Buy Any Car You Like As Long As It’s an EV

by | Nov 3, 2023

Governments are banning fossil-fueled vehicles, but not to save humanity.

There is an ongoing effort by the Biden Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation and about a dozen states to force truck and car makers to totally transition their vehicle production from fossil-fueled (gasoline and diesel) vehicles to electric trucks and cars (EVs) over the next two decades. The stated (but not actual) purpose is to stop fossil fuel consumption, emissions, global warming and an alleged climate crisis.

In reaction, the US House of Representatives has recently passed a bill – H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act – that would prohibit governments from forcing Americans to switch from fossil-fueled vehicles to EVs. However, passage in the Senate is uncertain.

Hopefully, our Senators will realize that US governments have no chance of stopping global warming by forcing Americans to buy electric vehicles, electric furnaces and electricity generated by solar and wind generators. Senators should also realize that there are less coercive and costly means to manage extreme weather if necessary.

The following discussion explains why. Senators and others won’t need to be scientists or economists to understand or to explain why to others.

The Futility and Injustice of Banning American Fossil Fuels

If global fossil fuel emissions cause global warming, then wouldn’t fossil fuels need to be banned globally to avoid warming and climate change? Of course, they would. But banning fossil fuels globally isn’t happening and likely never will. Here are the facts.

The International Energy Agency reported that “Despite many pledges and efforts by governments to tackle the causes of global warming, CO2 emissions from energy and industry have increased by 60% since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [aka the UNFCC or the Kyoto Protocol] was signed in 1992.” [1] And the Wall Street Journal reported that only 18 [of 196] nations have reduced emissions for a decade or more. [2]

According to the UN, the world needs to decrease fossil fuel use by 60% between 2020 and 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C or well below 2°C, as the 2015 Paris Agreement encourages. “Countries are instead planning and projecting an average annual increase of 2%, which by 2030 would result in more than double the production consistent with the 1.5°C limit.” [3]

World government leaders have experienced the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and 27 annual UN Conferences of Principles. Presidents Obama and Biden have both met with world government leaders to persuade them to ban fossil fuel use to end global fossil fuel emissions. But three decades of lobbying world leaders by US Presidents and various climate alarmists has failed to persuade most nations to reduce fossil fuel consumption. China, India, Russia, Indonesia and 174 other nations are continuing to grow their consumption of affordable fossil fuels.

US Climate Ambassador John Kerry explained the futility of the US zero fossil emissions goal: “[President Biden] knows Paris alone is not enough… Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem [global warming] isn’t solved.[4]

So if ending US fossil emissions doesn’t solve the problem, why are the President and climate alarmists trying to ban the sale of new fossil-fueled vehicles? Probably, it’s because few Americans willingly buy even subsidized EVs. Not only are EVs substantially more expensive to buy, but lots of Americans don’t have a garage where they can charge their EVs overnight. On extended drives, EV drivers suffer from lengthy to intolerable battery recharging times. So there will be a lot of angry Americans driving very old fossil-fueled vehicles instead of expensive new EVs – even angrier when they realize that no climate benefit will result from their sacrifices.

US EV Drivers Won’t Have Green Electricity for Battery Charging

The stated goal of the electrification agenda is to completely replace fossil fuels with “green” electricity – electricity that has been generated with so-called green, clean or renewable energy – primarily wind and solar generation. However, green electricity is very unreliable.

Because wind and solar electric generation can unexpectedly decline to zero, green electric generation needs a 100% firm backup. Currently, firm backup is primarily supplied by existing fossil-fueled power plants. But as fossil generation is replaced by green generation, utilities will need to install firm zero-emission backup – i.e. storage batteries that 100% back up green generation. For one day of firm backup, the world would need about 460 million MWh of battery storage. At the present pricing for Tesla (utility-scale) Megapacks, the initial cost would be about $190 trillion [5]for only a single day of global backup. (Global GDP is about $113 trillion.) Unfortunately, seasonal backup commonly requires over a hundred days of battery storage.

The Clean Air Task Force’s (CATF’s) Executive Director testified to Congress, that the CATF estimated that the cost of California’s 100% green generation with battery backup would be about $1,402/MWh ($1.40/KWh) – i.e. about 7 times California’s already high cost of electric energy. [6] That’s well over $10,000 annually for a typical California home, even though the CATF estimate assumed that battery costs would be 85% less than the US Department of Energy’s current cost estimate. Electricity for vehicle charging would add substantially more.

