Would You Believe a Tesla Model S Causes More Pollution than a BMW 3 Series?

Would You Believe a Tesla Model S Causes More Pollution than a BMW 3 Series?

How is it possible an all-electric car could cause more pollution than a standard gasoline-powered vehicle?

According to a recent report in Bloomberg, a Tesla Model S may indirectly cause more pollution than a BMW 320i in Hong Kong, where more than half its power generation relies on coal. The city’s Environmental Protection Department said that about 53 percent of Hong Kong’s power is generated from coal as of 2012, compared with about 22 percent each for nuclear and natural gas. In mainland China, that number gets higher with coal accounting for over 60 percent of primary energy.

As a result, the energy required to charge a Tesla Model S causes almost 20 percent more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-fueled motors, says Neil Beveridge, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein.

SEE ALSO: Tesla Model S Categorized as a ‘High Polluter’ in Singapore

Over a lifetime of 93,205 miles (150,000 kilometers), a Tesla Model S in Hong Kong may result in the release of 4.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide more than a BMW 320i, after you take into account the carbon intensity of the city’s power generation and the production of the car battery, in addition to crude oil extraction, transportation and refining.

Naturally, these numbers change if a country or city relies on other forms of energy generation that are less polluting.

“Electric vehicles only make sense in countries where the carbon intensity of electricity generation is low,” said Beveridge in a report. “In Hong Kong, and more broadly China, electric vehicles are increasing rather than reducing pollution, with taxpayers effectively being asked to subsidize this.”

[Source: Bloomberg]

Discuss this story on our Tesla Forum

  • bobcat4424

    This is just anti-Tesla propaganda. Tesla’s free superchargers are completely solar powered. Most of the regular chargers are also solar powered. The Tesla chargers in people’s homes can be fed by either solar or off-peak electric. That it makes more pollution that one of the world’s more poorly made cars is completely fallacious.

  • robert chance

    Tl;dr. Misleading headline. What you meant to write is that energy production in east Asia is more harmful to the environment that energy production in the states. Nice try to relate two independent events. I guess cause and effect isn’t your strong point.

  • Kelsey George

    I made a Tesla 3 reservation but I’m under no illusions that I’m saving the planet by doing so. Mostly it’s a fast, fun car AND Uncle Barack and Grandpa Jerry will give me between $6,250 and $10,000 of my taxes back. I won’t have to pay for overpriced CA gas taxes and the refinery monopoly to make it go ‘vroom’ (although it won’t really make a satisfying noise). Then my Uncle will give me more money ($10k or so) to install solar on my roof in order to charge my new toy. Luckily my hard-working 2nd cousin in China, Jinping, will make all these nice solar panels and mine the rare earth elements to make my Tesla batteries, he’ll do it on credit because he trusts my uncle to pay him back someday. He’ll need to burn more coal to make all this nice stuff, A LOT more coal, but the world has many millennia of coal reserves left. So no biggie. Should Jinping buy a Tesla 3? Without having a generous grandpa and uncle like I do, he should probably stick with the BMW. Oil is cheap these days anyway.

  • EricT

    Not all Superchargers are solar powered, some are not all of them. You do bring up a good point though, this article is rife with irregularities, saying the only way to charge in China is on the grid is ridiculous.

  • Jony

    Bad analysis. Crap logic. Outright irrelevant conclusions. And not all electricity is produced by coal in China.

  • smartacus

    i’m not a fan of heavy cars.

  • Alec Sevins

    Hopefully, articles like this won’t encourage even more landscape-destroying wind turbines, the most insidious form of “clean” energy foisted upon this planet. There are footprints that matter besides carbon and many environmentalists have forgotten that in their zeal to spike the Earth’s scenery into oblivion. Rooftop solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and (safely done) nuclear power are more environmentally responsible than industrial wind power.

  • Alec Sevins

    You come across as a glutton who doesn’t understand fossil fuel peaking and depletion, and doesn’t care. Elon Musk’s vision has always revolved around the downsides of oil, which is finite regardless of price. A truly wise society would never squander a finite, irreplaceable resource for selfish wants.

    But we’ll never have an all-electric economy because there just isn’t enough power density and portability in batteries, and “renewable” infrastructure requires fossil fuels at most points in its manufacture.

