Reject Activist-Driven Definitions

The author, Tim Worstall, criticizes the term “charging deserts,” a newly coined phrase describing areas where an electric vehicle (EV) with only 10% battery remaining cannot reach a charging station with at least six rapid or ultra-rapid chargers. He argues that this definition is not based on practical needs but rather reflects the prejudices of EV activists who are attempting to manipulate language to promote their agenda. Worstall sees this as a dangerous tactic because it shuts down debate and discourages critical examination of the costs and benefits of widespread EV adoption. By defining areas with fewer than six rapid chargers as “deserts,” activists create a negative connotation that discourages questioning the feasibility and necessity of their demands.

Worstall draws parallels with other instances where activist groups have influenced definitions to advance their cause. He cites examples like the definitions of poverty and low wages, which are often tied to relative income levels rather than absolute living standards. Similarly, the definition of fuel poverty, based on the percentage of income spent on heating to a specific temperature, can be misleading, as it would classify most people from earlier eras as fuel-impoverished. He acknowledges the validity of desiring greater equality or access to charging infrastructure but objects to activists manipulating definitions to frame the debate and stifle dissent.

The author’s primary concern is that these redefined terms become widely accepted, effectively silencing opposition and precluding reasoned discussion. He argues that the “charging desert” definition is arbitrarily restrictive and does not reflect genuine consumer needs. Worstall contends that requiring such a high concentration of rapid chargers is unreasonable and potentially wasteful, particularly in areas with lower EV adoption rates. He implies that the focus should be on strategically deploying charging infrastructure to meet actual demand, rather than on fulfilling arbitrary criteria set by activists.

Worstall further points out the inherent inefficiency in comparing petrol pumps to charging stations. He argues that petrol pumps are intrinsically faster and more efficient, able to serve more vehicles in a shorter time. Therefore, demanding a higher number of charging stations to match the availability of petrol pumps is illogical and impractical. He suggests that the comparison itself is flawed, as it ignores the fundamental differences between refueling internal combustion engine vehicles and recharging EVs.

The central theme of Worstall’s argument is the manipulation of language by advocacy groups to promote their agenda. He criticizes the tactic of defining terms in a way that preemptively dismisses opposing viewpoints. He argues that this practice hinders open discussion and prevents a balanced assessment of costs and benefits. By using emotionally charged terms like “charging desert,” activists create a sense of urgency and necessity, making it difficult for dissenting voices to be heard. Worstall calls for a more reasoned and objective approach to evaluating the needs for EV infrastructure, considering practical constraints and avoiding emotionally charged rhetoric.

In essence, Worstall contends that the “charging desert” narrative is a form of linguistic manipulation designed to stifle critical analysis and further a specific agenda. He argues for a more pragmatic and data-driven approach to developing EV infrastructure, focusing on meeting actual demand rather than fulfilling arbitrary metrics. He cautions against allowing activist groups to control the language of the debate and encourages a more balanced and objective discussion of the challenges and opportunities associated with the transition to electric vehicles.