GM is pulling back on EVs

[jtmat]

You fancy yourself as a “pot stirrer”, but you are a known buffoon who is too dimwitted to “toy“ with anyone. You cite an article about a hybrid vehicle, when the actual argument/controversy is concerning BEV’s. Do you know the difference? Go be a dufus elsewhere, ’ya dufus’.

Poor gal. Another weak try. I'll give you your one post for this week. That should hold you over until next week. Be grateful I gave you some attention.

See how that works? I don't need to fly off the handle like I don't have self-control.

Sponsored

 

[Bulldog9]

I didn't take it as such. I'm mostly focused on range. I give the nutjobs a hard time about tankers blowing up and such but it is in jest. They eat it up though... I don't understand.

I was more shocked at your decent reply since we don't see that often on this forum. Posters normally want to go around in circles talking about a topic we can't discuss but has already been discussed earlier in the thread.

People don't agree or they are concerned about something different. Shocker!

I enjoyed reading the go-kart story. Thank you for sharing.

It is sad we can't have reasonable conversations. I try to be rational, and enjoy discussion. This is a car forum, I don't really take it seriously unless I need or am giving advice on something auto related.

This IS an important topic, and is complex. My observation is that the "Popular Narrative" has been politicized, monetized, and is functioning as a cabal with a SINGLE narrative and point of view that squelches others.

For Example, In September this was published. The Author did it to make a point. https://www.thecollegefix.com/scien...-truth-to-get-climate-change-paper-published/

This last August a group of 1,600 scientists and other scholars sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ declaration. How much press has this gotten? https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf

I've made several similar statements to this end in this thread, largely ignored, or replied to with hyperbole and ad hominin attacks. This is why I liken it to a Religious Movement, similar if I dare say to the PRO and ANTI Gun crowd. People run for the Margins and stand in the groups shouting the loudest rather than staying in the middle.

I'm happy to discuss, but am ignoring the maroons...............

 

[sk47]

Who provided the estimate? Provide a link to the direct study/report, not some second-hand website.

Hello; Here you go. Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). I posted this several pages ago. Let me guess, the source will not be good enough, right? All the text in blue are links to more information.

New report unmasks true costs of electric vehicle mandates: 'Remain more expensive' (msn.com)

“A sweeping first-of-its-kind analysis published by think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) concludes that electric vehicles (EV) would cost tens of thousands of dollars more if not for generous taxpayer-funded incentives.”

“…the average model year 2021 EV would cost approximately $48,698 more to own over a 10-year period without the staggering $22 billion in taxpayer-funded handouts that the government provides to electric car manufacturers and owners. The analysis factors in federal fuel efficiency programs, electric grid strain, and direct state and federal subsidies.”

"It’s time for federal and state governments to stop driving the American auto industry off an economic cliff and allow markets to drive further improvements in cost and efficiency," it continues.”

“The report determined that, thanks to a special multiplier that has existed for more than two decades, EVs receive roughly seven times more credits under federal fuel efficiency programs than they provide in actual fuel economy benefits. That figure, the total regulatory credits from federal and state fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards, amounts to an average of $27,881 per vehicle for EV makers.”

“Further, the analysis calculated the socialized cost of EV charging stations' strain on the U.S. electric grid amounts to an average of $11,833 per EV over 10 years. Such costs are shouldered by utility ratepayers and taxpayers, many of whom may not own an EV.”

And, finally, state governments and the federal government provide an average of $8,984 per EV over 10 years in direct taxpayer-funded subsidies.

"The stark reality for proponents of EVs and for the dreamers in the federal government, who are using fuel economy regulations to force manufacturers to produce ever more EVs, is that the true cost of an EV is in no way close to a comparable [internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV)]," the report concludes.”

“…has pursued rigorous restrictions on gas-powered vehicles. In December 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized rules, which targeted heavy-duty trucks, that it said at the time were the "strongest-ever national clean air standards to cut smog- and soot-forming emissions" from such vehicles. The new standards went into effect on March 27 and will be implemented for new trucks sold after 2027.”

