From THE DAILY CALLER

Nick Pope
Contributor

The Supreme Court declined to block two key Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on Friday in a blow to red states and industry interests challenging the rules.

The court did not intervene to pause the EPA’s rules tightening limits for mercury in coal-fired power plant emissions and methane generated by oil and gas production, meaning that the rules are clear to take effect while the challengers’ litigation works its way through lower courts, according to Reuters. The organizations and states that filed the emergency appeals to the Supreme Court have argued that the agency overstepped its legal authority in issuing the regulations under the Clean Air Act and that EPA is depriving states of their ability to establish their own emissions rules.

The mercury regulations would reduce the amount of toxic metals that all coal-fired power plants are allowed to emit by 67% and would tighten limits on lignite coal plants’ mercury emissions by 70%, according to Reuters. Challengers — which include oil and gas developers, mining companies and groups focused on power markets — argued that the EPA overreached in issuing the new limits and that the regulation will jeopardize America’s energy reliability by effectively forcing the premature retirement of coal-fired power plants. (RELATED: Officials Told Biden’s EPA That Its Aggressive Green Power Plant Scheme Has Serious Flaws, Docs Show)

‘Inevitable And Foreseeable’: Grid Operators Beg Court To Nix EPA Rules To Save Electricity System From Collapsehttps://t.co/0LAt8gHVSN

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 18, 2024

The methane rules, which also pertain to a type of emissions called “volatile organic compounds,” are designed to limit flaring, or burning off extra methane during the process of producing oil and gas, according to Reuters. The rules would also require developers to more closely monitor potential methane leaks from their oil and gas infrastructure, as well as establish a methane leak reporting program specifically for methane “super-polluters.”

“EPA is pleased that the Supreme Court has denied the applications for a stay of the revised Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS),” an EPA spokesperson said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The Agency believes the revised MATS rule, which will ensure that the nation’s coal-fired power plants meet up-to-date standards for hazardous air pollutants that reflect the latest advancements in pollution control technologies, is firmly grounded in its Clean Air Act authority.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined in July and August to temporarily block the two rules while it reviews them, according to Reuters.

The Supreme Court has taken action to block major regulatory moves by the EPA in recent years, such as its landmark 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA that vacated the agency’s 2014 “Clean Power Plan” to reshape the American power grid to heavily rely on green energy instead of fossil fuels.

In June, the court also struck down “Chevron deference,” a precedent that formerly allowed agencies like the EPA broad discretion to interpret ambiguous statutes. That particular ruling is already teeing up challenges to some of the most aggressive regulatory actions taken to date by the Biden-Harris EPA.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include comment from the EPA.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Originally posted on LinkedIn

Leigh Haugen

Empowering Businesses with AI-Driven Sales & Recruiting Solutions | Certified AI & Salesforce Professional | VP Sales & Recruiting at PDR4 | Transforming Business Growth through Strategic Innovation

Leigh Haugen/ChatGPT4o

The development of large language models (LLMs) has transformed our world in many ways, making artificial intelligence (AI) a powerful tool capable of generating and interpreting massive amounts of information. These models, however, are fundamentally shaped by the data that feeds them—data taken from the internet, which is itself a collection of human input. While AI has the potential to aid in a variety of fields, there is a glaring flaw inherent to its very design: its reliance on human data. If this data is corrupted, biased, or fundamentally flawed, then the AI simply echoes and amplifies those same distortions.

One of the clearest examples of this issue is the topic of climate change. Whether you use a search engine or consult AI for information on climate change, the overwhelming majority of the data you will find supports the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACC). This is no coincidence—it is a reflection of the sheer volume of information that has been generated by those who have accepted this hypothesis, compounded by the biases of institutions and corporations that build the algorithms responsible for curating and ranking this information.

AI and the Dangers of Entrenched Misinformation

Artificial intelligence, by its very nature, is designed to draw conclusions from existing data. However, when that data is overwhelmingly one-sided or biased, AI becomes a tool for amplifying misinformation rather than a mechanism for critical analysis. In the case of climate change, AI is unlikely to offer nuanced perspectives or promote healthy skepticism. Instead, it mirrors the consensus-driven model that has been artificially constructed by political, financial, and globalist interests.

