GM is pulling back on EVs

[sk47]

I suspect for some the EV doesn’t validate their choice of a 5L fossil fuel car and they appear a threat. In addition, as sk47 has mentioned, the vast majority of heating worldwide is by fossil fuels yet there’s not much being done to curb that. Thirdly, airlines have failed to meet over 90% of their emissions targets and yet again, not much emphasis there on govt forced reductions. Bearing in mind that 1L of aviation fuel releases 2.5Kg - yes that’s Kg, not grams - of CO2.
So it does seem that cars are being singled out for much of the blame and motorists are being forced to ante up for it one way or another.
Don’t get me started on the filthy polluting cruise liners that average a ton of fossil fuel per ten miles and their sole use is to chug holidaymakers around.

Hello; Another one that somehow has not been mentioned much by the "green" side of things is war in general and in particular the war in Ukraine. Pretty sure the various militaries during peace and especially war are the biggest emitters/ polluters.

I watched a PBS show from last Wednesday on the climate. It was basically a "scare the pants off" blast at fossil fuels. Early on in the film it was mentioned briefly and without much emphasis that the USA is number 2 emitter in the world, then went on about how awful things will be. Those who have participated in other threads know number 1 is China and last I knew they are putting into use a two or three new coal fired powered plants each month and will continue at that rate until at least 2030.

I like your phrase "cars are being singled out" and may modify it with "ICE are being singled out".

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

I suspect for some the EV doesn’t validate their choice of a 5L fossil fuel car and they appear a threat. In addition, as sk47 has mentioned, the vast majority of heating worldwide is by fossil fuels yet there’s not much being done to curb that. Thirdly, airlines have failed to meet over 90% of their emissions targets and yet again, not much emphasis there on govt forced reductions. Bearing in mind that 1L of aviation fuel releases 2.5Kg - yes that’s Kg, not grams - of CO2.
So it does seem that cars are being singled out for much of the blame and motorists are being forced to ante up for it one way or another.
Don’t get me started on the filthy polluting cruise liners that average a ton of fossil fuel per ten miles and their sole use is to chug holidaymakers around.

That isn't really true. The aviation industry is working hard on this with hydrogen, Airbus actually have hydrogen powered jet engines being trialled and the first aviation hydrogen refuelling site will be opened in Toulouse in a couple of years. This is especially important as aviation releases greenhouse gasses high in the atmosphere. It is also worth considering that aviation propulsion has considerable safety requirements which slow things down. Having a car that breaks down a lot is inconvenient, having a plane that breaks down a lot is rather more serious!

There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuel heating already in use such as heat pumps, electric, solar. In the UK there will be no new homes built with gas pipes from 2025 and the first hydrogen trials using existing infrastructure are just starting. Not just ideas - actually happening.

I ignored @sk47 some time ago - he has a single long winded agenda and has been banned from several threads. He has gone on at length about cars being singled out when it is simply untrue and even basic research shows his assertions are wrong. Don't let him waste your life away! Road transport is very clear on this chart

 

[Gregs24]

Because it's a change and people are naturally resistant to it - change of any kind and anything. Not a rocket science, happens everywhere. And this thread is best example, when you have at least on person on a Mustang forum having produced hundred of posts about EVs and how they are going to destroy the world as he knows it but nearly none about actual Mustangs. It's borderline mental health problem unfortunately.

Ignore button works well! Don't feed the trolls and they starve.

 

[sk47]

I ignored @sk47 some time ago - he has a single long winded agenda and has been banned from several threads. He has gone on at length about cars being singled out when it is simply untrue and even basic research shows his assertions are wrong. Don't let him waste your life away!

