The EV Naysayers

[mkhuffman]

The "market" seems to want us all dead.

Do you realize you are included in "the market"? So you want us all dead?

Sponsored

 

[kodiakng]

Do you realize you are included in "the market"? So you want us all dead?

 

[mkhuffman]

It is not invisible. It is the accumulation of millions of people making individual decisions. It may seem invisible to the uniformed, but it is not. It is democracy at its best - each person voting with their pocketbook. And the best thing is? No politicians.

 

[kodiakng]

It is not invisible. It is the accumulation of millions of people making individual decisions. It may seem invisible to the uniformed, but it is not. It is democracy at its best - each person voting with their pocketbook. And the best thing is? No politicians.

damn, all humor is lost. ?

 

[mkhuffman]

damn, all humor is lost. ?

Yep, when it comes to tyranny, there really is no humor.

 

[HuntingPudel]

Meh. I have an EV because it's fun (well, mainly because I'm pissed off at PG&E so I want to use my excess PV generation). Doesn't mean I don't own two gas-guzzling ICE machines right now. They're fun too. The naysayers on either side need to get a grip. ??

 

[TheSteelRider]

I'm going to do it, because I'm pretty sure nobody in the previous 12 pages has yet.

"Nay I say! I say Nay!"

There, now I'm a nay sayer.

continue.

 

[Mach1E]

So you live an impact free life? Right...

Of course not, no one does.

One thing everyone here probably agrees on is that we should have some sort of “balance” with nature without being too extreme one way or the other.

While literally everyone here uses petroleum products daily. Even our EVs are highly dependent on petroleum.

Tires, lubricants, hoses, plastics…….. all a part of the car. Then there’s the shipping and manufacturing of those products…….. petroleum. Then the workers commuting to work etc.

An EV isn’t remotely petroleum free. But yes, it uses “less.”

And yet even the “EV naysayers” are unlikely to do an oil change in their driveway and just let the used oil spill everywhere or just pour it wherever they like.

And even the “EV believers” aren’t worried about nature enough to walk or bike to work, live without heat or a/c or plastics etc.

We all choose which level of “balance” with nature we are willing to accept.

But anyone unwilling to go completely off grid, buy zero consumer goods and grow their own food can’t exactly look down on others for which car they drive.

My last car averaged 11 mpg.

But I live 1 mile from work and drive less than 4k miles per year. My environmental impact was less than the average BEV or Prius driver for sure.

Living closer to work makes a much bigger difference than what you drive. But I wasn’t gonna yell at everybody who commutes for destroying the planet. ?

 

[MellowJohnny]

I don’t think forcing EVs on Anyone is a good thing.

Americans should be able to choose what vehicles they want, period!

Both parties and their cronies suck!

The problem with this argument is the assumption that people are capable of making the “right” decision. There are many examples of government bans or mandates which were put in place to “force” a behaviour - banning leaded gas, asbestos, and incandescent light bulbs, mandating seat belts, air bags, and speed limits - the list goes on. All these things made products more expensive in the short term, and took away “choice”.

Mandates for “the greater good” are not new. Seatbelt mandates were quite controversial back in the day, and lots of vocal people initially fought them pretty hard - now nobody gives it a second thought. The government mandated their use ostensibly because the general population could not be trusted to make the right decision.

You can argue that mandating EVs is not the same as mandating seatbelts & their use, but philosophically the argument is the same - we can’t always be trusted to make the “right” decision.

Government makes decisions for us all the time, this isn’t a new concept.

 

[HuntingPudel]

I'm going to do it, because I'm pretty sure nobody in the previous 12 pages has yet.

"Nay I say! I say Nay!"

There, now I'm a nay sayer.

continue.

I don't neigh. I woof. ??

 

[DugthePug Dad]

The problem with this argument is the assumption that people are capable of making the “right” decision. There are many examples of government bans or mandates which were put in place to “force” a behaviour - banning leaded gas, asbestos, and incandescent light bulbs, mandating seat belts, air bags, and speed limits - the list goes on. All these things made products more expensive in the short term, and took away “choice”.

Mandates for “the greater good” are not new. Seatbelt mandates were quite controversial back in the day, and lots of vocal people initially fought them pretty hard - now nobody gives it a second thought. The government mandated their use ostensibly because the general population could not be trusted to make the right decision.

You can argue that mandating EVs is not the same as mandating seatbelts & their use, but philosophically the argument is the same - we can’t always be trusted to make the “right” decision.

