I would never be mistaken for a tree-hugging dirt worshipper, but I do love nature, and have often told people that my favorite part of the US Government is the National Park Service!  (My favorite part, not necessarily the most important part.)

But environmentalists and ecologists have a huge problem on their hands, because of the way that politics has hijacked their field.  The issue is that politicized science is invariably bad science, and bad science loses credibility about as fast as the politicians who tout it.  People have been so focused on pushing “green” everything—some of them ignorantly claiming that it’s better for the environment, others duplicitously making that same claim, and a majority sincerely believing the claim and trying to do their part to help the environment—that few have stopped to objectively evaluate the data.

Many things turn out to be less eco-friendly than advertised, and often no better than “dirty” alternatives.  Says who?  Well, the recent cover story in IEEE Spectrum, for one.  The IEEE is the largest professional organization for electrical engineers in the world, and unlike most politicians, engineers generally enjoy a high approval rating by virtue of their integrity.  (Disclaimer:  I am a member of the IEEE.)

IEEE Spectrum July 2013

We learn in “Unclean at Any Speed” that when the full life-cycle of electric cars is taken into account, they are not environmentally friendlier than gasoline-power cars.  Or more to the point of this posting, “electric cars don’t solve the automobile’s environmental problems.”  That’s not a good outcome, given the huge subsidies and acclamation given to all things green.  Bear in mind that this is coming from electrical engineers who would presumably favor electric solutions in a draw.

The article has this to say about the comprehensive report generated by the National Academies:

In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!

…

When the National Academies researchers projected technology advancements and improvement to the U.S. electrical grid out to 2030, they still found no benefit to driving an electric vehicle.

The Spectrum article also cites a Norwegian study in the Journal of Industrial Ecology—“electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, despite virtually zero direct emissions during operation”—and asks:

Do electric cars simply move pollution from upper-middle-class communities in Beverly Hills and Virginia Beach to poor communities in the backwaters of West Virginia and the nation’s industrial exurbs? Are electric cars a sleight of hand that allows peace of mind for those who are already comfortable at the expense of intensifying asthma, heart problems, and radiation risks among the poor and politically disconnected?

Folks, this is a real problem.  We praise and subsidize electric vehicles or hybrids because they’re supposed to be better for the environment, but they’re actually worse.  That means that 1) we aren’t solving the real problem, and 2) we are instead enabling misguided political agendas.  Now I’m not an environmentalist or ecologist, but I do care about this world, and I really would like to see better solutions offered.  Politics has been allowed to retain its stranglehold on the field by virtue of its power and money, and as long as that remains the case, we are unlikely to see real solutions.

What do we do about this problem?  To the politicians, I would say check your agendas at the door when you deal with science.  And try honesty for a change.  To those who truly love and wish to protect nature, purge the self-serving politicians from your midst, and reestablish the integrity of your cause.  If you can do that, then people like me will be able to listen to you and work with you because of the level of trust that we can develop, and we’ll actually be able to make progress based on objective credible good science.