Some electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers are scrapping the AM radio from their cars, claiming safety concerns. Although conservative talk radio dominates AM radio ratings, it is also considered a critical safety tool, as it is one of the primary ways that federal, state, and local officials communicate with the public during natural disasters and other emergencies.
Automakers such as Ford and Tesla have ditched the AM radio from their newer EV models, arguing that the motors on EVs interfere with AM frequencies, creating buzzing and signal fading, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.
James Farley, president and chief executive officer of Ford Motor Co. Photographer: Emily Elconin/Bloomberg
TOPSHOT – US President Joe Biden drives the new electric Ford F-150 Lightning at the Ford Dearborn Development Center in Dearborn, Michigan on May 18, 2021. (Photo NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
But former emergency officials are warning that scrapping the AM radio would mean EV drivers could miss important safety alerts.
Seven former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administrators said in a Sunday letter — obtained by WSJ — to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and several congressional committees that the government should seek assurances that automakers will keep the AM radio in their vehicles.
FEMA says that more than 75 radio stations are equipped with backup communications and generators that allow them to continue broadcasting information to the public amid an emergency.
“Should this continue, it will represent a grave threat to future local, state, and federal disaster response and relief efforts,” the letter read.
The former FEMA officials added that while drivers can use their smartphones to tune into certain radio stations, the signal that allows them to do so aren’t as reliable as AM radio during emergencies.
Last fall, Ford said it would be removing AM radio from newer 2023 model year F-150 Lightning electric trucks, citing AM radio frequencies.
“The frequencies involved in AM radio tend to be directly affected by the electromagnetic noise in EV propulsion systems,” Ford said.
White House announced a series of executive actions this month to create a national charging network for electric vehicles, even as EV owners and reviewers have continued to note short travel ranges, long charging times, and difficulty finding charging stations.
A February 15 White House press release indicated that Tesla Motors will “open a portion of its U.S. Supercharger and Destination Charger network to non-Tesla EVs, making at least 7,500 chargers available for all EVs by the end of 2024,” including at “least 3,500 new and existing 250 kW Superchargers along highway corridors.”
The release also noted Biden’s 2022 infrastructure spending package had allocated $7.5 billion to develop EV charging capabilities.
However, some consumers and industry observers have expressed discontent about the state of EV charging.
A group of Tesla cars line up at charging stations at a dealership in Littleton, CO, Aug. 23, 2020. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)
Steve Hammes, an automotive critic who has a popular YouTube channel, told ABC News he had concerns about his daughter making trips to and from her college in her Hyundai Kona Electric sport utility vehicle:
“We’re going through the planning process of how easily Maddie can get from Albany to Gettysburg [College] and where she can charge the car,” Hammes told ABC News. “It makes me a little nervous. We want fast chargers that take 30 to 40 minutes — it would not make sense to sit at a Level 2 charger for hours. There isn’t a good software tool that helps EV owners plan their trips.
Tony Quiroga of the publication Car and Driver told ABC News that the difficulty of finding charging stations is exacerbated by the range limitations seen in some EV models.
“Longer trips bring up flaws with EVs. People are leery of taking them on long trips — that’s why older EVs don’t have 40,000 miles on them,” he said.
Another automotive YouTuber, Tyler Hoover, conducted an experiment in September to test Ford’s electric truck mode, the Lightning F-150, on its range and towing power, as Breitbart News noted.
“If a truck towing 3,500 pounds can’t even go 100 miles — that is ridiculously stupid,” Hoover said. “This truck can’t do normal truck things. You would be stopping every hour to recharge, which would take about 45 minutes a pop, and that is absolutely not practical.”
Similarly, a Motor Trend review noted the truck’s “limited towing range” following some performance tests.
The White House said its goal is to nearly quadruple the number of publicly available chargers from 130,000 to 500,000 by the year 2030.
The press release also noted the Department of Transportation will require that all chargers funded by its National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program maintain 97 percent uptime reliability, a far cry from the current state of EV charging stations, according to some observers.
“The incentive right now is to get stations in the ground,” automotive journalist John Voelcker told ABC News. “It’s not making sure they actually work.”
Late last month, Joe Biden was mocked for posting a photo of himself in an electric vehicle (a GMC Hummer) that costs $110,000 and up.And for touting a $7,500 federal tax credit that doesn’t apply to vehicles that cost over $80,000. In other words, the 46th president was ripped for confirming the stereotype that electric cars are a vanity passion for rich green liberals.
But what was less noticed, at least by the right, was that left-wing greens didn’t like Biden’s photo-op, either. You see, Middle Class Joe insiststhat he wants to replace internal-combustion vehicles with electric vehicles (EV), but the hardcore greens–including those within his own administration–want to get rid of cars, period. At certain times, as when he is trying to appeal to the far left during his campaign for the 2020 Democratic nomination, Biden has said that he wants to get “millions of vehicles off the road.” But that was then: Now Biden, eyeing his re-election campaign, wants to play the champion of Main Street, where they have cars, not the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
On my watch, the great American road trip is going to be fully electrified.
Still, history shows that when green activists draw a bead on something, they often hit their target.That’s been the whole story of the green movement this past half-century, as it has shifted the Democratic Party from its New Deal blue-collar orientation to its current affluent-suburban affectation.
One of the greens’ key concerns about EVs is lithium. As we shall see, they can’t live without it, but they also can’t live with it.
The World Economic Forum (WEF, think Klaus Schwab and Davos) relates that each EV battery needs about 18 lbs of lithium.And since WEF calculates that two billion EVs will have to be on the road by 2050 to meet its Great Reset climate targets, that’s a lot of lithium.And of course, all the lithium a Great Resetted world needs won’t just go into car batteries; the element is needed for wide variety of industrial and ecological uses.
But lithium production is currently only about 100,000 tons annually, so WEF’s projections show that the needed ramp-up in lithium production will have to be, well, exponential.For their part, greens don’t like to hear about the exponential growth of anything economic.
A particular flashpoint has been the effort to start up a lithium mine in Thacker Pass, Nevada, near the Oregon border.That proposed $3 billion venture has been met by pushback from a coalition of greens, Native Americans, and NIMBYs. Needless to say, that was all the signal the Main Stream Media needed to choose a side. NBC News headlined last year: “The cost of green energy: The nation’s biggest lithium mine may be going up on a site sacred to Native Americans.”And The New York Timesadded some more green liberal perspective:
The fight over the Nevada mine is emblematic of a fundamental tension surfacing around the world: Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear. Production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people.
For its part, the Biden administration, mindful of its environmentalist base as well as its EV goals, has tried to avoid taking sides on the fight. Just on February 7, a federal judge ordered a further review of the project, so its future is unclear.
Thacker Pass in Nevada, the proposed site for a massive lithium mine. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
Members of the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone tribe and supporters gather for a circle dance for healing during a gather in opposition to the proposed lithium mine at Thacker Pass, Nevada, which has historical significance for the tribe. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
The hardcore greens want action against lithium—and against EVs and against the Biden administration.One such is Kate Aronoff, who writes for The New Republic, avenerable liberal publication, dating back to 1914, that has lately gone woke and left, as well as hard green.Aronoff tweeted her own mockery of Biden for his Hummer tweet and then wrote in her magazine, “Investing in mass transit, walkability, biking infrastructure, and other means of reducing personal car ownership . . . could reduce the amount of lithium needed.”
Warming to her anti-auto theme, Aronoff lamented that cars and trucks are getting bigger: “The best-selling vehicle in the U.S., the F150 Ford pickup truck, has ballooned in size since it debuted in the 1970s . . .Even the comparatively diminutive Mini Cooper has gotten 64 percent heavier since it debuted in the 1950s, and 61 percent larger.”To Aronoff, this is all part of the grave crisis; indeed, the section of the magazine that she writes for is called “Apocalypse Soon” (see below).