  • James

    My understanding was that an EV car using all coal powered electricity accounted for about half as much CO2 as a petrol powered car emits from its exhaust. Theory was that a centralised power plant such as a coal powered electricity plant is more efficient than small internal combustion engines. And then down the track when renewables are added to the mix, that percentage will continue to drop. Im not sure i believe the article…

  • Steve Welsh

    It’s amazing that all those qualifers to prop up the thesis only appear late in the story. It would almost appear that the “journalist” had an agenda.

  • Illuminati

    You forgot to cite a paragraph of this report:

    Beveridge is a Hong Kong-based analyst who covers the oil and gas industry. He holds a long position in BP Plc, according to the report. He has “market perform” recommendations on China’s biggest oil and gas producer, PetroChina Co., and Asia’s biggest refiner, China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. He’s ranked liquefied natural gas producers Santos Ltd., InterOil Corp. and Inpex Corp. as “outperform.”

  • Illuminati

    There is no rare earth elements in a Tesla battery.

  • JR250

    This confirms it: the oil industry is running an active campaign to convince those with less than 2 working neurons that EVs are more polluting than ICE. So far I’ve seen this “report”, the one at Bloomberg and Discovery News’s channel on YouTube. A fantastic amount of bullshit.

  • Chris

    Fossil fuel generated electricity needs to go… yeah… I think that’s been mentioned once or twice… we’re adding renewable generation ~10x faster than EV consumption…

  • Buzz Fledderjohn

    The notion is absurd from the get-go. Think of it. The BMW gets all of 19mpg and the Tesla gets 85mpge. Even on 100% coal the Tesla produces less greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Buzz Fledderjohn

    Regardless of your personal aesthetic opinion on wind turbines (I think they look cool), the footprint of wind has huge advantages in that the land they occupy can also be farmed. Farmers love wind turbines because they receive revenues from their property in addition to their normal farming activities. It’s a win-win-win.

  • Buzz Fledderjohn

    What about safe cars?

  • smartacus

    sure i like safe cars. I don’t own a FIAT, Chrysler, or Dodge.
    and i don’t buy Dunlop/ Goodyear tires either 🙂

  • wcjeep

    What about the cradle to grave emissions of the Tesla vs BMW?

  • pmagn

    Bs even with coal EV cleaner.
    Y you say may in ur article.

  • Buzz Fledderjohn

    Tesla is about the safest car you can buy primarily due to weight. Also helps not having an engine in the front.

  • William Miller

    What a stupid article. The author is either an idiot or being paid off.

  • Alan Dean Foster

    I’m curious. Did Autoguide reprint this already discredited article because:
    1) They have hardly any used Teslas to sell/talk about.
    2) Somebody paid them to reprint it.
    3) It’s cheap clickbait and the site doesn’t give a damn about accuracy as long as a piece will draw eyes.

  • Bert

    Your logic is flawed, but your conclusion is correct. The MPGe figure speaks only to the energy efficiency of the vehicle, not to the emissions produced in the creation of that energy. The emissions per unit energy change depending on your energy source. That said, you still arrived at the correct conclusion.

  • Ken

    That Hong Kong based “analyst” is brain dead. His findings have been completely proved wrong.

    From the EPA (multiple studies): Battery Electric cars are significantly cleaner than gasoline cars no matter the carbon intensity of the grid.

    The author of this article should have done some 4th grade lever research before repeating such incompetent drivel.

  • Len

    It’s both.

  • Tam Hunt

    These studies are shortsighted. Even if accurate today (or using 2012 data as this report does) they won’t be accurate in just a few years, let alone in a decade or two, because the world’s grids are changing rapidly to renewables and other non-fossil fuel forms of electric generation. Subsidies for EVs, whether in the US or China, are all about promoting a large-scale shift away from fossil fuels over the coming decades. So even if some parts of the US or the world where coal is still prevalent have negative impacts on CO2 today, that will be very different during the lifetime of the vehicle, let alone the decades to come.

  • smartacus

    i don’t have an engine up front in mine either. I like being able to turn on a dime and brake like hitting a brick wall.
    I’m not a fan of heavy cars. i’m a big believer in Colin Chapman’s philosophy of “add lightness”

  • VulpineMac

    I’d give you #s 2 and 3, Alan.

  • VulpineMac

    Still cleaner because the car is greater than 99% recyclable. About the only non-recyclable parts are the tires and there are ways to even re-use tire material.

  • VulpineMac

    Based on your own description, you apparently have a very unsafe car. While I agree with “adding lightness”, there is a point where you develop a reverse effect. In a collision, much of the energy from the other vehicle is transferred to your own, making it take that much longer to bleed off the energy of the collision.

