Is the recent surge of anti-EV propaganda proof that the transition to green transportation is stalled? Or is it a sign that industries whose fortunes are built on internal combustion technologies are undergoing an extinction burst, a phenomenon which often precedes the rejection of a dysfunctional behavior, or the rapid decline of a dominant species?

I’m asking because over the past year, my inbox and LinkedIn feeds have become choked with a growing flood of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), half-truths, and disinformation about renewable power, EVs, and the fossil fuels they’re in the process of displacing (see figure).

Unfriendly Persuasion

The pro-fossil propaganda I receive ranges from “public service messages” from Exxon-Mobil and Chevron, to half-baked opinion pieces from the Heritage Foundation, the Consensus Institute and other billionaire-funded “think tanks.” Most of these “authorities” use suspiciously similar sets of cherry-picked facts and provably false claims to downplay the threat of climate change while encouraging continued dependence on coal, gas, and oil.

Other common tactics include questioning the environmental benefits of EVs, or promoting hydrogen as an “alternative” fuel, despite its high cost and dismal efficiency. Unsurprisingly, much of the funding for disinformation about EVs can be traced to organizations with apparent ties to the same fossil-fuel interests, as well as some being supported by “laggard” automakers continuing to focus on selling ICE-based transportation solutions.

I’m also seeing many of these points of disinformation popping up in random mailings from smaller businesses and self-appointed “industry experts.” Their motivations are often unclear, but it appears that many of them are simply taking advantage of the surge in anti-EV propaganda to promote whatever random agenda they happen to have.

One recent example of this practice came from Evan Cox at a firm called Law Bear, a firm that appears to specialize in automotive injury lawsuits. In one of the strangest marketing ploys I’ve seen this year, Mr. Cox pitched me a story line that he wanted me to write about a study that supposedly identified “the most inconvenient states for driving EVs.” (see the original email below)

I was about to hit the Delete key when I noticed that the study ranked my home state of New Jersey as “the least convenient state for EV owners.” As a New Jersey-based EV owner, pride and curiosity overrode common sense, and I decided to fact-check Mr. Cox’s claims.

It only took a few minutes to learn that the official-looking study had used data sources ranging from being relatively accurate to very questionable. And even when the data was accurate, the authors used flawed methodologies and obviously biased assumptions to reach conclusions that only bore a passing resemblance to reality.

Questionable Data, Flawed Premises, Distorted Conclusions

One of Law Bear’s strongest assertions about the pain of EV ownership is the relatively low number of public charging facilities. With 74 vehicles per commercial station, each of which is equipped with between two and eight chargers, the study says that there are 22 EVs vying for the use of each available public charging port. I’m not sure where Law Bear got its numbers from, but my research shows the situation to be even "worse,” with the actual number of EVs per station closer to 110.

This may seem alarmingly inconvenient, until you take a closer look at the data — and apply a small dose of reality.

Let’s start with the basics:

• A 2025 report from the NJ Motor Vehicle Commission said that the state had 6,431,666 registered vehicles cruising its roads, of which 206,271 were battery-electric vehicles (BEVs). This accounted for 3.5% of the fleet, and 11.96% of the state’s new car sales.
• According to US EV Charging Stations.com, as of August 2026, New Jersey had 1,883 public EV charging stations with 6,255 charging ports. This translates to 110 cars per charging station, or 32 cars per charging port.
• That looks pretty bad for EVs, until you consider that there are over three times as many ICE vehicles competing for each spot at one of New Jersey’s conventional gas stations. According to poidata.com, there are 2,462 gas stations in New Jersey, providing fuel to the state’s roughly 6,200,000 ICE vehicles. This means that NJ’s gas/diesel car owners are presently competing with 252 other vehicles for a space at a gas station.

What’s more, Law Bear’s study conveniently ignores the fact that many of NJ’s EV owners have home chargers and rarely, if ever, use public charging facilities. Unfortunately, the only data about residential charging installations I could find came from the State of New Jersey’s ChargeUp rebate program, which has already provided rebates to 13,846 homeowners for installing chargers in their homes. But, since nearly every EV owner I have met has one, I have good reason to believe that the number of people who charge at home is significantly higher.

In addition, the study fails to include the small, but steadily growing, number of apartment complexes and condominiums that offer private charging services to their residents. As a point of reference, ChargeUp’s Multi-Unit Dwellings (MUD) EV Charging Program has provided another 604 rebates for multi-vehicle charging systems, which have already added another 1,713 private charging ports throughout the state.

Finally, Law Bear factors NJ’s high electricity costs into its inconvenience ranking. However, it fails to mention that, besides reducing the load on commercial charging stations, the many EV drivers who use home chargers pay about half of the $0.42-$0.50/kWh prices levied by most commercial Level 3 Fast Charge services.

Follow the Money

These are only a few examples of how Law Bear’s study begins with the conclusion it wants to reach and then adjusts the facts to fit. Another ding to its credibility is the fact that one of the primary sources for the study is the Tax Foundation, a libertarian think tank that publishes studies on U.S. tax policies.

Media Bias Fact Check describes the Tax Foundation as a “Right-Center organization” and rates it as “Mostly Factual” because it “often publishes factual information but utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes.” This shouldn’t come as any surprise, since much of the Foundation is largely funded by corporate interests with ties to the fossil-fuel industry, including the Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobil.

Law Bear’s “news item” is only one example of the many well-funded disinformation campaigns I’ve seen. These appear to be attempts at keeping our nation in a state of denial about the geopolitical tensions, environmental concerns, and economic realities that make continued dependence on fossil fuels a very bad long-term bet.

While denial may be a reasonable coping mechanism for some individuals with life-threatening illnesses, it’s an unacceptable practice for industries and institutions whose decisions affect the lives of millions of others.

Postscript: Please note that the opinions expressed here are solely my own and open for debate. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, below I’ve included an unedited copy of the story pitch Law Bear sent me below so you can draw your own conclusions. And, as always, your thoughts are welcomed in the comments section at the end of this story, or you can share them with me by email me by clicking on this link.