Wyoming attemps to ban EVs [CLOSED DUE TO POLITICS]

[dbsb3233]

you may be taking this too seriously... I suspect the intent was simply to poke a finger in the eye of people who might be offended... it isn't intended to have any effect other than to aggravate some people. It's purely messaging. Lots of legislators do this kind of thing.

More a finger in the eye of those already doing the exact same thing to ICE. It's no coincidence it's the same year as the ICE bans.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

How about freedom to exist or breathe fresh air? Not be inundated by floods on the coast lines. Not have your way of life lost forever due to crops or fisheries moving. Not to have your rivers and streams polluted by burst oil pipelines and more. Go ahead and pay freely when 6 fire companies show up at your house. Nevermind the guy down the street who can't afford it or the time to negotiate. Governments work for ALL of us, not just those who can afford things. If it wasn't for the government, we'd have mud roads over 90% of the country.

None of that is true, and there are plenty of examples of how the free market solves problems a lot more efficiently and effectively than government. I put my faith in free people, and you put yours in overlords who order us around.

 

[Thunderanger]

None of that is true, and there are plenty of examples of how the free market solves problems a lot more efficiently and effectively than government. I put my faith in free people, and you put yours in overlords who order us around.
[/QUOTE

You might avail yourself of some facts now and then.

 

[dbsb3233]

And to get BEV’s to this point, has it not required a lot of government push and support so that people can have “free choice” later?

A little, but I think that gets way too much credit.

I think what's most responsible for EVs getting to this mainstream viability point is simply the battery tech advancing far enough. And that's been getting worked on regardless. For all kinds of uses.

Oh, and Tesla, that showed the world that EVs didn't have to be little tin can cars.

 

[Scooby24]

When the conversation devolves to talk of government overlords and other ridiculous points, there is no further productive conversation left to be had. This thread has been open too long.

 

[Wyostang]

DennisD said:
And for what sense does this make? To get a few laughs.

And to show up as a story on right-wing media sites for about 3 days.

And the MachE Forum……

 

[dbsb3233]

And for what sense does this make?

As much sense as banning ICE by the same 2035.

Just more virtue signaling.

 

[AllenXS]

A little, but I think that gets way too much credit.

I think what's most responsible for EVs getting to this mainstream viability point is simply the battery tech advancing far enough. And that's been getting worked on regardless. For all kinds of uses.

Oh, and Tesla, that showed the world that EVs didn't have to be little tin can cars.

And they didn’t get any incentive?

 

[DennisD]

As much sense as banning ICE by the same 2035.

Just more virtue signaling.

Actually no. ICE causes smog and EV's don't.

Again, Wyoming wanted to ban something that wasn't detrimental to the environment.

Apples - Oranges

 

[mkhuffman]

Actually no. ICE causes smog and EV's don't.

Again, Wyoming wanted to ban something that wasn't detrimental to the environment.

Apples - Oranges

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/

 

[dbsb3233]

Actually no. ICE causes smog and EV's don't.

Again, Wyoming wanted to ban something that wasn't detrimental to the environment.

Apples - Oranges

The excuses are different, yes, but the bans are the same. Well, except that the ICE bans actually became law. I don't expect this one will make it that far. I suspect it's more symbolic to make a point.

 

[dbsb3233]

And they didn’t get any incentive?

Oh of course. But again, it's the advancements in battery tech that really made it all possible. Tesla was just the first to take EVs from niche to high volume sales, and make them cool. Someone was gonna be first regardless once the batteries got good enough. The $billions in taxpayer subsidies just accelerates the timeframe a little.

 

[kennethjk]

We could ban the Federal Government if taxes were voluntary. Imagine that: we actually voluntarily pay for the value we receive. I would pay for national defense and some oversight of interstate commerce. And possibly a law enforcement organization that actually enforces laws that are clear and easy to understand, like child trafficking and serial killers. But I would not pay for most of the rest, and I bet most people would do the same. We could ban them. That would be awesome.

It will never happen.

Why just ban the federal government ? If one government is bad isn’t all government bad?

every person can be an island unto themselves.350 million different systems within the old United States.

Wont Happen because it’s just not practical.

 

[DennisD]

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/

I was actually inartful of saying that it wasn't detrimental. You are correct. In fact we could label humans as the most detrimental to our environment. I should have just stated the smog aspect. In any event, bottom line is that California tried to limit their surroundings of smog where Wyoming doesn't have that same problem. Once again poke in the eye to California but I still don't know the reason to do that other than being annoying.

 

[devmach-e]

The excuses are different, yes, but the bans are the same. Well, except that the ICE bans actually became law. I don't expect this one will make it that far. I suspect it's more symbolic to make a point.

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

And as presumed, pure performative proposal.

Sponsored