Marc,
I will defend the article response here.
The article was clearly one sided. It didn't mention that 90% of average
people only use their car 30 miles or less a day. It never mentioned that
if people commuted with an EV vs a Gas Car it would clearly help us
eliminate or severely reduce our dependence on Foreign oil, since our
domestic oil supply has been waning since its peak in 1970! No reference to
our increased demand which up until 2008 was growing every year. No reason
to point out that industry leaders have formed the "electrification
coalition" to try and help the country move toward a more diversified
transportation fuel market.
The Authors points are only valid if you look at it from one viewpoint...one
that refuses to look at the true consequences of our actions. By constantly
avoiding the real issue, which is that Oil is becoming much less easy to
obtain cheaply, we lose the proper perspective of our actions. The debate
is purposely confused by the ignorant or willfully dishonest reports like
this one thrust upon the masses by many in the media.
It is said that "those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
Well, if we don't diversify our transportation fuel to some gas and some
Electric(or other source) we will be subject to Oil Price Spikes sending our
country into recessions (4 of the last 5 were caused by oil price spikes and
if you want to read an article I wrote about this let me know and I will
email it to you directly.) and we will be severely weakened financially as a
result because of the massive amount of money we literally "burn".
$700,000,000,000 a year to foreign nations just to drive around in our gas
powered cars for the ability to drive from coast to coast when there are
clearly other options that exist to do this! This is the price we truly
pay. The author of the response clearly has already settled the debate in
his mind and didn't feel called to do a point by point critical analysis of
it.
Thus a point by point response if probably what you were looking for, my
feeling is that the article takes the oil industry "talking points" and
writes them in an article rather than looking critically at the true
"benefits" of EV adoption.
Every written work has a "bias" and this author's bias is much more evident
that others writers viewpoints.
This article couldn't help itself than to be a shill for Big oil. I am sure
they would approve of its content. I do not.
Sincerely;
Douglas A. Stansfield
President
www.TransAtlanticElectricConversions.com
973-875-6276 (office)
973-670-9208 (cell)
973-440-1619 (fax)
ELECTRIC CAR PRODUCERS
-----Original Message-----
From:
[email protected]xx.xxx.edu [mailto:
[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Marc de Piolenc
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 6:35 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: [EVDL] Reaction to US News article
The US News article made points that I thought were valid. Obviously,
you didn't think so. But your letter does not make the slightest attempt
to refute the article. Instead, you accuse the writer of treason and
apostasy for having the temerity to question the value of EVs.
(Actually, he doesn't even do that; he only says they won't be as
successful in the market as enthusiasts are predicting.)
The irony of it is that you freely admit to the list that you don't know
much about EVs. Shouldn't you learn something about the subject matter
before attacking the opinions of others?
Some of your letter is downright frightening. You write: "The time for
intellectualizing the ICE vs. EV issue from any perspective is over."
Does this mean we should stop thinking?
Regards,
Marc de Piolenc
You wrote to USN&WR:
"Dear Editor,
Your recent article by Rick Newman entitled "5 Reasons Electric Cars
Will Disappoint" fails miserably in its attempt to give an objective
view of the benefits of electric vehicles and is obviously intended to
encourage American consumers to remain addicted to oil as well as
hostage to OPEC. Shame on you both for reducing the issue down to
purchase price instead of pointing out the true costs of operating
internal combustion engine vehicles.
The time for intellectualizing the ICE vs. EV issue from any perspective
is over. Our reliance on the ICE can no longer be defended on any
rational basis or at any intellectual level.
The actual cost of the ICE includes:
The Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon and who knows what tomorrow
1 billion dollars a day to OPEC
Billions or is that trillions of dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan
The cost of human life in the same two wars
The cost of the medical repair bills for thousands of young Americans
with missing arms, legs and worse as a result of the same two wars.
Respiratory health issues in every metropolitan area of the world.
And the list goes on and on.
The ICE age is over. We should be directing our intelligence and
resources towards making the transition from petroleum to biofuels and
EVs on a national level as quickly and smoothly as possible. And yes,
each one of us will face some inconveniences by switching to EVs.
Get over it, or have Americans become so spoiled and self centered that
they are no longer able to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow?
I am 72 years old and semi-retired, but my wife and I have made a
personal commitment to run biodiesel for now and to save for our first
EV. My parents endured the great depression and WW II to give me a great
life and now it's my turn to step up to the plate and make a few puny
sacrifices. My grandchildren deserve no less from me.
So go ahead and debate on and on, but you can not dodge the reality that
faces the coming generations if we continue to just talk instead of
taking action now.
You and Mr. Newman need to think about your sense of duty to America at
a time when Americans should be taking action to reduce air pollution,
strengthen our economy, and achieve energy independence from hostile
foreign countries.
Again, shame on you both for discouraging one of the major changes
needed to strengthen our country."
--
Archivale catalog: http://www.archivale.com/catalog
Ducted fans: http://massflow.archivale.com/
Polymath weblog: http://www.archivale.com/weblog
Translation services (BeWords): http://www.bewords.com/Marc-dePiolenc
Translation services (ProZ): http://www.proz.com/profile/639380
Translation services (translatorscafe):
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/profile/default.asp?LID=130919&ForOthers
=true#Profile_Start
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to
[email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to
[email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
