I've said this before and I"ll say it again…if we can't agree on the goals then we'll simply talk over one another - and recent conversations prove this out.

I understand the goal to be "Zero CO2/GHG emissions" as the target - while others dispute that as a goal (which is their right).

However if we don't share the same goal we'll never agree on the solution. Leading to animated discussions because the differing view points are optimizing for different outcomes/goals.

BEV's have a role to play in reducing CO2/GHG's…but if that's not your goal BEV's will make little sense.

what should the goal be?

 

As always Dave play the man - I deal in simple facts - the planet has been warming for 12,000 years that is a fact, another fact is the US is the second largest emitter of GHG. Another fact is the US, in terms of total emissions has been the greatest emitter of GHG - ever, period.

To be blunt per capita emissions are irrelevant, that has alway been a position put forward by the US - the total emissions controlled by a specific sovereign nation are relevant because you can only control whats in the back yard you "own" - you fully know and understand this. The US and China are the great polluters.

Which goal - the Indian one, the South American one, the Chinese one the European one, the US - which goal Dave. We live on a diverse planet with different political, cultural and religious beliefs. People have have different viewpoints and values because of this. How about Africa Dave, what do we do - keep them in a perpetual National Geographic photoshoot, fossilised forever.

Its not up to us to agree the goals - let Darwinism take its course.

Global warming doesn't bother me or worry me - I can't do anything about it - it has been happening for a longtime - long before man had an influence on it. But more than happy for China and the US to stop being energy gluttons - the corollary being the drawer down on all natural resources.

There are far greater problems on the horizon...........

Zero GHG emissions - cattle fart Dave - so do people, whats the solution kill them all? If you believe in zero GHG emissions, you're either a politician, a fool, stupid, Greta Thunberg (or just as dim, which you're not) or don't have a basic understanding of what a so called greenhouse gas is (which you do).

 

The whole global warming discussion does not belong in this thread or this forum. On either side. You are correct.

 

Unfortunately, the EV debate is centred around global warming thanks to the "electric Jesus" and his disciples (mainly wealthy individuals that own on average 3 vehicles most of which are powered by fossil fuels

 

No, it doesn't need to be nor should it be.

I didn't buy my Model 3 to save the environment. I bought it simply because it was a BETTER CAR for what I'm using it for. 100 plus miles / day commuting in heavy traffic. The electric drivetrain, not having to stop and refuel, regen braking with one pedal driving, instant torque to scoot through traffic. It all adds up to a much more pleasurable driving experience getting around this huge city every day. The fact that I'm paying more than $100 less in electricity costs vs. fuel costs is a bonus. The fact that I'm not directly putting CO2 into the air where there are millions of cars on the roads is also another bonus.

 

Great and thats your opinion - better than what, its not better than anything I own

 

I know it’s an honest question from a well-meaning person but it is also collectivist and totalitarian to its core.

The correct answer is: The Golden Rule. Live and let live. The Non-aggression Principle (NAP). You use your own means towards your own ends (goals) and I will use mine towards my own. All our interactions (including trade, debate, persuasion, and organization towards shared goals ) should be on a voluntary basis, without initiating aggression. If you can prove to an independent and fair court (or trusted, respected, and independent third party) that my actions are causing tort to you (initiating aggression; doing damage to you or your property) then I may be liable for damages that may me rethink my actions. Same goes for everyone else.

In the GHG case specifically, the evidence suggests that my CO2 emissions do zero damage to you and that you will have no case against me in any fair court. The problem is that the state has fully monopolized the provision of law (justice) and has interjected itself as the “independent” arbitrator which is not only not independent but has grown to be the largest and strongest property expropriator and initiator of aggression against everyone else. The collectivists and totalitarians parasitically embedded in all states are now using this GHG conspiracy to bully and aggress against innocent peoples’ properties and actions globally (up to and including taxation, regulation, and outright confiscation) to benefit themselves and their corporate cronies. You support them under the false pretext that they are the good guys protecting you from the bad guys. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I guess this is a very different view of the world from yours. Can you suggest an alternative solution/answer that better enables peaceful co-existence and minimizes coercion at every level? I am assuming sending millions (“wrong-thinkers”) to the gulag would be a non-starter, even if it was under the (right?) pretext of “saving the planet and the children”?

 

As I said, for WHAT I"M USING IT FOR.

I never said it was anything other than my opinion. Stop putting words in my mouth and assuming you know my motivations. You don't. I've commuted 35k plus miles a year for many years of my life in cars, trucks, SUV's. For what my situation is, it's simply the best choice for me.

I also own a diesel SUV, a 911 and previously did this commute in a fuel efficient GTI. This remains the best choice for me, here and now.

My POINT was that I bought an EV for what it was, not what it does for the environment.

 

Tremendous observation and 100% correct - newspeak, facecrime and speakwrite - all alive and well.

 

The best for you - but that is likely a narrow window...

Haven't put words in your mouth - most people in the US don't agree with you thats why they buy F150s. And you illustrated my point, 3 vehicles, 2 ICE. Thank you. (I'm not having a go here).

 

Actually it's not a narrow window at all. I've taken it on three substantial trips from Houston to Dallas and back, twice in a single day. Zero issues. Houston is a huge city and it works fine. I think the most I have done in a day is about 180 miles and that wasn't even close to maxing out the battery.

I live in the heart of pickup truck land so I don't need to be made aware of what most people drive. Most people completely waste them on a daily basis. I'm also in construction and know plenty of people who DO use them for their intended purpose. I get the appeal, but really they are normally grossly wasted. Buying for the worse case scenario.

Three cars, two ice. Yes. That's because 1 is 6 years old and an SUV. The Model X wasn't around at that time and TBH, I'm not a fan of the falcon wing doors. So right now, there is no real alternative in this space for me. The ETron and Jag are getting there. But ETron range sucks and buying an electric JLR product? A little to risky for my taste.

Now the Rivian, that might find a home in our garage. Our only issue is that we've taken that car on multiple 2,000 plus mile road trips, for which EV's are ill-suited. But I suppose we could be practical and rent an ICE SUV when we need that capability.

The third ICE car is a sports car and there are no real EV sports cars on the market.

 

wow - this response helps a lot - it really does - thank you for taking time to outline your world view. It's one I categorically reject, but we live in a. free society (to some degree) so you're welcome to hold it. but WOW - simply wow.

 

Thank you for your respectful response, as well. The Golden Rule (Live and let live; Agree to disagree) seems to be hardwired in all of us, and seems to have evolved all throughout mankind. Most of our every day interactions with other people are voluntary and respect this rule. Societies that didn't practice it enough probably devolved themselves into extinction.

 

HF1 nailed it. The totalitarian aspects are particularly self evident. The simple truth is you have come to a view and that view is the truth and that truth must be accepted. 😀

And yet the weight of science has shown that climate variability has been with us since the dawn of time and that in recent history we have experienced warming for the last 12,000 years and that period of warming, which is still ongoing, ended the last ice age. (In fact over the last 500,000 years there have been at least four major warming and cooling cycles).

One outcome of this warming period was the population explosion of Homo sapiens an explosion aided by the development of farming transitioning humans from hunter gatherers to static farming communities - in turn this caused the development of commerce and trading. Centres of trade became cities, cities became empires, great civilisations came and went and will continue to do so.

All brought to you by global warming. 😀

 

Back to some fun stats: For the first half of 2019, Model 3 was the #3 car model sold in California - beaten only by Civic and Camry. And Camry was only ahead by a little over 600 cars:

https://insideevs.com/news/365462/te...t-selling-car/