Why can’t they just give you the facts – rather than lie about them?
Well, for the obvious reasons. The first one being they’re paid to lie about them. The second being they may not even realize they’re lying.
Most of today’s “journalists” being the product of a government education. The process instills in them an instinctive urge to hew to the orthodoxies, which they immediately apprehend without having to give them thought. They must be true because they would not otherwise be orthodoxies. Imagine a herd of geese. One begins to honk and flap its wings. In short order, they are all honking and flapping their wings.
Such geese are ideally suited to honking and flapping on behalf of the government – and the corporations that own it.
For example, this “news” story published the other day by CNBC, which gives you the orthodox take on the facts, rather than the facts, themselves:
“California regulators on Friday voted to ban the sale of new diesel big rigs by 2036 and require all trucks to be zero-emissions by 2042, a decision that puts the state at the forefront of mitigating national tailpipe pollution.”
Marvel at the unconscious effrontery of thing.
It is true enough that “California regulators” – more accurately and so honestly described as unelected bureaucrats with plenipotentiary powers to issue decrees that have the force of law – have banned the sale of diesel-powered heavy trucks by 2036. But did these “regulators,” as they are blandly styled, “require all trucks to be zero emissions by 2024”?
They required them to be “zero emissions” at the tailpipe – which electrically powered appliances lack. There is no requirement that they not produce “emissions” – as non-reactive gasses are now styled, to convey the lie that they are responsible for pollution as opposed to being a tool, for politics.
Whatever your opinion about “climate change,” to use the word “pollution” to describe a non-reactive gas that does not “pollute” anything is either ignorant or despicable – being profoundly dishonest. Maybe – to momentarily allow, for the sake of civil discussion – the “climate” is “changing” as a result of fractional increases in the fractional portion (0.04 percent) of the Earth’s atmosphere that is C02.
Of course, to state it that way – honestly, accurately – renders the suggestion improbable, even silly. So, instead, the matter is framed as being about “pollution” – a thing with some reality that most people (reasonably) do not want more of.
“Supporters of the rule say it will improve public health in marginalized communities that have endured polluted air while mitigating the effects of climate change. ”
Flim meet flam.
Only it is something more than just that in that many of the purveyors of these lies seem to genuinely believe them to be true. In the same way a child genuinely believes in the Tooth Fairy. Both having been conditioned to believe (and to not question) by authority. With the difference being that “journalists” aren’t children – at least not chronologically.
And so they recite the lies they believe are true – having been conditioned by government schooling to not notice (or to reflexively suppress) logical fallacies, leave shifty definitions unexamined – and so on.
In accurate – and so, honest – language, the unelected bureaucrats of California’s Air Resources Board (the body with plenipotentiary powers) have decreed that source of the “emissions” they imply are pollutants must emanate from elsewhere.
That is not the same thing as “zero emissions,” is it?
Instead of a number of individual trucks’ tailpipes, the “emissions” will emanate from a smaller number of smokestacks. Probably in greater quantity, too – as the amount of electricity that is necessary to move a heavy truck that weighs more than a dozen electric cars – plus the ones it is carrying, as to the dealership that sells them – will be orders of magnitude more than the amount of electricity necessary to propel a single electric car down the highway. Not to mention the “emissions” associated with the manufacturing of the storage device for all of that electricity – i.e., the battery.
A light-duty electric truck such as the Ford Lightning lugs around about a ton of battery, which is why this half-ton truck (in terms of how it is categorized) is in fact a three ton truck, with a curb weight well over 6,000 lbs. Which makes it a very heavy truck, indeed.
How much heavier would an electric flatbed truck that carries six three ton Lightnings from the plant to the dealer need to be, in order to haul them without “emitting” anything at the tailpipe? How much would actual pollution – as for example highly reactive and non-renewable lithium, for instance – would be generated as a byproduct (and direct product) of manufacturing even a single 16,000 pound storage device (CNBC’s estimate) to contain the electricity necessary to power just one such rig?
There are about 2 million heavy trucks (not the electric kind) currently in use in California, with about 30,000 of them serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, where much of what is transported by truck to the rest of the country first arrives in the country. Do some rough math and times 16,000 times 30,000 – or two million – to get a sense of the pollution that will arise as a result of California’s bureaucrats requiring “zero emissions” . . . at the tailpipe.
This is what comes of the “emissions” of “journalists” who fail to articulate and convey the facts – being largely incapable of understanding what they are, courtesy of the “education” they received.
And the politics they believe.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!