California kills off truck sales by 2035

[T. A. Gardner]

Serious people including climate scientists who know much more than you or I disagree.

Yea, sure. They were so wrong, totally wrong, about CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer. They've been repeatedly caught 'fudging evidence.' They have repeatedly been beaten down in court. They keep finding stuff they didn't know or consider. So, to somehow claim they're correct with any reasonable level of certainty is absurd.

For example, NASA then other climate researchers found that jet contrails were a contributor to climate change. They estimated that as much as 10%, possibly more, of anthropogenic climate change is due to them. Yet, you don't hear these researchers clamoring to fix that problem because it is easily and cheaply done. Worse, if it were implemented (jets routed around areas and altitudes were they would produce them) and worked, they'd be out of a job.

 

[LurchAddams]

Yea, sure. They were so wrong, totally wrong, about CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer. They've been repeatedly caught 'fudging evidence.' They have repeatedly been beaten down in court. They keep finding stuff they didn't know or consider. So, to somehow claim they're correct with any reasonable level of certainty is absurd.

For example, NASA then other climate researchers found that jet contrails were a contributor to climate change. They estimated that as much as 10%, possibly more, of anthropogenic climate change is due to them. Yet, you don't hear these researchers clamoring to fix that problem because it is easily and cheaply done. Worse, if it were implemented (jets routed around areas and altitudes were they would produce them) and worked, they'd be out of a job.

Reducing our carbon footprint, being energy independent and making the world safer for our grandchildren is more important than owning the libs. Lib-bashers should refine their priorities.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Reducing our carbon footprint, being energy independent and making the world safer for our grandchildren is more important than owning the libs. Lib-bashers should refine their priorities.

No, it's not if doing so destroys the economy and wrecks millions of lives while there were and are alternatives that wouldn't do that but weren't taken because they were deemed politically unacceptable or incorrect.

 

[LurchAddams]

No, it's not if doing so destroys the economy and wrecks millions of lives while there were and are alternatives that wouldn't do that but weren't taken because they were deemed politically unacceptable or incorrect.

1. Doing so will not destroy the economy or wreck lives. Or is Elon Musk and all car company CEO's dirty commies all of the sudden who should be producing gas guzzling road machines rather than EV's? Most American car companies have pledged to go all electric by the 2030's. What do you know that they don't?

2. What "alternatives" are you talking about?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

1. Doing so will not destroy the economy or wreck lives. Or is Elon Musk and all car company CEO's dirty commies all of the sudden who should be producing gas guzzling road machines rather than EV's? Most American car companies have pledged to go all electric by the 2030's. What do you know that they don't?

If EV's are too expensive for most Americans, and the used car market dries up due to the cost of battery replacements, then the poor and working stiffs get screwed out of private vehicle ownership and forced into alternate means of transportation.
If electricity becomes so expensive that people making low incomes can't afford it, and deaths due to heat and cold rise as a result is that beneficial to society?

All those "gas guzzling" cars in part make the economy work. For those particularly in rural areas where charging might be difficult or impossible, gasoline (and diesel) being portable make sense.

All the car companies are doing what the government wants. California and several other blue states have set mandates to phase out sale of new ICE vehicles in the coming years. EV's are being forced on the public. If they were not, they wouldn't gain any notable market share just as they have for over a century. It is only totalitarian government using mandates and bribes that's making them sell. At the same time, statist capitalist (an economic form seen in fascism of the Left) corporations are more than willing to switch so long as they make a profit.

2. What "alternatives" are you talking about?

Nuclear and natural gas for electrical generation. Hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia as portable fuels. Battery cars are a technological dead end and suck from an engineering and technical standpoint.

 

[LurchAddams]

If EV's are too expensive for most Americans, and the used car market dries up due to the cost of battery replacements, then the poor and working stiffs get screwed out of private vehicle ownership and forced into alternate means of transportation.
If electricity becomes so expensive that people making low incomes can't afford it, and deaths due to heat and cold rise as a result is that beneficial to society?

All those "gas guzzling" cars in part make the economy work. For those particularly in rural areas where charging might be difficult or impossible, gasoline (and diesel) being portable make sense.

All the car companies are doing what the government wants. California and several other blue states have set mandates to phase out sale of new ICE vehicles in the coming years. EV's are being forced on the public. If they were not, they wouldn't gain any notable market share just as they have for over a century. It is only totalitarian government using mandates and bribes that's making them sell. At the same time, statist capitalist (an economic form seen in fascism of the Left) corporations are more than willing to switch so long as they make a profit.



