Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches those watching pollution? When EV sales flatten, why pause and revisit when we can forge boldly ahead with wealth transfers!
‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ (Who watches the watchmen? A question posed by Juvenal about his wife's fidelity, but here used to ask about air pollution monitoring).
Let me stack another quote on top of this one. This quote comes from the article linked at bottom:
"'There are parties out there who could pick up the bill, but they don't want to because the results are uncomfortable,' [atmospheric scientist Detlev] Helmig said."
Ah, how the shoe pinches on the other foot. Let me explain.
A little while back the news was awash with stories about a group called Cultivando who banded together in the neighborhoods near the Suncore Refinery to start measuring air quality on their own.
It was noteworthy because not only were they on a short list of community environmentalist groups who were doing this, but they also were awarded a grant by the EPA to do so. Having a Spanish name and representing a minority neighborhood probably didn't hurt either.
Fast forward to now when Cultivando turned down the grant due to the strings that the EPA attached to their money.
Strings like wanting to have competitive bidding for the contractor Cultivando would hire for their monitoring (instead of Cultivando's preferred partner, the company run by Mr. Helmig), stipulations on how the money would be spent, and (quoting a statement by the EPA in the article):
" ... quality assurance requirements intended to ensure valid air quality data are collected ..."
Knowing all this, I think you can probably now see why I said the other shoe pinches on Helmig's (and Cultivando's) foot.
One of my concerns with community groups monitoring air quality has long been what I allude to at the top of this post. Who watches the watchmen?
How are we certain that a community group is following standard scientific practice in their measurements? How transparent will they be?
You could argue whether or not a government entity like CDPHE is being fair in their measurements, but the one thing you can say about their measurements is that they're public record. We know the details.
Would we have gotten the same from Cultivando? Their balking at any sort of oversight makes me wonder.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/07/27/cultivando-ends-suncor-air-monitoring/
Electric Vehicle (EV) sales are flat, but that just means we need to redouble our efforts to get more people into EV's!
Do you sense what's coming? If you thought that means more of your tax dollars being marshalled for the effort, you're probably right.
The two quotes below come from the article linked at bottom and are separated by a paragraph or two. Juxtaposed next to each other, however, they paint an interesting picture.
"Combined sales of full battery-electric EVs and plug-in hybrid EVs flattened to 13.1% of market share compared with 13.2% in the first quarter of 2023. That leveling came even as many EV makers lowered prices to boost sales and stay competitive."
"After years of waiting lists, EV inventory in some brand names is now piling up at dealerships, according to the information firm Cox Automotive. Carmakers, dealers and EV proponents will have to redouble efforts to overcome consumer price perception, range anxiety and other barriers to faster adoption, analysts said."
Putting aside the question about which analyst(s) said that and what it was exactly that they said, I want you to note the response by the (editorializing) reporter here because, knowing Mr. Booth and his writing as I do, he likely is voicing the opinions and dogma of environmentalists (albeit the milder ones that do not advocate forcing us into what they believe is right).
Did anyone bother to question the dogma that we need faster adoption, or the dogma that barriers must be shattered now (RIGHT NOW) in order to get people into EV's?
In fact, if you read the article in full and between the lines, I think the picture that you might walk away with is that people are moving to vehicles besides just those powered entirely by internal combustion. They are just doing what people have always done and should always be able to do: they should be able to weigh their options and pick the things that best match their needs, desires, and budgets.
You know what would be nice? Instead of taking my tax money to give to people to buy an EV, which, let's be honest, we all know is rich folks in metro areas, maybe we could take that money and give it to people to do things that would spread climate benefits around.
Maybe we offer incentives on hybrids for those that are driving older cars now.
Maybe we offer incentives for people with older pickups to update to a newer model that's cleaner and more fuel efficient.
Oh, wait. I think I have an idea as to why we may not be doing this. Further down in the article, you'll encounter the following:
“'Regular hybrids won’t count toward compliance. Nor will regular gasoline cars,' he [Travis Madsen, transportation program director with the nonprofit Southwest Energy Efficiency Project] said. 'In the long run, I think we’ll see more EVs, fewer regular hybrids, and a continued role for plug-in electric hybrids.'”
That's right. Both our politicians and the AQCC have decided for us that we need to follow California's rules about adopting EV's. Why would we want to depart from those in the name of common sense?\
https://coloradosun.com/2023/07/25/colorado-car-sales-evs-hybrids/