect to our personal selves and how we feel about ourselves. Action is the antidote to despair, said Edward Abbey, the desert anarchist.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I've got available for a very low figure.

But let's look at that electric car from a few different angles and consider whether it really is better for the planet and for you.

So, we all know I hope, that the battery powering the car has to charge, but from where? There's a charging station or an outlet somewhere feed it, but where is that power coming from? A [https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE?t=758 GM spokeswoman] was recently approached with [https://electrek.co/2020/04/24/environmentalists-demand-that-michael-moores-anti-ev-film-be-retracted/ this question]. She thought she knew, then the reporter asked someone from the Lansing Board of Water and Power. This is from, believe it or not, a film executive produced by Michael Moore. The initial piece of video I saw was just a little snippet. 

<BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>Interviewer: So, what's charging the batteries right now, where, what's the source of the...?
GM Spokeswoman: Well, it's here, it's coming from the building.
Interviewer: I mean, er, is it, umm, what's our mix of power?
GM: Oh, actually Lansing feeds the building.
Interviewer: What's that?
GM: Lansing feeds power to the building. So, I don't know, I'll bet you their a bit of coal, well, they’re heavy on natural gas, aren't they?
Interviewer (to Lansing Power representative): Right now the car’s charging off your grid...
Rep: Right, it would be charging off our grid which about 95% coal.
Interviewer: How long do you think it would be before there's a wind and solar powered grid?
GM: Oh golly...
Rep: To suggest that all of the power used for these cars will be generated from wind and solar, umm, in the very near future would not be correct. In fact, these we're talking about charging these up during the night, so there won’t be any solar at that time. So we’re down to wind and very often at night, the wind does fall off, so...
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, it depends on where you live, but [odds are high that the power comes from either natural gas, nuclear or coal. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States Roughly 80% of all power in the United States] is generated from those 3 sources.
If you’d like to know about the energy mixture in your area, the [https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/ EPA's website has a nice tool for it]. Link on the Wiki.

Let's consider those batteries in the car. That battery is, in all likelihood, a Lithium ion battery. This battery type makes use of rare earth metals. [https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-pay-environmental-cost-electric-car-batteries These rare earth metals are not easy to extract] from the ground and cause significant pollution during the mining process. Where are the batteries constructed? Very likely, in an area of the globe that powers its factories with coal, nuclear or gas. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2020/08/02/the-dirty-secrets-of-clean-electric-vehicles/ When you find they have run down], like any rechargeable battery, they are expensive to replace (multiple thousands of dollars) and must be disposed of with specific methods, otherwise [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/electric-cars-are-clean-but-their-batteries-can-be-dirty/ you risk polluting wherever they are thrown out].

But tell me again how clean your electric car is going to be for the environment?

There's also the social impact. The largest known deposits of rare earth metals are found in countries with minimal environmental and labor regulations. Damage to the environment and the people is not just possible, but likely. The Democratic Republic of Congo, which produces <SUP>2</SUP>/<SUB>3</SUB> of the Cobalt needed, sees about <SUP>1</SUP>/<SUB>4</SUB> of that mined through artisanal groups who seem to not care who does the mining or how dangerous it might be. How many child laborers went into building your car?

Electric cars also have a significant issue with their refueling. Sure, they are alright if you’re driving around town, but if you plan to take a trip of some kind that exceeds the batteries range, you’ll find your trip taking much longer than you hoped. Electric vehicles, specifically the top-of-the-line ones, have a range roughly equivalent to a single tank of gas. Those of lower quality or older age is less (the Nissan Leaf, when first released, had a range of less than 100 miles on a charge). Right now, I don’t believe there aren’t enough charging stations. However, let’s just say there were. When you’re running low on gas, you pull into a gas station, fill up the tank and you’re on your way in 5 minutes. But if you’ve got an electric car, best you make a night of it, because it takes several hours to recharge from a few hours on the road. My family, at least before the COVID era, used to drive a few hundred miles twice per year to visit relatives. It was an 8-10 hour drive if traffic was good, requiring 2+ tanks of gas. That wouldn't be possible with an electric vehicle.

Let’s go back to a macro view though. I talked about the electrical plants that charge the current fleet of electric vehicles. What happens if we, as a society, double the number of electric cars on the road? Where is that electricity going to come from? We’re going to need more plants. If you’ve followed the Green New Deal you know that the plan does not include three things: coal, nuclear or natural gas electric generation plants. Proponents of the Green New Deal believe that wind and solar are the two energy production technologies which will be able to replace them. Right now, it is estimated they account for a little over 10% of all the production in the United States. It is going to be well over 10 years, you know, when they think we’ll all be dead, before you can replace all that coal, nuclear and natural gas power with wind and solar. Also, I’m sorry, but those options, right now, won’t cut it. Solar might work in the Southwest United States and wind might be ok in the Plains states, but where I am, it’s not all that windy or sunny, and for several months out of the year, we have snow. We just saw, what was it, a few months ago, even Texas isn’t immune to a nasty ice storm. There needs to be other forms of power available, even if it is just a backup.

And why isn't nuclear in the picture?  Are people still reeling from "The China Syndrome"? It is among the safest energy producing methods available based on the kilowatt hours of electricity it produces. And for those that are afraid of the current methods used, there are even safer alternatives. We should be working to further develop the [https://energyfromthorium.com/|Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor] which is much more safe, uses a more plentiful fuel source and cannot be weaponized.

Could battery, solar and wind technology get better? I'm counting on it. If anyone's going to figure it out, it's the United States, but for the time being, we aren’t ready for this clean energy revolution.

But what about control? What do I mean? And where’s a relevant Reagan broadcast in all this?? Good point. I’m going to take a break from my ranting and we'll see if there are some words from Reagan I can bring you.