The danger here extends far beyond the academic realm. As LLMs and AI increasingly become integrated into decision-making processes—whether in government, business, or education—this flaw in their design becomes a genuine threat to freedom. The ability to challenge prevailing wisdom and to question powerful institutions is fundamental to a free society. However, if AI consistently promotes only one perspective, it serves to stifle dissent, limit critical thought, and bolster the authority of those in power.

The Problem of Consensus-Based AI

When LLMs are trained on vast amounts of data, their primary objective is to provide responses that align with established facts, most of which are based on widespread human consensus. But what happens when this consensus is wrong? What if the narrative that dominates the conversation is one-sided, incomplete, or even deceptive? In the case of climate change, the dominance of a singular perspective is not the result of an impartial, objective review of all evidence but rather the product of institutional biases, political agendas, and economic incentives.

Every major search engine and AI tool tends to default to sources such as NASA, the IPCC, and the United Nations—organizations that have become synonymous with the promotion of catastrophic climate change narratives. AI, in turn, reflects this consensus, presenting it as incontrovertible truth. In doing so, it stifles genuine debate and prevents alternative viewpoints from receiving fair representation. In reality, there are numerous scientists from a variety of disciplines—including climatology—who question the data, methods, and conclusions drawn by climate change alarmists. Yet their voices are often marginalized, and their work is frequently excluded from mainstream discussions.

The Financial and Institutional Bias Behind the Climate Change Narrative

To understand why LLMs produce biased information on climate change, one must first understand the incentives at play. The climate change movement is backed by powerful political and financial interests. Institutions that support the climate change narrative—whether they be governments, international organizations, or corporations—are heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. For them, the promotion of climate change fear is an opportunity to secure funding, expand influence, and push through policy changes that may not otherwise be politically feasible.

The scale of financial gain is staggering. Climate change research is one of the most well-funded scientific disciplines, with billions of dollars flowing into research grants, green energy subsidies, and carbon credit schemes. Those who control the flow of this money—the climate change advocates in power—stand to gain from perpetuating the belief that climate change is the most pressing threat facing humanity.

The Origins of the Climate Change Scam: A Tool for Control

The origins of the climate change agenda trace back to the 1950s and 1960s, when powerful organizations like the Club of Rome and the Club of Budapest began to lay the foundations for what would become one of the most effective tools for controlling humanity. These elite organizations, composed of influential politicians, business leaders, and academics, sought a way to unite the world under a common cause—a cause that could justify unprecedented levels of government control, wealth redistribution, and societal restructuring.

In their 1972 report The Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome made a striking declaration that would set the tone for the environmental movement:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill… All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

This quote reveals the underlying motive behind the climate change agenda: it was not simply about saving the environment, but about creating a global narrative that could be used to justify control over the masses. By positioning humanity as the enemy, these organizations laid the groundwork for a global environmental crisis that would allow governments and powerful elites to increase their influence over virtually every aspect of life—from energy production and consumption to economic policies and personal freedoms.

Admissions from Climate Change Profiteers

Over the decades, numerous leaders and profiteers of the climate change agenda have made candid admissions about the true purpose of the movement. Far from being a purely scientific endeavor, the climate change narrative has been openly described as a tool for wealth redistribution and centralized control.

Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group on Mitigation of Climate Change, admitted in 2010:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, went even further when she said:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

These statements expose the climate change movement for what it truly is: not a scientifically grounded effort to save the planet, but a political tool designed to redistribute wealth, grow government power, and consolidate control in the hands of a few elites. By presenting climate change as an existential threat, they have created a justification for implementing sweeping economic and political changes that benefit the global ruling class while imposing new burdens on ordinary citizens.

Academia’s Addiction to Climate Change Grants

The academic world has not been immune to the allure of the climate change agenda. In fact, academia has become one of the most crucial players in perpetuating the climate change narrative, largely because of its dependence on government funding. In many cases, universities and research institutions are financially reliant on grants from governments and foundations that have a vested interest in promoting the climate change crisis. As a result, all of the scientific research that gets funded and published today is tailored to support the prevailing climate change narrative.