“"Electric vehicle owners have been the beneficiaries of regulatory credits, subsidies, and socialized infrastructure costs totaling nearly 50 thousand dollars per EV," he said. "These costs are borne by gasoline vehicle owners, taxpayers, and utility ratepayers, who are all paying a hefty price for someone else’s EV."”



Hello; Sad as it may seem to be I did not copy other damming bits about the attacks on ICE vehicles. While it might be entertaining to see how the champions react to this report, mostly I figure the information confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time. Even if a person buys into the save the planet hype associated with BEV’s this amounts to a top-down scam. Add to the situation that on the whole BEV’s are not all that clean.

 

[K4fxd]

It is sad we can't have reasonable conversations. I try to be rational, and enjoy discussion.

I believe in choice, if a BEV works for someone great, I hope they are avalible for purchase.

My problem with BEV's is the rush to have only these as a choice. I also take offense that my tax dollars are directly subsidizing them. Several pages back I provided evidence of how much power generating capacity will need to be added to accommodate 100% BEV's. It is not feasible in any stretch of the imagination.

If this makes me a nutjob so be it.

 

[sk47]

For Example, In September this was published. The Author did it to make a point. https://www.thecollegefix.com/scien...-truth-to-get-climate-change-paper-published/

This last August a group of 1,600 scientists and other scholars sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ declaration. How much press has this gotten? https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf

Hello; I also posted links to the story of the author cited in the first link above. but your link is the first time seeing the text. edit

As to your second link I have heard of this declaration, but your link is the first time seeing the text.

This IS an important topic, and is complex. My observation is that the "Popular Narrative" has been politicized, monetized, and is functioning as a cabal with a SINGLE narrative and point of view that squelches others.

Hello; As you state this is an important topic. Far above what sort of vehicles we will drive. I and others have no issue with the existence of BEV's. It is the push to alter a vital energy and transport system for the entire world at an unrealistic rate. Might be in time the BEV's and all "green energy" ideas can be made to be both practical, dependable and sufficient to do the tasks. These artificial deadlines set way too soon along with the destruction of proven energy and transport infrastructure at the same time put us way out on a limb.

 

[jtmat]

It is sad we can't have reasonable conversations. I try to be rational, and enjoy discussion. This is a car forum, I don't really take it seriously unless I need or am giving advice on something auto related.

It is all good. Sometimes I do read stuff I didn't know about. Every now and again someone will post something I find interesting.

This IS an important topic, and is complex. My observation is that the "Popular Narrative" has been politicized, monetized, and is functioning as a cabal with a SINGLE narrative and point of view that squelches others.

This is 100% true. We are so far along now, the time to be angry was 20 or 30 years ago. Now all I see is "fake anger". Truth is it WILL go away when someone they like is peddling the same message. They will then say it is Patriotic to stand with America while we go through this change.

Do I agree with subsidies? Yes. Fact is they are a part of America and the world. We still have oil, farm and other subsidies. Fact is they bring in American jobs when you look at the total package. I'm not mad at that. Can it be better? I'm sure it can. Vote, volunteer, or run for office. A forum won't do it.

For Example, In September this was published. The Author did it to make a point. https://www.thecollegefix.com/scien...-truth-to-get-climate-change-paper-published/

This last August a group of 1,600 scientists and other scholars sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ declaration. How much press has this gotten? https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf

We discussed at least one of these studies. If I remember correctly one person was trying to promote his new job.

The signature page I'm wondering who cares (no disrespect to you). I think we all agree there is climate change, but we don't agree on how much humans participate, the rate at which climate change is happening, what can be done about it, etc. I do what I can but I'd buy a private jet if I could afford one (i.e. I'd drive my EV Rolls-Royce to the jet).

Unfortunately when studies, papers, etc. are provided they normally come from dubious (at best) sources. People stand on them like "truth". I have friends (left and right) who work at think tanks (and places like them). They have agendas, to say lightly.

I've made several similar statements to this end in this thread, largely ignored, or replied to with hyperbole and ad hominin attacks. This is why I liken it to a Religious Movement, similar if I dare say to the PRO and ANTI Gun crowd. People run for the Margins and stand in the groups shouting the loudest rather than staying in the middle.

I'm happy to discuss, but am ignoring the maroons...............

Agree. That is my problem. I don't really care about all the fake anger BS they are up in arms about.

