Should-Read: Wikipedia says: "Cumulative global sales of highway legal plug-in electric passenger cars and light utility vehicles achieved the 2 million unit milestone in December 2016.... The United States ranks second with more than 570,000... through December 2016..."

Attitude without expertise--or any desire to acquire expertise--has long seemed to me to be the dominant current within Fred Hiatt's part of the Washington Post:

Charles Lane (2013): Obama’s Electric Car Mistake: "The Obama administration’s electric-car fantasy finally may have died on the road between Newark, Del., and Milford, Conn...

...The New York Times’s John M. Broder reported Friday that the Tesla Model S electric car he was test-driving repeatedly ran out of juice, partly because cold weather reduces the battery’s range by about 10 percent.... My take is that even if Musk is 100 percent right and Broder is 100 percent wrong—which I doubt—Musk loses. Who wants a $101,000 car that might die just because you feel like taking “a long detour”?

President Obama repeatedly declared that, with enough federal aid, we can put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. His administration has invested about $5 billion in grants, guaranteed loans--including $465 million for Tesla--and tax incentives to buyers. Yet Americans bought just 71,000 plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles in the past two years, according to GreenCarReports.com. That’s about a third as many as the Energy Department forecast in a 2011 report that attempted to explain why Obama’s goal was not preposterous....

There’s simply no denying that the administration’s electric-vehicle project was a mistake.... The debacle is a case study in unchecked righteousness. The administration assumed the worthiness and urgency of its goals. Americans should want electric cars, and therefore they would, apparently. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, he of the Nobel Prize in physics, epitomized the regnant blend of sanctimony and technocratic hubris...

I'm not a great Elon Musk fan. But I do note that the New York Times had a public editor--Margaret Sullivan--who said that it is not her business to tell readers what she think really happened:

I could recite chapter and verse of the test drive, the decisions made along the way, the cabin temperature of the car, the cruise control setting and so on. I don’t think that’s useful here.

But she was willing to judge:

Did... [our reporter John Broder] use good judgment along the way? Not especially. In particular, decisions he made... were certainly instrumental in this saga’s high-drama ending.... Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his every move was being monitored. A little red notebook in the front seat is no match for digitally recorded driving logs...

But concludes that Border had "problems with precision and judgment, but not integrity". So we are on notice that New York Times reporters have problems with "precision" but that they claim to have "integrity" even so...

Comments