Scientists who express skepticism or who attempt to publish research that challenges the consensus often find themselves blacklisted and ostracized from the academic community. Funding for such research is virtually non-existent, and in many cases, these scientists face career-ending consequences. As a result, academia and the scientific research institutions and publications have become an echo chamber, where the only research that receives financial backing is that which aligns with the climate change alarmism promoted by global institutions.

This relationship between academia and government funding has created a dangerous cycle: scientists and universities receive grants to produce research that supports climate change alarmism, which in turn bolsters the political and economic agendas of the powerful elites and populates the internet with only supporting information. Those same elites then funnel more money back into academic institutions to keep the cycle going.

The Role of Globalist Families and Foundations

It’s no secret that some of the world’s most powerful families and foundations are heavily invested in the climate change narrative. The Rockefeller’s, Rothschild’s, Bloomberg, Ballmer, Bezos, Gates, and other globalist families have positioned themselves to profit immensely from the climate change agenda, while also consolidating power and influence on a global scale. These families and their associated foundations fund climate change research, support activist groups, and even help shape policy through their extensive networks of influence in both public and private sectors.

The Rockefeller family, for example, has long been involved in the environmental movement, using their foundation to fund climate change initiatives and push for policy changes that benefit their investments in green energy. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has donated millions to climate change advocacy groups and their immense political influence has been instrumental in driving the divestment movement, encouraging institutions to pull their investments out of fossil fuels and redirect them into renewable energy projects—a sector in which they are heavily invested.

Similarly, the Gates Foundation, one of the most powerful philanthropic organizations in the world, has committed billions of dollars to fighting climate change, positioning itself as a key player in global climate policy. Bill Gates himself has been an outspoken advocate for drastic changes in energy policy, pushing for massive investments in alternative energy solutions that align with his own financial interests.

The Rothschild family, known for its vast global financial empire, has also played a significant role in the climate change movement. The Rothschild’s have long been involved in the promotion of carbon trading schemes, which allow companies to “offset” their carbon emissions by purchasing carbon credits. These schemes have become a massive industry, generating billions in profits for financial institutions while doing little to actually reduce emissions.

The Ford Foundation has similarly positioned itself as a major player in the climate change space, funding environmental NGOs and research institutions that promote the climate change agenda. Like the Rockefeller’s, the Fords have used their foundation’s influence to shape policy and push for regulations that benefit their interests in the burgeoning green energy sector.

These globalist families and their foundations are not just passive observers of the climate change movement—they are active participants, using their wealth and influence to shape the narrative, control the flow of information, and profit from the policies they promote. By positioning themselves as champions of the environment, they have managed to secure lucrative investments in green energy, carbon trading, and other climate-related industries, all while consolidating their power on the global stage.

The Climate Change Scam: A Masterstroke of Global Control

The climate change agenda, far from being a grassroots movement to protect the planet, is a carefully orchestrated scam designed to redistribute wealth, consolidate power, and generate massive profits for a small group of global elites. From the Club of Rome’s early declarations to the admissions of modern-day climate profiteers, it is clear that the climate change narrative has always been about control—control over the economy, control over political systems, and ultimately, control over people’s lives.

Academia, dependent on government grants, has become complicit in perpetuating this scam, churning out research that supports the climate change consensus while suppressing dissenting voices. And powerful globalist families and foundations have seized the opportunity to exploit the crisis, using their influence to profit from the very policies they help shape.

The climate change scam is not just an attack on scientific integrity; it is an attack on freedom, truth, and the future of humanity. By continuing to promote this false crisis, the elites behind it ensure that resources are diverted from real problems, governments grow ever more intrusive, and the people are kept in a constant state of fear and dependence.

The Carbon Credits Market: A Global Goldmine

One of the most lucrative aspects of the climate change scam is the carbon credits market, which would quickly become a multi-billion-dollar industry with the potential to generate unprecedented profits for governments, financial institutions, and the wealthiest elites. By commodifying carbon emissions, governments and their allies in the financial world have created an entirely new market where companies can buy and sell the “right” to pollute. This system, which allows corporations to “offset” their carbon footprint by purchasing credits, does little to actually reduce emissions, but it opens the door to vast financial gains for those controlling the market.