Hello; For the record have only lost the privilege to post on one thread, the science is canceled thread. My stance that natural immunity is as good as or better than mRNA shots being my major crime. Go figure.
Must have touched a nerve recently. How about we allow the readers to determine who is wasting time (life). Here is crucial difference between our approaches. I am willing to allow EV's, hydrogen and any other new energy system a chance to prove itself. When any or all do indeed prove to be a viable alternative such will be fine.
You and the other champions seem willing to jump onto a new, unproven and often "someday in the future" range of technologies. That you and others are willing to bet on these new technologies is one thing. That you are willing to drag the rest of us along by force and mandate is still the problem. So yes, I have a central point and come back to it often. That being let the new tech prove itself before dismantling a tried-and-true energy system.
I might consider giving the new solar, wind and EV's a pass if they were truly clean. They have serious environmental issues to be worked out.
Here is a thought. It is below freezing for much of the USA this moment. I am at 14 degrees F right now. My lights are on because coal is being burned. Maybe some natural gas burned as well. Being in a TVA area the hydro dams are likely running stout tonight. It is just past the shortest day of the year and overcast mostly the last few days. When you get the solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro and such up to the capacity of the coal plants and I will shut up. Not the "someday " fantasy world which does not yet exist. Here is an idea. You guys in the UK get a non-fossil fuel energy system working all year long and get back to us.

 

[RagmopInKona]

Because it's a change and people are naturally resistant to it - change of any kind and anything. Not a rocket science, happens everywhere. And this thread is best example, when you have at least on person on a Mustang forum having produced hundred of posts about EVs and how they are going to destroy the world as he knows it but nearly none about actual Mustangs. It's borderline mental health problem unfortunately.

WHY IS IT. that if someone, anyone doesn't blindly believe what the talking heads claim, they are mentally ill?
I question if some of those that liked your post own a mustang or any fast ice powered anything. but that is another matter.
I have no issue with ev's themselves. I have an issue with the fam bois, that turn a blind eye to the con's of them, the leader brands yugo level fit and finish while complaining about mustangs paint. And the fact that public funds are being used to help sell/move these things, that without those hand outs, the buyer would not choose the ev model.
If they are so great, they should not need 7-12k public funded tax credits, or grants to sway buyers.
I also don't like the powers that be, that are forcing and all ev future with no idea how to get there, or caring about the unintended consequences that they have been briefed on by the think tanks, paid to report back to them.
Some are smart enough to see the dumpster fire they are force regulating without a plan to make it smoothly happen.
Some QUESTION things, and logicly look at the issue the WHOLE issue. Not the talking points. Guess to you, that be a cause to call someone mentally ill. RIGHT!!?
If most on this board didn't accept change, we'd all still be driving a 1970 mustang(or other old vehicle) with a carb and a mechanical timing system , and would NOT own a new efi one.
Things that are a huge problem with this forced dumpster fire, that when you bring any up the fan bois change the subject are
1) power production, where we getting the extra juice, as the same ones that are all ev, are the same ones that are hell bent on stopping any nuke, hydro, plants, while forcing the closing of coal, and nuke plants. Sorry unicorn farts are not going to power the electrical plants to charge a world fleet of ev's. This and the N.I.M.B.Y. yahoo's make the 2030-2035 mandate a joke.
2)the raw materials, We don't have enough on earth to make this switch even if we want to. We going to start mining the crap from mars? Yes that last line is stupid, but no more than those pushing an all ev future.
3)What to do with the hazardous waste when the vehicle wrecks or end of life.
4) how to put of an ev fire other than let it burn till it goes out on it's own.

That last one you'd think would be a very good reason to not be forcing the use of them in places that are dry and wild fires are a big problem. When one of these unstopable fire balls causes a few hundred thousand acres to burn and thousands of homes. We will see if the same push will have the fan bois full backing.
But again. no one wants to address any of that above . They just call you mentally ill. for having the gall to not blindly follow the talking heads like good little flock.

 

[Gregs24]

Here is an interesting vehicle that is selling very strongly in the UK

The MG 4 is the BEST car I've driven all year! - YouTube

So obviously it is a compact SUV, but that is what most people buy here. Range is relatively short, but again not an issue for most people most of the time where average journeys are (8 miles UK, 11 miles US). No it will not go off road, no it will not drive for days non stop across the desert, but most people don't do those journeys - which is why it is selling so well.

But most important is the price at £26k which means it is NOT more expensive than an ICE car, it is similar / cheaper. There seem to be few compromises in this as well. There are no subsidies involved here and a 7 year warranty on the whole car. Honestly, why would you NOT buy it if that is the sort of car you want?

