Zero-emission vehicles are driving this debate

While I felt that Sara Almerri provided some information worth considering, I believe she vastly overstated any negative impact that ZEV mandates will have on low- and middle-income families, while ignoring the many benefits (environmental, health and long term savings) of the proposed adoption of California’s zero-emission mandate.

I am especially concerned about her statement that Coloradans can reduce emissions even more than has been done in California by embracing more technology and innovation. I would like to hear some specific examples of these. This seems like a vague non-answer to address climate change.

Sara Almerri accurately points out that a mandate in support of electric vehicles is destined to impact most those who can least afford it: rural residents with limited access to electric charging stations and low-income people who cannot afford zero-emission vehicles.

At the very least, the mandate should go before Colorado voters, or through elected Colorado legislators. As I read Almerri’s article, I could not help but be struck by the undertones I got from reading the commentary “Growing Divide,” by Robert B.talisse (Perspective, Aug. 11). I suggest that feelings surrounding anything that gets rid of fossil fuels are automatically positive.

Mandating ZEVS, however, provides tax breaks to big corporations and penalizes farmers and low-income citizens dependent on gas burning vehicles, while overlooking inconvenient truths such as battery plants and charging stations often are powered by fossil fuels.

I love that technologists are finding alternatives to fossil fuels and the associated greenhouse gasses they emit. I am troubled by the feeling that anything electric is automatically good and should be stuffed down the public’s throat without their say on the matter. Colorado is not California, and our voters and their representatives should determine if and when we mandate ZEVS.

It has now become common to refer to electric cars as zero-emission vehicles. Rarely is a name so inappropriate and misleading. Although there are no emissions coming directly from the vehicle, there are still very real emissions directly associated with the vehicle at every stage of its life.

City dwellers may benefit from decreased pollution, but those living where electricity is produced, where the cars are manufactured, and where mining operations for the batteries take place, will suffer. The zero-emission lie must stop before people trick themselves (or are tricked) into thinking they’re “saving the planet” when in fact the pollution is simply being hidden from the consumers responsible for it.