Let me make one thing crystal clear: Electrification is part of the future of the automobile. Oh, to be sure, no one knows what the rate of adoption will be and how long the transition will take. Is climate change the “emergency” Chicken Little alarmists claim it to be, or is it simply another of humanity’s many — and continuing — long-term problems? Will the electrified cars of the future be battery-powered, hydrogen-fueled, or some hybrid of the two? Where do PHEVs stand in this grand electric future? I don’t know. No one does. Anyone who claims to know is either a charlatan or Elon Musk.

All that said, there is much disagreement as to how quickly all this electrification will happen. The roadblocks to rapid adoption — at least the technical ones — are well known: Cost, range and the lack of recharging/refueling infrastructure. Electrified vehicles, despite protestations from the fanatics, continue to be expensive, range is not only limited but also slow to be replenished, and you still cannot drive an EV as unfettered from logistical concerns as you can a traditional internal combustion-powered automobile.

But perhaps the greatest roadblock of all is psychological; convincing the 98 per cent of road users who don’t currently drive electric that there is more to the modern EV than boundless hype. Like so much of today’s discourse — politics leading the way — the pro-EV crowd is so echo-chambered that they have become one of the — if not the — most significant roadblocks to sales, their exaggerations, half-truths and outright fabrications doing nothing but turn off the general public.

Here, then, is an open letter to proponents of electrification — yes, even you Tesla owners — with a little advice on how not to hinder the EV process you want to become a revolution:

The average daily commute; the most tiring of old tropes

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the average car is driven about 11,000 miles annually. That works to 31 miles, or about 50 kilometres, a day, a figure, EV advocates never tire of reminding us, is well within the reach of even the oldest battery-degraded EV.

The problem — and it seems only BEV propagandists don’t get this — is that we don’t buy cars for what we do on typical days. Hell, we don’t buy anything for what we do on an average basis. I don’t wear a Snell-approved, German-built, Schubert full-face helmet because I fall off my motorcycle 0.0001 times every day. No one forks over $700 for a Ping G410 SFT driver because they play an average of 5.2 holes of golf per day.

Our vehicles are hardly an exception. F-150 owners don’t haul their Boston Whaler to the lake every day. No one — at least, no one claiming to be Canadian — puts the top of their Miata down exactly seven minutes and 35 seconds every single day of the year.

Nonetheless, this “average” argument against range anxiety has plagued EVs since battery-powered cars were first introduced (I think I heard it from Carlos Tavares, then second-in-command to Carlos Ghosn, when Nissan was introducing the Leaf). It’s dumb, completely unrealistic and perhaps the greatest indicator of how truly out-of-touch diehard EV proponents are with the driving habits of typical consumers.

If electrification is so persuasive, why do we need to ban internal combustion?

To listen to some EV proponents, the day of the EV has already arrived. BEVs, say the truly indoctrinated, are on the cusp of being cost-competitive with fossil fuel; range anxiety was always a myth created by planet haters, and my Lord, isn’t Volkswagen stopping ICE development in a few short years? There is simply no reason not to buy a Bolt or a Leaf right now. And yet …

Its seems that the massive subsidizes EV enjoy pretty much everywhere, and proposed banning of internal combustion by some countries — including England and France, as well as California — still won’t be enough to convince the public. That’s why, according to LePariseien.fr, two French members of parliament are proposing their country — shades of the anti-smoking Nazis — ban the advertisement of internal combustion automobiles.

Now, never mind that this would bankrupt France’s already troubled media, if the case for EVs is so compelling, why, then, do they need such dramatic support? I don’t remember iPhones needing a ban on rotaries to take over the communications world. CDs managed to take over from vinyl without subsidy.

In other words, EV proponents need more consistent messaging. Either electric vehicles are the equal of ICE-powered automobiles, and can therefore stand on their own merits, or they are a flawed but worthwhile — for their emissions reduction — defense against climate change. They can’t be both.

The “I don’t…” syndrome

My personal pet peeve, however, are the Elon Musk disciples who transpose their driving habits onto everyone else. Take my word for this; write anything questioning the limits of battery-powered EVs and your mailbox will be filled with protestations of a most singular nature.

“I only drive in the city.”

“I don’t ever drive more than two hours at a time.”

I don’t mind stopping for a two-hour lunch break to recharge my EV.”

Never once in these arguments is there any acknowledgement that, while BEVs do provide suitable service for city dwellers and those who like to doddle over their refueling, for we long-distance haulers battery power is a major trial, not now — possibly not ever — as convenient as good old fossil fuels.

If there is to be an electric revolution, one of the first steps is an acknowledgement by EV proponents that different driving needs may require different solutions. Unfortunately, it is this unwillingness to countenance any debate over what our automotive future might look that remains the biggest roadblock to the general public buying — instead of thinking of buying — an electric vehicle. Every time a Tesla fanboy claims a Model 3 is affordable, every time an EV owner denies range anxiety is a legitimate concern; and every time an advocate claims EVs are ready for prime time while simultaneously calling for a ban on ICE, the typical motorist silently dismisses an electric vehicle as a viable alternative.

We need a serious discussion on how to reduce automobile emissions; the first step would be BEV advocates admitting that battery power is not a cure-all.