The final point however is who makes it - SAIC. One of the best small SUV's on sale in the UK is made in China. Don't underestimate how significant this is. Legacy car makers are struggling to catch up / keep up. Somebody posted the other day they don't care what happens outside the US - well they should as this is exactly the sort of naïve arrogance that destroys industries. The US market is not big enough to support unique platforms and cars any more, the UK hasn't been for years. If Kia and Hyundai can go from nothing to 4th biggest car seller in the US in 20 years so can SAIC. People buy what they want and clearly Kia / Hyundai are providing what they want.

If legacy car makers such as GM and Ford don't want to be obliterated they have to step up fast when it comes to EV's, which is why they are investing so heavily. Will it be enough or will it just be a slow painful decline over the next 10 years?

New world order - you better believe it!

 

[Tinpot]

It appears to be the fact that choice is being forcibly - by legislation - removed. The politicising of it. Small, electric Sports ‘Activity’ vehicles - Dodgems in UK parlance - Some like them as you have mentioned, mainly people who have little to no interest in ‘cars’. To them they’re just transportation. Something to get from A-B. So, yes, they’re ideal for those people. For others however, it’s an interest, a hobby, a passion, that’s slowly being taken away with legislation. The slow erosion of your (my) freedom of choice, but only in select areas and where it suits the agenda. Want to fly to the Maldives for your holidays ? - at 2.5Kg of CO2 per Litre of aviation fuel - yes, that’s fine. Want to chug around the Med polluting the sea and air on a cruise liner ? yes that’s fine. Want to drive your ICE car ? oooh, no, anti social, planet destroyer. That’s the hypocrisy that rankles me.
Apart from that, I’ve no problem with electric vehicles. Is the infrastructure in place to support them if we were all to magically swap ? Are there enough resources in the planet to build them if we were all to magically swap ? Time will tell. In the meantime, leave people with a choice and don’t legislate that choice away before these questions are answered.

 

[Gregs24]

It appears to be the fact that choice is being forcibly - by legislation - removed. The politicising of it. Small, electric Sports ‘Activity’ vehicles - Dodgems in UK parlance - Some like them as you have mentioned, mainly people who have little to no interest in ‘cars’. To them they’re just transportation. Something to get from A-B. So, yes, they’re ideal for those people. For others however, it’s an interest, a hobby, a passion, that’s slowly being taken away with legislation. The slow erosion of your (my) freedom of choice, but only in select areas and where it suits the agenda. Want to fly to the Maldives for your holidays ? - at 2.5Kg of CO2 per Litre of aviation fuel - yes, that’s fine. Want to chug around the Med polluting the sea and air on a cruise liner ? yes that’s fine. Want to drive your ICE car ? oooh, no, anti social, planet destroyer. That’s the hypocrisy that rankles me.
Apart from that, I’ve no problem with electric vehicles. Is the infrastructure in place to support them if we were all to magically swap ? Are there enough resources in the planet to build them if we were all to magically swap ? Time will tell. In the meantime, leave people with a choice and don’t legislate that choice away before these questions are answered.

Going over old ground a bit but the reasons for the change away from ICE is clear and well supported.

The CO2 from aviation fuel is covered above and is a fraction of that produced by road transport. It is important that all sources of greenhouse gasses are reduced but reductions in the biggest sources have the biggest impact. At 115gm/km per passenger aviation is little different to a car being driven alone (3 x better than a Mustang!). That is why full busses and trains are better.

The problem is not wanting to change what affects you and leaving it to others. ALL forms of greenhouse gasses need to be reduced. I have already mentioned what is happening in aviation above, ships are moving to LPG which is a quick reduction in CO2 that can be achieved relatively easily. LED light bulbs have drastically reduced UK electricity consumption etc etc.

Infrastructure follows demand, there is no sudden 'magic' swap and cannot be one.

Legislation is required because fossil fuels are too cheap (current short term situation in Europe excepted). US petrol prices are down at $3.00/gallon now so without legislative changes we will just all carry on doing what we do now leading to yet more problems down the road. We banned coal in the UK, banned DDT, banned lead in fuel, all done for good reasons but wouldn't have happened without legislation.

