Making electric powered vehicles common place isn’t about saving the environment. Making them common place is about government taking more control of the more polluting end of transportation technology. So much of the pollutants from internal combustion engines are less easy for government to control, because so much of the polluting is on the consumers end, not on the vehicle manufactures end and energy companies end.
Good or bad, they’re trying to shift the paradigm of where the pollution primarily comes from, so they’ll have more control over it. Prove me wrong...
Ok, so then why are we engineering electric/hydrogen fuel cell vehicles if it's not for addressing pollution? Why is there a demand for electric vehicles from auto manufacturers? The government is trying to ENCOURAGE people to switch over to electric cars to live a "green" life and help our planet...they are not trying to control us. Yes, I do agree that they are "forcing it down our throat" especially when governors like Gavin Newsom of California signed an order to ban the sale of gasoline vehicles in 2035 (now that is extreme). But the true goal for electric vehicles is to significantly cut down on pollution. What is the primary source of pollution then? Don't you know how many gasoline/diesel vehicles are being used in the world today? I'm pretty sure they are the major cause of pollution. Gasoline/diesel vehicles are the biggest consumers of fuel AND oil, both of which pollute.
I wouldn't be surprised if air travel , militaries, and volcanoes vastly outpollute Bob and Sue driving to work.
Today's gasoline cars are extremely clean-running. There is no legitimate reason for forcing a change to electric vehicles. I do not plan to ever buy one.
what if you could refuel the electric vehicle in the same amount of time it took to pump gas, and the electric range was the same as a gas tank, and the vehicle cost was the same (initial and long term). Would you consider one then?
I only buy old used cars and drive the heck out of them until something goes wrong that's too expensive to be worth fixing, then I buy another to replace it. It's what the Brits call "bangernomics".
To match what I have now it would have to be an old electric car that I can buy for $1500 and drive for the next 10 years at about 15,000 miles per year with minimal outlay for repairs to maintain its range and performance, as well as the attributes you list. Show me an electric car like that and we'll talk. (I don't expect to see anything like that available in my lifetime.)
no, it's unlikely you or I will see that.
Precisely, I'm a cheapskate like Scotty. To be fair, when I say I would not consider buying an electric car that is a subset of the statement that I would not consider buying a new car at all.
Also to be fair, I do believe that if and when electric cars achieve the kind of parity you describe then there would be actual market demand and many if not most new car buyers would prefer them due to the greatly reduced need for maintenance. But I still would not buy a new one because I'm cheap.
What I really object to is not the idea of electric cars per se but politicians working to force people into them, particularly when the technology is not really there yet. (Really I don't think politicians should be distorting the marketplace that way at all.)
I agree.
The only true goal of electric vehicles is to make more money. Today's internal combustion engine car with hundreds of moving parts costs about $40K. Now, they're trying to sell us an electric engine car that has one moving part for the same price. DUH!
To make money is the goal of every business. $40k? you can still get a car for half that. It takes a lot of money to develop a new kind of vehicle. You have have to recoup that R&D cost somehow, and the early adopters will pay for it.
What is the primary source of pollution then? Don't you know how many gasoline/diesel vehicles are being used in the world today? I'm pretty sure they are the major cause of pollution
It's so sad that nobody actually bothers to look up these lies. That's exactly what politicians like AOC count on.
Man-made greenhouse gas production
Agriculture 18%
Electricity 27%
Materials 31%
Transportation 16%
(Includes planes, trains and automobiles (heyo) and also ships)
"Climate change" is a natural phenomenon. The human contribution is dwarfed by nature and there is no action we can take short of a full-blown atomic war (nuclear winter) that will allow us to control the environment.
dwarfs it by a huuuuuuuuuuge margin. Look at NASA's data
Even the scientist who is considered the founder of modern climate science (the late Reid Bryson) called the idea that humans are the cause of climate change "a bunch of hooey" (that's a direct quote), and pointed out that we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age and changes are to be expected. I'm not going to get into the politics of the greens since this isn't the place for it and can only suggest that people look more deeply into the motivations of the people pushing this alleged "crisis" and as Scotty points out in his latest video the hypocrisy of people like Bill Gates who uses as much energy in his personal life as a small city while telling the rest of us we have to make sacrifices.
that's right we're still in an ice age. We are still thousands of years away from recovery to previous Earth temperatures and CO2 levels (like the dinosaurs had for example).
