GM is pulling back on EVs

[key01]

Were GM ever actually pulling back? The OP article actually said they were cutting ICE plant capacity to concentrate on EV R&D.

That original video post was a fluff click bait regarding GM and their future in EV. Someone did post about the Stellantis move to idle the Belvidere Illinois plant and concentrate on EV R&D. Belvidere is where the Jeep Cherokee is assembled and it is weeks away from closing now. I doubt they will ever reopen it. The plant is 30 miles from my home and it will have a huge effect on that city and the surrounding area. Oddly enough I bought a new Cherokee for my wife which was built there. It has been one of the most reliable autos I have ever owned.

Sponsored

 

[kz]

No one sane at this point thinks anyone is pulling back on EVs - not at this point in time and not anytime soon. Bentley just quit making their V12 to get ready for "electrification".

Whether someone likes it or not, EVs are coming and but they should keep up the hope that posting on an internet forum about Mustangs is going to make everyone reconsider those plans. It's a great plan.

 

[K4fxd]

They can make all the battery electric cars they want, just don't FORCE one on me.

 

[sk47]

They can make all the battery electric cars they want, just don't FORCE one on me.

Hello; This makes sense and I fully agree. However, from just the small population of EV champions on a Mustang forum we get a sample of an apparent general attitude. From Gregs we get that because some of us will not do what he considers proper, then force is ok to use else we will keep on using fossil fuels.
From another we get that it is OK for the dangers of Climate change to be overstated apparently to raise the fear levels in the general population.
So, FORCE is on the table and is being used against us. We who actually pay taxes and do not wish to be forced (mandated) to have an EV also see our tax dollars (national debt) being used against us in the form of incentives.

But hey, We are just on a Mustang forum so what we think will not matter. Yet they go to lengths to argue against us. I know it would be full of speculation but I wonder if we ought to consider what a lifestyle with no fossil fuel use and an all green electric grid might be like. I get that the dreamers think it will be some sort of wonderful thing.

 

[Burkey]

They can make all the battery electric cars they want, just don't FORCE one on me.

I was actually thinking about this the other day. Seems to me that if you were 18 years of age right now, you’d be able to buy a brand new ICE vehicle until you’re 30. Let’s assume that it lasts 15 years. You’re now 45 years of age before the reality of a BEV is foisted upon you (assuming you choose not to continue repairing your ICE).
The year would be 2050 at that point.

In my mind, it’s likely that the tech will have come far enough by then that 99% of people won’t actually want an ICE vehicle, citing reasons like:
“Too noisy”
“Too slow”
“Too dear to run”
And eventually….
“Too hard to find places that sell gasoline”
“Makes planning trips too hard”
“Can’t fill it up at home”

 

[Burkey]

From Gregs we get that because some of us will not do what he considers proper, then force is ok to use else we will keep on using fossil fuels.

If we’re being honest, that’s not just Greg’s opinion. We’ve both explained to you repeatedly that government has a LONG history of removing toxic substances from the hands of the people. Stop acting like a victim. This isn’t a new concept, just a new implementation of an existing concept. If you want absolute freedom, stat by demanding that people be allowed access to asbestos, DDT, leaded petroleum (gasoline) etc etc etc. Soinds stupid when you say it like that, doesn’t it?

From another we get that it is OK for the dangers of Climate change to be overstated apparently to raise the fear levels in the general population.

Ahhh yes. This one’s hilarious. You accuse them of running an agenda when they “overstate the impacts“ (the whole 50-100 year thing) that YOU originally claimed was a good reason for why we SHOULDN’T act….
Do you remember that? I do. Seems like a weird agenda if the information they’re supplying makes YOU think that there’s no point in ”following the narrative”.
Then, when they seemingly change the statement, you then claim that this is ALSO them “building a narrative”.
Which one is it?
You have to pick one. The two statements are at odds with one another yet both of them seem to make you think there’s an agenda, rather than a body of evidence.

So, FORCE is on the table and is being used against us.

Otherwise known as government intervention.

Yet they go to lengths to argue against us.

Only when you say stupid shit that isn’t even internally consistent, or ignore how government has operated since almost ever. See above replies for reference point.

We who actually pay taxes and do not wish to be forced (mandated) to have an EV also see our tax dollars (national debt) being used against us in the form of incentives.

Yes, we understand that you don’t like it. Unfortunately, not liking something isn't good enough reason to change government policy.
I don’t like having my taxes fund other peoples investment properties via the tax breaks they’re given, yet here we are, allowing it to continue, despite the fact that it artificially raises the cost of housing, thereby “forcing“ the lowest earners out of the housing market, and instead renting those same houses off the very people they’re subsidising in the first place….

. I know it would be full of speculation but I wonder if we ought to consider what a lifestyle with no fossil fuel use and an all green electric grid might be like. I get that the dreamers think it will be some sort of wonderful thing.

I think you misunderstand. It is NOT my position that the transition to renewables and a “green” future is going to be some kind of utopian nirvana.
It’s going to be costly and challenging.
That doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth doing though.

It‘s only a waste if you don’t believe that the emission of fossil fuels into the atmosphere is actually going to harm our climate in ways that cost LESS than the proposed solutions.

Thats a debate worth having. Everything else is just emotionally driven nonsense.

 

[Burkey]

@sk47
While we’re talking about NASA and “the agenda”….
Can you explain to me how reducing the upper limit for climate sensitivity is consistent with “the narrative”?