At the center of this push towards a carbon credit market is Goldman Sachs, one of the most powerful and influential financial institutions in the world. With its deep ties to governments, central banks, and political leaders globally, Goldman Sachs is driving the financialization of climate change, turning it into an opportunity to generate massive profits. The firm’s influence within the U.S. government and beyond is well documented, with its alumni occupying key positions in the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and numerous other financial regulatory bodies.

Goldman Sachs, along with other major financial players, stands to profit enormously from the trading of carbon credits. By infiltrating both government and the finance world, they are helping to create the regulatory frameworks and market structures that will allow them to dominate this new financial frontier. Their global reach and unparalleled influence ensure that they are positioned to benefit from the widespread adoption of carbon trading schemes, which, far from being about environmental protection, are about maximizing returns for Wall Street.

Politicians like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and many others in the highest echelons of power have been deeply involved in this scheme. Their advocacy for climate change policies is not solely driven by environmental concerns but also by the incredible opportunity to profit from taxing something as fundamental as the air we breathe. These figures, along with Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants, are poised to make trillions through carbon trading schemes. By manipulating regulations, they effectively tax emissions and create massive investment opportunities in green industries—many of which they are already financially tied to.

This is not about saving the planet; it’s about exploiting a manufactured crisis to create a market that benefits a select few at the expense of the public. The carbon credits market is a thinly veiled tax on life itself, and those with the most influence and power are lining up to get their hands in the cookie jar, eager to cash in on the fear and hysteria they have helped create.

The Truth About Funding: Who Benefits?

One of the most common accusations leveled against climate change skeptics is that they are funded by fossil fuel corporations. This is a claim often made by alarmists in an attempt to discredit those who question the prevailing climate change narrative. However, the reality is far more complex, and the truth is often the exact opposite of what alarmists claim.

Fossil fuel corporations, far from being the defenders of climate skepticism, have been largely coerced into parroting the climate change consensus. Under pressure from powerful governments and global institutions, these corporations have been forced to create entire divisions that pretend to support climate change mitigation efforts, aligning themselves with the so-called solutions to an “imaginary crisis.” These corporations are not acting out of genuine concern for the climate, but rather out of fear of retribution.

No corporation wants to risk the wrath of their respective governments. The threat of punitive regulations, new laws, and crippling taxes hangs over their heads. By positioning themselves as being “part of the solution” and pretending to go along with the consensus, they hope to avoid being targeted by politically motivated legislation that could devastate their businesses. In reality, they are playing a strategic game of survival in a climate of governmental intimidation and pressure.

Meanwhile, many of the most vocal proponents of the climate change narrative are heavily funded by governments, NGOs, and other entities that have a vested interest in promoting climate alarmism. These organizations benefit from the fear they spread, whether through securing additional funding, expanding their influence, or advancing global political agendas. The claim that skeptics are the ones influenced by financial incentives is a deliberate misdirection—a tactic designed to hide the fact that the alarmists themselves are the ones profiting from the climate change narrative.

The Suppression of Dissenting Voices

Thousands of scientists across various disciplines have raised serious concerns about the assumptions underlying catastrophic climate change predictions. Some dispute the models used to predict future warming, while others point to historical climate patterns that suggest the earth’s climate is far more complex than the simple narrative of human-caused disaster allows. Yet these voices are rarely heard in public discourse. Why?

The answer lies in the systematic suppression of dissent by those who stand to profit from the climate change narrative. For decades, we’ve seen scientists, politicians, and business leaders pushing policies and technologies that serve their own interests under the guise of “saving the planet.” The result is a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of those who benefit from fear-mongering and a near-total exclusion of voices that challenge this orthodoxy.

The risk AI poses here cannot be overstated. As AI tools are trained on data that has already been curated to reflect one side of the debate, they inevitably perpetuate that bias. This leaves very little room for critical analysis or open debate. By giving the appearance of impartiality, AI can, in fact, contribute to the suppression of legitimate skepticism and alternative theories.

