California kills off truck sales by 2035

[Into the Night]

I'm not. But California does have an economic impact on the US as a whole. If it as a state suffers a serious economic decline, would it be another "too big to fail" or do we just let Cali become the world's biggest Detroit?

California is no longer a State. Its current government is a dictatorship. It no longer recognizes the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of the State of California. It hasn't recognized these documents for some time now.

The SDTC is in serious economic decline.

 

[Into the Night]

Nice dance, Terry, but you consistently push how awful other states are. Often implying or outright stating they are a threat. What is your final solution for the "California problem"?

How can you honestly say you support State's Rights, Terry?

Hallucination.

 

[Into the Night]

Disagreed, as your constant whining about the Lefty states indicates.

Like slavery? Taking the rights of women to vote? No. I disagree that States have a right to strip Americans of their unalienable rights you often seek to do.

Hallucination.

 

[Into the Night]

Unlike you, I think people have a right to do with their own body as they choose to do. Only fucking morons think a zygote should turn women into second class citizens. If a woman wants an abortion or a drug addict wants to kill themselves with heroin, I support their right to do so.

You seek to impose your sense of authority over them, Terry. I believe they have unalienable rights and God-given Free Will. Why do you support subjugating them, Terry?

The child that is being killed is not the body of the women. It is murder, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

Don't expect it to go any better for them...

As for CO2. If CO2 were taken as a percentage of the population of the US, it would amount to 132,400 people out of 331 million. Equally distributed to the 50 states that's 2648 people per state. Nobody's going to choke on CO2... EVER!

Lurch believes that CO2 has some magick ability to warm the Earth.
He ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He think you can create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

Yea, sure.

LurchAddams believes that there is such a thing as 'climate science'. Science, of course, has no such branch. These are merely priests of the Church of Global Warming.

They were so wrong, totally wrong, about CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer.

For a variety of reasons. CFCs do not react with ozone, and the 'hole' is a natural phenomenon if a pole during it's winter months, since ozone is created by the action of sunlight on oxygen in the atmosphere.

They've been repeatedly caught 'fudging evidence.'

Actually they've been manufacturing 'evidence'. There is nothing to 'fudge'. There is no data.

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.

Courts have had minimal effect, since this is about a fundamentalist style religion. Lately, it's starting to take on some violent aspects, including vandalism, assaults, etc.

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.

NASA can't even define what 'climate change' even means. The 'data' they quote is completely manufactured.

Contrails are liquid water and tend to occur in humid air. That's why they start and stop. The engines and wings compress air, essentially squeezing liquid water out of it. Like any cloud, they do not change the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Lurch actually believes his shit. Ford just released a new V8 engine that's a beast. It will be put into trucks and larger cars. That's not a company that is going 'all electric'. Toyota, the largest automaker, is getting out of EVs. There is insufficient market for them.

You are quite right. The mandates and subsidies are the only reason the EV is as 'popular' as it is. Of course, less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs. You can see this on any freeway.

 

[Into the Night]

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

He never made one. Hallucination.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

It will be worse than the double-nickle.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Blatant lie. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

 

[ptif219]

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.

Green energy will not work. Democrats are smart enough to see that

 

[LurchAddams]

Green energy will not work. Democrats are smart enough to see that

This thread is about EV's.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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."

Carter took the blame, but it doesn't matter which President did it, what matters was the result. The public HATED it. It became a thing of ridicule and rebellion against it. I suspect EV's if forced on people will end up at the same place for the same reason. People simply do not like being unreasonably told, demanded, to do things.

 

[Nordberg]

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

Of course, they can, but your brain blocks make you unable to understand it. It is simple for anyone else to understand.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

Agreed you don't have a right to my money. Why do you think that gives you the right to dictate if a woman has an abortion or a person does drugs? Gambles or drinks?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Agreed you don't have a right to my money. Why do you think that gives you the right to dictate if a woman has an abortion or a person does drugs? Gambles or drinks?

Because society as a whole has to agree on what is an isn't to be allowed. No rules is anarchy and that doesn't work. Too many or too strict rules don't work either. Therefore, if a state wants to put strict limits on abortions and drugs they can do so. Too strict, and there are problems like black markets. Too permissive and you end up with social unrest.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Because society as a whole has to agree on what is an isn't to be allowed. No rules is anarchy and that doesn't work. Too many or too strict rules don't work either. Therefore, if a state wants to put strict limits on abortions and drugs they can do so. Too strict, and there are problems like black markets. Too permissive and you end up with social unrest.

See? I know you were an authoritarian who seeks to strip Americans of their unalienable rights. There's no difference between you and the wacky Left except polarity. Both of you want to dictate to others how to live, what to think and what to believe.

 

[LurchAddams]

Carter took the blame, but it doesn't matter which President did it, what matters was the result. The public HATED it. It became a thing of ridicule and rebellion against it. I suspect EV's if forced on people will end up at the same place for the same reason. People simply do not like being unreasonably told, demanded, to do things.

Yes, I'm sure Carter took the blame from you. You're still wrong.

Our supply of fossil fuels is finite. The effect of burning fossil fuels is killing the planet. EV technology is improving. No one is being "unreasonably told" to do anything.