Ronnie Schreiber helps us hone our bullshit detectors

Ronnie Schreiber recently submitted a comment to our story, “Peter DeLorenzo draws questionable lessons from automotive history.” What follows is his entire comment in unedited form:

“I find it interesting that the environmentalists who warned us about supposedly ‘peak oil’ are silent on the topic of whether there is enough generating capacity to power transportation and whether or not there is enough recoverable virgin copper to make all those electric motors. They’re also pretty much silent on the environmental and societal costs of mining cobalt, lithium, and the rare earths needed for those motors’ magnets.”

In a previous story (go here) I suggested that the Internet was still in a “wild west” phase, so it is important to keep one’s bullshit detector well honed. Let’s use Schreiber’s comment as a case study.

Are environmentalists silent on electricity capacity?

It isn’t clear from Schreiber’s comment which environmentalists he has in mind who warned about “peak oil” but are silent about generating enough power for an electrified transportation system. Perhaps he can name names.

In the absence of him doing so, I can only go on what I found in my own research. I saw a fair amount of discussion by environmental activists, scholars and policy analysts about the need to update the nation’s aging power production and distribution system.

Indeed, a major component of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is dedicated to increasing electricity production — including with nuclear power — and building a more resilient distribution grid (Larson and Rodgers, 2022; Silverstein, 2022).

Also see ‘Popularity of SUVs could offset climate advantages of EVs’

Even with new federal money, electrification advocates in California have expressed concerns that the state isn’t moving fast enough to meet policy goals. For example, David Victor, the co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at UC San Diego, told CalMatters, “We’re going to have to expand the grid at a radically much faster rate” (Lopez, 2023).

At the national level, the Sierra Club supports expanded use of renewable energy but notes that “we need [a] massive transmission buildout” to integrate it into the power grid (Wannier, 2022). Meanwhile, the Audubon Society (2019) has argued that wind and solar “require batteries or other devices to hold energy produced at peak times for use later. New state laws can force reluctant utilities to pilot energy-storage projects.”

One can reasonably disagree with any of these views. However, that’s a different animal than saying environmentalists have been silent about power generation.

But what about the negative impacts of mining?

By the same token, if Schreiber had dug a little deeper, he would know that there is more than one side to the story that we are running out of copper (Root, 2023). He would also know that rare earth mineral mining has been a robust topic of debate among environmentalists.

For example, last month The Revelator discussed the environmental and social problems with dramatically increasing mining needed for electric-vehicle batteries. Tim Lydon (2023) highlighted a number of examples of how proposed mines can conflict with traditional environmental-protection goals — and the differing ways that activist groups have responded to these conflicts.

Environmental studies professor James Morton Turner (2022) has written a book about the history of batteries that is designed to help policymakers address the problems that come with consuming much greater quantities of lithium, graphite, nickel and other specialized materials. Turner (2023) also runs a website that includes updated information on the electric vehicle supply chain.

Also see ‘TTAC’s Matt Posky raises false fears about end of owning private cars’

Meanwhile, climate journalist David Roberts (2022) has noted the negative impacts of mineral production while also offering context Schreiber ignored:

“(T)he scale of resource extraction in a decarbonized world will be vastly, vastly smaller than what’s required to sustain a fossil-fueled society. Close to 40 percent of all global shipping is devoted to moving fossil fuels around, a gargantuan source of emissions (and strain on the ocean) that clean energy will almost wipe out. In a net-zero economy, there will be, on net, less digging, less transporting, less burning, less polluting.”

Schreiber can disagree with stances environmentalists have taken on mining. However, to argue that they haven’t grappled with this issue is . . . bullshit.

Why didn’t Schreiber do his homework?

The research I did took only a few hours — and there’s plenty more where this came from. So why didn’t Schreiber do his homework before spouting off?

I wonder whether this is just the way he rolls. As another data point, Schreiber (2019) wrote the following story for The Truth About Cars: “UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban All Private Cars and Trucks by 2050.” Sounds bad, no? The only problem is that Schreiber’s allegations are vastly overhyped.

Also see ‘The Truth About Cars falsely stokes fears of private car ban’

As I wrote in the above-linked story, some commentators believed his scaremongering to the degree that they talked about violence against elected officials. As a case in point, Geo (2019) wrote:

“Watching leaders implement clearly-unwanted policies and pander to the elite causes me to believe that politicians who betray the populace should face execution. People generally don’t vote for idiocy like this, but it’s happening. Do they go along with it so they don’t feel unsophisticated? Is it time for another world war?”

Middle-Aged (Ex-Miata) Man (2019) wasn’t sure about World War III but said it “might be time for a second civil war.” Schreiber did nothing to cool tempers. He instead argued with commentators who rightly criticized his story’s accuracy.

Talking bullshit can have real-world consequences

I include the above comments to illustrate how people who talk bullshit can spur others to say — and perhaps even do — some pretty destructive things.

Climate debates can obviously generate strong opinions. Even so, we’re not going to move forward as a society on this issue without discussions that are grounded in facts rather than bullshit.

It’s also hard to see how our fragile democracy can survive if people think it’s okay to threaten violence when they happen to disagree with elected leaders.

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

---

RE:SOURCES

• Audubon Society; 2019. “How You Can Help Fix the Electric Grid.” Posted fall.
• Geo; 2019. Commentator in “UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban All Private Cars and Trucks by 2050.” Posted Aug. 23.
• Larson, Erica and Justine Rodgers; 2022. “What’s in the Inflation Reduction Act for utilities?” ICF. Posted Oct. 20.
• Lopez, Nadia; 2023. “Race to zero: Can California’s power grid handle a 15-fold increase in electric cars?” CalMatters. Posted Jan. 17, Feb. 6.
• Lydon, Tim; 2023. “The EV Revolution Brings Environmental Uncertainty at Every Turn.” The Revelator. Posted Jan. 11.
• Middle-Aged (Ex-Miata) Man; 2019. Commentator in “UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban All Private Cars and Trucks by 2050.” Posted Aug. 23.
• Robert, David; 2022. “Minerals and the clean-energy transition: the basics.” Volts. Posted Jan. 21.
• Root, Al; 2023. “No, EVs Won’t Use Up the World’s Copper. Just Ask Elon.” Barron’s. Posted Feb. 7.
• Schreiber, Ronnie; 2019. “UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban All Private Cars and Trucks by 2050.” The Truth About Cars. Posted Aug. 23.
• Silverstein, Ken; 2022. “The Inflation Reduction Act Will Spawn Nuclear Energy’s Growth.” Forbes. Posted Aug. 22.
• Turner, James Morton; 2022. Charged: A History of Batteries and Lessons for a Clean Energy Future. Weyerhaeuser Environmental Books.
• ——; 2023. “Dashboard: The U.S. & Canada electric vehicle supply chain.” Charged. Accessed Feb. 24.
• Wannier, Greg; 2022. “Supercharge the Clean Energy Transition.” Sierra Club. Posted Dec. 14.