I’ve given your recommendation exactly the amount of attention it deserves: none. As with most climate deniers.
I get that you’re too stupid to understand why — but others do. — Mikie
EV “mandates.” Lol.
The climate denial idiocy continues on… — Mikie
there has never been an EV “mandate” in the US. Never. — Mikie
There are EV mandates (or effective mandates) in Europe, UK, China, and Australia. America had an EV mandate until Trump eliminated the electric vehicle (EV) mandate just hours after taking office. — Agree-to-Disagree
Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video? — Agree-to-Disagree
- Electric cars can 'explode' and the public must be warned say worried UK fire chiefs. — Agree-to-Disagree
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles.Australia’s Department of Defence funded EV FireSafe to look into the question. It found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars. (The Home Office said it was unable to provide data for the UK.)
Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines.
The orders include eliminating the so-called "electric vehicle mandate," Trump's phrase for a Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half — Agree-to-Disagree
cats kill 1000 times more birds. — Mikie
There has never been an EV mandate. True, that’s hard to believe for climate denying idiots who cite Donald Trump as a source. — Mikie
The Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 IS THE MANDATE. — Agree-to-Disagree
You can still buy combustion engine cars all you want. No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV. The entire “mandate” bullshit...] — Mikie
The effective EV mandate — Agree-to-Disagree
I will carefully explain it to you — Agree-to-Disagree
It’s not a mandate, nor an effective mandate — Mikie
I don't know if Trump was lying or just honestly has his facts wrong, but either way, there is no EV mandate. The Biden administration DID tighten fuel-economy standards (though not as much as initially proposed) and the EPA did tighten tailpipe-emissions rules but there is no rule or law forcing automakers to build EVs or a certain percentage of EVs. Biden has set a goal of 50 percent EV sales by 2030, but that's a goal not a mandate.
Some might argue that the tighter rules will, in effect, force automakers to build more EVs in order to comply, but that would ignore that automakers can get there using other tech including hybrids. Automakers could also, if I understand the rules correctly, be in compliance simply by building more vehicles that have fuel-efficient internal-combustion powertrains -- you know, the kind of vehicles that have become scare as consumers flock to more-profitable crossovers and SUVs.
Even if the new rules do force automakers to alter their product mix and offerings to be in compliance, it is not a mandate that they build EVs.
I'd also add, taking off the fact-checker hat and putting on the analyst hat, that many American-built EVs are built in states that show heavy support for Donald Trump. Not only is Trump likely upsetting automakers, who need regulatory consistency since they plan models years in advance, but he could be upsetting his own constituents.
The Biden Administration dropped a new rule limiting tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicles yesterday, and you know what that means.
Yes, it's lying season!
I want to focus on one particular egregious lie. You will soon see arguments from certain anti-EV types that new rule is an EV mandate. It very much is not.
First, some background from the New York Times:
The rule increasingly limits the amount of pollution allowed from tailpipes over time so that, by 2032, more than half the new cars sold in the United States would most likely be zero-emissions vehicles in order for carmakers to meet the standards.
We can argue all day long about whether the rule is too stringent or not, or whether automakers will be able to achieve the administration's goals. But as the Times points out, the government is NOT forcing the fleet to become all electric:
The E.P.A. regulation is not a ban. It does not mandate the sales of electric vehicles, and gas-powered cars and trucks could still be sold. Rather, it requires carmakers to meet tough new average emissions limits across their entire product line. It’s up to the manufacturers to decide how to comply.
That hasn't stopped the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers lobbying arm from calling the rule "Biden's EPA car ban." This is where I credit the oft-beleaguered Times, which I have hit at here and there, for not pulling punches and calling that assertion false.
It's not a ban on cars or internal-combustion engine cars. It's just not. And don't let those who have an anti-EV agenda lie to you.
There is no EV mandate. There was no EV mandate. Effectively or otherwise. — Mikie
And don't let those who have an anti-EV agenda lie to you.
Now degenerated into full-blown Trump cultist. What a shocker. :lol: — Mikie
What about petrol cars? Can they not explode? — unenlightened
It may be that once the age distribution of gasoline cars and EVs is taken into account that they both have a similar risk of catching fire, There is also the possibility that the risk of an EV catching fire is greater than the risk of a gasoline car catching fire. — Agree-to-Disagree
And that is the careful conclusion that MGUY doesn't come to, because he's a petrol-head. — unenlightened
You, nor MGUY choose to remotely consider them:— all your research and all your criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives, and the difficulties of pinning down the exact extent of a global change of inconceivable complexity — unenlightened
I think that MGUY is concerned that the proposed solutions to climate change that are being rushed in will cause serious problems. I have the same concern. — Agree-to-Disagree
I don't believe you. It is not credible that either of you are concerned about safety, because you only bring up these concerns as a reason for not dealing with the safety concerns associated with climate change. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.