Ok, so you don't believe that car emissions are a problem that needs to be fixed. Do you think is a a govmut plot to endlessly subsides EV manufactures like we do now with oil and gas production? Because I would trade one for the other.

Very few people drive more than 300 miles a day round trip. And you can get another 200 miles of range from a super charger in the 15-20 minutes that you would use for a break after 3-4 hours in the car. But the point is that the occasional long trip is not what we are talking about.

YouTube has lots of people chronicling long road trips in EV's. And while it will be a lot better in years to come, they do as well as ICE vehicles in practical use - go have a look.

Honestly, the technology is farther along than most people know. And every major manufacturer is killing themselves to get into this - because it is not just better - it really is our future.

Face it, if it were not for govmut mandates you would be driving a car that got 11 gallons to the mile and used leaded gas.





I get that people don't like change - or guvmut mandates.
But do your homework on this - it's worth it.

Brewha wrote:

The govmut mandate to move us from incandescent light bulbs to LED did not cure the energy waist or fix the environment. But it helped and we all get lighting that lasts longer and is cheaper to use.

Shifting to EV’s in the next 10-20 year will not fix it, but it is a large help. Arguably 1/4 of emission given that industry also moving to EV’s. Walmart, Amazon and many other have vehicles on order and are making the change.

Wind and solar have proven to be cheaper way to generate power, and with localized storage will be a real path to cleaning things up.



Besides all of that, EV’s are way better than ICE in most every comparison.
Of course people would have to look into it to know….

Brewha wrote:

Dude, it's not 300 miles every day. But when you need it, it's there.
I own a pickup truck. I don't use the bed in it every day. Doesn't mean I shouldn't own it. Or have the government justify taking it away.

Here's an idea: You like EV. You can buy one and drive it. Hell, buy 2.
Why do you feel compelled to make everyone else own one as well?
That's pretty fuqed up dude.

tailgater wrote:

There you go again. Trying to justify idiotic government mandates. With lies. Or at best with inaccuracies.

The mandate away from incandescent bulbs was a switch to compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL).
And we all now know that CFL is worse for the environment than incandescent bulbs when you consider the soup to nuts lifespan. They're a friggen hazard to dispose of. They're only made overseas in third world countries. And they are a sucky product to begin with. They take 10 minutes to reach brightness.

LED is an improvement, for sure. But you didn't know that back when you embraced the gubment mandate, did you?

The mandate to EVs is more similar to the CFL cluster fuq than it is to improving MPG.

So just stop it.

This mandate, like MOST mandates, are just a means to force an agenda that defies logic or reason or common sense.

Your mileage may vary.

tailgater wrote:

Sacrifices have to be made when you’re obeying your religion of virtue and corporate donor wishes.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Prediction:

Every one of these old bassturds will have an EV before they die unless they are older than 65 now. I’ m just waiting a few more years for better battery tech and charging times.

deadeyedick wrote:

I did buy an EV. I love it and feel sorry for the peeps that don't have one.

And I did not buy it to "save the environment". It's just a better machine.

What's fuged up is that you choose to "not know" why the mandated are needed.

Brewha wrote:

No, the mandate was to move to more energy efficient lighting. The actual government ban doesn't' go into effect until 2023. But knowing it was coming did spur the industry to develop better solutions. CFL's were early efforts that are now being abandon. So the mandate was a good thing that is working.

The move to zero emission vehicles is spurring all kinds of development and new technologies - right here in the US. In fact the "most American made cars" in the US today are Teslas.



That best part of the mandate (being done to curb pollution) it that people won't be asked politely to "please respect the environment". They won't have the choice - because we are Americans, and most of us don't give a f*ck about the environment. And never will.

It's not that we don't know things need to change - we don't want to know and we don't care. So people make up bullsh1t arguments about how bad pollution mandates are and how "no one knows if pollution is bad". And they belly ache about "my rights" and "freedom". And the absolute favorite of the conservative community: "Science is fake".



We used to put lead in gas - do you understand how bad that is?
Prolly not. And most people didn't give a f*ck.
But I remember all the crying about switching to unleaded - The govmut was "forcing an agenda that defies logic or reason or common sense."

Brewha wrote:

The 3.6 V6 Chevy motor is hot trash, right up there with a three valve 5.4 Triton Ford.

ZRX1200 wrote:

I think it's just admitting that most people don't give a f*ck, so we have to put some rules in place.

Now businesses, on the other hand, absolutely give a f*ck - about their bottom line.
Why should they spend the money to develop, re-tool, and produce light bulbs that save energy?
Why switch to un-leaded gas or design in catalytic converters?
Because we don't give them a choice.

Brewha wrote: