EVs are 'for your health'? Not buying it …

EVs are 'for your health'? Not buying it …

EVs are 'for your health'? Not buying it …

The Biden administration is taking new steps to push Americans toward electric vehicles (EVs). But not everyone is buying the administration's claim that its push is meant to "protect public health."


The administration announced more aggressive tailpipe emissions Wednesday. They will impact model years 2027 through 2032. The stated purpose is to achieve carbon emissions reductions of nearly 10 billion tons by mid-century. The best way for automakers to achieve this, according to the administration, is to transition toward electric vehicles.

But Jack Spencer, senior research fellow for Energy and Environmental Policy for The Heritage Foundation, has concerns. "It's specifically forcing a product on the American people [who] have demonstrated they're not interested in in the mass quantities that the Biden administration is trying to force upon them," says Spencer.

Morano, Marc (Climate Depot) Morano

Marc Morano of Climate Depot echoes Spencer's concerns. "This is about forcing electric vehicles on the American public by banning gas-powered cars, by bypassing democracy," he says. "This is the Great Car Reset: 'You will go nowhere and you will be happy.' This is essentially mandating car shortages for Americans to force them into mass transit."

In making the announcement, EPA Administrator Michael Regan argued Americans can "feel the weight and the urgency the climate crisis demands." He continued:

"At EPA we have the responsibility to meet that urgency with action. As a father of a 9-year-old, I can assure you that there is no greater priority for me than protecting the health and well-being of our children, ensuring that they have a safe, healthy, and reliable future."

Responding to Regan's remarks, Morano says "no one should be fooled by invoking the children or pollution or the climate crisis."

Spencer also has his doubts about Regan's comments. "The entire Biden agenda is predicated on this notion of protecting the public health when, in fact, it would do nothing of the sort," he says. "Indeed, I would argue it would be harmful to public health because it will make people poorer and less able to get good jobs – and economic prosperity is one of the primary metrics that lead to good health throughout society."

How about letting the free market make the decision?

A new AP-NORC poll does show that many Americans are not yet sold on going electric for their next cars. The reason? High prices and lack of charging stations. "About four in ten U.S. adults are at least somewhat likely to switch, but the history-making shift from the country's century-plus love affair with gas-driven vehicles still has a ways to travel," the AP reports.

To date, only 8% of U.S. adults say they or someone in their household owns or leases an electric vehicle, and just 8% say their household has a plug-in hybrid vehicle.

Spencer, Jack (Heritage Foundation) Spencer

"I'm not against EVs at all," Spencer clarifies. "What I'm for is competition; and if one wants EVs to be successful, the best way to achieve that is by allowing them to compete fairly with other alternatives like internal combustion engines."

This isn't the first time individuals on the center-right have been concerned about the free market and or environmental efforts by the Left. Still, some Americans are not aware of these viewpoints – because, according to Spencer, some news outlets downplay them … if they even bothered to include them at all.

"It's often the case that conservatives are not included in news analysis of this left-wing agenda because we question the narrative," says Spencer. "We put in proper context what the actual results of these actual results of these policies will be. And we point out that it will lead to lower quality, higher prices, no better environmental outcomes."

Morano also claims news outlets leave skeptics out of the picture when it comes to reporting.