 

[kz]

Btw - speaking of aviation - they're working hard on reducing emissions. Had regulations in place for years, working on Sustainable Aviation Fuel, Hydrogen power and - watch this - hybrid electric.

There just isn't simply a viable alternative currently to replace current technology, since we speaking about some fundamental safety. So yes, I get aviation emissions are a lot, but they're not sitting there happily doing nothing.

I work in that particular sector just in case someone's starting throwing articles he / she doesn't understand.

 

[key01]

Here is an interesting vehicle that is selling very strongly in the UK

The MG 4 is the BEST car I've driven all year! - YouTube

So obviously it is a compact SUV, but that is what most people buy here. Range is relatively short, but again not an issue for most people most of the time where average journeys are (8 miles UK, 11 miles US). No it will not go off road, no it will not drive for days non stop across the desert, but most people don't do those journeys - which is why it is selling so well.

But most important is the price at £26k which means it is NOT more expensive than an ICE car, it is similar / cheaper. There seem to be few compromises in this as well. There are no subsidies involved here and a 7 year warranty on the whole car. Honestly, why would you NOT buy it if that is the sort of car you want?

The final point however is who makes it - SAIC. One of the best small SUV's on sale in the UK is made in China. Don't underestimate how significant this is. Legacy car makers are struggling to catch up / keep up. Somebody posted the other day they don't care what happens outside the US - well they should as this is exactly the sort of naïve arrogance that destroys industries. The US market is not big enough to support unique platforms and cars any more, the UK hasn't been for years. If Kia and Hyundai can go from nothing to 4th biggest car seller in the US in 20 years so can SAIC. People buy what they want and clearly Kia / Hyundai are providing what they want.

If legacy car makers such as GM and Ford don't want to be obliterated they have to step up fast when it comes to EV's, which is why they are investing so heavily. Will it be enough or will it just be a slow painful decline over the next 10 years?

New world order - you better believe it!

I thought GM and SAiC were in a joint venture? Maybe I’m mistaken about that. I’m a British car enthusiast and it pains me to see this “MG” marquee in use again. It should have just been left alone. I’m currently wrenching on my 1982 Triumph TR8; the last of the BL sports cars. It literally is the very last Triumph to leave the Solihull factory in October of 1981. These cute small medium range EV are practical in the UK, but as had been said many times now they are only practical in Urban areas here in the US. Even the big behemoth TESLA is having issues now unloading inventory and the stock is down 60% this year.

 

[Gregs24]

I thought GM and SAiC were in a joint venture? Maybe I’m mistaken about that. I’m a British car enthusiast and it pains me to see this “MG” marquee in use again. It should have just been left alone. I’m currently wrenching on my 1982 Triumph TR8; the last of the BL sports cars. It literally is the very last Triumph to leave the Solihull factory in October of 1981. These cute small medium range EV are practical in the UK, but as had been said many times now they are only practical in Urban areas here in the US. Even the big behemoth TESLA is having issues now unloading inventory and the stock is down 60% this year.

SAIC-GM - Wikipedia

Agree re MG

Don't slam the hood too vigorously on the TR8 or those carbs will punch a 'tit' in the metal - or at least on the rare RHD cars with SU's they did!

Tesla sales are up year on year in the US it seems. Tesla stocks being hurt by the owner as much as anything else!

 

[sk47]

Going over old ground a bit but the reasons for the change away from ICE is clear and well supported.

The CO2 from aviation fuel is covered above and is a fraction of that produced by road transport. It is important that all sources of greenhouse gasses are reduced but reductions in the biggest sources have the biggest impact. At 115gm/km per passenger aviation is little different to a car being driven alone (3 x better than a Mustang!). That is why full busses and trains are better.

The problem is not wanting to change what affects you and leaving it to others. ALL forms of greenhouse gasses need to be reduced. I have already mentioned what is happening in aviation above, ships are moving to LPG which is a quick reduction in CO2 that can be achieved relatively easily. LED light bulbs have drastically reduced UK electricity consumption etc etc.