Let’s see, I could bring you something about cars, energy production or the environment. Let’s go with cars, because I’m unsure if I could fit this into another broadcast.
<BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>
Of late we've been told that America's love affair with the automobile is over, that people want some other method of transportation. True or false? I'll be right back.

When rush hour comes it's hard to believe the automobile is on the endangered species list. Still there are those who believe it should be. That it's an anti-humanity tool of destruction, destroying our cities, polluting the atmosphere and threatening us with mayhem and instant death.

Now a book has been written defending the motor car. B. Bruce Briggs a young urbanologist at the Hudson Institute think tank has written a book called "The War Against the Automobile." Claiming that the New York publishing industry has marketed dozens of books against the highway in the automobile Bruce Briggs claims his must be the first book to present an argument for the family jalopy.

He says we have the best mass transportation system in the world,-our auto-highway complex, and that every country would like to imitate us. Quote "It is the automobile that moves the great mass of Americans," he writes, "yet it is under attack from a number of sources, uninformed and informed, idealistic and selfish." Unquote.

A member of what has to be called the intelligentsia he takes on his teammates in that league and accuses them of waging an "upper-class struggle against the standard of living, individual freedom and pride of the great mass of American people."

He denies that the automobile is destroyed the cities or the city should be for people not cars; that it has ruined mass transit or is unsafe. And he defends the motor industry against charges that it has suppressed other types of engines in favor of the present kind. He even denies it's the greatest producer of smog.

Pointing out that Detroit made seat belts available before Ralph Nader or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration were ever heard of he argues that the Safety Administration hasn't made cars any safer than the manufacturers were always making them. In addition he quotes an administration report that no study that has been conducted proves that annual safety inspections prevent accidents.

On smog he doesn't claim it's good for us, but he quotes a study with the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering that concluded there was no evidence that photochemical oxidants were responsible for any deaths.

Bruce Briggs identified the generals in the war against the automobile as a "new class" of intellectuals, journalists, bureaucrats and academics who are anti-materialist and opposed to the basic values of American society. And he declares, quote, "the automobile has been one of the greatest blessings to mankind providing the masses with the mobility and freedom previously reserved for the rich." Unquote. He says, "The new class considers most of the achievements of our society as childish and foolish." Unquote.

Well-which side are you on in this "War Against the Automobile." I'll tell you where I stand-I'm going out to the parking lot and give my gas buggy an affectionate pat on the trunk and tell it how much I care.

This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back then, the car was under assault from a few additional directions, though the strength with which it is attacked over pollution may be stronger now than it was then.

Now, what did I mean by control? In the name of the environment and climate change, government is prepared to regulate anything and everything. Remember when I talked about the book the Incredible Bread Machine and there were 3 kinds of environmentalists mentioned? All three want to control your life. They have their differing reasons. If they decide that, for the planet, we must start closing down coal power plants, what is that going to mean to you? If they stop refining oil into gas or other derivatives, how is that going to have an effect on our lives? California has declared a goal of ending the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035 in their state. But, I thought we’d all be dead before then??

Closing power plants without properly replacing the electricity in our grid will force everyone to conserve energy, curtailing what we can do and how we live, maybe even IF we live. How many people have electric heat or cooling and could die without it? What about medicines and food that require constant refrigeration? Changing our cars will restrict our freedom of movement, something Reagan touched on, especially if battery and charging technology isn't ready for the transition.

Another factor I haven’t touched on yet with this electric vehicle talk is the subsidies. Yet another way government interferes with the normal equilibrium of supply and demand. The only reason that electric vehicles are available at a competitive price point is government subsidies. How much more would your electric car cost? [https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml $7500 in many cases]. Could you afford that much extra on your car payments? Some years ago, journalist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVmBBtLGg2s John Stossel] was able to acquire a free electric golf cart in Arizona because of all the subsidies available. He then got it shipped all the way to New York on a dirty, polluting jet airplane and gave it to Central Park. Of course, it wasn't really free, but the amount of government money offered, which is really your tax dollars, matched, or maybe even exceeded, the price of the golf cart.

Here's the thrust of the issue: Gas vs. electric vs. hydrogen vs. coal vs. nuclear vs. wind vs. solar vs. some new tech we haven't even conceived of yet... it really should really not be in the federal government's hands to make the decision, but they have the financial power to make or break whatever technology gets chosen. It should be up to the people to make their own decisions. If someone wants a hydrogen fuel cell car and there is a car manufacturer that makes one they can afford to buy, that should be their choice. But if they can't fuel it because they have nowhere to go to get the hydrogen, that's, to be quite honest, their idiotic mistake. Maybe it's also the dumb mistake of the manufacturer for putting out a product that its buyers cannot use. The government should have no role in the market transaction process, except to protect those involved in a transaction against force or fraud from one or more of the other parties. The individual and the manufacturer will see the error of their ways and revise their choices accordingly. I don’t think that is unreasonable.


</DIV>
<!--
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@Watchdog_jedi" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="The Citizen Reagan Podcast" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/cntify/Episode32.gif" />
<meta name="twitter:domain" content="http://www.poorrichardsprintshop.com/wiki/EV_Pod.ashx" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Spirit Animal of the Environmentally Woke, EP32" />

<meta property="og:title" content="The Citizen Reagan Podcast" /> 
<meta property="og:description" content="A new podcast to provide insight, context, history, etc. to the Reagan Radio Commentaries." /> 
<meta property="og:image" content="https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/cntify/Episode32.gif" />
<meta property="og:url" content="http://www.poorrichardsprintshop.com/wiki/EV_Pod.ashx" />
<meta property="og:type" content="website" />-->