https://electrek.co/2019/03/11/trumps-budget-kills-federal-tax-credit-for-electric-vehicle-fail/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-autos/white-house-seeks-to-end-subsidies-for-electric-cars-renewables-idUSKBN1O22D4

https://www.ecowatch.com/electric-car-tax-credit-trump-2641647250.html


https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/article/22026582/gm-breaks-with-trump-administration-in-call-for-national-electric-car-mandate


https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a30857088/trumps-budget-endanger-lordstown-plant/

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/gm-tesla-head-new-year-without-electric-vehicle-tax-credits


Well you didn't bet with me but you backed the right horse, enjoy your investment!

Awww, no love eh? that's okay, I hate you too. I don't say that lightly either. You are a piece of human garbage. That's why I'm happy to place a bet with you, I do actually have several methods if you don't like the first I provide, for escrow.

He's not a fighter, he's a traitor. He sold out his country for his own wealth. You left out the part where he stepped back from the nuclear agreement and now Iran is enriching weapons grade uranium. OH WELL, at least the bible thumpers here are happy about pulling one over on muslims or something, im not sure.


The wall? nope
Repeal and replace obamacare? nope

rather than repeat all this, see for yourself https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/?ruling=true


Fuck you and your socialism-for-the-rich-only president.


"I want all to succeed. I've posted TESLA video to show you that hopefully you will look into them and invest in them.
This is the decade of EV ( electronic vehicles). Get in on it."

From the guy who still supports a president who defunded electric car subsidies and removed lower emission standards. What a joke.


And trump being an A-hole is not something anyone should ignore. I've seen this in various forms for 4 years "Yes i don't like his morals or the way he talks or the way he deals with other people or the way he runs his businesses and cheats on his wife or talks to veterans or women but..."

But nothing, those are aspects of a person's character that you are a fool to ignore.

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

Man, I'd be revbombing and doing burnouts 10 seconds into that confrontation.

Don't get me wrong, I hate those people that troll electric car chargers, that roll coal on Prius... es? Pri-i? Prees? (I digress) but this person is no different than them. She's just as wilfully ignorant and arrogant as the coal rollers.

Your video, Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I hope you are wrong. A few countries have announce goals for increasing the percentage of electric cars on their roads. The reduction in sales for gas and diesel cars should lead to less demand for gas... maybe...

The video is right that pretty much the number one most important question is the weight of the truck (basically tare weight, which is actually the tractor plus empty trailer). When I watched the announcement, I thought Musk was slightly cagey about that, but I thought that he said that it would be in the ballpark of a normal ICE semi. Guess I should watch again.

I think Musk made some semi-optimistic predictions about battery tech improvement and economy of scale. Frankly, I think he's earned the right to be semi-bold with his predictions, given his and Tesla's track record (paying off govt. loan very early, single handedly pushing forward battery tech and production, etc. etc.). His optimistic predictions have a tendency of panning out.

The average American is never going to switch to an electric car purely or even largely for "green conscious" reasons. The switch will happen when the electric car is better than the ICE alternatives in concrete metrics like performance, reliability, and operating cost. Musk is pushing that date forward at an incredible pace. Arguably it is already true for many use-cases at the high price-point range of the Model S, but that price point limits the scope of the impact quite a bit. He knows that to really shake things up, he's got to get that price point down, and he knows that to do that he's got to improve the economy of scale on battery tech. Which he's doing by expanding it into adjacent markets like home batteries, etc.

I think he deserves a lot of credit for "walking the walk" when it comes to working hard to protect/improve the environment, as opposed to Al Gore et al. "talking the talk".

Um...but, again, before Ford made internal combustion viable, the electric car was center stage, almost alone on the stage....even with the horrible batteries they had in the 1800's. Granted, there weren't many other options besides steam.

It's well past time for it to return imo.

It's not just sad it's criminal that before it got a second shot it had to prove it could beat combustion engine vehicles in every way, not just ecologically and economically, but in every performance metric as well. Now that it has, I still expect major pushback from both car and oil companies and their lackeys. Fingers crossed that they fail this time to rig the system again.

PS, are you using speech to text, is there a problem with the Russian to English translation program you've been issued, or should we be worried about Wernicke's aphasia? ;-)

But electric cars are well over 1 1/2 centuries old. In fact, the earliest working examples are from the 1830's, predating gas cars by 50 years (+-).
It is great to see their resurgence, finally.

"How do the HOV lanes have 'way less traffic' if there are so many electric cars?" I wonder. Hmm.

What is the limiting factor for acceleration in electric cars? Is it just traction? Long live electric, but I do sort of miss the gear changing (especially downshifts )

Holy crap, that is quick! I'm glad to see electric cars come into their own, and own gasoline powered cars in the process.
*quality *engineering

I totally agree with her that environmental concerns turn "conservatives" off on any argument (funny, since it's conservation of the environment that they can't abide).
I think she should also be using financial phrases, because done properly, renewable energy saves you money in the long run. My solar system, for instance, paid for itself in the first 8 years of an expected 20 year lifespan, so I get 12 years of 'free' electricity and ignoring rate hikes, but most right wingers would claim it will never pay for itself and is nothing more than pie in the sky hippy fantasy because that's what Alex Jones and his ilk told them.
Showing people that being responsible will actually save them large sums of money is the number one way to convince them to change their behaviors, it's far more effective than any philosophical arguments. It's the main reason I bought my system, and is also a main reason I want an electric car.

Side note: the 'sit in your car in your garage' argument is the same one I use against anti-smokers. I tell them, "you sit in the car you drove here in to complain about some smoke with a hose from the tail pipe going into the window, I'll sit in my car smoking, and we'll see who dies first.". This is to illustrate that their complaints about the dangers of smoke are ridiculous and negligible compared to their own polluting behaviors.

Electric Cars Aren't As Green As You Think has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.