Infrastructure follows demand, there is no sudden 'magic' swap and cannot be one.

Legislation is required because fossil fuels are too cheap (current short term situation in Europe excepted). US petrol prices are down at $3.00/gallon now so without legislative changes we will just all carry on doing what we do now leading to yet more problems down the road. We banned coal in the UK, banned DDT, banned lead in fuel, all done for good reasons but wouldn't have happened without legislation.

Hello; Interesting attempt to rationalize the use force and mandates. Reminds me of your 'everybody must be forced to take the mRNA Covid shots' stance. Natural immunity be dammed and problematic issues with the shots must be ignored. I imagine you are still beating out that same tune.

I notice you did not discuss the emissions of the military currently in Ukraine or even the emissions of the militaries in general anytime. Military activities in training and peacetime maneuvers yield high emissions all the time, but even more so during an active war. Interesting the pieces of the emissions puzzle you omit.
In addition, I do not recall any response about my posted links to the Volvo EV vs. ICE study. The study which indicates an EV's overall pollution/emissions are not immediately cleaner than an ICE. It is only after the EV is driven around 68,000 miles before it begins to be less polluting than an ICE.
I saw in a recent post from you that we peons who cannot afford the outrageous high prices of a top end EV can have a chepo unit made in China. Dare I mention that China is now the top polluter/emitter of the entire world. Makes me wonder how much of the energy required to build that chepo EV will come from the burning of coal in the new power plants. You know, the new coal fired power plants going online at the rate of around two a month in China.

You are correct about the price of crude/gasoline being too low to be a factor in the EV push. I kept up with the peak oil discussion for a long time. Back before fracking and other oil recovery tech it was felt that oil production would peak worldwide around 2004. The hybrids and a few very early prototype EV's started to be around in early 2000 became the first steps. It was expected that reduced crude production would lead to high gasoline and diesel prices. The high fuel prices would then make hybrids and EV's more competitive and lead to a fulfillment of the 'green agenda'. But alas, such did not happen. Crude became cheaper and the hybrids/EV's had any expected economic edge removed. With cheaper fuel the EV and hybrids never could make up the extra expense. The hybrid and EV became more of a virtue signal than a viable economic alternative. So, things had to change to save the agenda. Low oil price panic had set in when plan A failed, and the agenda was in danger of collapse. On to plans B and C.

Plan B Incentives using tax dollars from all of us to help push the hybrids and then the EV's started. However even that was not enough to boost sales much. (Still a steep economic penalty) So along comes the plan C era of anti-ICE mandates and anti-fossil fuels executive and other orders. Other orders coming from some of the alphabet agencies (EPA and such) affecting the fossil fuel industry. Throwing monkey wrenches into the oil lease permitting process for example. One example known was that somehow a "math" error had delayed the actual issue of needed permits for many months. A red tape delay tactic it would appear.

Somehow it seems to all boil down to personal transportation of the masses. You are correct in that a mass of us peons did not jump on board of the agenda train in enough numbers. So legislation (read mandates) must be used to force the issue. Same scenario as back when some of us did not take the mRNA Covid shots because we felt natural immunity works or had other reasons to make a personal choice about having an experimental drug injected into our bodies.
We all, or at least many of us, understand the mind set of those who feel they are of a superior stance. We get because of that self-proclaimed superior stance they feel they ought to be able to make decisions for the rest of us who just cannot seem to understand. We deserve to have shot mandates forced onto us or EV mandates forced onto us because we simply do not get it.
Never mind presenting the evidence and allowing us to decide for ourselves. We are not capable, so our betters must decide. We should just shut up and be good sheep.

That many of us are willing to give an EV a chance if the problems can be fixed and somehow an EV can actually fit into our daily lives. As I have written before. Allow the EV and the ICE to compete on a level field and allow me to pick the one I want to use. I do not mind if anyone picks the EV as long as I get to make a choice of my own.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Interesting attempt to rationalize the use force and mandates. Reminds me of your 'everybody must be forced to take the mRNA Covid shots' stance. Natural immunity be dammed and problematic issues with the shots must be ignored. I imagine you are still beating out that same tune.

