Rowan Atkinson weighs in on the EV debate

[Fluke]

Rowan Atkinson wrote a very interesting article in the Telegraph recently suggesting our honeymoon with EV's is coming to an end. This video goes through it. I've been looking at changing but now not so sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiga3atlTRs

[XFool]

Rowan Atkinson wrote a very interesting article in the Telegraph recently suggesting our honeymoon with EV's is coming to an end.

"...article in the Telegraph". Hm... So can we take it that it will have the Telegraph's unique 'spin' * on the story, no?

For contrast, and possibly a more balanced assessment:

I love electric vehicles – and was an early adopter. But increasingly I feel duped
Rowan Atkinson

The Guardian

Sadly, keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV. There are sound environmental reasons not to jump just yet


Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles
Simon Evans

The Guardian

Last week we ran a piece by Rowan Atkinson casting doubt on the environmental benefits of electric vehicles. Here Simon Evans of Carbon Brief offers his response


* From the link: "Rowan Atkinson's EXCELLENT article on why EV = NO." Actually, RA didn't say "NO", he said "not yet"

[DrFfybes]

All parties involved have their own agendas and seem incapable of providing a consensus on CO2, although that is really a small part of the debate for most people. Because for most people, the 'feelgood factor' and economics are what drives the decision. Most Fools are probably all in the top 10-15% of UK wealth, and these are the people that buy most of the new cars from their own pocket.

For those paying £300-500 per month for a new car via a company scheme, going BEV is usually a no brainer due to the tax breaks.

However, for the ones paying themselves, the maths become slightly less clear, but often those people will have another car and can take a chance on one. My niece and nephew have just ditched their Polo for an electric Cupra(?), 300 mile range, paid monthly from their pocket, and openly admitting that when the agreement is up they can hand it back and technology will have moved on. It is their only car and at 6000 miles pa they think it will probably be about Carbon neutral over their ownership, but also say that they were one of the few households in their road (Chorleywood) who didn't have a BEV on the drive, so perhaps peer pressure comes in.

Rowan Atkinson is a great Comedian, but I'd pay no more heed to his recommendations on modes of travel than I would to Harry Hill's fashion advice.

Paul

[XFool]

Rowan Atkinson is a great Comedian, but I'd pay no more heed to his recommendations on modes of travel than I would to Harry Hill's fashion advice.

Not taking sides here, but I wouldn't be so dismissive of the "Comedian" Rowan Atkinson. Everyone knows he has been a car nut for most of his life - AFAIK it's his main interest outside comedy. What I didn't know, until I read his Guardian piece, is that his "first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems".

[Fluke]

Rowan Atkinson is a great Comedian, but I'd pay no more heed to his recommendations on modes of travel than I would to Harry Hill's fashion advice.

Paul

And you would be wrong. From the article.

Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent masters in in control systems. Combine this, perhaps surprising academic pathway, with a lifelong passion for the motorcar....

[Arborbridge]

Sadly, keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV. There are sound environmental reasons not to jump just yet

Depends what one means by "better" and who does the accounting.

Keeping my old ICE would have been undoubtedly better from my personal cost and the environment POV. I think that's a no brainer (probably!).

Making a new car is clearly more damaging than running the old car - at least to a point. But that isn't the chcoie for most people buying a car. It isn't keeping the old car - the question is whether to replace it with an EV or ICE when the time comes.

I would suggest the wider environmental impact could be on a knife-edge, but there's no doubt that mylocal impact, in my village and surroundings by having an EV is less than with my diesel.

Arb.

[AF62]

Rowan Atkinson wrote a very interesting article in the Telegraph recently suggesting our honeymoon with EV's is coming to an end.

To be pedantic, he wrote it for the Guardian and the Telegraph ‘stole’ it because it fits with their ‘EVs are evil’ mantra that its geriatric readership like, which is different from the ‘all cars are evil’ that the lentil eating readership of the Guardian believe.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-atkinson

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... tric-cars/

And the Guardian have now published a rebuttal to its own article-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... c-vehicles

His piece seems to be full of a lack of logical thought.

He complains about the weight of EVs and how that is inefficient, but makes no comment about the trend in the UK over the last few years to heavy SUVs, irrespective of what they are powered by. Why isn’t he campaigning for a banning of ICE SUVs and a return to lighter weight city cars and small family hatchbacks.

And as for his comments about the life cycle of cars and three year ownership - what does he think happens to a new car at the end of its three year lease deal - that it is scrapped?

Of course replacing an existing car that you own with a newly manufactured car results in a manufacturing overhead, but that existing car doesn’t vanish when you sell it to buy the new one. Just take a look at the price of used cars and they are extraordinarily expensive these days.

At the end of the day the technology works for some and doesn’t work for others, whether that is the cost, the range, the ability to charge, etc.