I do care about range and the technology inside of EVs. I also like to hear different perspectives on EVs the the issues others notice (fires, range, cost, etc.). Does that make me an EV champion? I guess. Not sure how.

I could do away with all the non-sense, but that is where we are with a certain part of the country. I have fun with the clowns and move on. Clowns were meant to be entertaining!!!

 

[sk47]

I do what I can but I'd buy a private jet if I could afford one (i.e. I'd drive my EV Rolls-Royce to the jet).

Hello; I get it.

 

[Joe B.]

This whole EV, solar, wind, "green" religion, is a twisted evolution of the real ecology movement of the 60's-70's. The clean water act and endangered species act had real promise but are slowly being swept under the rug. By the time "global warming" has any catastrophic effects, overpopulation, pollution, and natural resource exploitation will have ruined most of the Earth. This EV "pivot", I hate that word, has little to do with saving the planet.

 

[Bulldog9]

If I could afford a Private Jet, I'd have a Taycan, Cayenne Coupe Hybrid, F350 Diesel Dually Quad Cab and a SInger 911........ hahahah

 

[sk47]

By the time "global warming" has any catastrophic effects, overpopulation, pollution, and natural resource exploitation will have ruined most of the Earth.

Hello; These things are of a much greater concern than warming. I agree.

 

[Gregs24]

It is sad we can't have reasonable conversations. I try to be rational, and enjoy discussion. This is a car forum, I don't really take it seriously unless I need or am giving advice on something auto related.

This IS an important topic, and is complex. My observation is that the "Popular Narrative" has been politicized, monetized, and is functioning as a cabal with a SINGLE narrative and point of view that squelches others.

For Example, In September this was published. The Author did it to make a point. https://www.thecollegefix.com/scien...-truth-to-get-climate-change-paper-published/

This last August a group of 1,600 scientists and other scholars sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ declaration. How much press has this gotten? https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf

I've made several similar statements to this end in this thread, largely ignored, or replied to with hyperbole and ad hominin attacks. This is why I liken it to a Religious Movement, similar if I dare say to the PRO and ANTI Gun crowd. People run for the Margins and stand in the groups shouting the loudest rather than staying in the middle.

I'm happy to discuss, but am ignoring the maroons...............

Time to apply your critical thinking to that link. FIRST thing to do is look at who those 1609 signatures are (and also to consider that 1609 signatures really isn't very many in the world of climate science). So we have THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY who is some old politician from the UK with no expertise in the area, PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT a German politician and climate change denier BARRY BRILL an ex politician and petrochemical company director, the list goes on and on of people with no expertise in the field, but plenty of political reasons why they make the comments they do. Then look at what they state - same old guff as usual with absolutely no evidence to back up their comments.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide

So here is one of those statements - Has it? So here from NASA research

NASA Study: Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Will Help and Hurt Crops - NASA


Results show that yields for all four crops grown at levels of carbon dioxide remaining at 2000 levels would experience severe declines in yield due to higher temperatures and drier conditions. But when grown at doubled carbon dioxide levels, all four crops fare better due to increased photosynthesis and crop water productivity, partially offsetting the impacts from those adverse climate changes. For wheat and soybean crops, in terms of yield the median negative impacts are fully compensated, and rice crops recoup up to 90 percent and maize up to 60 percent of their losses.

According to the study, the impact of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations on crop water productivity and yield varies regionally. Results show that maize suffers yield losses with doubled carbon dioxide levels, due in large part to the plant’s already greater efficiency at using carbon dioxide for photosynthesis compared with the other crops. Maize yields fall by 15 percent in areas that use irrigation and by 8 percent in areas that rely on rain. Even so, losses would be more severe without the carbon dioxide increase: yields would decrease 21 percent for irrigated maize and 26 percent for rainfed maize.

This clearly shows that SOME plants show increased performance, but most do not offset the loses from other factors, but that maize the worlds biggest food crop shows a DECREASE in yield. This has been confirmed in many other studies. It also completely ignores the impact of changing weather patterns that mean crops simply cannot be grown in some places any more - no matter how much CO2 or irrigation.

Come on - critical thinking is needed. Even the most basic checks show the silly statements from Clintel are simplistic and error filled at best, deceiving at worst.

