Electric cars: Lords urge action on ‘misinformation’ in press
By Paul Homewood
h/t Robin Guenier
The government must do more to counter "misinformation" on electric vehicles published in parts of the UK press, a Lords enquiry has said.
Despite the UK passing the milestone on Monday of 1m electric cars registered, growth of the sector has flatlined.
The Lords Climate Change Committee urged the government to build consumer confidence and push back against what it called mistruths on range and cost.
The government did not comment on this but said £2bn was committed to EVs.
Nearly a quarter of the UK’s carbon emissions – responsible for climate change – are produced by road transport, according to the latest figures. Switching to electric vehicles could help to significantly reduce these emissions, but despite government and industry efforts only about 3% of cars are powered by electricity.
Baroness Parminter, chair of the committee, told the BBC that both government officials and other witnesses to the enquiry had reported reading disinformation on the subject in national newspapers.
"We have seen a concerted effort to scare people… we have seen articles saying that cars are catching fire – but had evidence that the fire risk is absolutely the same as [petrol and diesel] cars," she said.
The Lords committee did not single out any newspaper in particular.
Testifying before the committee, Richard Bruce, Director of Transport Decarbonisation at the Department for Transport, conceded there was a problem.
He said: "I do think there has been an impact from a concerted campaign of misinformation over the last 14 months or so that has been pushing consistent myths about EVs that people absorb and which is reflected in their appetite [for purchasing EVs].
"There is an anti-EV story in the papers almost every day. Sometimes there are many stories, almost all of which are based on misconceptions and mistruths, unfortunately."
Baroness Parminter said the government needed to step in and provide reliable information to consumers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68130432
Now I wonder what all this information might be?
The fact that EVs cost £10k more than an equivalent petrol?
EV manufacturers own data which says you only get a fraction of the mileage that their blurb claims?
The fact that it costs more per mile than a petrol car if you have to use a public charger, even after paying fuel duty?
The fact the second hand prices for EVs have fallen through the floor, making buying a new EV even less attractive?
The fact that, regardless of the number of public chargers installed, drivers without offstreet parking will face the prospect of queuing to use a charger?
Are these all facts that the good Baroness would like to suppress?
One EV zealot rather gives the game away, demanding that EVs remain exempt from vehicle and road taxes paid by the rest of us:
If EVs were so wonderful, we would not need all of these subsidies and tax exemptions, would we Melanie?
As for increasing taxes on “heavy vehicles”, does not this silly woman know that EVs weigh an awful lot more than a proper car?
It probably won’t come as any great surprise to learn the Baroness Parminter has zero experience in transport, industrial or economic matters. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords has spent most of her useful life campaigning for animal rights and conservation charities.
Comments are closed.
It looks like both the Lordships & government need the public to educate them.
To paraphrase Homer Simpson
Is there nothing the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in in HoL doesn’t know ?
How can we make our minds up properly if we are continuously fed lies and propaganda. Let us get back to the laws of supply and demand. If something is any good people will want it. If it proves to be a waste of money, people’s faith will be destroyed. Toyota’s hydrogen powered car using onboard electrolysis of water looks to have the best chance.
You wrote: How can we make our minds up properly if we are continuously fed lies and propaganda.
Easy, if it comes from the same people who have continuously fed us lies and propaganda then whatever they are criticizing is the most likely truth.
If they figure out we know this, they may try some tricks and risk telling some truths but by know we would or should be watching out for tricks.
Hi Sean, I agree with your point but where does the electricity come from for the electrolysis ?
I have run a diesel vehicle with supplemental hydrogen in the air mix and it worked well but what is the maths behind it ?
Will it burn more diesel than a normal engine ? Would I just be kidding myself like these people with an EV powered by an on board electricity generator powered by petrol ?
thanks Tony
What about all the lies and misinformation from the likes of Stark and Skidmore?
It’s perfectly obvious where the interminable campaign of disinformation has been coming from: their unelected “lordships”, for one.
Scrap the parasitic HoL. Replace with a majority elected Senate of less than 100 ar$es.