    And just because a car is a Fiat, Dodge or Chrysler doesn’t make it an unsafe car; there are others that do far worse than FCA when it comes to safety.

  • VulpineMac

    Alec, I was about to vote up your comment, until your last sentence; it makes an assumption that is not valid at any point. Power density is increasing at a steady rate and with increased power density you get increased portability. Additionally, nearly every aspect of the infrastructure for powering, building and recycling them can be electrically powered, requiring absolutely no fossil fuels in the future. It’s just a matter of time and the expansion of BEVs (Battery-Electric Vehicles) into our everyday lives shows just how rapidly we’re heading into that future.

  • Ahmad Ali Barakat

    With all my respect to this anal-izer 🙂
    Tesla has made no pollution, it’s not Tesla’s fault if you generate your electricity of coal or even bull shit.
    You could use wind, sun, or water anal-izer 😉

  • smartacus

    -actually just the opposite; my vehicle is the epitome of safety.
    It can even hold many times its own weight on the roof without buckling.
    It has been tested by ramming it straight into a wall at double the government test speed.
    And side-intrusions while being T-boned are flat out impossible.

    -FYI about energy transfer:
    if two vehicles both travel at 100MPH and collide head-on;
    the impact is not 200MPH of collective impact, but 100MPH.
    Even if the other vehicle is 3000lbs heavier.

  • Kelsey George

    You’re correct, edited to fix. I was thinking of the Prius – there are no permanent magnets in AC induction motors, or any rare earth minerals in their batteries. I’ve been reading that Tesla’s Gigafactory is sourcing cobalt and graphite from Canada and lithium from pretty much wherever they can find enough – including China. My concern is that in a new ‘green economy’ we’ll see traditional industries continue to migrate to parts of the world that aren’t hung up on carbon footprints. Looks like Musk is worried about that too and is making as much of their cars in the USA as they can. It’s the right thing to do if you run companies that have benefited from more than $4.9 billion in federal and state government subsidies.

  • Kelsey George

    Too much of ‘news’ is clickbait

  • thedad

    We dont currently recycle lithium ion batteries….Just FYI

  • VulpineMac

    And you have the physics to prove it?

  • smartacus

    OH YES i MOST CERTAINLY DO have the physics to prove it!!
    And it is common knowledge to!!

    When two vehicles collide head-on at their respective speeds, the opposing force of impact is not the sum of both velocities.

  • VulpineMac

    The energy IS the collective sum of both vehicles.

  • Transpower

    CO2 is NOT a pollutant. CO and NOx are.

  • VulpineMac

    Just because the average consumer doesn’t send his batteries to be recycled doesn’t mean they can’t be and aren’t.

  • smartacus

    Let me try to explain it to you again with a simpler example:
    if two vehicles collide at 5MPH, the force of impact imparted on both of their front bumpers does NOT equal the force of 10MPH.

  • thedad

    The problem is we dont do it in the USA. There is nobody currently recycling these as its not cost effective and the law doesnt require it.
    They go to the landfill right now no matter where you take them.
    Like back in the day before you could recycle alkaline batteries.

  • VulpineMac

    Yes it does.

  • smartacus

    LOL no it does not 🙂
    But i like how confident you are that nobody will ever prove you wrong

    Let me try to explain it to you again, but this time i will use EVEN SIMPLER logic:

    two vehicles: both doing 5 MPH each, they collide head on.
    You say both vehicles will sustain 10MPH worth of damage because 5+5=10

    You say the left vehicle absorbed its own 5MPH plus the right vehicle’s 5MPH
    You say the right vehicle absorbed its own 5MPH plus the left vehicle’s 5MPH

    That is impossible because 10MPH +10MPH = 20MPH

  • VulpineMac

    I’m waiting for you to prove yourself. Saying the same thing over and over is not proof.

  • smartacus

    except i DID prove myself over and over.
    it’s getting harder to dumb it down for you, but here goes:

    two 5MPH billiard balls collide:
    do they both roll in opposite directions at 5MPH
    or do they both go 10MPH because both felt 10MPH?

  • VulpineMac

    I really suggest you study physics. You have yet to prove your arguments, you simply re-word them.

    *two 5MPH billiard balls collide:
    do they both roll in opposite directions at 5MPH
    or do they both go 10MPH because both felt 10MPH?”