 

[Gregs24]

For Example, In September this was published. The Author did it to make a point. https://www.thecollegefix.com/scien...-truth-to-get-climate-change-paper-published/

It is not clear what Dr Brown’s motives are for making such false allegations, but his claims are now fuelling media-led propaganda to mislead the public about the risks of climate change

Newspapers are using climate researcher’s false claims about journal bias to mislead readers - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

Do any of these words and phrases seem familiar?

Dr Brown’s claims are therefore demonstrably false. Unfortunately, his bogus narrative has predictably been seized upon by the opponents of action to tackle climate change. For instance, The Daily Telegraph covered Dr Brown’s comments on page 2 of its print edition on 7 September under the inaccurate headline ‘Climate change findings inflated ‘so paper would be published’. Its sub-heading stated: “Scientist admits overhyping global warming to fit with mainstream narrative preferred by journal”.

A day later, the newspaper published a characteristically error-strewn article by Viscount Matt Ridley, a member of the so-called ‘Academic Advisory Council’ of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He wrote: “Editors at journals such as Nature seem to prefer publishing simplistic, negative news and speculation about climate change.”

He also wrote: “One of the biggest measurable impacts of increased carbon dioxide is global greening – the recent increase in green vegetation on the planet, equivalent to twice the area of the United States and counting”. Viscount Ridley has a track record of making Panglossian pronouncements about the supposed benefits of climate change, based on misinformation.

 

[Gregs24]

This whole EV, solar, wind, "green" religion, is a twisted evolution of the real ecology movement of the 60's-70's. The clean water act and endangered species act had real promise but are slowly being swept under the rug. By the time "global warming" has any catastrophic effects, overpopulation, pollution, and natural resource exploitation will have ruined most of the Earth. This EV "pivot", I hate that word, has little to do with saving the planet.

No.3 of the climate deniers handbook.

1. deny it is happening
2. claim if it is happening it is all a natural cycle
3. claim if humans are causing some of it - it is too late to change now anyway

So in other words - do nothing and don't make me change my lifestyle

 

[Bulldog9]

It is not clear what Dr Brown’s motives are for making such false allegations, but his claims are now fuelling media-led propaganda to mislead the public about the risks of climate change

Brown himself was VERY clear why he did it. To get published. He also did it to illustrate the point that there was too much politics in science.

 

[Gregs24]

Brown himself was VERY clear why he did it. To get published. He also did it to illustrate the point that there was too much politics in science.

Was he really? Come on try and read things critically please.

Did you actually read this?

Newspapers are using climate researcher’s false claims about journal bias to mislead readers - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

And how about this:

A scientist manipulated climate data. Conservative media celebrated. - E&E News by POLITICO (eenews.net)

Brown said THIS:

The researcher, Patrick Brown, said he omitted “the full truth” about nonclimate causes of wildfire, such as insufficient forest management, from a peer-reviewed study that showed how rising temperatures are increasing the risk of wildfire, because he suspected editors of the journal Nature would have rejected his research if it failed to exclusively blame human-caused greenhouse gases for intensifying blazes. Nature said his claims were untrue.

Before the paper was published, peer reviewers of Brown’s research pointed out that he excluded important variables other than climate change that also affect wildfires, Skipper said. Brown argued against including those other variables


Brown censored himself, rather than actually being told his paper wouldn’t be published if he broadened his research.

“He’s whistleblowing on himself — he did all of this,” Schmidt said. “Nobody did anything to him.”


And even better from the horses mouth:

Patrick T. Brown, PhD | It’s easy to construct a persuasive argument, it’s much more difficult to figure out the truth… (patricktbrown.org)


Why did you say “As a scientist, I’m not allowed to tell the full truth about climate change”?

I did not say that. The New York Post made that up.


Are you happy that your piece was used by people who think climate change isn’t real or is not caused by humans?

No.

I think it goes without saying that climate change is real and that the evidence is overwhelming that humans have caused about 100% of the warming since the Industrial Revolution. Also, in order to stabilize the climate, we must reduce CO2 emissions to near zero in the long run. Furthermore, as I said in the editorial, warming has very important effects on increasing wildfire danger.

Sponsored