The Real Threat: A Loss of Freedom

The climate change debate, when viewed through the lens of AI-generated information, reveals a much larger and more insidious threat—the erosion of freedom. If AI, which is increasingly relied upon to shape public opinion, policy, and discourse, can only produce answers that align with entrenched narratives, we risk creating a world where dissent is impossible. The suppression of climate change skepticism is not just a scientific issue; it’s a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the ability to hold power to account.

In a world where AI dominates the production and dissemination of information, the control of data becomes the control of truth itself. Those who feed the AI their data, whether through search engines, research institutions, or government bodies, hold immense power. If that data is biased, incomplete, or misleading, the AI will echo those distortions to an unsuspecting public. This is the fatal flaw in AI—it cannot rise above the limitations of the data on which it is trained, and as long as that data is influenced by corruptible human interests, AI will remain a tool that mirrors and magnifies the errors, biases, and deceptions of its human creators.

In the case of climate change, this flaw is especially dangerous. The powerful interests that have built the climate change narrative are not only distorting science but also restricting our freedoms. The solution is not more AI-generated consensus but a renewed commitment to open inquiry, dissenting views, and a recognition that human data—and by extension, human institutions—are fallible.

The Opportunity Cost of the Climate Change Scam

Perhaps one of the most egregious aspects of the climate change scam is the vast opportunity cost associated with the trillions of dollars being funneled into flawed alternative energy solutions that are incapable of meeting the energy needs of modern civilization. From inefficient wind and solar farms to unproven carbon capture technologies, the world has been led into a costly dead-end that squanders resources without providing the reliable energy required for industrialized societies to function and grow.

If even a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on climate change initiatives were reallocated to solving real, tangible problems, the impact could be profound. Consider the pressing global issues that are often sidelined in favor of the climate agenda—problems like pollution, hunger, disease, and homelessness. These are not hypothetical crises; they are realities faced by millions of people every day, and they are issues that can be addressed with direct action.

Take pollution, for example. While climate alarmists fixate on reducing carbon dioxide—a gas essential for life—far more immediate threats like toxic waste in our oceans, harmful emissions in developing countries, and deforestation remain underfunded and understudied. The obsession with carbon has diverted attention and resources away from these real pollution problems that directly harm human health and ecosystems.

Hunger and disease are other areas where the misallocation of resources is painfully evident. Instead of funneling vast sums into climate change mitigation projects, these funds could be used to build sustainable agriculture, provide clean drinking water, and invest in medical research that saves lives. Diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, which still kill millions of people every year, could see significant progress with a proper infusion of capital. Similarly, homelessness is a growing crisis in both developed and developing nations, but it remains a lower priority while politicians and corporations chase green energy subsidies.

The truth is that solving these real-world problems would have a far more immediate and lasting impact on humanity than the speculative and often illogical crusade against climate change. Yet, the political and financial forces behind the climate change narrative ensure that the vast sums of money and political will are continually diverted towards projects with dubious efficacy. The world is effectively neglecting genuine human suffering in favor of an exaggerated crisis that serves the interests of the powerful and wealthy, leaving the most vulnerable to fend for themselves.

In summary, the climate change scam is not only a scientific and political farce; it is also an economic disaster with staggering opportunity costs. AI bias is playing a pivotal role in propping up this narrative, influencing both people and the media to accept and promote a one-sided view that serves the interests of the powerful. But climate change is just the beginning. The same inherent flaws in AI—its reliance on biased data, institutional agendas, and consensus-driven information—will extend into many other major subjects that directly impact our freedom and future. From public health and economic policies to energy production and social governance, AI’s role in amplifying dominant narratives will continue to stifle dissent, limit open debate, and impose restrictive controls on society. If we allow this to continue unchecked, AI will become a tool for shaping thought, controlling discourse, and eroding the very freedoms it was meant to empower.

