Electric Vehicle Justification: I Prefer the Pollution Argument Over the Climate Change Argument

Introduction

Please allow me to share with you how I prefer to argue in favor of electric vehicles (EVs) over internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) on one particular issue. That issue is climate change and the indication that EVs pollute the air less than ICEVs. Let me set the stage for the content in this blog: In a mall, several years back–a couple of decades before Tesla started the current EV revolution, someone passed gas. I cannot remember with certainty which store I was in; however, I do know that it was a store with a clothes department. Regardless, the gas was so offensive that a young girl with her mother made the comment “Wow mom! Did you smell that?” Obviously, someone had polluted the air in the store – albeit the pollutant in this case was not harmful, just utterly offensive.  

What point am I trying to make in setting the stage in the first paragraph? Well, the point is that people often take offense to having their private space invaded. The young girl probably felt like the air that she was breathing had been invaded by the obnoxious gas. Analogously, breathing polluted air from ICEVs makes me feel as though the air that I am breathing is compromised air or invaded air–causing much stress. Hereafter, let us refer to ICEVs as “pooters” (i.e., silent farters) and EVs as “depooters”. Depooters is not in the dictionary and is a term I just made up – de (implying less or reversal) plus pooter.

Depooter (i.e., Electric Vehicle) Justification

Justifying my depooter (i.e., EV) advocacy is often a part of my conversation and sales pitch when trying to convince someone, especially an opponent of depooters, to embrace depooters. There are many reasons why depooters are more attractive than pooters – for example, depooters are more reliable and cost less to maintain. However, this blog is related to the statistics indicating that depooters pollute the atmosphere less than the average pooter and is how I argue for depooters over pooters. Notice the word “average”; it is used because the literature (e.g., www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change) indicates that there are some pooters that do not pollute as much as depooters when one considers the energy source used to make the parts of a vehicle as well as the energy sources used to charge the batteries in the depooters.

Many depooter advocates argue the same way that I argue, but with a slightly different twist (i.e., many depooter advocates state that depooters will help reduce climate change vs. stating that depooters pollute the atmosphere less than the average pooter). Relative to pooters, depooters will definitely have a monotonically increasing reduction of air pollution in the future if decarbonization of electricity generation continues to improve, and decarbonization will likely continue to improve as more renewable energy sources come online. As more solar farms, wind turbines, etc. come online, the more the overall air pollution of depooters decreases in comparison to pooters.

Clarifying My Point

Let me be clear about what is being said above: I try to avoid using the climate change argument as one of my supporting reasons for being a depooter advocate; instead, I use the “less pollution statistics” to help support my position. The reason being is because of my ignorance of the facts that prove that climate change is real. To be honest, I have not done enough research on climate change to convince myself that the purported global warming is more than just a random anomaly. Convincing myself may not be all that hard, I just have not set aside the time to do it yet. If one cannot prove a cause-effect relationship using data and facts, then they should avoid arguing for or against the cause-effect relationship. As a side note, from my experience, most of the people who argue that global warming is just propaganda also argue against depooters. My opinion is that it is a waste of time to use the controversial climate change argument when there are other compelling arguments that depooter advocates can convincingly use.

Furthermore, one thing that I am 100 percent sure of is that pollution from pooters is for real and can be easily observed, as I will now show. Being a regular outdoor jogger in my neighborhood, which is quite conducive to walking and jogging, inherently forces me to cross paths with pooters while indulging in what should be a healthy activity. Unfortunately, my nostrils are often saturated with offensive pooter exhaust fumes. If I had someone to vent my frustrations to during my jogs, I would make a reply like the reply by the young girl in the mall: I would scream “Wow! Did you smell that?”

Inhaling the exhaust fumes from pooters while jogging is not only unhealthy for my respiratory system, but it is also very stressful. How so? Well, it is because my mind must juggle with being caught up in the moment of doing something good for my body while simultaneously allowing something unhealthy to enter my body where the unhealthy something could be avoided if I were to just jog inside. Hence, I hope I live to see the day that when I take my healthy neighborhood jog that I only cross paths with jogger-friendly vehicles such as depooters.

Here is another good example of why the depooter transition cannot happen fast enough for me. My house has a rear property line that abuts with a busy highway. There is a tree easement on top of a hill (the hill is approximately eight feet in elevation and on my property) between my house and the busy highway. The house is at the bottom of the hill while the highway is a few feet lower than the hill and on the other side of the hill. In early fall when some of the leaves have fallen from the trees, and when I am working in the yard near the tree easement, I can detect the foul pollution from the pooters. Again, the pollution is not only unhealthy, but it is also stressful. The result is another mind juggling exercise: It is relaxing to be outside working in my yard and simultaneously stressful to know that I am allowing pollution to enter my body when I could be inside avoiding the polluting air. Inhaling the pooters’ obnoxious fumes makes me feel the same way that the young girl probably felt when the obnoxious person let one out that saturated her nostrils with pure stench. Remember, the purpose of this paragraph and the previous two is to show how easy it is to observe pooters polluting the air.

Human Selfishness Affects Wildlife Air Quality

Perhaps even more important in my arguing for depooters over pooters from an air pollution point of view, as opposed to a climate change point of view, has to do with human selfishness. Forget about climate change, forget about climate change, and forget about climate change, and think about the birds and animals that must breathe in the obnoxious pooter fumes. Common sense should tell you that the polluted air must have a negative health effect on the birds and animals.

Some humans selfishly think that they have the exclusive right to do whatever they wish, and whenever they want to, to Planet Earth and The Universe – even polluting and destroying them. What did I miss? What gives humans this right? I tell you that NO, humans do NOT have the right to abuse Planet Earth and The Universe. Unlike using the pollution argument, using the climate change argument does not directly capture the negative effect that pooters’ pollution has on air quality for wildlife.

Well Dr. Fields, what about the harmful effects caused by mining and disposing of the materials needed to produce the rechargeable batteries used by depooters? Well, in the first place, this argument is outside of the point being made in this blog but, nevertheless, I will briefly address it. Yes, I agree that mining the lithium, cobalt, nickel, etc. has an adverse effect on the environment. However, with more and more battery recycling companies coming onboard (e.g., Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. and Redwood Materials, Inc.), this adverse effect should become increasingly less problematic.

Summary

In summary, using the controversial notion of climate change as a focal point can be a waste of precious time to argue in favor of depooters (i.e., EVs) over pooters (i.e., ICEVs). Instead, I simply choose to deflect the focus to something more tangible and irrefutable: That is, I focus on the statistics indicating that depooters pollute the air less than the average pooter. Depooter opponents cannot deny the obnoxious pooter fumes that saturate your nostrils like the stench that saturated the young girl’s nostrils in the mall. As a reminder, her exact words were “Wow mom! Did you smell that?”  This is my perspective, and I respect yours. What is your perspective?

You can leave a comment using the contact form on the Thinkgreen Education & Tutoring site or the more simpler contact form on the contact page of this website.