I recently watched an excellent interview with Patrick Moore. He was a Greenpeace president who got so disgusted with the corruption in the environmental movement that he left.
https://rumble.com/vthwlr-the-max-bernier-show-ep.-52-patrick-moore-debunks-climate-alarmism.html
Where did you get that info from? All sources I checked say 28 or 29% from transportation. EPA says %28
results will vary a bit depending who you ask and how the data is interpreted. The exact number is not that important though. The point is that your car is insignificant.
Its funny to me that ALL of the FAMOUS Hollywood people and FAMOUS Politicians demand for electric vehicles to clean our pollution and yet they own and drive all types of gasoline vehicles, not to mention their classic cars and trucks that go 5mi to the gallon. Now I don't know one single person who is begging right now for electric cars and god knows i'm not but if pollution was on the governments mind maybe we should stop wasteful production like plastics, and card board and all other types of low hanging fruit to actually create somewhat of a change. But I myself work in the oil field hauling oil off of the oil locations and I will say that it is picking up out here compared to a few months ago so we will see how the future goes on all this.
I don't think they do care. It's just political posturing.
I don't follow politics, but I follow my heart which is reliable gasoline cars. The government is not switching to electric cars. Why should we? Lol
Government control. PERIOD.
Seems like most people here don't believe in climate change based off what I'm reading...
It's so sad that nobody actually bothers to open their eyes and see the clear signs of climate change.
Fossil fuel use...natural processes are not causing CO2 emissions, we are.
Maybe you should read more carefully because nobody here said that the climate isn't changing.
The second part of what you said is demonstrably wrong. CO2 levels were much higher than they are now , way before humans.
Where did you get that ridiculous pie chart?
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Climate change may be real but it IS a natural process and there is nothing we can do to control it. This is not merely my own opinion, but that of many legitimate scientists. The environmental movement has been infamous for fomenting phony crises and making failed doomsday predictions for over 50 years. There is no "climate crisis". What's sad is seeing how many people are taken in by those phonies.
To cite its accuracy and reliability, I got this graph from the University of California
Even assuming that chart is correct (a big assumption), we are far closer to CO2 levels dangerously low for plants than we are to them being "too high". They have been much, much higher in the past.
Climate change is a natural process. You could turn off all the engines in the world and the effect would be nil.
You can see a large jump in the last FEW THOUSAND years. Industrialation, more people... Now we are working to stop it but like you said I completly agree @chucktobias this hasn't just popped up now its been a exaggerated concern in the last few centuries. 20th century increased a lot but now government's are working against negative impacts of global warming. Though I still think it is misleading to say that climate change isn't a thing. It certainly is, but my personal opinion is that as humans in the age of industrialation, it was expected for it to rise.
As you can see from these beautiful graphs, its generally inline with the population increase
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d47d873967f1fabd48f608afdf704e54
the chart conveniently stops at 400,000y because CO2 concentration rises to thousands of PPM before that. And by the way, CO2 is good for planet. It feeds plants and it feeds the ocean which all need CO2. Did you know that talking to you plants helps them grow?
@kerem
Nice graph to prove @mountainmanjoe wrong, I've seen it before and should have included that one first. CO2 levels were NEVER higher than they were now...I'm saying that WE are the cause of the ABNORMAL increase in CO2 levels. Natural processes DO contribute to CO2 levels, but no where near the amount we are causing. All I see in this post is a bunch of conversatives stating that climate change is all a political game...it's not. The chart is not an assumption @chucktobias have you heard of science? There are ways to get a good estimation of CO2 levels from prehistoric times...these old people on here don't care about climate change because they're gonna die soon anyways.
You and Joe commented at the same time I'll leave you guys to dual this one out.
What you and many others conveniently ignore is that a "beautiful graph" of that type is not evidence of human-caused "global warming/climate change" and that what also corresponds to that time period is our emergence from the Little Ice Age (as the father of climate science Reid Bryson and other scientists have pointed out.)
What you are doing is cherry-picking things that coincide and using them to make assumptions based on facts not in evidence.
@chucktobias
I never said it was evidence. I'm giving the graph and you make what you make of it. I get what your saying about natural causes and all that but what is going on here is that literally everybody is contradicting each other with the exact same information either underestimated or exaggerated and I better get some popcorn and see where the discussion leads to.
