National Security Experts Raise Alarm Over Senile Biden’s EV Push

[berryberry]

National Security Experts Raise Alarm Over Senile Biden’s EV Push

A coalition of 17 retired military officials led by retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James Marks have warned that President Joe Biden’s push for mass electric vehicle (EV) adoption is a threat to national security.

In a Jan. 17 letter to President Biden and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan, the group of national security experts said they oppose the Biden administration’s aggressive EV push because Chinese dominance of EV supply chains poses national security risks for the United States.

In particular, regulatory initiatives meant to incentivize EV adoption “intensify America’s vulnerability to political interference by the Chinese Communist Party,” the experts wrote.

Since taking office, President Biden has signed a number of executive orders to boost the sales of EVs, while outlining a plan that seeks to have 50 percent of new vehicles be either plug-in hybrids or fully electric by 2030.

Further, the EPA in April 2023 proposed tough new vehicle standards that seek to reduce the number of cars that produce emissions by 2032.

The White House said at the time that the EPA’s strict emission standards are part of a “clear pathway for a continued rise in EV sales and protecting future generations from the impacts of climate change.”

This reflects the Biden administration’s often-repeated messaging that rapid electrification of transportation would lower greenhouse gases quickly and so reduce global warming, though this is a view that has been challenged, including by climate strategists who generally back climate action but warn that the dash to go electric could lead to unsustainable costs and needless damage to the environment.

EPA Rule In Focus

The retired military officials singled out EPA’s tailpipe emissions proposal for particular criticism because they say it would force up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in America to be electric by 2032.

“At a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales, this proposed rule is a clear example of tone-deaf policymaking that favors the geopolitical advantages currently held by China in this market,” the retired military officers wrote.

While the experts said that they believe EVs will play a significant role in diversifying America’s transportation systems, they believe the Biden administration’s various quick-adoption initiatives “will rush our transition to EVs before the infrastructure necessary to support it is in place.”

“This trajectory will only position the U.S. to become more reliant on China for critical minerals and manufacturing that are necessary for the rapid expansion of EV markets this administration envisions.”

“And even more concerning is the fact that this reliance hinges upon China’s goodwill to export those minerals and manufactured goods to the U.S. This will undoubtedly open the U.S. up to economic manipulations by China,” which poses a “major threat to our national security.”

“We do not believe now is the time to make ourselves vulnerable to such easy political pressures,” they added.

The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Car Dealers Oppose Biden’s EV Push

There has been other notable opposition to the Biden administration’s EV push in general and the EPA’s strict new tailpipe emissions standard proposal.

Several thousand car dealership owners around the country in November signed an open letter to the Biden administration, saying they oppose its aggressive EV push.

More than 3,800 auto dealers wrote in the letter that EV demand isn’t sufficient, even though they said they believe that EVs “are ideal for many people” and that “their appeal will grow over time.”

“The reality, however, is that electric vehicle demand today is not keeping up with the large influx of BEVs [battery electric vehicles] arriving at our dealerships prompted by the current regulations,” the dealers said. “BEVs are stacking up on our lots.”

The dealers noted that enthusiasm for EVs “has stalled” and their supply is building “even with deep price cuts, manufacturer incentives, and generous government incentives.”

They said the EPA’s emissions goals are “unrealistic” and that EVs in general have major hurdles to overcome before adoption can ramp up widely, including a lack of EV charging infrastructure.

Range Anxiety

A major worry among Americans considering the wisdom of switching to an EV is range anxiety, which is the fear of driving an EV and running out of power without being able to find a charging port—and ending up stranded on the side of the road.

A recent study by the American Automobile Association (AAA) found that EV range can fall by up to a quarter when the vehicle is carrying heavy loads.

“Range anxiety remains a top reason consumers are hesitant to switch from gasoline-powered vehicles to EVs,” Adrienne Woodland, spokesperson for AAA, said in a statement.

Another recent study by consultancy Ernst & Young—in collaboration with European energy industry body Eurelectric—found that range anxiety is the second-most cited concern about switching to an EV, with a lack of public charging stations in the top spot.

The study points to an estimated need for 68.9 million chargers across the United States and Canada by 2035 to support the pace of the EV transition.

[onawbtngr546]

Nothing says 'Fuck you, I got mine' more than boomers not wanting to stop pollution.



There needs to be more EV charging stations, as common as gas stations, before demand for EVs will even approach that of conventional engines.


But in order for EVs to actually make an impact, the energy they use needs to be green. That means no more coal or gas power. Solar and nuclear need to be adopted, otherwise EVs are only kicking the pollution can down the road.

[Cody69]

What are they going to do with the old batteries? Put them in the ocean and expect nothing to happen? Now they will kill all the fish also.

[onawbtngr546]

Having way that batteries can either be renewed easily, or have much longer lifespans is a step in the right direction. You don't, for example, need to replace your engine every 10 years. I don't think we are anywhere near having more reliable super batteries. At least, if big corpo has any say in stunting battery technology. You need to buy a new phone every year still.


But IMHO the biggest part of the issue stopping EVs from being adopted is tied into the energy and distribution. Energy needs to be clean - this will take some points away from how much waste comes from creating the batteries. Chargers need to be everywhere.


And as for people who share the notion that Biden is going to take away your 1960s muscle car, or your crappy 2003 Toyota Camry, they aren't.

In all likelyhood, once EVs are mandated, every single vehicle on the road will be grandfathered in. You'll be able to keep your gas guzzler for as long as you like. The government isn't going to force you to buy a new car. That isn't going to happen. Get real. Every vehicle out there will be grandfathered in. The only issue you will have is when you eventually want to buy a new car.


If you are going to buy a car in 2040, you aren't going to want to downgrade all of the technology and safety features to what they had in 2010. That's fucking stupid. You buy a new car, it'll be EV or a hybrid. Get with the times. You're on an internet forum (~1995), looking up hoes using a computer (~2001) or a smartphone (~2010) browsing data. If people are still so adamant about living with what they know and understand, you are already being a hypocrite.



Again, the only thing stopping widespread EV adoption is lack of chargers. Until you can find a fast charger on ever street corner just like a gas pump, people aren't going to like it. And for those who still don't like it, just need to wait out a generation

[eyecu2]

EVs are fine for local commuter's but likely not so good for longer distances regularly. It's sad that FOX news and right wing agenda sites only find fault with moving the country off of gasoline vehicles. Imagine the same thing when Henry Ford introduced the the automobile replacing horse and buggy's? When hayseed chewers start throwing out claims of "political disparity and global isolation threats" the writing is on the wall. We're heading in the right direction for majority of America and the only reason China has the battery market is their cheap labor. We have access to build them domestically but our costs are likely double.

Does the govt and military experts have issues with domestic gas cars being built partially or fully in Mexico or Canada?

Nah.

Just China cause they are the newest Boogeyman of late.

When a general has to weigh in on the auto industry, you might want to think "hey dude you're out of yer lane."

[onawbtngr546]

Other countries are well on their way to remove gas vehicles entirely, even for long haul trips.


Germany has overhead wires on the highway for long haul trucks to connect to, like street cars. The trucks have a conventional engine which can be used on smaller streets, but but long haul highway, they hook up and their truck is an EV without any of the batteries.

Though people here will be up in arms about it because people don't want to pay federal taxes on improving our infra, and it would cost a lot. That, and it wouldn't be worth it unless the government mandated that new trucks by EV/engine hybrids.

EVs are fine for local commuter's but likely not so good for longer distances regularly

Agree, and this is again, caused by both charging stations being few and far between, and battery capacity and charge speed not being comparable to gas.


Takes only a few minutes to fill up your tank and have a 200+ range on your car. The same for an EV would take at minimum 4 hours (though you can get about 70% charge with fast charging in less than half an hour).
Until those two come close to what gas provides, the average Jon Doe would prefer gas. I know I would, even if I had a garage with a dedicated charging circuit where I could fully charge overnight

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Nothing says 'Fuck you, I got mine' more than boomers not wanting to stop pollution.

So you are OK with Senile Biden’s push for mass electric vehicle (EV) adoption being a threat to national security and a gift to China?

Hmmmmmm

[onawbtngr546]

Originally Posted by berryberry

So you are OK with Senile Biden’s push for mass electric vehicle (EV) adoption being a threat to national security and a gift to China?

Hmmmmmm

Please quote me where I said that I support us giving anything to China, or forced EV adoption.
This country will never forcibly adopt EVs. The only way we will get to a large percentage of EVs is if charging stations are made more abundant, and the government puts a ban on gasoline engines in new vehicles.



Just to note, if the government bans new vehicles with gas engines, that is not banning them.

Just like how recently, incandescent light bulbs were banned. It doesn't mean a G Man is going to come in to your home and take away your light bulbs, or any light bulbs you bought in bulk years ago. It means you aren't going to be able to buy NEW incandescent light bulbs.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Please quote me where I said that I support us giving anything to China.

Your support for EVs says it all

or do you disagree with (and if so why) the coalition of 17 retired military officials led by retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James Marks who have warned that Senile Biden’s push for mass electric vehicle (EV) adoption is a threat to national security because it is a gift to China and Chinese dominance of EV supply chains poses national security risks for the United States.

[chizzy]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Please quote me where I said that I support us giving anything to China, or forced EV adoption.
This country will never forcibly adopt EVs. The only way we will get to a large percentage of EVs is if charging stations are made more abundant, and the government puts a ban on gasoline engines in new vehicles.



Just to note, if the government bans new vehicles with gas engines, that is not banning them.

Just like how recently, incandescent light bulbs were banned. It doesn't mean a G Man is going to come in to your home and take away your light bulbs, or any light bulbs you bought in bulk years ago. It means you aren't going to be able to buy NEW incandescent light bulbs.