I notice you did not discuss the emissions of the military currently in Ukraine or even the emissions of the militaries in general anytime. Military activities in training and peacetime maneuvers yield high emissions all the time, but even more so during an active war. Interesting the pieces of the emissions puzzle you omit.
In addition, I do not recall any response about my posted links to the Volvo EV vs. ICE study. The study which indicates an EV's overall pollution/emissions are not immediately cleaner than an ICE. It is only after the EV is driven around 68,000 miles before it begins to be less polluting than an ICE.
I saw in a recent post from you that we peons who cannot afford the outrageous high prices of a top end EV can have a chepo unit made in China. Dare I mention that China is now the top polluter/emitter of the entire world. Makes me wonder how much of the energy required to build that chepo EV will come from the burning of coal in the new power plants. You know, the new coal fired power plants going online at the rate of around two a month in China.

You are correct about the price of crude/gasoline being too low to be a factor in the EV push. I kept up with the peak oil discussion for a long time. Back before fracking and other oil recovery tech it was felt that oil production would peak worldwide around 2004. The hybrids and a few very early prototype EV's started to be around in early 2000 became the first steps. It was expected that reduced crude production would lead to high gasoline and diesel prices. The high fuel prices would then make hybrids and EV's more competitive and lead to a fulfillment of the 'green agenda'. But alas, such did not happen. Crude became cheaper and the hybrids/EV's had any expected economic edge removed. With cheaper fuel the EV and hybrids never could make up the extra expense. The hybrid and EV became more of a virtue signal than a viable economic alternative. So, things had to change to save the agenda. Low oil price panic had set in when plan A failed, and the agenda was in danger of collapse. On to plans B and C.

Plan B Incentives using tax dollars from all of us to help push the hybrids and then the EV's started. However even that was not enough to boost sales much. (Still a steep economic penalty) So along comes the plan C era of anti-ICE mandates and anti-fossil fuels executive and other orders. Other orders coming from some of the alphabet agencies (EPA and such) affecting the fossil fuel industry. Throwing monkey wrenches into the oil lease permitting process for example. One example known was that somehow a "math" error had delayed the actual issue of needed permits for many months. A red tape delay tactic it would appear.

Somehow it seems to all boil down to personal transportation of the masses. You are correct in that a mass of us peons did not jump on board of the agenda train in enough numbers. So legislation (read mandates) must be used to force the issue. Same scenario as back when some of us did not take the mRNA Covid shots because we felt natural immunity works or had other reasons to make a personal choice about having an experimental drug injected into our bodies.
We all, or at least many of us, understand the mind set of those who feel they are of a superior stance. We get because of that self-proclaimed superior stance they feel they ought to be able to make decisions for the rest of us who just cannot seem to understand. We deserve to have shot mandates forced onto us or EV mandates forced onto us because we simply do not get it.
Never mind presenting the evidence and allowing us to decide for ourselves. We are not capable, so our betters must decide. We should just shut up and be good sheep.

That many of us are willing to give an EV a chance if the problems can be fixed and somehow an EV can actually fit into our daily lives. As I have written before. Allow the EV and the ICE to compete on a level field and allow me to pick the one I want to use. I do not mind if anyone picks the EV as long as I get to make a choice of my own.

Quote Gregs 24 " We banned coal in the UK, banned DDT, banned lead in fuel, all done for good reasons but wouldn't have happened without legislation."

Hello; Thought I would expand on this last notion a bit. The basis for legislation, mandates and other such anti-fossil fuels agendas lies with the notion of man caused global warming/climate change. We can discuss that notion, but what i want to point out is that it has become the excuse behind the anti-ICE mandates and legislation. The true believers have convinced themselves they have a moral mandate to do whatever is needed.
I have read and heard this described as a belief system. May be the case and if so our calls for fair play and letting the EV compete on an even playing field will fall on deaf ears. I have noted that the true believers do not respond to the Volvo study i linked several times. That and a few other items rarely get any feedback.

