Resolution to ban the sale of electric cars in Wyoming from 2035 effectively dead

A group of republican state lawmakers introduced a resolution that called for the sale of electric cars to be phased out by 2035. Apparently, the resolutions sponsor does not want them banned (in which case a very poorly worded resolution) he just wanted to make a statement about the phasing out of gas-powered vehicles in other states.

So why was all this undertaken? Apparently a group of the states republican lawmakers are aiming to safeguard the oil and gas industries.

It was suggested that the bill would hinder the states ability to trade with other states “Wyoming’s vast stretches of highway, coupled with the lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, make the widespread use of electric vehicles impracticable for the state” so the bill stated.

This is frankly stupid: at the moment there is little charging infrastructure, because there are few electric cars. However, the ban is intended to come into force in 2035 which is roughly 2 whole car cycles into the future. Do these people really believe that there wont be more charging infrastructure by then?

Among the reason cited are the following:

  • Batteries used in electric vehicles could contain critical minerals whose “domestic supply is limited and at risk for disruption”
  • Minerals used in electric batteries are not easily recyclable or disposable, meaning that municipal landfills in the state could be required to develop practices to dispose of these minerals in a safe and responsible manner
  • The proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming’s communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming’s economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in Commerce

Lets take these points in turn:

Point one, suggests that there will be a problem supplying the minerals required for the batteries. This is pretty ridiculous, as if this is true then they have nothing to worry about. Having said that, with the advance of sodium batteries and the increasing quantity of lithium that can be captured from many sources, it is simply not true.

Point two is also false: many of these minerals are very valuable, and it is far cheaper to extract minerals from former batteries than from the ground. There is a rapidly growing industry to extract as much of these minerals as is possible for reuse. Will municipals have to be able to deal with some of these issues, of course, and they will adapt easily as they have many times in the past.

Point three is likely to be true, and is I believe the sole real reason. This move was intended to stop the electric vehicle industry before it got going in the state to protect the oil and gas industry (and the large contributions that flow to politicians from these businesses. I would argue that it makes the politicians look both stupid and corrupt.

The resolutions sponsor said that he did not really want to ban electric cars, but merely make a statement about phasing out gas powered vehicles in other states. Of course what should really be remembered, is that while the environmental catastrophe that we are facing needs an end to combustion engine cars, the cost savings are so extreme, that the number of combustion engine cars people want to by in 12 years is likely to be extremely low.

It is fact that, not only are electric cars quickly reaching similar sticker price to combustion engine cars, but even now over the lifetime of the car, they are vastly cheaper – with most people paying hundreds rather than thousands to fuel them each year.

Republicans in Wyoming are trying to squash the electric car, to save the fossil fuel industry

In December Oregan republican officials approved regulations that would ban the sale of gasoline powered cars from 2035. This is fantastic news, but it appears that it is one step forwards and one back – Wyoming republicans are looking to ban the sale of all electric vehicles, in what lawmakers are calling an effort to preserve the states fossil fuel industry.

If you live in Wyoming, make sure you do not vote for any of these men, unless you want them fighting for climate change, and against cleaner, cheaper and safer cars
Continue reading “Republicans in Wyoming are trying to squash the electric car, to save the fossil fuel industry”

Subsidies are supposed to support what are good, and not what are bad, so why has the UK government spent 20 billion more on fossil fuels than renewables in the last 8 years?

The UK likes to be seen as a country pulling its weight when it comes to the climate change battle. Unfortunately, they give the game away though when they subsidize fossil fuels by 20 billion more than they do renewables.

What is worse, is that 1/5 of the money for fossil fuels went to directly support new extraction and mining.

In the last 8 years, 60 billion has been spent supporting renewable energy generation, however 80 billion has gone on fossil fuels. Indeed 2020 was the first year when renewables got more money than fossil fuels, but each year since fossil fuels are back ahead.

The government claimed that this analysis was misleading as we would still need some fossil fuels as part of our move towards our net zero target – while this might explain why we need some fossil fuel investment, it does not explain why this little need is greater than the money we need to put into renewables – which must eventually supply all our energy needs.

If Europe wants to cut emissions faster, does this require a carbon tariff?

At the moment, there is a serious problem facing the world in global warming. The developed countries in the world are making moves to cut their emissions faster than the rest of the world.

If we are not careful, carbon tax can simply mean things need to be made on the other side of the world and shipped here

While this is only right, given the historical emissions that developed countries have already released, carbon tariffs are still going to be necessary.

You might ask why?

Continue reading “If Europe wants to cut emissions faster, does this require a carbon tariff?”

Rare good news from USA. Manchin tried to attach energy bill to appropriations legislation: failed

In the USA, much to the frustration of many politicians, it is possible to attach legislation to another bill, even when there is nothing that links the two. In this case Jo Minchin’s legislation would have deregulated and changed permitting reforms for fossil fuel projects, and were supposed to be attached to a must pass defence bill. This ability to attach irrelevant legislation must be ended.

In other words, had he been allowed to do it, the bill would have had to be passed, as the defence part was required.

Continue reading “Rare good news from USA. Manchin tried to attach energy bill to appropriations legislation: failed”

The worlds 3 most destructive industries are fossil fuels, farming and fisheries, yet all three are protected by (and subsidized) by governments

Unfortunately these 3 activities appear to be most responsible for collapse or incredible pressure on ecosystems across the globe.

Both fossil fuel extraction and farming have required huge areas to be deforested
Continue reading “The worlds 3 most destructive industries are fossil fuels, farming and fisheries, yet all three are protected by (and subsidized) by governments”

Is the conservative party in the UK (and perhaps similar parties around the world) supporting of climate change doubt and climate change denial

The mountain of evidence which shows that climate change is real is enormous. The temperature has increased, and all of the evidence points towards carbon emissions being the reason.

If your MP is a part of this group then campaign to make sure that they loose their seat in the next election.
Continue reading “Is the conservative party in the UK (and perhaps similar parties around the world) supporting of climate change doubt and climate change denial”

Charities are meant to serve a public good, does it therefore follow that climate sceptic think tanks should loose charitable status?

In the UK, despite the vast majority of the population fully understanding what is happening to the climate as a result of emissions, there are still a number of high profile groups that are arguing against the status quo. The problem is when we give charitable status – which allows them to increase donations by reclaiming tax (among other benefits).

This is why it is so encouraging that a cross party group of MPs have added their voice to the call for the “climate sceptic thinktank” to be stripped of its charitable status. This claim has been put forwards by the “Good Law Project” which has put forwards an argument that this “thinktank” does not meet its aims as a charity and is simply a lobbying organisation.

Continue reading “Charities are meant to serve a public good, does it therefore follow that climate sceptic think tanks should loose charitable status?”

OPEC the worlds biggest oil producers have decided to cut their oil output roughly in half – what is the result

The world is gradually transforming from a fossil fuel based energy system to a renewable system. We all know (I hope at least the readers here) that we need to stop using oil and gas.

Unfortunately at the moment, much of the system in the west is reliant on these resources. As a result, a move like this does hit us hard. Higher prices are going to hit us. This is going to happen because OPEC, a group of countries which have agreed to set quantities of output together. Including a variety of countries, from the middle eastern countries to places all over Africa.

Perhaps one of the good things that might come out of this, is the fact that it will be a slap in the face for much of the fossil fuel using countries. We need to see a point in investing in net zero industries that can cut our emissions until we reach zero. The aim is to cut oil available by 2 million barrels per day.

In the long run, obviously, OPEC does not want the world to move away from fossil fuels, as they will then have to find another source of revenue, but it is going to happen in the next few years either way.

See Animals Wild