So far, US electric utility regulators have been unwilling to impose the insufferable electric rate increases that will be required to fund the purchase and installation of 100% battery backup storage facilities. But the regulators certainly know that if they continue to replace fossil generation with green generation, without funding 100% storage battery backup, electricity production will eventually collapse – permanently. Unsurprisingly, California is already experiencing power shortages and has recently backed off plans to retire Diablo Canyon, California’s last nuclear power plant. Even California prefers an aging nuke to very expensive backup batteries.

Ironically, it seems likely that Americans will never charge their EVs with green electricity.

The Real Purpose of Forcing Americans Into EVs

In celebrating his green energy goals and achievements, President Biden emphasizes the green energy jobs created. But the President doesn’t mention that automakers will eventually fail when they are only allowed to sell the EVs that Americans don’t want. Neither does the President mention his humiliating failure to persuade other nations to ban fossil fuels.

There is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that most of the world will not reduce fossil fuel consumption. Most likely that’s because other nations understand how costly it would be to replace fossil energy with green energy. Even the EU and UK have recently backed away from mandating EVs. The President and fellow energy authoritarians surely know that mandating EVs and green electricity in the US will cause substantial economic pain to Americans with no significant climate benefit. So we can only conclude that the real purpose for taking advantage of uninformed Americans is to enrich the green energy industry and to pander to climate alarmists.

Calling Global Warming a Crisis Offends Common Sense

Americans need to understand that claims of climate danger due to global warming have been greatly exaggerated for political purposes. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that substantial warming would likely cause heavy precipitation, heat waves and drought at unknown times and places. But the IPCC absolutely does not predict a climate crisis. Neither does the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Equally important, Americans should know that there is a proven, cost-effective alternative for managing the effects of extreme weather – adaptation. For example, when people migrate from New York City to Miami, the migrants safely enjoy a climate that is an average of 12°C warmer than in New York City. That’s four times warmer than the 3°C of warming that climate alarmists claim is a threat to human existence. Clearly, a warmer climate is not an existential threat.

People routinely and safely adapt to a new climate. In the case of subtropical Miami, New York migrants use air conditioning, and cooler clothing and typically avoid playing tennis or golf at mid-day in the summer. Storm drain systems collect the runoff from heavy subtropical rainfall. If the ocean is gradually rising, coastal property owners can move to higher ground when their existing structures reach the end of their useful life. In the distant future, Dutch-style dikes may also be worthwhile. Weather services use satellite images, instrumented aircraft and computers to warn people where and when to shelter from severe storms.

Calling global warming or climate change a crisis exposes a lack of common sense.

In summary

America’s climate authoritarians:

  • cannot stop global warming and climate change by denying fossil fuels to Americans because the rest of the world is increasing fossil fuel consumption;
  • will fail to provide substantial amounts of green electricity for EV charging, lighting, heating and air conditioning because green energy is prohibitively expensive;
  • are taking advantage of uninformed Americans, apparently to enrich the green energy industry and to pander to climate alarmists;
  • don’t understand that calling global warming a crisis offends common sense; and
  • don’t admit that adaptation is a proven and superior way to manage extreme weather.

So let’s end the futile, inconvenient and intolerably expensive green energy electrification agenda. Let’s tell the American public the truth about EV and green electricity mandates. And encourage the Senate to pass H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.


[1] 2% More Annually: Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis – IEA

[2] Only 18 nations: Renewables Are Key to Cutting Emissions Over Next Decade, U.N. Panel Says – WSJ

[3] Rising Future Emissions: The Production Gap Executive Summary  Published by the Stockholm Environment Institute, UN Environment Programme and others.

[4] Ambassador Kerry: Zero emissions won’t make difference in climate change (

[5] Cost of Battery Storage: Global primary energy consumption in 2022 was 604.04 EJ or about 460 TWh (= 460,000,000 MWh) per day.   Tesla Megapacks cost about $413,000 per MWh. Alex Epstein, Energy Talking Points and

[6] Clean Air Task Force: Excerpts of testimony by Armond Cohen, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force on July 24, 2019, to the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.


Richard Batey received a Bachelor of Science degree (Physics) from Texas A&M University and enjoyed a lengthy career in the electric utility power generation and transmission industry. Rich receives no compensation or other benefits from any employers or sponsors.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

FTC Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Capitalism Magazine earns from qualifying purchases from Amazon links.

Related articles

The Case Against Net Zero 2050

Fossil fuels expert Alex Epstein shares everything you need to know about fossil fuels and what the world would really look like if we were “net zero” by 2050.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest