The hype about electric cars is just one more example of environmental alarmism leading to bad decisions. The list of “bad decisions” made to appease environmentalism is long and getting longer. Wind power before its time and solar power before it was commercially viable have only helped to increase the costs to the consumer but they have been a windfall for those who have managed to “milk” the subsidies. The electric car fiasco is no different. Billions have been wasted in subsidising something that is not commercial and in trying to skew the market in the hope of artificially creating a demand where there is none. But a few have managed to live very well off the subsidies. Some day electric cars may well become commercially viable and when they do it will not be because an environmental lobby group or a government merely wished for it but because the technology and supply network then will be sufficiently developed to offer the consumer a superior product at a reasonable price.
The simple reality is that:
- electric car batteries are still too heavy and take too long to charge
- the range they provide is too short
- the cars are too expensive
More importantly the ostensible reason for subsidising the technology – as being for the cutting of carbon dioxide emissions to try and reverse natural climate change – is both based on a false premise and futile.
“The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society’s needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge,” said, Uchiyamada, who spearheaded Toyota’s development of the Prius hybrid in the 1990s.