Any NALOPKT reader could suggest an alternative inquiry that might actually be useful.
A first question might be “What scientific evidence is there, that a trivial increase in a trace gas essential to all life on Earth, is in fact a genuine major concern?
And progress, all the way through to, “What qualification or aptitude do you have to sit in the House of Lords and to both promote the use of inadequate new technology for vehicles and suggest reducing the use of much cheaper and more efficient proven technology? This should cover both choices for individual motorists (on a full life-cycle basis) and choices for the Nation, its economy and environment. Please produce proper cost-benefit analyses from a significant number of reputable sources (absolutely including those who you claim mis-inform), demonstrating that your little cabal has any talent whatever in picking winners.”
Spot on. People should be asking WHY? not HOW?
And what the hell are ‘carbon emissions’? The noble element called Carbon spurns thousands of valuable compounds. Its a miraculous species and should never be portrayed as a threat to humanity.
The good Baroness has a degree in Theology.
Per the Wikithhingy, anyway, it’s from Oxbridge, or Camford, or some such place. No matter, it equips her well for the modern religion ….
Auto
Liquid hydrocarbons make really good transport fuels.
“The government must do more to counter “misinformation” on electric vehicles published in parts of the UK press.”
How sad there are parts of the UK press not yet under government control.
At the moment keeping an ice longer reduces CO2 emissions far more than buying a new ev and for evs to reduce emissions all our electricity must first be generated CO2 emission free.
Do figures exist BTW for the percentage of HoL and HoC members who own an ev?
And as their only car?
Anyway, the reasons for the forced transition to bevs is firstly to destroy the UK motor manufacturing business and secondly to make private transport too expensive for the hoi polloi. The Net Zero Strategy promised us all “active travel”.
The Net Zero Strategy promised us all “active travel”.
Hence all the cycle paths and pavements to nowhere being constructed in Wales and cancellation of road projects.
Active travel? I’m 81 years old, and my ‘activity’ days are far behind. The nearest shops from my retirement home are about a kilometer away on a 1 in 9 hill. And the uphill direction would be with a load of shopping. My old car makes it possible for me to live an independent life, and no amount of “cycleways” and pedestrian streets are going to change that!
No one talk about the elephant In the room, the cost of a new battery pack after x years, x being <10.
P.S. climate change is the biggest misinformation hoax yet.
I heard Baroness (!!!!) Parminter (LimpDim) interviewed on the radio. She showed that she was totally ignorant of EVs, but she showed that she was full of disinformation about them.
She’s clearly one of those dim Progressives who believe their oh so superior opinions are facts. Airlines are extremely wary of lithium batteries in hold luggage because they are a fire risk. That’s a fact. Several ships carrying EVs gave caught fire. That’s a fact. ICE cars do not just catch fire as petrol isn’t very volatile. That’s a fact. Claiming otherwise is spreading disinformation.
I like the following which is regularly posted in comments about EVS:
Imagine we lived in a world where all cars were EVs. And then along comes a new invention, the “Internal Combustion Engine”! Think of the sales marketing: A vehicle half the weight, half the price that will almost quarter the damage done to the road. A vehicle that can be refuelled in 1/10th of the time and has a range of up to 4 times the distance in all weather conditions. It does not rely on the environmentally damaging use of non-renewable rare earth elements to power it, and uses far less steel and other materials.
That is a most wonderful post! Thanks!
I second that!
Very good! And you could add – whose furl can be safely stored in simple plastic containers if necessary.
Didn’t THAT happen about 1905 or summat?
Another totally useless politician. It’s so typical of her kind to default to higher taxes and stuff the consequences for hard up taxpayers whenever they want to ban something.
The fact that Baroness Parminter might just have – as our colonial cousins like to say – skin in the game?
A member of my family was complaining about a BEV they were working on.
Apparently condensation in the rear light cluster meant a replacement. As he said normally 3 bolts and perhaps moving a carpet. Not on this one. Back seats removed along with some other stuff to get to the unit. Only to find that the charging socket was part of the fitting so nobody wanted to proceed further.