> Nice graph to prove @mountainmanjoe wrong,
A graph of the last 400k years proves nothing . The planet is four and half BILLION years old. Human history is but a fraction of an eyeblink in the big picture.
"What you are doing is cherry-picking things that coincide and using them to make assumptions based on facts not in evidence."
The only thing I assumed is that more people = more people contribution to global warming and natural CO2 emissions aren't part of my own research so I didn't talk about it, leaving it to you.
I am watching the video right now.
@kerem, You are 100% wrong. It is well known that CO2 levels were much, much higher as you go back in the past yet life was flourishing. It is also a fact that any human contribution to climate change is virtually lost in the noise compared to natural sources.
I can tell you for certain that I will not be taking any action to lower my "carbon footprint".
@chucktobias
Then show us evidence that carbon levels were much higher than today in prehistoric times...let's see where you're even getting a basis for your argument.
>CO2 levels were NEVER higher than they were now..
This is lie, and it's so easy to disprove that you should be ashamed to even post such a thing . Please just take 10 seconds to search for "precambrian co2 concentration"
@chucktobias
I already accept that I was talking about comparison to the last few hundred years to be clear you and Joe have made it very clear that there was more CO2 back then. I really am not expert so I give the graph, see what you have to say, and go on from there. This info is very valuable, thanks.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/one-million-two-million-three-million-years-ago
The "beautiful graph" didn't go back that long because there isn't really any reliable data. Sure we know it was accoridng to this site 1-6 million years since we saw these levels but not really specific numbers that could be put into a chart by federal sources or universities.
As I said elsewhere somewhere in this growing thread check out realclimatescience.com for a dose of reality on this issue. Also research the falsified data, "lost" data, faulty computer models, "climategate" fiasco, and general bad behavior and inaccurate predictions of the modern environmental movement since its inception in the 1960s.
In any event it's getting to 1:00 AM here so I'll leave it to others to battle this out.
Here is one question, though millions of years ago CO2 levels were much higher than now like @chucktobias said, what is the cause in the uprise in the last 50-100 years? I already put the graphs but its basically the same as the graph for the population across the same time period. More people more Co2 levels or is it mostly natural?
You are assuming that the rise you see in your CO2 level graphs, whatever the cause, is a "problem". It is not.
It's getting too late to continue with this but since you asked for evidence of higher CO2 levels in prehistoric times, it took me about 5 seconds to find this:
https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
Really all I can say respectfully is if you did not know something that is so basic while making statements about CO2 levels never being higher than they are today you need to do more research. And with that I'll say good night.
> conversatives stating that climate change is all a political game...it's not.
this is so disingenuous. Of course it's political. If politicians aren't too busy scaring you with something else, it's climate catastrophism.
>The chart is not an assumption @chucktobias have you heard of science?
That's our problem, it isn't GOOD science. And by way, science isn't a popularity contest . That's not how it works. One scientist can disprove 100's.
>There are ways to get a good estimation of CO2 levels from prehistoric times...
And we all know how good their estimates are. I can't remember what we are already supposed to be dead from first the ozone hole , overpopulation or acid rain. Oh yeah, New York was supposed to be under water already and the ice caps gone in 2015. Let's not forget the 'peak oil' hoax. What's next?
Thank You Joe,
btw @chucktobias , your answer to my question is completly irrelavent.
I never said its a problem, I said there is a rise in CO2 levels
I know about the CO2 concentration from that time period you have gone over it a million times I was asking about the modern 50-100 years but I figured out an answer to my own question.
liek @mountainmanjoe said, it isn't science. Most of it are real data, taken and exaggerated, and then put into a mathamatical formula to fit a theory...
See here: https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/
>these old people on here don't care about climate change because they're gonna die soon anyways.
You're wrong. I still have most of my life ahead of me, and I choose not to live it in perpetual manufactured fear. "These old people" (also known as YOUR ancestors) have witnessed more world events than you, and have been around long enough to understand what's important.
And before you get on your high horse, understand that YOUR generation are the worst per capita consumers that human civilization has ever seen. The hubris in your comments is hilarious.
