“It’s hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.” This pearl of wisdom is usually: attributed to Upton Sinclair, but many other thinkers have made similar comments. “Never argue with a man whose job depends on being unconvinced,” was the formulation of HL Mencken.
Anyone who writes or reads about climate change and the technological responses to it will find this truth very familiar. For years, oil companies and their political representatives insisted that climate change was not real, even though their own internal investigation had concluded that it was. When this view became untenable, they shifted to arguments that fighting climate change is compatible with continuing (and even increasing) fossil fuel consumption. While the oil companies rebrand themselves as fighters against climate changethey also fund media campaigns and dishonest “studies” that cast doubt on the green bona fides of electric vehicles and renewable energy.
So the fraudulent arguments of fossil apologists may be morally offensive, but they are understandable. But what about the people who understand and recognize the danger of climate change, but refuse to accept electric vehicles and/or renewable energy?
I personally know many people who fit this description, and I’m sure most of our readers do too. A European friend of mine is a great technophile – he always has the latest and greatest smartphone apps, and we’ve had a lot of discussions about Tesla, solar panels, etc. And yet, when it came time for a new car, he bought a huge gas-guzzling SUV—and constantly tries to convince me that its fuel economy rivals that of my Prius (in fact, the EPA-rated figure is 25 mpg).
Another gentleman of my acquaintance, who has a young daughter, is as liberal as anyone I know – a committed vegan and a staunch advocate of equal rights and environmental justice. And yet, when he recently bought a new home for his young family, he opted for a suburban McMansion that requires a daily round-trip of nearly 100 miles, driving—you guessed it—a gas-powered SUV.
At this point, our conservative friends can say that these are examples of independent, critical thinking. My friends don’t believe in the electric car boondoggle – they realize that electric cars actually pollute more than gas burners, and that the best thing we can all do for the environment is to continue using fossil fuels (“low carbon oil”, “clean diesel” and “clean coal,” perhaps).
However, the “EV’s dirty little secret” argument, which seems to float in social media sewers hundreds of times a day, doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. In a recent series of three articles (“Debunking Common Anti-EV Myths”, share a, two and three), I provide links to dozens of studies that have shown the environmental benefits of EVs over older vehicles.
Could it be that my green-talking SUV-driving friends haven’t read my works? Surely, before making a purchase decision, did they consider all available literature and carefully weigh the various pro-EV and anti-EV arguments?
Well, maybe not. As a psychologist might tell you, we humans are naturally subject to certain biases that often lead us to make decisions without even considering any of the logical arguments for or against a particular choice. As a car salesman might tell you, people make purchasing decisions based on emotion and then use logic to justify them later (my friend who drives the “economy” SUV is a perfect example).
We humans are biased to keep doing things we’ve always done. Americans have become so accustomed to spending two hours of every workday in traffic brooding and cursing that many of us, including my liberal commuter friend, fail to see that it’s insane.
Our biases make us see every new technology through the lens of whoever replaces it. That’s why so many people seem to think that when switching to EVs, all our gas pumps should be replaced with charging stations. Many car buyers are hesitant to go electric because they mistakenly believe it means they have to wait for their car to charge. Policy makers make poor decisions about charger location because they fail to understand that driving patterns will not be the same in an electric ecosystem.
Of course, the disastrous effects of inherent human bias are seen not only at the micro level of individual car buyers, but also at the macro level of politicians and business leaders. Toyota, biased to believe old ways are best, spends a lot of money and prestige to convince G7 policymakers to promote hybrids at the expense of EVs. A California agency that is supposed to promote zero-emission commercial vehicles is instead… funneling money to an advocacy organization for fossil fuels, apparently believes that slightly cleaner diesel and LNG vehicles pose less of a risk than EVs. And, of course, politicians in many countries like the idea of using hydrogen to fuel passenger vehicles against the advice of most scientists and automakers — apparently because they are biased to believe that refueling a vehicle must exist. from pumping and burning something (and because they see a way to get the money flowing out of fossil fuels).
In a recent article, clean-tech consultant Michael Barnard examines several common human biases in the context of climate change policy decisions. “Policymakers, decision-makers and influencers of the core climate action dossier, where we will invest trillions in transformation over the coming years and decades, must have clearer eyes than the average person on the street,” he writes. “They need to work harder to understand their own biases and blind spots, as well as make sure they work with teams and advisors who have different biases and blind spots to make sure groupthink doesn’t lead them down an unfortunate path.”
Barnard cites several examples of bias that lead individuals and leaders to make poor economic decisions. People tend to fear loss much more than gain, leading to people being unenthusiastic about potentially transforming vehicle-to-grid technology (drivers fear losing control of their vehicle charging more than that they value the money they could make from a utility). Americans have been conditioned to believe that we live in ‘the best country in the world’, which blinds us to the fact that we have the least reliable electrical grid of the developed countries. Investing in upgrading and making the network smarter on which we all depend can actually deliver more environmental benefits than pumping money into public chargers that serve only a small number of drivers. We also have “a dysfunctional myth of rugged individualism,” which could lead some to invest in overpriced battery storage systems, while a vehicle-to-home solution could make more economic sense.
Mr. Barnard also addresses the irrational enthusiasm for hydrogen as a vehicle fuel. A century of reliance on liquid or gaseous fuels has left many “stuck in the paradigm of burning things for heat… their prejudice because of their long-standing fame is that the only energy that counts is energy with which you light a match.” .”
Many in the transportation and energy industries have committed themselves to hydrogen in recent decades and are refusing to let it go, even as more recent research shows that while hydrogen can find applications in certain industrial processes, it is an inefficient and expensive way to electric vehicles. “Their confirmation bias prevents them from accepting data that contradicts their biases, and means they rely heavily on weak data to support their biases.”
Barnard has some similar comments about the atomic energy crowd, many of whom “came to this pro-nuclear conclusion in the early to mid-2000s, when it was really uncertain whether wind and solar could scale, be reliable on networks, and They have not updated their past on this subject As a result they are ignoring … the empirical reality of the past twelve years which clearly shows that nuclear energy at best is something that can be useful for the last 5% to 20% of electricity production, not 50% to 80%.Many people cling to perspectives they reached decades ago and don’t update their datasets and analytics for various reasons.”
Mr. Barnard acknowledges that he has his own blind spots and biases, and yes, dear readers, your favorite EV writer has them too. Prejudice doesn’t mean we’re stupid – it means we’re human. Certain biases are embedded in our brains, and some of the strongest biases are those that keep us from taking risks and trying new things. “Updating our priorities” is one of the hardest things for us humans to do, but now that the ecosystem that supports all life on Earth is under threat, and in order to bring about the kind of radical change that is needed, we will have to face. prejudice and overcome.
Originally posted on EVANEX.
by Charles Morris
Do you appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality and cleantech news coverage? Consider becoming one CleanTechnica member, supporter, technician or ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