Over at The Future is EVs, Mark drew my attention to a piece in the Observer by Ros Coward, Professor Emerita (Journalism) at Roehampton. Ros is an EV owner without off-street parking. She’s had her Renault Zoe for four years, and is considering replacing it with another EV. Saith the sub-head:

I assumed it would get easier to run an EV, but without a decent infrastructure it’s getting harder and harder

Now that by itself is an interesting claim. For surely, however bad things are for EVs now, they are trending better? There are more and more public chargers by the day. More on that in a mo. But how was learning to use an EV?

We experienced – and overcame – range anxiety (will the car go as far as the battery says?), only for it to be replaced by charge anxiety (can you find a charger that works?).

To me, that is a distinction without a difference. The question is, can you recharge before your car dies?

What we assumed then [autumn 2021, after 1 year of ownership] was that the government would steadily make things easier for electric vehicles. But while we are now used to the electric way of life, many of the original difficulties and disadvantages remain.

Those difficulties may be innate.

Returning to their dealership, the salesman assumes they are after a hybrid.

“Everybody else is.”

But Ros and her partner are seriously considering a new EV. To me, it seems an absurd option. With no off-street parking, they rely on Wandsworth’s lamp-post chargers for a shot of juice. And they use the Zoe for long journeys, not just shopping trips.

The dealer is surprised we didn’t chuck it in ages ago.

I’m somewhat surprised at how honest the dealer is. The rumour is that there is pressure on to shift the sparky cars because of the ZEV mandate (22% of all sales this year, remember). You would more expect them to open with an “I’m surprised. Most people are coming in for a new EV,” directed at beaten-down EV riders hunting for a hybrid, than for them to tell an ambivalent EV hunter that everyone else has thrown in their sparky nag for something less annoying.

Now Ros makes one of those sweeping generalisations which, in the sweeping, buries crumbs of nuance that in some circumstances would combine to form a refutation of the point.

But our experience has been genuinely mixed. Electric cars are technically uncomplicated, so there’s much less to go wrong.

Technically, there is lots to go wrong on a new EV. Not that new ICEs are short of unnecessary electronic gizmos that, out of warranty, probably cost a fortune to fix. A couple of years ago our neighbour lost a headlight bulb. Taking it to his usual garage, they were apologetic. You can’t change the bulb any more. You have to change the entire unit at the main dealer. Main dealer: £200. Neighbour: You’re crazy. Main dealer: These bulbs don’t break, so we didn’t make them easy to replace. Neighbour: This one’s broken. Main dealer: *shrug*. £200. [He eventually got a front unit stripped off a wreck, and his usual garage fitted it cheaply.]

My feeling re: all these electronic gizmos is that once your car is out of warranty, you’re better off getting a new one on lease. However, a rational choice would be to get a 20-year-old car, without the gizmos, with light bulbs you could change by yourself. [It would also be a greener choice, if anyone cared about that.]

Ros moans about the lack of a coherent charging system. Charging a sparky is not like fuelling a smoker. You don’t just rock up and stick the hose in. You need apps for each company, etc.

There is still no single card with which to pay at all chargers, and journeys out of home territory are likely to require downloading further apps. There are still areas that are charger deserts. We recently abandoned the idea of driving to East Yorkshire because of the lack of chargers.

East Yorkshire! EV chargepoint desert. Well, it is a bit sparse. According to our government’s stats, there are 189 public chargers in the East Riding, and another 124 in Hull. I mean: let’s say you’re driving to Hull in an ICE. You don’t inspect the map to find out how many petrol stations there are, do you?

When she does venture forth, Ros often finds queues at motorway charging banks. Yes. Do you know why? Well, I’ll tell you. It’s because there are busy times, and quiet times. No business is going to lay on a bank of a hundred chargers, just for the two occasions per year that it has 100 EVs in need of a charge. It would be insanity. It would be like a coffee bar using an aircraft hangar for its premises, and having a hundred tables, and twenty baristas.

[Asterisk. If 100 chargers were available and in use, the amount of leccy would end up being divided out so that, even if more cars could plug in, they would charge much more slowly. By which I mean that a site with 20 chargers could probably process the same rate of cars as a site with 100 chargers, if they both had the same grid connection.]