The New Republic’s “Apocalypse Soon” section.
Moreover, Aronoff is not just worried about lithium, or the size of cars—she’s worried about cars themselves. In her article she cited Andre Gorz, a 20th century French Marxist, who wrote in 1973, “The worst thing about cars is that they are like castles or villas by the sea: luxury goods invented for the exclusive pleasure of a very rich minority, and which in conception and nature were never intended for the people.”So we can see: 50 years ago, Gorz was a red who thought cars were only for rich people. (As a general rule, Marxists need to get out more.)
Yet now, long after his death, Gorz and his anti-auto sentiments, which were based on red commie class warfare, have been drafted into a new kind of class warfare: the green cause of depriving the proletariat of its preferred mode of transportation.It’s this sort of intellectual fusion–red and green–that has led critics to refer to greens as “watermelons.”In fact, in 2021, Aronoff published a watermelon-y book entitled, Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet–And How We Fight Back.(Back in 2014, the like-minded Naomi Klein published a book with the subtitle, “Capitalism vs. the Climate”; and there’re many more similar titles in that watermelon patch.)
But our focus today is not the class struggle, but rather, the car struggle.Which is ongoing.In January, a lefty-green group, the Climate + Community Project (CCP) called for “less mining” and, of course, fewer cars:
Reordering the US transportation system through policy and spending shifts to prioritize public and active transit while reducing car dependency can also ensure transit equity, protect ecosystems, respect Indigenous rights, and meet the demands of global justice
Not surprisingly, when CCP outlined its plan for a Green New Deal, the personal car gets it with both barrels:
Transportation often exacerbates social inequity and racial injustice within and between communities. Its infrastructure speeds the movement of those who are better off, to the detriment of those who are most in need. In far too many communities, governments, planners, and engineers prioritize vehicles over people.
(For what it’s worth, CCP is careful to provide the proper pronouns for its staff, and bills itself as being financed by the Tides Center, which Breitbart News has covered extensively, if not admiringly.)
Car Companies Look Beyond Cars
So where does this anti-car movement leave the automakers?They have to be careful, because while they are in the car-manufacturing industry, they are also in the government-subsidy-collecting industry. For instance, General Motors declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009, and was subsequently saved by $51 billion in federal help. Since then, all the automakers have been immersed in myriad green subsidies, leaving them extraordinarily attuned to whatever Washington wants.
This ongoing boondoggling led Sen. John Thune (R-SD) to gripe in 2022: “American automakers have been on the receiving end of historic amounts of taxpayer money, yet we see them raising vehicle prices right when they’re preparing to receive even more government support.” So the South Dakotan proposed a legislative remedy: “My common-sense bill would make automakers choose between grants and loans that subsidize their manufacturing operations or having the vehicles they make remain eligible for the expanded electric vehicle tax credit. Automakers shouldn’t be able to double-dip at taxpayers’ expense.” Thune’s bill did not pass.
One leading auto expert sees the day when the automakers will be phasing out of cars as we have known them. In a 2017 essay about the future of automation, Bob Lutz, a Detroit legend, connected EV to AV (autonomous vehicles). In Lutz’s view, cars of the future will not be cars, they’ll be “modules” in a mass-transit fleet, a kind of blend of Uber and a bus company.Lutz, born in 1932, is himself an old-time car enthusiast—a “gearhead”—and so he didn’t pretend to be happy about such a development.As he wrote in Auto News, “Everyone will have five years to get their car off the road or sell it for scrap or trade it on a module.”In other words, the Little Deuce Coupe—or any other kind of car that speaks to individualism and the freedom of the open road—will be replaced by Big Brother and the Driving Company, controlled by some combination of the Department ofTransportation and Silicon Valley.Sound good to you?