 

[RagmopInKona]

If it was about clean air and saving the world, products would be manufactured localized. As the ocean ships carrying containers pollute in one month more than the WHOLE USA LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE FLEET DOES IN A YEAR!!!!.
But highlighting this fact would kill stock prices , and no ones got time for tat.
It is about control. not clean air or saving the world.
I can pick what company I buy my Gas from. Ev's get one choice the local electric utility . Once you have no choice, you pay whatever they want to charge.
Oil is not going anywhere, or are we going back to dirt roads for the ev's to drive on.
Some see through the b/s, talking heads, talking points.
Vehicles that stop and go, like school busses and postal vans garbage trucks, ev makes sense . Construction equipment it does not. not that those making the rules care, as they are now mandating electric only. That at construction sites will be charged by a oil burning generater. BRILLANT. But it FEELS like we are helping save the planet, and FEELINGS are all that matter . not reality.

 

[sk47]

If it was about clean air and saving the world, products would be manufactured localized. As the ocean ships carrying containers pollute in one month more than the WHOLE USA LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE FLEET DOES IN A YEAR!!!!.
But highlighting this fact would kill stock prices , and no ones got time for tat.
It is about control. not clean air or saving the world.
I can pick what company I buy my Gas from. Ev's get one choice the local electric utility . Once you have no choice, you pay whatever they want to charge.
Oil is not going anywhere, or are we going back to dirt roads for the ev's to drive on.
Some see through the b/s, talking heads, talking points.
Vehicles that stop and go, like school busses and postal vans garbage trucks, ev makes sense . Construction equipment it does not. not that those making the rules care, as they are now mandating electric only. That at construction sites will be charged by a oil burning generater. BRILLANT. But it FEELS like we are helping save the planet, and FEELINGS are all that matter . not reality.

Hello; Feelings work. Try watching the Wednesday night PBS nature and other environmental programs. Some lately are reruns and they are sometimes shown on other days. Every program the last several years includes some reference to man caused climate change.
I am old. Over the decades the top climate scientists have made dire prediction dates which have come and are left in the past.
Back in the 1970's we were told about being in the start of a new ice age. That made sense as there was ample evidence of around five ice sheet advances in North America with 10,000 to 20,000 or so interglacial warm periods. Seems back then we were approaching the end of an interglacial warm spell of about 10,000 years. The winter of 1977 made that prediction seem possible. An interesting, although very brief, bit in one of those PBS programs mentioned the interglacial warm periods and oh so very quickly stated then left alone that human activity may have postponed the early phases of the next ice sheets.

I drift from the point. Yes, feelings are worked on to press the agendas. Fear being used during the pandemic is a good reference. Made that fear turn into aggression and anger toward the unvaccinated. Gave leaders an excuse to make strange rules, restrictions and mandates. Some of which had little to nothing to do with anything real. Some even were bad ideas. For example gyms were forced to close and we now know being fit is a good way to avoid serious disease. People who had natural immunity were forced to get a shot or lose a job. I saw about people being refused life saving surgeries because they are not Covid vaccinated and voices on forums like this one cheering that stuff on. The cry was that the unvaccinated should not be given treatments because by being unvaccinated they became part of a hated/feared 'other'.

As was recently pointed out in apparent glee I was removed from the science is cancelled thread because I dared question some of the official edicts of the time. Even though I had taken two of the shots I was called an anti-vaxxer when after some time I posted questions about the mRNA vaccines. Questions known to be valid now that the shots are understood to not prevent catching the disease nor prevent illness from it. Of course, I was not the only one removed from that thread for "misinformation" or any number of other excuses. I and the others banned from that thread are still not allowed to post even tho time has proven us correct to question.

The covid pandemic/lockdowns are part of an unpleasant history we are still suffering the effects from and cannot be changed. We can however learn the lessons it gave us. We should not allow self-appointed "experts" to decree policies without questions as happened in the past. Questioners should not be silenced as we were on this site and on other more popular social media. We are currently learning of an alphabet agency directly working with a bird site to censor us. Something suspected for a long time and now a known fact.
No individual should be able to declare themselves to be "science" and thus to not be questioned or anything close to that. The shut up and do not question your betters tactic should not stand again.
Enough from me.

Sponsored