Nuclear and natural gas for electrical generation. Hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia as portable fuels. Battery cars are a technological dead end and suck from an engineering and technical standpoint.

I see a lot of "ifs" in your response to my question #1. I guess you think you know more than Elon Musk and every car company in existence who are either all EV now or will be going there by the 2030's. Your "ifs" just demonstrates paranoia. Car companies don't do what the government wants. Car companies do what's good for their bottom line and for their stockholders.

Battery technology can only improve, and I am certain it will. Soon ICE vehicles will soon be a thing of the past - like the horse and buggy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I see a lot of "ifs" in your response to my question #1. I guess you think you know more than Elon Musk and every car company in existence who are either all EV now or will be going there by the 2030's. Your "ifs" just demonstrates paranoia. Car companies don't do what the government wants. Car companies do what's good for their bottom line and for their stockholders.

Battery technology can only improve, and I am certain it will. Soon ICE vehicles will soon be a thing of the past - like the horse and buggy.

Battery technology is limited by physics and the elements. No battery can produce a charge greater than about 3 volts per cell simply because chemistry and the nature of the elements is such that's the greatest potential between any two. Batteries are a dead end technology that can at most incrementally get a tiny bit better than they currently are.

It is government forcing EV's on the public. Even so, the public doesn't want them.

Most Americans Won't Consider Buying an Electric Car, JD Power Study Finds
https://www.newsweek.com/most-ameri...ing-electric-car-jd-power-study-finds-1710444

4 reasons why electric cars haven’t taken off yet
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/electric-cars-batteries-fossil-fuel/

As an aside, if you drove down the street I live on, you'd notice that only about 1 in 10 vehicles is a car. The overwhelming majority of vehicles in driveways are SUV's, vans, and pickups. In fact, out of upwards of maybe 100 vehicles on the street I live on, I know of only one Tesla, and that car is sitting next to two pickups and an SUV. So, it's likely just a daily driver to commute by someone who can afford a second--fourth?-- car.

My 'if's' are valid. Without government coercion using mandates and bribes, EV's would go nowhere in the market. Musk and Tesla would have gone out of business.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Then she can get one in a state that offers them legally. If it's that big a deal to her, she should live in one to begin with. You on the other hand are a hypocrite. You don't believe in state's rights except where they align with you own political views.

I disagree with your assertion that States can strip Americans of unalienable rights.

 

[LurchAddams]

Battery technology is limited by physics and the elements. No battery can produce a charge greater than about 3 volts per cell simply because chemistry and the nature of the elements is such that's the greatest potential between any two. Batteries are a dead end technology that can at most incrementally get a tiny bit better than they currently are.

It is government forcing EV's on the public. Even so, the public doesn't want them.

Most Americans Won't Consider Buying an Electric Car, JD Power Study Finds
https://www.newsweek.com/most-ameri...ing-electric-car-jd-power-study-finds-1710444

4 reasons why electric cars haven’t taken off yet
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/electric-cars-batteries-fossil-fuel/

As an aside, if you drove down the street I live on, you'd notice that only about 1 in 10 vehicles is a car. The overwhelming majority of vehicles in driveways are SUV's, vans, and pickups. In fact, out of upwards of maybe 100 vehicles on the street I live on, I know of only one Tesla, and that car is sitting next to two pickups and an SUV. So, it's likely just a daily driver to commute by someone who can afford a second--fourth?-- car.

My 'if's' are valid. Without government coercion using mandates and bribes, EV's would go nowhere in the market. Musk and Tesla would have gone out of business.

Saying corporations do what the government wants is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I disagree with your assertion that States can strip Americans of unalienable rights.

Unalienable rights are enumerated in the 1st amendment. An "unalienable" right is one to which you have access at all times you want it. Things like education, health care, and the like cannot be "unalienable" because they cost money, are available in limited quantities, and can be controlled and rationed by government.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I see a lot of "ifs" in your response to my question #1. I guess you think you know more than Elon Musk and every car company in existence who are either all EV now or will be going there by the 2030's. Your "ifs" just demonstrates paranoia. Car companies don't do what the government wants. Car companies do what's good for their bottom line and for their stockholders.

Battery technology can only improve, and I am certain it will. Soon ICE vehicles will soon be a thing of the past - like the horse and buggy.

Do you really think an auto manufacturer can build and sell a car in the US that doesn't meet federal rules and regulations on safety, emissions, size, etc.? How about aircraft manufacturers? Hell, for that matter, bucket makers... The government can dictate all sorts of stuff to corporations, and does.