    5mph + 5mph = 10mph. The two collide at a combined 10mph and separate at a combined 10mph. Conservation of energy.

  • smartacus

    wrongo! 🙂 When i explained how 5mph + 5mph =10mph means just that, 10MPH total; and how there is no such thing as one billiard ball absorbing 10MPH while the other absorbs zeroMPH, much less your fallacy of one billiard ball absorbing 10MPH while the other ALSO absorbing 10MPH, you in all your confidence in you fallacy said No it’s not.

    *Now you are stuck in another fallacy:
    You don’t realize if you hit a car with a 10,000 ton train vs hitting a car with just the locomotive; that car will behave exactly the same.

    and NO i will not ask some genius traffic cop dipping from her can of Copenhagen for her opinion.

  • VulpineMac

    “You don’t realize if you hit a car with a 10,000 ton train vs hitting a car with just the locomotive; that car will behave exactly the same.”

    Exactly the same? You’re sure about that? It will only go 100 yards down the track and not 1,000? I’ve mentioned conservation of energy before. Try again. And trying to differentiate an 800-ton or more locomotive from a 10,000 ton train (I see you’re using a local freight for this) is ludicrous; ALL the energy is in the train by comparison, even if the car were racing down the track for a head-on collision at 100mph. The worst the train would feel is a slight bump unless some part of the car got under the wheels and derailed it.

  • VulpineMac

    “and NO i will not ask some genius traffic cop dipping from her can of Copenhagen for her opinion.”

    Then go to your local high school physics teacher.

  • smartacus

    OK with that, you have lost.
    if i push a garbage can across the driveway with my hands
    vs push a garbage can across the driveway with a 5,000 lb truck. The can will behave exactly the same, genius 🙂

    You just said your logic dictates the truck will punt it off into the next county by virtue of its weight.

    It’s one thing to lose, it’s another to keep going just to enjoy watching yourself destroy your reputation altogether. Is your name Ted Cruz?

  • smartacus

    with all due respect; at this point, you are the one who desperately needs a physics lesson. I have been giving you example of explanation over and over, while all you can offer is short answers like ” uh, no it’s not”

    Feigning confidence like that only betrays the truth of your lack of neuroplasticity. You didn’t have to look unintelligent. Why did you go out of your way to expose yourself. I just don’t get it? Masochism?

  • VulpineMac

    Then give me PROOF and not some silly argument that doesn’t even begin to demonstrate what you’re trying to say.

  • smartacus

    LOL, i never said that 🙂
    You say the car will sustain 35MPH of damage and if the train had soft enough bumpers will also sustain 35MPH of damage,

    Let me try to give you visual proof
    do a search for a crash test video,
    here i’ll make it easy for you

    do two searches: “2015 F150 frontal” and “F150 vs civic”

    OK you will see how the F150 bounces up IDENTICALLY against the wall vs against the Civic.

    *Thereby proving my two points once and for all:

    -The vehicles DON’T sustain damage equal to the total sum of the velocities of both velocities.
    -And both vehicles don’t sustain damage proportional to which one is heavier.

    Your Tesla may be a lot heavier, which is dandy if you love tire wear and road repair,
    But unless you are much much heavier because you are towing a bulldozer or something, it won’t continue plowing forward while some small car collides with it.
    AAAAAND the smaller car is not gonna absorb it’s own speed plus the speed of the heavier car.

  • VulpineMac

    If both vehicles were of equal weight, one traveling at 0mph and the other at 35mph, well, 35 ÷ 2 =17.5, so each would receive 17.5mph of damage.

  • smartacus

    according to you:
    if two identical 35MPH cars collide,
    they will both sustain 70MPH worth of damage

  • VulpineMac

    Between them, yes.

  • smartacus

    Go back to your example:
    Two identical cars:
    one 35MPH car and one 0MPH car
    35 ÷ 2 = 17.5MPH worth of damage to each.

