ICE ban in EU stumbles

[BMWTurboDzl]

I don't think anybody is. It's the opposite in fact, electric is being forced down our throats as the "clean" option when in reality it isn't and comes with its own major downsides.

Kinda like emissions systems (EGR, SCR, DPF, TWC, OPF) eh? In any case, BEV is without a doubt the cleaner option from a lifecycle perspective. You can play whatabboutism all you want but it won't change anything. Obviously it's not the least expensive and it's not convenient for everyone but the automobile wasn't initially convenient for everyone either.

 

[hemioiler]

Kinda like emissions systems (EGR, SCR, DPF, TWC, OPF) eh? In any case, BEV is without a doubt the cleaner option from a lifecycle perspective. You can play whatabboutism all you want but it won't change anything. Obviously it's not the least expensive and it's not convenient for everyone but the automobile wasn't initially convenient for everyone either.

Yeah I used to think like you, "cleaner option" etc. Now I know its BS, you'll get there too eventually.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Yeah I used to think like you, "cleaner option" etc. Now I know its BS, you'll get there too eventually.

You "know it's BS"?

 

[edyvw]

ICE will stay regardless. There's not one huge thing one way or another that will sway every person. I lean more BEV but a great designed efficient, fast, and fun gas car will never not be fun and practical. My goal for transportation is have something fun that doesn't cost a ton per mile to drive. California in many cases just needs to feel like they're setting the tone for the rest of the country and unfortunately many states feel the need to follow suit. This might be one where they don't. Sure, California can follow through banning ICE, but I doubt that would mean you couldn't buy it elsewhere and still license it there. Wisconsin bans direct to consumer sales of cars, but that didn't stop me from still ordering a Tesla and picking it up in Illinois. I think it's absolutely stupid that I had to do it that way, but I was free to do so.

The thing with CA is that, whether you like it or not, it is 4th largest economy in the world. Manufacturers pay attention what drives trends there. Wisconsin? Hardly so.

 

[KrisZ]

Kinda like emissions systems (EGR, SCR, DPF, TWC, OPF) eh? In any case, BEV is without a doubt the cleaner option from a lifecycle perspective. You can play whatabboutism all you want but it won't change anything. Obviously it's not the least expensive and it's not convenient for everyone but the automobile wasn't initially convenient for everyone either.

Please define cleaner or what you mean by it. I think I know, but don’t want to assume.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Please define cleaner. I think I know, but don’t want to assume.

Cradle-to-grave GHG emissions.

 

[KrisZ]

Cradle-to-grave GHG emissions.

That would be mainly CO2 correct? It’s probably 100% CO2 I think.

The whole concept behind CO2 and what effect it has on the planter is playing whataboutism. The best argument for it I heard is “what about if we do nothing?” Followed by “we cannot afford to do nothing”.

There is no clear impact of reducing GHGs or simply doing nothing. There are plenty of real and harmful pollutants though, that we simply shift to emit in third world countries or China. Nothing to see there, no sir.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

That would be mainly CO2 correct? It’s probably 100% CO2 I think.

It's mainly CO2 but methane and N20 are included.

The whole concept behind CO2 and what effect it has on the planter is playing whataboutism. The best argument for it I heard is “what about if we do nothing?” Followed by “we cannot afford to do nothing”.

Well the concern is that it disrupts the climate in such a way that some highly populous regions experience massive crop failures, water shortages, and/or flooding. Global conflicts will occur. Mass migrations will occur. These people may end up in the backyard of your future generations. Do you want them there? That's also talk that we've already passed the point of no return, but science keeps on working to try to obtain a higher confidence in what will probably happen. Current models suggest that the worst case scenario has a very low percentage chance of occurring per the IPCC report I read a couple of years ago.

There is no clear impact of reducing GHGs or simply doing nothing. There are plenty of real and harmful pollutants though, that we simply shift to emit in third world countries or China. Nothing to see there, no sir.

The probabilities of various scenarios are weighted. When it comes to exporting pollutants you're correct. However that's a property rights problem in those offshore locations rather than a US problem. My own pet peeve is ocean dumping and microplastics. Nobody is allowed to own the oceans, so it becomes a tragedy of the commons.

 

[KrisZ]

Oh yeah, don’t get me started on oceans. That in and of itself is most likely the biggest environmental issue in the making.

And that’s my pet peeve about GHG. There are so many unknowns yet we spend a lot of money and energy trying to solve a “problem” that may or may not exist. There is even a global trading organization where co2 credits can be traded.
Yet there are so many current and known concerns that can be addressed and definitely should be addressed, but hardly anyone from general public even knows about these issues.

Yet pretty much everyone knows about GHGs.

 

[Torrid]

The thing with CA is that, whether you like it or not, it is 4th largest economy in the world. Manufacturers pay attention what drives trends there. Wisconsin? Hardly so.

I think manufacturers like money and they're not going to stop making ICE vehicles just because one state no matter how big it is, bans them.