@razmig There is absolutely no data to back up the little green chart at the top of your answer. And by the looks of the numbers, they are completely fabricated (and egregiously so) to push an agenda.
Completly agree with you Joe on this one;)
According to the site above, 61% of those info are fabricated and adjusted to fit their own climate change postulates
New science is a popularity contest... otherwise people’s feeling get hurt and hence it’s considered racist. 😁
@mountainmanjoe, Look, people have been blamed for "climate change" for centuries!
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/03/200-years-of-white-men-changing-the-climate/
(That's a great site by the way to help people get the fuzzballs out of their heads on this issue.)
Oops, meant to add this as a comment, not a new post...
Sometimes I don't even understand why we take history classes in secondary school.. The point is to "learn history to not repeat the mistakes made in it" and here we are half of our mistakes have famously happened before.
You're clearly missing the point, IF that point is that humans "really" were causing climate change centuries ago! The point of course is that people have been INCORRECTLY blamed for centuries.
@kerem that is an valuable point you make about repeating past mistakes.
It seems people today either forgot or are completely oblivious to the 50 year scourge that communism brought on humanity (in my lifetime) . As a matter of fact, it's still happening in front of our very eyes in some places, as a very good example.
What’s communism?
'What’s communism?'
A political regime you do not wisht to experience.
Exactly
I think the biggest reason why people don't want anything to do with electric vehicles is because they've grown used to the typical combustion engine. It's been around for a long time now, and people know how to work on them comfortably. Electric motors are new technology and people are getting scared. You guys are scared to own an electric vehicle because you don't have any clue on how to work on an electric motor should it have issues. How did you learn to work on a combustion engine? I'm pretty sure if you guys knew how to work on an electric motor, you wouldn't mind owning one. Yes, I agree that electric vehicles are expensive right now, but as they become more mainstream, their prices will go down. New technology is always gonna be expensive. Remember when the iPhone 5 used to be expensive? Now it's super cheap...it's the same exact idea with cars...a 2020 electric car will be way cheaper than a 2030 electric car. I'm all for electric cars, and I think they are awesome technology. The hydrogen fuel cell cars are even more awesome in my opinion! I would definitely own one in the near future and learn how to work on it...just like how I owned my first gasoline car and learned how to work on it. There's no stopping the electric vehicle movement. At the end of the day, it should just be personal preference, NOT government controlled. If you want an electric car, go get one! But if you don't, that's fine...modern gasoline vehicles are very efficient and produce surprisingly low emissions.
I'm not scared of electric cars. They just aren't practical yet. I would love to own one eventually, but right now it's just not a mature technology.
Make no mistake. Manufacturers WILL TRY to prevent you from working on your own car. Just wait until your car only runs with a genuine copy of Microsoft Wheels. Oh no your car isn't booting up and you need to go to work!? Just call our 1-800 hotline in Calcutta where agents will be happy to assist.
When the government puts deadlines on the auto industry, that is an example of government control and overreach. That is what communists do. It is the opposite of freedom and capitalism, which are what makes America great.
@mountainmanjoe
great point, the US also has a democratic foundation based on controversy of state power.
Some states provide strong customer protection in products sold, and put hard deadlines (example would be California) others are different.
Honestly humans can find flaws in every system. The solution to that would be to not buy a car with Microsoft wheels until all the legal stuff gets settled in.
There are two ways of going about this:
1. Be logical and use common sense and hope to no avail that the government knows what its doing
2. good old american lawsuit🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Interesting discussion. If you follow inductive reasoning, you produce only the results that support your theory. If you follow deductive reasoning, you look at the actual facts, then draw a conclusion. In the climate change debate, follow the money. Who stands to gain the most from pushing the man-made climate change ideology? I have never seen any "scientist" explain the mini ice age that occurred from the 14th to 18th century, as human caused. The manipulation of "facts" for their own benefit is a proven way for those in power to get more control of the populace. "Make them afraid of it and blame it on someone" is their playbook of choice. Perhaps these so called Climate Change advocates might want to study solar flairs, sunspots and the tilting axis of the earth instead of manufacturing reasons for them to blame us and control our lives. Just a thought.
According to "scientists", cows emit too much CO2 and methane. I wonder when they will switch to electric ones 😂😆😎.
There's many reasons. 🤷♂️
So what do you think is their motivation for controlling the pollution?