A illustration conceptualizing a smart city grid with autonomous vehicles. (iStock/Getty Images)
Still, it sounds good to some. Some in the cities won’t mind—not much privacy in a metropolis, anyway. As one recent headline trilled, “Car-free futures: How European cities are embracing green transport.”It is certainly true, of course, that it’s common for people living in dense cities not to have cars.And yet here in the U.S., less than 20 percent of the population lives in the 100 biggest cities—not all of which are dense. But to put that another way, more than 80 percent of us live in places where cars are for sure a necessity—and autonomy, too, is nice.As an aside, have you noticed that the same people pushing transport “modules” have also been pushing Covid lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements?There is a commonality of control.
Journalists look at the interior of Baidu’s Apollo RT6 next-generation autonomous vehicle during its unveiling in Beijing on July 20, 2022. The Apollo RT6 is designed for fully autonomous driving with detachable steering wheel, and is set to join the Apollo Go ride-hailing service starting in 2023. (NOEL CELIS/AFP via Getty Images)
Indeed, the anti-auto momentum of the green left is growing.And here again, the big automakers are complicit. In 2018, Ford Motor Company announced plans for an “inclusive, vibrant, walkable mobility innovation district.” [emphasis added]In other words, Ford seems to be okay with a post-private-car future, especially if the greens continue to shower it with greenback subsidies.
Indeed, it’s even possible that the phrase “auto maker” will become obsolete, as the manufacturers transition themselves into some sort of Uber-ish new business model, enabling them to abandon actual auto workers, trading them in for cheaper cubicle people.
One who caught this anti-car trend early was Donald Trump.In 2019 the then-president told a crowd, “They want you to have one car instead of two, and it should be electric, OK? So tell people, no more cars. No more cars.”
But of course, when they say no more cars, they don’t mean no more cars for themselves.And here we’re not just talking about such lifetime limousine riders as Biden and John Kerry.In 2019, The New York Postreported on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): “Since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign heavily relied on those combustion-engine cars—even though a subway station was just 138 feet from her Elmhurst campaign office.” It seems that in just a two-year period, AOC took more than a thousand trips on Uber and other app-ride platforms.
Of course, fewer cars on the road is good for those who still have cars. So, if all goes according to plan, Biden, Kerry, AOC, and the Davos crowd can look forward to zipping along in emptier streets.
Joe Biden’s Legacy
At least through Election Day, 2024, Biden will insist that he’s in favor of personal cars, tilted, of course, toward EVs.But after that, who knows, because as Biden says, the climate crisis is an “existential threat.”So with all that weighing on him, don’t be surprised if a second-term Biden administration—if there is one—takes a turn toward building his “legacy,” which will be defined as harder-core greenism.As one ally of the Biden administration said to Politico last year:
Do you know how many cryptocommunists are now working for the Biden administration? How many former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pretty f—ing deep in the White House’s policy nexus? The revolutionary socialist phase has kind of faded for the left.But the flip side of that is that a lot of those people have infiltrated to the highest levels of Democratic politics.
As they say, personnel is policy.So if Biden wins re-election, in 2025 we can expect a tighter squeeze on personal cars—either because they emit too much carbon or require too much lithium—and a greater emphasis on “modules” and other kinds of mass-transit.
This is how Biden can grasp for the title of Greenest President in History.That might not seem like such a great title to you, dear reader, but you don’t face the prospect of funding a presidential library.
President Joe Biden speaks during the UN Climate Change Conference COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, on Nov. 2, 2021. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP)
In the meantime, here at Breitbart News, this author has warned that the greens were not going to give up on another of their long-term goals, getting rid of gas stoves. And in fact, just in the past few weeks, there’s been a flurry of greenreports and MSMtouts, as well as scoops from Fox News and Bloomberg News on ongoing Biden administration efforts to snuff out stoves. A headline on February 6: “U.S. officials eye new route to ban gas stoves.” On February 7, The Boston Globeexpanded the green’s anti-household agenda beyond stoves, worrying that “cooking appliances aren’t the only household items that run on methane gas,” and citing the menace of furnaces, water heaters, and fireplaces. “We should be very concerned,” said one worrier to the Globe. (Happily, there’s also pushback–even pushback you can wear.)
