Wyoming attemps to ban EVs [CLOSED DUE TO POLITICS]

[devmach-e]

I don't understand why you think BEVs are not detrimental to the environment. They definitely are. Some believe while they are detrimental, the detriment is not as significant as ICE vehicles. That could be true, but I think it is more accurate to say the impact is different.

Moving a 5,000 point object from point A to point B is going to impact the environment no matter how you do it. The impact will be different depending on the energy used to move that object, and how efficient that object is at moving from A to B, but there will always be a detrimental impact. Always.

In fact, a reasonable argument can be made that BEVs are more detrimental to the environment. I am pretty sure you won't agree with this, but at least consider the possibility that it could be true. BEVs are heavier than their equivalent ICE vehicles. It requires more force to move a BEV from point A to point B than it does to move a ICEV from A to B (F = MA). More force = more detrimental impact. It is physics.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/americas-new-weight-problem-electric-cars/

From an emissions standpoint, the BEV is hands down cleaner. Even when taking into account the emissions associated with the production of the battery pack and the electric motors. Whatever extra emissions are required are erased within the first year or so of operation of the EV.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/dr...36*MTY3NDUwNDEyNi40LjEuMTY3NDUwNDIxMS4wLjAuMA..

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/

Sponsored

 

[dbsb3233]

It already died in committee.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/0...ectric-vehicles-in-wyoming-dies-in-committee/

And as presumed, pure performative proposal.

I wish the ICE bans would die too, as it's the totally wrong way to go about it IMO. But the dates are so far out that they're kinda meaningless anyway other than for virtue signaling. And reality will dictate what really happens as those deadlines get close, and whether they'll get extended or otherwise modified to eliminate their absolutism.

Personally, I expect some types of vehicles will likely always make more sense as ICE or PHEV, for practical reasons. Which is fine anyway as we don't need to eliminate 100% of emissions, just reduce them significantly. And no one really knows what the tech will be in 2035 (including the politicians that enact these bans), so it's all kinda silly. But it checks the "do something!" box.

Consumers will continue to buy what's effective and affordable and desirable. Make products that fit their criteria and they'll buy them. EVs are finally good enough products, and they're selling naturally because of it, just as it should work. We love ours, not because it fits any agenda or because politicians told us we need to buy one (that's actually a turn-off), but because it's simply a great product.

 

[mkhuffman]

From an emissions standpoint, the BEV is hands down cleaner. Even when taking into account the emissions associated with the production of the battery pack and the electric motors. Whatever extra emissions are required are erased within the first year or so of operation of the EV.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/dr...36*MTY3NDUwNDEyNi40LjEuMTY3NDUwNDIxMS4wLjAuMA..

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/

If emissions were the only detrimental impact. If only. Unfortunately that is not the case even though people have been mislead to think that is the only detrimental impact we need to consider.

 

[devmach-e]

If emissions were the only detrimental impact. If only. Unfortunately that is not the case even though people have been mislead to think that is the only detrimental impact we need to consider.

Everything we do as humans sucks for the environment. Or rather, for the ability for the environment to support our particular type of life. What is your solution?

 

[mkhuffman]

Everything we do as humans sucks for the environment. Or rather, for the ability for the environment to support our particular type of life. What is your solution?

Well, first off I don't believe "everything we do sucks for the environment", so there is no need for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist as you defined it. Secondly, any solution should prioritize individual liberty, because if we are not free, it doesn't matter how much the environment is impacted. I mean we could outlaw travel of more than 1 mile and require everyone to use public transportation only but the cost and loss of individual liberty would make that solution unbearable. Humans need to live and our quality of life matters more than achieving zero environmental impact.

Sponsored