The financials of owning an EV are – how shall we say – swings and roundabouts. The purchase price was high. The depreciation is shocking. Electrifying, maybe. Recharging is cheap (the price of £11 per 230 miles for a slow charge is mentioned, and “£33 on fast”). On a long run, some ICEs beat the latter, and that is with more than half the fuel cost consisting of tax. Living in London, there is the ULEZ advantage, and no VED and no congestion charges (changes afoot here).

Regarding our toothy friend depreciation,

Crucially, our purchase looks like a bad buy because the value of secondhand electric cars has crashed. Having anticipated that the car would easily hold its value because of increasing demand, we owe the finance company more than our EV is worth – fortunately, we can hand back the car. Enthusiasm for electric cars has stalled.

It seems to me that Ros has noted the symptoms accurately, but has rather misdiagnosed the malaise:

What’s causing the price drop is the convergence of an increasing supply of cheaper EVs from China (and Tesla reducing its prices) at the same time as initial willingness to adopt electric has worn off in the face of the fact that nothing much has changed in the driving experience.

Here’s my answer. The initial whoosh of EVs was because there was a number of excitable early adopters. There were also tax breaks that were unsustainable, and that favoured the well-heeled over those getting by with a clunker. Many – most – EVs are leased. That means that the lessees have no interest in how much their car will depreciate, unlike owners like Ros. Leases were set on the expectation of high demand when their three years were up. Unfortunately, the buyers set the market, and the buyers are reluctant to buy three-year-old EVs. (A secondary lease scheme might help there.) The advantages of there being someone else responsible for your car’s mechanicals and electronicas are obvious. [Another side note: a friend recently bought a three-year-old EV. He lately received an email, telling him that the car’s premium features were about to be turned off, unless he cared to pay the on-going subscription.]

Will Ros and her partner stick with an EV? She wants to, but the drawbacks of an EV are pulling her away.

…there are so many things it would be nice not to have to worry about – from “hunt the working charger” to the planning needed for long journeys.

Mmm. Could try an ICE?

Her conclusion?

I’m still hoping the government will incentivise EV driving. Wouldn’t it be nice if the virtuous driver were rewarded rather than disadvantaged?

[Was rather than were there.] Perhaps this closure is what they teach you to do at Roehampton’s School of Journalism? To, in effect, do a reality handstand so that the blood rushes to your reader’s head and they collapse in a heap? We are all aware of the ways that the playing field is tilted in favour of EVs. In fact, Team ICE are having to play like the Corinthians, the ref is in EV XI’s pocket, and we’re still 3-0 up at half time. I am not going to list the ways in which EVs are advantaged. But I will dwell for a moment on the much-lamented lack of charging infrastructure. This is what you might call putting a little bit of context on the claim that the “virtuous” driver is being “disadvantaged.”

First on the numbers of chargers. According to the DoT, as of July 2024 there are 64,632 public chargers in the UK. That’s up about 5,000 on the quarter. For petrol stations, the number is about 8,000. Giving each an average of 8 fuel pumps would produce a nicely symmetrical 64,000 petrol/diesel pumps. So far we’re even. But we know that a lot of the chargepoints are dodgy.

Now, the herds. In Q2 2024 there were 1,089,222 BEVs on the UK’s roads (DoT link: Table veh0142). This compares to 10,958,700 diesels and 19,259,100 petrols (Ibid: Table veh0105). [Cars only.] Roughing it out gives a 30:1 ratio between ICEs and BEVs.

And they have roughly the same number of fuelling points. But it gets better, because EV drivers mostly charge at home. Ros is in a minority – maybe 20% – of EV drivers with no off-street parking. Those who can charge at home, do. It’s not 1,000,000 BEVs hunting for juice among those 60,000 chargepoints (i.e. a mere 16 for each), but some much lower figure. 400,000? Who knows. If anything close to true, that would give us less than 7 leccy cars per public chargepoint.

Not enough chargepoints!

What about the ICEs? We’ve got about 30,000,000 of them, and they can’t fuel at home (other than via a jerry can, that was first itself fuelled at a pump). Divide those cars among the fuel pumps, and you get the thick end of 500 vehicles per pump.

Disadvantaged virtuous drivers!