You see, the greens and their climate modelers are sure that they everything figured–and so we have to do it their way. So even truly startling development–such as the news, reported on February 10, that a piece of the sun had broken off creating a tornado-like twirl on the sun’s surface, and is something that nobody had in their model–will have no effect on the declared need to save you from your gas stove. Indeed, as the greens get more aggressive, they’re coming, too, for your lawnmower. And needless to say, green zealots such as Greta Thunberg oppose everything.
Yes, they’re still coming for your stove. And they want your car, too.
Deep within a southeastern cove of Brooklyn lies Dead Horse Bay. Vintage debris washes up on its shores thanks to a decomposing underwater landfill. Old Clorox bottles, tires, men’s work boots, and shards of broken glass toss back and forth on the tide, continually churned together with old horse bones.
The bones come from an 1850s-era factory that used the carcasses of dead horses to make glue, fertilizer, and other materials near the bay. That such a factory was necessary — and that thousands of old horse bones line a small bay in Brooklyn — point to the fact that horses were a way of life in New York City before cars replaced them. Nearly 200,000 horses lived on the small island of Manhattan at the end of the 19th century, meaning piles of dead horse carcasses and giant mounds of manure were a daily occurrence for city residents at that time.
Note that the average horse produces around 30 pounds of manure a day. If you do some back-of-the-envelope math, that means New Yorkers literally put up with dumping more than 1 million tons of excrement on their streets every year to preserve their freedom of mobility.
That’s what climate activists and their allies in the corporate press don’t seem to get. As leftists push Americans to make the cumbersome and extremely expensive switch to electric vehicles, they forget that Americans already can go wherever they want, whenever they want, thanks to gas-powered cars. Why would they give that up and pay more in the process?
An Axios article titled “Electric car road trips are perfectly doable — if you plan ahead” is a prime example of leftist tone-deafness. To get more Americans to go electric, an Axios journalist went on a road trip to show readers how, erm, easy it is to embark on the great American road trip with an EV.
Yet, the globetrotter admits, the trip was “not without its challenges.” This includes dealing with “glitchy charging equipment touchscreens, billing questions and inoperable plugs” as well as “juggling route-planning apps and billing accounts with various charging companies.” Not to mention having to wait roughly an hour each time your EV has to charge, depending on the quality of the charger. For seasoned road-trippers, for whom time is of the essence, this is an immediate turnoff.
While the article aimed to persuade readers to go electric, it had the exact opposite effect. For the average American, the car symbolizes freedom, autonomy, and adventure. The open road is there to be explored, with a low barrier to entry thanks to the prevalence of gas-powered cars. Americans can go just about anywhere, as long as the keys are in the ignition and there’s gas in the tank.
But going electric kills the romanticism of the road trip by stripping its simplicity. When you own an EV, you can’t just get in your car and drive. You have to plan your route around EV charging stations, worry about the logistics of driving an EV (Muller’s husband drove 151 miles through the Michigan cold without heat to avoid stressing the car’s battery), and pray to God that your battery lasts between charges. The barrier to exploring the open road with an EV is much higher than with the typical gas-powered car, and Americans don’t want to deal with it. They shouldn’t have to, either.
This is why electric cars make up only 5 percent of new car sales and despite years of massive government subsidization still comprise just 1 percent of all cars on the road. It’s a hassle to own an electric car.
It’s also extremely expensive. EVs typically average $20,000 more to purchase than a gas-powered car, meaning only the upper-middle class and up can afford such a splurge. And for what? Sleek design and shiny new controls? You’re definitely not choosing an EV for your cross-country road trip from Boston to Los Angeles. It’s just not practical.