Just to note, if the government bans new vehicles with gas engines, that is not banning them.




just when i thought your posts couldnt be less logical........lol

[onawbtngr546]

Originally Posted by chizzy

Just to note, if the government bans new vehicles with gas engines, that is not banning them.




just when i thought your posts couldnt be less logical........lol

Banning the sale of new vehicles isn't the same as banning the sale of existing vehicles.


Just like with how some antique cars are technically not street legal, either due to being built before safety standards, or not having appropriate lights, you can still buy and sell an antique car and if you want to make it street legal, can make the necessary modifications.



They aren't going to stop you from buying a 2020 toyota used from someone or from a dealer. It would only effect buying new

[Cody69]

Originally Posted by chizzy

Just to note, if the government bans new vehicles with gas engines, that is not banning them.




just when i thought your posts couldnt be less logical........lol

USA and other industrial nations shouldn't try to improve air quality because it is all a joke. There is no green house affect in the world. The last administration has proven that farce.

I have worked around battery operated forklifts and other industrial equipment for years. I know the batteries they are using in the cars are similar to computers. They should not be the problem the other type batteries are. Acid/lead core. But there is always a big deal on how to dispose of.

Chizzy with you logic from other post that I have seen of yours, if they ban gas engines that is just the democrats way to take all of our cars off of us correct? You take one thing that harms us it opens the door to take it all correct?

[eyecu2]

I absolutely support EVs, and their use domestically where it makes sense. So what - a bunch of washed-up generals and other fear monger wannabes telling me that it's going to bolster China in some way is a red herring. Prove it's a threat!! More stupidity for the anti EV, Petroleum Based solicitors trying to control the narrative like they live in fantasyland or Mr Rourke is the one pulling the strings.

The GOP has more backward ass policies than I've seen anywhere and going on for more than a decade. Not one single progressive idea outside of burning clean coal, and digging more holes to pull out oil where oil production companies are losing their asses. But energy independence is what they scream despite it being a fucking lie

[Typo]

Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Agree, and this is again, caused by both charging stations being few and far between, and battery capacity and charge speed not being comparable to gas.


Takes only a few minutes to fill up your tank and have a 200+ range on your car. The same for an EV would take at minimum 4 hours (though you can get about 70% charge with fast charging in less than half an hour).
Until those two come close to what gas provides, the average Jon Doe would prefer gas. I know I would, even if I had a garage with a dedicated charging circuit where I could fully charge overnight

For those of us who have owned EVs and opted to go back to gas has nothing to do with charging station availability. A typical car gets 300-500 miles of highway mileage per fill up. Most EVs get 100-160 highway miles per full charge. Then you have to wait at a charging station for 30 minutes to an hour to maybe get enough charge to get you to the next charging station where you have to wait again.

My Tesla Model 3 maxed out at about 130 miles of highway travel on a full charge. If the available charging stations at that point were busy, they limited the allowed charge to anywhere from 50% to 80% depending upon how busy the stations were. Going on any trip of reasonable distance is an impossibility. I couldn't even drive from Pittsburgh to Morgantown and back without having to fully recharge. Driving from Pittsburgh to Alexandria, VA was a nightmare that convinced me an EV is useless for my lifestyle.

For people who live in the city and don't have garages or driveways where they can install a high capacity charging station, public chargers are the only option. If we went all EV, we would need many more charging stations than gas stations. We simply don't have the grid capacity for that now and won't for a very long time. Renewable energy won't sustain that load requirement.

The average Joe cannot afford an EV and installation of a home charging port. They're simply too expensive at this point.

EVs are a good idea, fun to drive at times, and a good option for specific circumstances, but far from useful for most. I see that changing over time with improvement in technology, but we're a long way from there right now. For the foreseeable future, gas is the best option. Until we see major advances in necessary technologies, I'm sticking with gas powered vehicles. My 2 Teslas gave me all the experience I need to come to such conclusions.

[onawbtngr546]

Is the build quality on a Tesla really what they make it out to be online? Poorly fitting plastic bits, cheap construction?


I agree with all your points. EVs will not become commonplace until they are just as convenient to use as a gas vehicle.
However, people and companies aren't going to readily start to build out EV infra until the demand is there, and there is profit to be made. But the demand won't ever get there because people won't adopt them as they are less convenient than gas cars. It's a negative feedback cycle.



Only with the government stepping in and putting a blanket ban on the sale of newly manufactured gas vehicles some date in the future gives the rest of the country a big warning sign. The country won't need to become EV-proof the year-of the ban, but within the next few years, you can bet that gas stations are going to start installing fast chargers.


But that's another reason why people are opposed to EVs. If the government is going to more or less mandate a shift to EVs nation wide, then states are going to want to get money to upgrade their infra (public charging, or upgrading the power grid). That money would need to come from the feds. And you know how this country is divided on infrastructure bills...