    In Other Words:
    car 1 causes [35MPH÷ 2] worth of damage to each
    car 2 causes [0MPH÷ 2] worth of damage to each

    car 1 causes 17.5MPH worth of damage to each
    car 2 causes 0MPH worth of damage to each

    car 1 and car 2 together cause 17.5MPH worth of damage to each

    *Now make the 0MPH car a 35MPH car; so both cars are 35MPH cars

    car 1 causes [35MPH ÷ 2] worth of damage to each
    car 2 causes [35MPH ÷ 2] worth of damage to each

    car 1 causes 17.5MPH worth of damage to each
    car 2 causes 17.5MPH worth of damage to each

    car 1 and car 2 together cause 35MPH worth of damage to each

    ** For the stationary car example, you can also say:
    [35MPH damage ÷ 2] + [0MPH damage ÷ 2]
    = [17.5 MPH damage to each] + [0MPH damage to each]
    = 17.5MPH damage to each

    For the matching speed example, you can also say
    [35MPH damage ÷ 2] + [35MPH damage ÷ 2]
    = [17.5MPH damage to each] + [17.5MPH damage to each ]
    = 35MPH damage to each

    ***Finally; you can also say:
    [35MPH damage ÷ 2] + [35MPH damage ÷ 2] = [70MPH damage ÷ 2] = 35MPH damage to each

  • VulpineMac

    But you just acknowledged my point; that the total damage is 70mph worth of damage. Whichever vehicle is lighter will see more than half the damage as evidenced by a Buick hitting a JKU Wrangler and the Wrangler driving away from it. (I witnessed this.)

  • smartacus

    Except that is still as wrong today as it was yesterday.
    And now you are also wrong about the Wrangler.

    You disagreed with me when i said the damage to car1 will be 35MPH while the damage to car2 will also be 35MPH.

    You said car1 gets 70MPH worth of damage and car2 ALSO gets 70MPH worth of damage.

    *and i don’t know why you bothered humiliating yourself with your Wrangler vs Buick example. Why did you bluff and say the Wrangler is heavier than a Buick?

    i dunno; i’m not used to this new trend of you grade-school kids wearing a “kick me” sign and fantasizing about shaming parties.

  • VulpineMac

    No, I disagreed with you when you said the vehicles would only SEE 35mph in the collision. I NEVER said each car would get 70mph worth of damage. The passengers would feel all 70mph of collision in both vehicles.

    “Why did you bluff and say the Wrangler is heavier than a Buick?”
    Because the JKU Wrangler IS heavier than a Buick sedan, by more than 1,000 pounds. How do I know? I own one. The Buick weighs in at 3600 pounds. The Wrangler weighs in at 4600 pounds plus. The Wrangler drove away from a crash that totaled the Buick. And no, I’m talking about a lightly modified JKU on 35″ tires and 2″ lift.

    And believe me; I’m no ‘grade school kid.’

  • smartacus

    now you are even more wrong than ever.
    AAAnd now you’re lying too??

    -No i did not say the vehicles would only SEE 35MPH. Cars don’t have eyes.
    -No you did NOT disagree with me about cars having eyes.
    You certainly DID disagree with me about both sides only taking the impact of their own decelerations.
    -And you DID say both sides will feel their own deceleration as well as the other’s deceleration.

    Now you are even more wrong and on top of that trying to bluff that oh you meant all passengers would feel all the 70MPH worth of collision in both vehicles. You are wrong in two ways: because you just got finished saying you agree and understand that both cars only feel their respective 35MPH decelerations…
    and because occupants of both cars would only feel the deceleration of their own 35MPH and not the deceleration of 70MPH.

    **Now you are covering your bluff with another bluff.

    When i corrected you that the Wrangler is lighter, you had to quickly scramble to cover your tracks and say no no no you meant the Wrangler Unlimited. LOL, if you meant the Wrangler Unlimited model, you would have said Wrangler Unlimited in the first place. That is like calling a MazdaSpeed6 a Mazda6. Nobody makes that mistake.
    The heaviest possible Unlimited is 4,340lbs and you are saying you are at 4600lbs just by your 35″ setup and 2″ lift??

    NTM there is no such thing as an owner of a super eco-friendly Unlimited (and Unlimited with those fuel efficient 35″ tires and 2″ lift) also being an alternate fuel saving Tesla fan.

    uh huh, and what model Buick weighs 3,600lbs? Buick Cascada?

    And oh yes you certainly fib and cover your fibs like a grade school kid. Believe me; you’re no Ted Cruz.

  • VulpineMac

    If I didn’t know better, I’d say I know you from another name. At least that one was consistent, however.

    I suggest you learn some real science instead of the pseudo-science you’re trying to pass off. I’m willing to bet you don’t believe humans have affected Earth’s climate, either. What about the validity of electric cars? What about the subject of the article, instead of this ridiculous diversion of which you have YET to prove your argument with real science? You’ve taken this argument to the ludicrous which only proves you’ve run out of rebuttals that even begin to make sense.