Sort of problem you get in a company that’s only been making cars for a decade. Main dealer repair very unhappy owner.
Idiots to a (wo)man.
Stopping misinformation is NOT censorship!
It’s a commie word game. Freedom of speech means saying what you want to; there is no requirement that it be correct. It’s okay to be wrong. But the commies have this new classification of ‘misinformation,’ which is as ill-defined as ‘climate change,’ which CAN be prohibited. Effectively, they can censor anything they want to, in the name of stopping ‘misinformation.’
It was rampant during the pandemic. Any statement not inline with the official government line was VIOLENCE! Robert Kennedy Jr said people should be locked up. Starlets said it was murder!
It is government so weak they can’t allow opposing positions.
I’d refer her to the quote at the top of this website!
i have a suggestion – disband the climate change committee. And I suggest that if this is how they are wasting their time and our money then there are clearly too many of them leeching off the public purse.
I found this to be an interesting straw in the wind:
MPs call for more scrutiny on carbon budgets – Energy Live News
I’m sure we could all point them to plenty of advice about the shockingly poor analysis conducted for the CCC, whose plans are unattainable, infeasible and unaffordable. Perhaps we should give the EAC a seminar?
Beware. The new Online safety bill will allow Their Lordships to do just that.
….it is pretty simple. Most people don’t like EVs for a number of reasons. Size of car, range anxiety, trouble charging at home, price, they look dorky.
The fact that currently people choose from thousands of options and different people choose different cars. Good luck to any government who tries to tell a person what car to buy
…… with their own money😁😂
Unfortunately the Govt is already telling us what cars we can buy, by fining manufacturers for selling too many ICE cars, and banning them completely in 2035.
They’re blaming Rowan Atkinson. What does he know, with his electrical and systems degrees?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/06/rowan-atkinson-blamed-for-poor-electric-car-sales-by-peers/
This is more like it:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/telegraph-cartoons-february-2024/
Yet another conspiracy theory. Facts they don’t like are disinformation pushed by shadowy dark money figures. It’s utterly pathetic. Meanwhile, the renewables industry and Green groups preach wholly false claims about “climate emergencies” and these sad fools say nothing.
“it is the heavy vehicles that cause the most damage”
What damage? Climate alarmists aren’t protesting about potholes, so is this a reference to the vital and harmless trace gas carbon dioxide?
Fanatic Baroness Parminter is, I’m afraid, talking from her backside when she says that electric vehicle fires are no more frequent than petrol or diesel vehicles. Has she not read about the numerous fires that have been created by battery driven vehicles? such as the Luton Airport car park, The three electric buses in London that have caught fire for no apparent reason, with Transport for London considering taking their expensive new fleet of electric buses out of operation, or the ship carrying 100s of cars that sank as a result of an electric car catching fire? Is she oblivious to the growing number of electric scooters and bicycles that have burst into flames, a number of which have resulted in burnt out houses and death to the occupiers, followed by official advice not to keep electric scooters in or near the house for fear of fire? Would the Baroness and Richard Bruce of The Department for Transport, tell us what the misinformation is of which they talk rather than, as usual, make bland statements without facts, then we could reply to her accusations.
Hasty generalization, Mr Lawson. You list a handful of fires.
The fact is EVs have a far lower rate of fires than petrol or hybrid cars (hybrid cars are the worst).
EV fires are way more dramatic [“three electric buses in London”], so they get publicized. Leading the public to think they are common. They are not.
I’m starting to bore my readers with this huge diesel powered 12 wheeler full of bacon from Denmark which has just landed at Dover with a couple of thousand behind it. What’s the plan? Tax? Electrify? Forbid? Meanwhile 843 American airliners have howled off from Heathrow. Our CO2 or theirs? And a diesel powered shipment of LNG has just arrived at Milford Haven. Over my hedge Bruce is pulling a six share through some damp topsoil. Golly must plant some trees. But trees are ‘carbon neutral’. Aaargh!!
Does that mean the Lords are going to say that Global Warming/Climate Change isn’t real and never has been. It’s anti-capitalist and then I suppose, go on to explain why capitalism is bad, m’kay.