Seems to me that ongoing research is doing exactly as it should, reducing the margin of error in future predictions.

It also seems to me that if you were actually trying to sell a cure, you’d make the disease seem much worse than it really is, right?
I‘m sure you’ll find a way to make this another part of the “green agenda“ though. Can’t wait to read it. /s

From the article linked below:

Q. Your team was able to narrow the range of estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity by more than 43 percent, from the previously accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5 Kelvin first established in 1979 (roughly 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit), to a narrower range of 2.6 to 3.9 Kelvin (roughly 4.5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit). Why is it important for scientists to narrow this range of uncertainty? What does it mean in practical terms to be able to reduce uncertainties in measuring climate sensitivity?

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3017/making-sense-of-climate-sensitivity/

 

[K4fxd]

For the majority of the US and I would also think in Aus, a battery EV is not practical. When cities are 300 or more miles apart range is an issue.

 

[Burkey]

For the majority of the US and I would also think in Aus, a battery EV is not practical. When cities are 300 or more miles apart range is an issue.

Do you think that range will still be an issue in 2050?

 

[sk47]

Hello; Two posts from Burkey avoiding the points. Even if we do the impossible by getting carbon to some low level tomorrow the predicted climate effect will continue for decades. That dire scenario was used as one of the cudgels to try to scare folks into compliance and or to get folks on board with the mandated use of force. Wanna bet the newer studies will somehow reverse some of the more dire predictions and conclude that with drastic Co2 reductions the benefits will start sooner, if not right away?
Interesting how in twisted logic the notion of 50 or more years of warming even with drastic Co2 reductions is somehow my plot. I did not come up with those predictions, only pointed out that they exist. I guess the idea was if the people are scared enough they will be more compliant. Kinda backfired as it reduced hope for the lifetimes of those who live today.

Equating carbon to asbestos, DDT, leaded petroleum is a typical touch. Our food and our bodies are made from lots of carbon. Carbon is necessary for life. This is another ploy that has sort of backfired on the true believers. Trying to turn something needed for life into something evil.

I guess as it was back in the Covid pandemic days when we were supposed to have forgotten that natural immunity exists after survival of a viral infection. I suppose we are now to forget the world climate has been changing naturally for millions of years. Can we humans add to the pollution of the planet? Sure, we can and do.

As I have written before. When fracking and other tech allowed for recovery of more oil and natural gas the true believers panicked. Now we have an ill-considered and unrealistic platform being mandated upon us.

 

[K4fxd]

Do you think that range will still be an issue in 2050?

For straight up BEV, yes

 

[jtmat]

For straight up BEV, yes

It won't be. Facts.

 

[Burkey]

Two posts from Burkey avoiding the points.

No, I addressed the points you were making. I highlighted how ridiculous your position is and THEN you decided to continue spruiking the same nonsense. Either you’re very dim OR you’re so committed to your position that you just can’t see the forest for the trees.

Even if we do the impossible by getting carbon to some low level tomorrow the predicted climate effect will continue for decades. That dire scenario was used as one of the cudgels to try to scare folks into compliance and or to get folks on board with the mandated use of force.

As I said, back when YOU thought that was the prediction, YOU said that the timeline was a good reason to AVOID change and continue with business as usual. The rest of us thought “holy shit, we better get busy on it”.
Are you seriously incapable of seeing how ludicrous your position was? You were simultaneously arguing that they’re trying to scare us into action whilst also saying that it was the very reason why we shouldn’t act.
Pick a lane and stay in it.

Wanna bet the newer studies will somehow reverse some of the more dire predictions and conclude that with drastic Co2 reductions the benefits will start sooner, if not right away?

No, the older study suggested that we needed to act IMMEDIATELY. The newer information means that we might not necessarily have to be quite so draconian in policies.
You‘re falling for the trap of believing everything’s a nail because you have a hammer…
You’re literally changing your position to make the evidence fit your preconceived ideas.
NASA (as one example) says ”x“, you say it’s part of the agenda. NASA alters the statement to reflect the evidence, you say it’s part of the agenda. They literally can’t win unless they tell you what you want to hear.

Interesting how in twisted logic the notion of 50 or more years of warming even with drastic Co2 reductions is somehow my plot.

No, your plot is that the 50-100 years was a good reason to avoid action. Rational people (or at least people who care about future generations) saw it as a good reason to get cracking immediately.

I did not come up with those predictions, only pointed out that they exist. I guess the idea was if the people are scared enough they will be more compliant. Kinda backfired as it reduced hope for the lifetimes of those who live today.

You haven’t come up with ANY predictions Another than “the climate will change in the future”. Bravo.
Can you explain to me how NASA’s shift is meant to scare the people? It’s the exact opposite.
Seriously, do you spend ANY time questioning what you believe and why you believe it? Some of the crap you spout doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It’s not even internally consistent.

 

[Burkey]

For straight up BEV, yes

At what sort of mileage would you consider range to be a non-issue? Eg. How far do you expect to be able to travel on a single charge, assuming that a full charge might take 1 hour.

 

[sk47]

It won't be. Facts.

Hello; I get it. The belief that someday in the distant future battery problems will be solved seem like facts for you today.
Facts in my world view are not imaginary, but actually exist in the present. Silly me. I want to be able to go out tomorrow and find an EV with range enough, so no anxiety is not an issue.

Sponsored