Yea... but what does this REALLY come down to? They try to sell people on “its better for the environment”, but apparently it’s not.
no, it's many reasons like I said.
For many people it's going to be about saving money on fuel.
Because they’ll make it cheaper, so that more people will switch sooner and by their choice.
and yeah, of course a lot of greenie weenies are gonna buy them because they think we're all gonna die if they don't, because lets face it , most people will obey everything the TV tells them.
CO2 is not pollution.
no. pollution is nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, ozone, smoke and other particulates.
Yes, but those have been minimized to the point where they are negligible. The current rationale for politicians pushing electric cars is classifying CO2 as "pollution".
I agree.
They don’t want the vehicles polluting and they don’t want people knowing how things work (they don’t want consumers working on their cars). SO.. they’ll change to electric vehicles and probably only allow dealer mechanics to fix them. They’ll be the only ones with the special tools and exact know how and they’ll probably make it so that if someone else takes something apart on the vehicle, the warranty will be void. Scottys touched on this previously.
And, they will have ways of knowing if we took something apart, I’m sure!
> They don’t want the vehicles polluting
nothing wrong with polluting less
>they don’t want people knowing how things work
well somebody will have to know or how will they be built?
>they’ll change to electric vehicles and probably only allow dealer mechanics to fix them.
good luck enforcing that one
>They’ll be the only ones with the special tools and exact know how
They can try but people will figure it out.
>they’ll probably make it so that if someone else takes something apart on the vehicle, the warranty will be void.
manufacturers already tried that and they got slapped. There's a law against it
the business model you describe is exactly what Apple does with their phones. And guess what, people love it. iPhone has a largest market share.
I think they’re actually afraid of a different type of “climate” change. The type where their world wide cult is exposed and has no real power anymore. ...However, I actually do think we should infact be seeking out new viable technologies. I’m not against electric vehicles. It just seems like the push for them is more of a political scheme and less of a cleaner technology being implemented for the greater good. But, maybe I’m wrong. 😆
It's totally political.
Invent a crisis, and tell people that electing you is the only way to avoid it.
And as long as people are uneducated, unquestioning, and get their world views from Facebook, they'll totally fall for it.
Facebook and basically all news media.
The motivations of governments and politicians have always been the same - the acquisition of as much money and power as they can get away with. The quote "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to office." is attributed to the ancient Greek storyteller Aesop from 2500 years ago. Technology changes but human nature does not.
I don't think that is the full reason. For example, California cities are planning to ban gasoline cars by as early as 2027, and latest 2035. $47 million dollars for hydrogen fuel cell infastructure, I don't think they would spend that much just to have a little more control. Have you seen pollution in these large cities? Even if thats their goal, as a consumer you would benifit from it and help the enviornment.
Look what I started! 😆
congrats. Best clickbait ever. Do we understand Scotty's latest politicized video titles now?
Well, that wasn’t my intent, but I guess the topic would do that with some people. I learned from the best! 😁
Do dealers in U.S. charge for leasing battery when you buy an electric car?
I’m actually not even sure, but that’ll be another big hoo-ha! Very expensive battery’s! 😆
All I know is, I can’t put my Lucas oil additive or my seafoam fuel cleaner in an electric vehicle.... AND THAT MAKES ME SAD! 😆 I need something to fidget with!
I'm sure people will find ways to 'sup' up their electric cars.
stickers?
think overclocking
Enjoy the silence... AS A PEDESTRIAN DOESN’T HEAR YOU AND GETS STRUCK, DEAD!!! 😆🤦♂️
But no, I see your point. For those of us who live near busy streets, maybe we’ll have alot more quiet! 😆
A thought I had some years back... get rid of most signage, etc. and incorporate its functional purpose into new cars. Have them projected on the bottom of the windshield or on a screen somewhere, at the appropriate time and place. Our streets would be cleaner and quainter looking without the signs everywhere, blocking out the scenery, etc. ...You know the song.
oh great just what I need ... billboards on my windscreen! 😆
The government is putting regulations to have EVs make sounds so pedestriations could hear them. Scotty went over this many times.
Maybe we could figure out how to put atom breaking technology in our cars so when we get into an accident the objects in front disintigrate while we go through them.
I hate that idea! I understand the reason for it, but it’s fake! This society today is already fake enough! 😆