Government makes decisions for us all the time, this isn’t a new concept.

You may be okay with the government mandating to you. I am not and I don’t agree with it.

If you think the government can be trusted to make the “right” decisions always then I don’t know what to tell you…

we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[Mach1E]

The problem with this argument is the assumption that people are capable of making the “right” decision. There are many examples of government bans or mandates which were put in place to “force” a behaviour - banning leaded gas, asbestos, and incandescent light bulbs, mandating seat belts, air bags, and speed limits - the list goes on. All these things made products more expensive in the short term, and took away “choice”.

Mandates for “the greater good” are not new. Seatbelt mandates were quite controversial back in the day, and lots of vocal people initially fought them pretty hard - now nobody gives it a second thought. The government mandated their use ostensibly because the general population could not be trusted to make the right decision.

You can argue that mandating EVs is not the same as mandating seatbelts & their use, but philosophically the argument is the same - we can’t always be trusted to make the “right” decision.

Government makes decisions for us all the time, this isn’t a new concept.

Yes, similar mandates have been made in the past.

This one is much much larger and pretty much impossible to pull off in the timeline given though.

We don’t have the supply chains to make it happen. Don’t have the infrastructure either.

And most importantly? The product isn’t viable as a 100% replacement for the products being banned.

It’s not as simple as lightbulbs that aren’t as bright nor toilets that don’t flush as well.

 

[MellowJohnny]

Yes, similar mandates have been made in the past.

This one is much much larger and pretty much impossible to pull off in the timeline given though.

We don’t have the supply chains to make it happen. Don’t have the infrastructure either.

And most importantly? The product isn’t viable as a 100% replacement for the products being banned.

It’s not as simple as lightbulbs that aren’t as bright nor toilets that don’t flush as well.

I don't disagree, and I think you bring up a point that Government should be making right now: let's agree this is, to borrow a management term, a stretch goal.

Be honest with the public. We might not make it - in fact I don't think we will. But I think we will get pretty close, and we will get much further ahead by putting a stake in the ground and striving to achieve it. The alternative is we throw up our hands, say "this is hard", point to all the excuse we have floating around, and get nowhere.

I also think the other thing missing is the idea that we need exceptions - we banned pesticides for residential use in the province of Ontario at least 10 years ago. But there are exceptions - golf courses can still use them as the ban would have put undue burden on them. Same here. Not everyone can do it without placing undue burden on them. I'm sure we could come up with logical exceptions.

So I think there is some PR that could be done here to ease the blowback and explain the plan a bit better. People don't like being told what to do, but if you explain why and address people's concerns and fears, people get on board.

North Americans have accomplished at lot of things that were "hard" and may have seemed impossible at the time, but we got the job done because we didn't give up trying.

 

[MellowJohnny]

You may be okay with the government mandating to you. I am not and I don’t agree with it.

If you think the government can be trusted to make the “right” decisions always then I don’t know what to tell you…

we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I'm not actually taking a position here, just stating that the Genie is already out of the bottle. Governments mandate stuff all the time. Some mandates over the years I have agreed with - bans on smoking in public for example (I'm not a smoker) - while others I think have been stupid, like banning incandescent bulbs.

We are generally free to do most things in society, but when something we do is deemed to be detrimental to others (like smoking in public), Government sometimes steps in.

 

[jay1122]

Yeah, let's just penalize the poor because they can't afford a $62k MME. If they can't afford to pay for gas, I guess they can just take government hand-outs and sit at home and watch TV. Or they can walk to work in in the rain. Who cares about them anyway, right?

Do you care at all about how these policies impact real people who have real bills and real families?

LOL, the gas price is only a relative. As well as standard of living. You think it is unacceptable because it used to be $1.5/gallon not long ago. Americans are privileged. Many Asian and European countries have way worse gas price than US with less income. And they are still living. You just have to adapt and drive less with more efficient cars. Maybe do more public transportations.

Of course you could stick the head in the sand. Keep driving 15 mpg big V8 SUVs and Pickups because gas is cheap. You can afford it. Will the poor driving Prius get impacted? Of course. But everyone has to make sacrifices in order to shift the market towards a more sustainable future. I do not believe change will come naturally and instantly. That is why EV credits are necessary to help people shift away from ICE. A straight up ban on ICE will just bring too much turmoil. Gradually increasing gas price to push down the demand of inefficient ICE is making more sense to me.

If you only care about your bill, then sure you would not agree. You probably want to invade some middle east countries for cheaper gas.

Sponsored