 

[LurchAddams]

Do you really think an auto manufacturer can build and sell a car in the US that doesn't meet federal rules and regulations on safety, emissions, size, etc.? How about aircraft manufacturers? Hell, for that matter, bucket makers... The government can dictate all sorts of stuff to corporations, and does.

The second most ridiculous thing I've heard is using the vehicles on your street as a bellwether for the entire nation.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The second most ridiculous thing I've heard is using the vehicles on your street as a bellwether for the entire nation.

I suspect that if the government does try to force a complete switch to EV's it'll end up like the 55 mph speed limit mandate Carter imposed.

 

[Nordberg]

If EV's are too expensive for most Americans, and the used car market dries up due to the cost of battery replacements, then the poor and working stiffs get screwed out of private vehicle ownership and forced into alternate means of transportation.
If electricity becomes so expensive that people making low incomes can't afford it, and deaths due to heat and cold rise as a result is that beneficial to society?

All those "gas guzzling" cars in part make the economy work. For those particularly in rural areas where charging might be difficult or impossible, gasoline (and diesel) being portable make sense.

All the car companies are doing what the government wants. California and several other blue states have set mandates to phase out sale of new ICE vehicles in the coming years. EV's are being forced on the public. If they were not, they wouldn't gain any notable market share just as they have for over a century. It is only totalitarian government using mandates and bribes that's making them sell. At the same time, statist capitalist (an economic form seen in fascism of the Left) corporations are more than willing to switch so long as they make a profit.



Nuclear and natural gas for electrical generation. Hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia as portable fuels. Battery cars are a technological dead end and suck from an engineering and technical standpoint.

Why do you rightys keep lying about the prices of EVs? They are comparable to cheaper than ICEs.

 

[LurchAddams]

I suspect that if the government does try to force a complete switch to EV's it'll end up like the 55 mph speed limit mandate Carter imposed.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-signs-national-speed-limit-into-law

"As part of his response to the embargo, President Nixon signed a federal law lowering all national highway speed limits to 55 mph. The act was intended to force Americans to drive at speeds deemed more fuel-efficient, thereby curbing the U.S. appetite for foreign oil. With it, Nixon ushered in a policy of fuel conservation and rationing not seen since World War II."

 

[LurchAddams]

Why do you rightys keep lying about the prices of EVs? They are comparable to cheaper than ICEs.

The only reason: Most Democrats support green energy alternatives. If Democrats are for it, they have to be against it. They'll even lie about their reasoning as you've discovered.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why do you rightys keep lying about the prices of EVs? They are comparable to cheaper than ICEs.

Study Calculates EVs Have Higher 'Real World Refueling Cost' Than Gas Vehicles
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38043667/study-electric-cars-higher-cost-questions/

Why Are Electric Cars So Expensive?
Electric cars were supposed to be cheaper by now, but they aren't. Here are some reasons why EVs are actually becoming more expensive.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/why-are-electric-cars-so-expensive

The average price of an electric vehicle in the United States for August 2022 was $66,000, according to Kelley Blue Book, the leading price advisor in the country.

The average price of an electric vehicle increased by 13% compared with 2021, which indicates a sharp upward trend. Electric cars are a major attraction for people who want to reduce their carbon footprint or wish to avoid the running costs of a gas-powered vehicle.

However, with such an exorbitant price, electric vehicles remain out of reach for the average American, where the median salary for the second quarter of 2022 was $54,000.

According to the same report, the average starting price for the top ten electric vehicles was $60,500, with all cars except Teslas seeing a jump in prices. This is a sharp jump, especially considering that in January 2020, the average price of an electric car was $54,668.
https://www.makeuseof.com/whats-the-average-price-electric-car/

Are EVs Worth It? We Compare the Long-Term Costs of Electric Cars
Spending less on fuel doesn’t always mean lower cost of ownership.
https://www.motortrend.com/features/are-electric-cars-worth-it-long-term-value?slide=1

EV's cost more to buy, more to insure, can cost more to refuel / charge, and in general over the expected life of the vehicle are more expensive than their ICE counterparts.

 

[Into the Night]

They want pollution free trucks. Not the same thing.

They don't want trucks.
You can't even define this 'pollution'.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed. State's Rights. Laboratories of Democracy. Their choice. I oppose Trumpers and others seeking to empower the Federal government to unfuck them for their own good.

Why are you against State's Rights, Terry? When did you turn against traditional conservative beliefs? You want the Federal government to impose rules on States that are economically successful? WTF, Terry?

No State is a democracy.
The SDTC is not a State and is not economically successful.

 

[Into the Night]

Buzz Off.

That won't help you get out more.