That it doesn’t work for some doesn’t mean the technology is dreadful, but what it does mean is the government needs to take a step back and actually think about how those issues can be resolved before it enacts a ban on new ICE.

[XFool]

Rowan Atkinson wrote a very interesting article in the Telegraph recently suggesting our honeymoon with EV's is coming to an end.

To be pedantic, he wrote it for the Guardian and the Telegraph ‘stole’ it because it fits with their ‘EVs are evil’ mantra that its geriatric readership like...

And it fits in well with their anti-green, anti-lefty, anti-woke agenda.

...which is different from the ‘all cars are evil’ that the lentil eating readership of the Guardian believe.

I'll have you know lentils are very good for you (allegedly).

And the Guardian have now published a rebuttal to its own article-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... c-vehicles

The Guardian hasn't "published a rebuttal to its own article". They published an Opinion piece (check the heading) by Rowan Atkinson and then they published an Opinion piece (heading) by Simon Evans of Carbon Brief.

[scotview]

I would suggest the wider environmental impact could be on a knife-edge, but there's no doubt that mylocal impact, in my village and surroundings by having an EV is less than with my diesel.

Arb.

Good point, us too.

The thing is, if you can afford it just get what you fancy. All this green anxt is getting bit tedious. My misses loves her ID3, never in a petrol station and she loves the instant acceleration.

And I can pretend to be Jack Hargreaves when I go fishing with my fly rods in the back of my petrol Dacia Duster, win win.

[AF62]

The Guardian hasn't "published a rebuttal to its own article". They published an Opinion piece (check the heading) by Rowan Atkinson and then they published an Opinion piece (heading) by Simon Evans of Carbon Brief.

They published a piece they commissioned from Rowan Atkinson and then published a “Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles” written by the Guardian’s deputy editor, Simon Evans.

[XFool]

They published a piece they commissioned from Rowan Atkinson and then published a “Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles” written by the Guardian’s deputy editor, Simon Evans.

Yes. I hadn't realised Simon Evans was also the Guardian's deputy editor.

[AF62]

They published a piece they commissioned from Rowan Atkinson and then published a “Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles” written by the Guardian’s deputy editor, Simon Evans.

Yes. I hadn't realised Simon Evans was also the Guardian's deputy editor.

When I first saw the headline I wondered why Simon Evans, the right of centre comedian, was doing the fact checking for the Guardian and defending EVs…

[XFool]

...That was my first thought, too!

[Fluke]

...which is different from the ‘all cars are evil’ that the lentil eating readership of the Guardian believe.

I'll have you know lentils are very good for you (allegedly).

Though not that great for the environment

[Mike4]

I'll have you know lentils are very good for you (allegedly).

Based on your advice I might try one then.

[GoSeigen]

Rowan Atkinson is a great Comedian, but I'd pay no more heed to his recommendations on modes of travel than I would to Harry Hill's fashion advice.

Quite. Appeal to authority.


GS

[servodude]

Rowan Atkinson is a great Comedian, but I'd pay no more heed to his recommendations on modes of travel than I would to Harry Hill's fashion advice.

Quite. Appeal to authority.


GS

Not convinced that holds here; this seems more an appeal to celebrity than authority. An extension of "who are you wearing?"

[GoSeigen]

Quite. Appeal to authority.


GS

Not convinced that holds here; this seems more an appeal to celebrity than authority. An extension of "who are you wearing?"

Apologies, was referring to subtitle "Appeal to false authority" or similarly the first part of this page.

The fact that Atkinson is a well known and respected figure and even has a somewhat relevant (ancient) degree doesn't make him an authority or his argument more valid.

GS

[XFool]

Apologies, was referring to subtitle "Appeal to false authority" or similarly the first part of this page.

Which see...

I. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority.

The fact that Atkinson is a well known and respected figure and even has a somewhat relevant (ancient) degree doesn't make him an authority or his argument more valid.

While Atkinson cannot be taken as a world, or even nationally respected expert on this matter:

1. He is far from speaking "outside his special field", when it comes to cars and motoring.
2. He is simply giving his (informed) opinion.

[servodude]

Apologies, was referring to subtitle "Appeal to false authority" or similarly the first part of this page.

Which see...

I. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority.

The fact that Atkinson is a well known and respected figure and even has a somewhat relevant (ancient) degree doesn't make him an authority or his argument more valid.

While Atkinson cannot be taken as a world, or even nationally respected expert on this matter:

1. He is far from speaking "outside his special field", when it comes to cars and motoring.
2. He is simply giving his (informed) opinion.

Nope.
He's giving his informed opinion about his experience as a driver and repeating tired false claims about ither bits.

Mr Atkinson is a national treasure and as likely today to be found in a list of "stars and their expensive cars (no 6 will amaze you)" than he is putting food in a handbag, or serving an imaginary table; here he's served up some imaginary bunkum