Yet another example of that is the premature introduction of all electric vehicles. Unless the vehicle is used in an area near a large capacity hydroelectric power facility the electricity it uses will likely come from burning fossil fuels. It will take even more fossil fuels that way because energy is lost in any conversion process of one form (fossil fuel) to the other (electricity) as detailed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A typical efficiency of power conversion is about fifty percent. Then an all electric vehicle would burn twice as much energy as one that used natural gas directly for example. That is not saving the environment anything.
One savings possible for all electric vehicles, and hybrids too, is that they use virtually no energy while stopped at traffic lights or other traffic controls (providing no heating or cooling for the driver and passengers is used). However unless about half the time of a trip is being stopped that will not recover the losses caused by the energy conversion process. That includes what little energy might be returned while the vehicle is being slowed (using the motor as a generator) as that involves two more inefficient conversions.
The question then becomes when to make more charging stations available that do not depend on fossil fuels. That would alleviate the energy conversion problem somewhat. Whether to concentrate on building more charging stations first or more vehicles first is a frequent question. Building more vehicles first is totally unnecessary because there are far more essential uses of electric power than transportation. Power plants can be built for those customers who are more dependable anyway since they are not going anywhere. With the capacity for charging stations established all electric vehicles in that area make more sense.
The question then becomes when the entire country can have readily available charging stations that do not depend on fossil fuels. It will likely be necessary to very substantially reduce the number of miles people drive in order to be powered by wind and solar production even after those become a dominant feature of the landscape.
A perhaps more aesthetic alternative would be large operations in more remote areas for the production of synthetic liquid fuels.
Advocacy for any electric vehicles whose electric power comes mostly from burning fossil fuels before clean energy charging stations are available is foolish, twice the burden on the environment, and undermines the credibility of popular science.
It makes far more good sense to establish clean energy production first or actually find more efficient conversion processes first (if even possible) then build vehicles to use that energy.
An not at all fortuitous consequence of thorough Democratic control of the country is that a belief in science has been empowered and belief in science doesn't make anyone good at it.
As noted many times on this web site religious people do not typically fail science (with the exception of a few in the Trump base), but they do typically disagree with Democrats who obviously did fail science.