This will inevitably bite California progressives in the butt whenever the state experiences a massive heat wave — like it did this past summer — that will inevitably cause rolling blackouts and lead to a shortage of electricity. What will EV owners do when they can’t charge their car and their freedom of mobility is gone?
EVs are not so sexy when you know the facts, but outlets like Axios don’t exist to inform people. Like the rest of their leftist buddies, they exist to keep people stupid and immobile.
Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.
James Perloff returns to SGT Report to expose the United Nations Agenda 2030 New World Order World Economic Forum plan for 15-minute gulags where human freedom will go to die. https://jamesperloff.net/
Monthy Subscriptions the TheCrowhouse can now be received via Stripe or direct contributions can be made via Wise bank. If you would like to assist please visit this page: https://thecrowhouse.com/contribute.html
The safety risks posed by heavy electric vehicles in any collision with lighter vehicles has pushed the head of the National Transportation Safety Board to issue a general warning to all road users.
The official, Jennifer Homendy, raised the issue in a speech in Washington to the Transportation Research Board. AP reports she pointed, by way as an example, to an electric GMC Hummer that weighs about 9,000 pounds with a battery pack that alone is 2,900 pounds — roughly the entire weight of a typical Honda Civic.
“I’m concerned about the increased risk of severe injury and death for all road users from heavier curb weights and increasing size, power, and performance of vehicles on our roads, including electric vehicles,” Homendy said in remarks prepared for the group.
File/Jennifer Homendy of the National Transportation Safety Board speaks during a news conference, Oct. 3, 2019, in Windsor Locks, Conn. On Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2023, Homendy raised concerns about the risk heavy electric vehicles pose if they collide with lighter vehicles. (AP Photo/Chris Ehrmann, File)
The extra weight EVs typically carry stems from the outsize mass of their batteries. To achieve 300 or more miles of range per charge from an EV, batteries have to weigh thousands of pounds, the AP report sets out.
Homendy said her worries about safety risks stem from a steady proliferation of EVs on roads ands highways.
“We have to be careful that we aren’t also creating unintended consequences: More death on our roads,” she said. “Safety, especially when it comes to new transportation policies and new technologies, cannot be overlooked.”
The official noted Ford’s F-150 Lightning EV pickup is 2,000 to 3,000 pounds heavier than the same model’s combustion version. The Mustang Mach E electric SUV and the Volvo XC40 EV, she said, are roughly 33 percent heavier than their gasoline counterparts.
“That has a significant impact on safety for all road users,” Homendy added.
Reuters reports acting NHTSA Administrator Ann Carlson told reporters Monday the agency was studying the impact of vehicle size on roadway safety.
Carlson said the agency was “very concerned” about the “degree to which heavier vehicles contribute to greater fatality rates,” further noting some subscribe to the “mantra that bigger is safer” but that did not necessarily take into account other factors.
“Bigger is safer if you don’t look at the communities surrounding you and you don’t look at the other vehicles on the road,” Carlson said. “It actually turns out to be a very complex interaction.”
It may seem as if the COVID pandemic is over but for the political and corporate leaders who gathered in Bali for the November 2022 G20 summit, it is anything but. In fact, they’re already planning the next one, which is why they’re calling for preemptive global lockdown measures.
In this edition of The Remnant Underground, Michael Matt returns to the theme of waking the masses to what the Global Elites are up to, which includes war on God. In fact, Klaus Schwab advisor, Yuval Noah Harari came right out and admitted it: “The whole idea of Jesus Christ and the Resurrection – this is fake news!”
Plus, more on Governor Ron DeSantis’s decision to tell Klaus Schwab to pound sand, Tony Fauci steps down, and Traditional Catholics take their formal resistance to Pope Francis into the pages of the New York Times.
Finally, how do you like your Tesla so far? Enjoy it while it lasts because California is running out of power and the Global Elite are getting ready to ration energy worldwide.
This madness doesn’t have to become our reality. There is a way out. Michael Matt explains.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.