Monday I came home from Knoxville, TN…..450 miles. I have done it several times on one tank of gas w/ ca. 100 miles yet to go. My Chrysler Pacifica mini-van gets up to 31 mpg.
When I got into the mountains of West Virginia, I noticed I was passing a lot of very new small cars on the hilly interstate. After reading the model names, they are either EV or hybrids. The outside temps were in the ’50’s. I had cruise control set on the speed limit…..70 mph. They would pass me on the downhill…until the next hill.
Speaking of ‘misinformation’:-
via the DT
“Electric cars cannot be advertised as completely “zero emission” because of the carbon dioxide that is generated when they are made and charged, the advertising watchdog has declared.
In a ruling that will change how electric vehicles (EVs) are promoted, the Advertising Standards Authority has banned carmakers from referring to them as zero emission unless they make clear this is only while driving. “
Doesn’t Government describe then as zero emission vehicles?
More bad news for the EV market
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/07/electric-cars-are-not-zero-emission-advertising-watchdog/
Electric cars are not ‘zero emission’, says advertising watchdog
Carmakers ordered to take account of CO2 used in manufacturing and charging
Electric cars cannot be advertised as completely “zero emission” because of the carbon dioxide that is generated when they are made and charged, the advertising watchdog has declared.
Ah, the Lords, that £300/day den of left wing fossils, chums and failed politicians – the sooner it’s closed, the better for democracy
Ah! Once upon a time, the Lords were the memory and history of England. The system provided for an ancient stability, far from the clamour and change of everyday politics. But no! Some unthinking politician (spit!) just HAD to say that it wasn’t ‘democratic’, and more-or-less cancel the concept, turning the Lords into another NON DEMOCRATIC debating society, whose main job, as far as I can see, is to stuff up the ACTUAL democracy. Oh yes – and to provide non-jobs for the ‘boys’.
What about the green jobs? Lots and lots of green jobs. EVs will give us all those green jobs they told us about. Jobs like licking stamps and posting cheques to send all those subsidies to China, USA and all those other countries that make parts EVs
A comment recently suggested that we must find alternative energy sources as fossil fuels will run out pretty soon. I believe this to be untrue. When earth formed it started out like Venus; almost 100% CO2 atmosphere at around 100 atmospheres pressure. Life, starting around 3 billion years ago, was photosynthetic and converted CO2 into organic carbon compounds and oxygen. Initially this oxygen reacted with the iron in the earth’s crust to make iron ores; leaving the organic carbon to become in due course, coal oil and gas. By simple chemical accounting there must be fossil fuels in the crust equivalent to the amount of iron ore created. Iron ore is about 5% of the earth’s crust. If you do the sums this means that there is about 10 million years’ worth of fossil fuels to find. ‘Find’ of course is the operative word I agree, as much may be inaccessible with current technology, but then shale gas was thought to be so just 40 years ago.
“…if you do the sums…”
I do not get the same answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust
Thus, carbon, as measured, makes up 0.02 % of the earth’s crust – and almost entirely in the form of carbonate rocks like limestone (i.e. already combined with oxygen and hence not a fuel.) Comparatively little seems to exist in the form of hydrocarbons (not combined with oxygen and therefore a fuel.)
There has always been plenty of oxygen in the earth, as compounds (almost half of the atoms in the crust are oxygen atoms,) and there is little sense in imagining this enormous amount as originating from the atmosphere. Rather, the atmosphere originated from the solid earth through volcanism.
It is not thought that the early atmosphere was almost entirely carbon dioxide at 100 atmospheres pressure! Of course, we were not around at the time to observe it; but indirect measurements of phenomena, based on study of ancient lavas, suggest that the pressure was similar to, or lower than, now.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10890
However, Professor Gold supported a theory that methane exists throughout the lower crust and the mantle, and that this is the real, primeval, source of many fossil fuels. Sensible people would like this to be true, as it would mean that oil and gas fields are self-renewing, but there is no proof.
Trouble with my comment is space. I can send you the full data and calculation if you wish; email me:
philip.foster17 at ntlworld.com