    Good bye, not-smart-a-cuss.

  • smartacus

    your reply going off in three different directions like that is a sign of lack of focus. No wonder you couldn’t grasp the concepts.

    And nobody was attacking your Beliefs in Global Warming.
    Nobody was asking you to bake a cake about Climate Change Is Between One Mankind and One Earth.

  • VulpineMac

    I suggest you read the article again before replying. YOU are the one who went off in three different directions. The subject of the article has everything to do with the BEV and global pollution.

  • smartacus

    uh…no it was YOU who went off in three directions just now when it became painfully obvious you were wrong.
    It hurt you when you realized you were wrong about magically doubling the energy of impact so you are trying to steer in another direction to see if something will work.

  • Wayne Michaels

    Yeah, and farmers love ethanol too, because the taxpayer is funding their “revenues”. When either one of them can stay in business without taxpayer subsidies or government (taxpayer-funded) incentives, let me know.

  • Gregg Fritz

    This is why we can’t launch mass electric cars quickly. Our infrastructure for electrical distribution is predominantly coal based. Nuclear is the only way you can power mass electric vehicles, and well that is proving to be not such a great idea either…

  • Gregg Fritz

    Tires chopped up into little pieces make great substrate for swimming pools.

  • Bug S Bunny


  • owlafaye

    Correct, and Tesla is moving into this future at a pace the electric grid can keep up with. Coal is on the way out just like ICEngined cars are on the way out.

  • owlafaye

    Anything with “Tesla” in the title is click bait. Don’t think for one moment that financial analysts don’t see this also. Musk has the tiger by the tail.

  • owlafaye

    Wind mills do not return the investment over their lifetime. They are 100% subsidized by government. Biggest BS in energy going.

  • owlafaye

    Sure, in a head on collision between two cars traveling at equal speeds, each car functions as an unmovable barrier. There is no multiplying effect. Unequal speeds is another thing and a direct effect equal to the disparity in speeds.

  • owlafaye

    correct, better said

  • owlafaye

    No, it isn’t

  • owlafaye

    Could be we must speak clear, monosyllabic English when answering you VulpineMac. We should also type slowly.

  • owlafaye

    Now you are cadging your assertions into assumptions or do you change the argument to suit your lack of information?

  • owlafaye

    You are talking through your hat. If I hit a concrete wall at 35 mph I will feel 35 mph worth of impact. Hitting a car traveling 35 mph and hitting it head on is EXACTLY the same. The point of impact is an unmovable barrier for both cars.

  • owlafaye

    Time to IGNORE him.

    Impacting a wall is the same as impacting a car head on if it is traveling at the same speed you are traveling. There is no multiplicity in either scenario. He will never “get it” because he is naturally Ignorant and proud of it.

  • VulpineMac

    Don’t forget mass.
    We just had a crash this past weekend where a late-model Chevy Silverado hit a late-model Chevy Malibu (that was in the wrong lane) head-on and the Malibu took the lion’s share of the damage. The passengers (and driver) of the Malibu have no more worries; their lives are over. The Malibu, by the way, was the one speeding.

  • Carl Raymond S

    Renewable infrastructure requires energy at most points in its manufacture. As the production of energy gets cleaner, the production of energy infrastructure gets cleaner. Eventually you hit 100% RE – problem solved.
    Yes, steelmaking uses coke. But scrap steel recycling does not. There are quite a few oil tankers and oil pipelines that will make good scrap.

  • DGJC

    It figures your conservative infowars site would ban me. Conservatives hate people who try to educate them.

    Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

  • DGJC

    It’s ironic that you’d call liberals brainwashed sheep and yet you belong to the political party that thinks global warming isn’t real and evolution is just a “theory” and therefore only hypothetical. As a college professor, and author of four published books, not only do I think for myself, I get myself students to do the same, and I have yet to find one that went from being a liberal to a conservative. It’s vice versa. Education does that to you. Get some….by the way, the pope not only believes evolution happened, he also believes the Big Bang Theory. Oops!!

  • BruceofCanuckistan

    They hold several days of charge now even for the 90% percentile commuter. So they could be charged using solar and wind, as power is available, if you have a smart grid, and widespread charging stations, and…

  • BruceofCanuckistan

    They might also be given a second life. A car battery with only 60% capacity is annoying, but it could do several years of good service as grid storage.