Electric Vehicles: Costly Virtue Signaling Forced on America by Left

volsrock

Verified User
The Left likes to treat skeptics of electrical cars as if they were Luddites. Truth is, making an existing product less efficient, but more expensive, doesn’t really meet the definition of innovation.

Even the purported amenities and technological advances EV makers like to brag about in their ads have been a regular feature of gas-powered vehicles going back generations. At best, EVs, if they fulfill their promise, are a lateral technology.

Which is why there is no real “emerging market” for EVs in the United States as much as there’s an industrial policy in place that props up EVs with government purchases, propaganda, state subsidies, cronyism, taxpayer-backed loans, and edicts. The green “revolution” is an elite-driven, top-down technocratic project.

And it’s increasingly clear that the only reason giant rent-seeking carmakers are so heavily invested in EV development is that government is promising to artificially limit the production of gas-powered cars.

In August 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emission. California claims it is banning combustion engines in all new cars in about 10 years. So, carmakers adopt business models to deal with these distorted incentives and contrived theoretical markets of the future.

In today’s real-world economy, Ford projects it’s going to lose $3 billion on electric vehicles in 2023, bringing its EV losses to $5.1 billion over two years. In 2021, Ford reportedly lost $34,000 on every EV it made. This year, it was losing more than $58,000 on every EV. In a normal world, Ford would be dramatically scaling back EV production, not expanding it.

Remember that next time we need to bail out Detroit.


And the fact is that if EVs were more efficient and saved us money, as enviros and politicians claim, consumers wouldn’t have to be compelled into using them and companies wouldn’t have to be bribed into producing them.


https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07...y-virtue-signaling-forced-on-america-by-left/
 
When have technologies been immediately viable for mass consumption?

People said the same thing about computers a few decades ago that they're saying about EV's now. There were many who said computers would NEVER have a personal use, and no one would have imagined a day when we'd carry them in our pocket.
 
When have technologies been immediately viable for mass consumption?

People said the same thing about computers a few decades ago that they're saying about EV's now. There were many who said computers would NEVER have a personal use, and no one would have imagined a day when we'd carry them in our pocket.

Some technologies never become viable. EV's are a marginal technology. If they weren't, in the nearly 150 years they've existed, they'd have taken a big market share. But they haven't. In a competitive market, EV's simply have no value to buyers. That's been the case for over a century. ICE vehicles made more sense and they won in the marketplace. Without government force and bribes, they'd fail today too.

As for computers, it was well understood that they had great value to industry and business. For example, they've replaced most wind tunnel testing in aerospace because they can do it cheaper and faster than physical modeling can. It was also understood early that they would get smaller and more powerful, and they did. The personal computer was going to happen but few, if any, could accurately predict the results of that occurrence.

See, for example, Moore's law and the Denard scale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore...the power use remains in proportion with area.
 
When have technologies been immediately viable for mass consumption?

People said the same thing about computers a few decades ago that they're saying about EV's now. There were many who said computers would NEVER have a personal use, and no one would have imagined a day when we'd carry them in our pocket.
remember when California said that every one had to buy a computer by 2035?......me either.....
 
The Left likes to treat skeptics of electrical cars as if they were Luddites. Truth is, making an existing product less efficient, but more expensive, doesn’t really meet the definition of innovation.

Even the purported amenities and technological advances EV makers like to brag about in their ads have been a regular feature of gas-powered vehicles going back generations. At best, EVs, if they fulfill their promise, are a lateral technology.

Which is why there is no real “emerging market” for EVs in the United States as much as there’s an industrial policy in place that props up EVs with government purchases, propaganda, state subsidies, cronyism, taxpayer-backed loans, and edicts. The green “revolution” is an elite-driven, top-down technocratic project.

And it’s increasingly clear that the only reason giant rent-seeking carmakers are so heavily invested in EV development is that government is promising to artificially limit the production of gas-powered cars.

In August 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emission. California claims it is banning combustion engines in all new cars in about 10 years. So, carmakers adopt business models to deal with these distorted incentives and contrived theoretical markets of the future.

In today’s real-world economy, Ford projects it’s going to lose $3 billion on electric vehicles in 2023, bringing its EV losses to $5.1 billion over two years. In 2021, Ford reportedly lost $34,000 on every EV it made. This year, it was losing more than $58,000 on every EV. In a normal world, Ford would be dramatically scaling back EV production, not expanding it.

Remember that next time we need to bail out Detroit.


And the fact is that if EVs were more efficient and saved us money, as enviros and politicians claim, consumers wouldn’t have to be compelled into using them and companies wouldn’t have to be bribed into producing them.


https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07...y-virtue-signaling-forced-on-america-by-left/

It is also the Left that are the Luddites. They are insisting on mandating cars built on 80's technology that hasn't changed.
 
When have technologies been immediately viable for mass consumption?

People said the same thing about computers a few decades ago that they're saying about EV's now. There were many who said computers would NEVER have a personal use, and no one would have imagined a day when we'd carry them in our pocket.

Hallucination. The computer industry didn't need subsidies and mandates.
 
The computer industry did not pollute the atmosphere as do ICE vehicles.

iu
 
Are you attempting to compare any type of possible pollution with the dangers of ICE vehicles? Your handlers are giving you bad info.

tumblr_mjo1g7rr371qlirvbo3_1280.jpg

Picher Oklahoma...

NCMA0080.jpg

Thompson Manitoba Canada...

foggy_nikel-kopi.jpg

Norilsk (aka Nickelograd) Russia...

All you do is trade one sort of pollution for another that is far worse. EV's are electronic. EV's are pollution magnets bigtime. Nickel, lead, lithium, silicon, cadmium, and a plethora of other hydrides and metals all of which are toxic are used in mass amounts to produce them compared to ICE vehicles. EV's won't "save the planet" nor will they cure so-called anthropogenic climate change. The climate will change regardless and we'll be stuck with more Picher's and Norilsk's...
 
The computer industry did not pollute the atmosphere as do ICE vehicles.

The Staggering Ecological Impacts of Computation and the Cloud

Anthropologist Steven Gonzalez Monserrate draws on five years of research and ethnographic fieldwork in server farms to illustrate some of the diverse environmental impacts of data storage.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/...writes that,kilograms of water to manufacture.



Environmental impact of IT: desktops, laptops and screens

https://www.it.ox.ac.uk/article/environment-and-it
 
WHOOPS




What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

As for greenhouse-gas emissions, my analysis shows that electric vehicles will reduce them compared to new internal combustion vehicles. But based on the EIA’s projection of the number of new electric vehicles, the net reduction in CO2 emissions between 2018 and 2050 would be only about one-half of one percent of total forecast U.S. energy-related carbon emissions. Such a small change will have no impact whatsoever on climate, and thus have no economic benefit.




So, if electric-vehicle subsidies don’t help the environment, what—or who—do they help? Most electric-vehicle buyers are far wealthier than average Americans. A nationwide survey in 2017 found that 56% had household incomes of at least $100,000 and 17% had household incomes of at least $200,000. (In 2016, median household income for the US as a whole was less than $58,000.) So it’s fair to say the subsidies disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who cannot afford to buy even subsidized electric vehicles or live in their own homes to take advantage of residential chargers or solar panels.

Not only that, the wires and charging stations needed to charge all those electric vehicles will be paid for by all ratepayers, further raising electric rates. And as more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, the costs to provide them back-up power will fall on those who cannot afford to do so.


In effect, the wealthy owners of electric vehicles will enjoy the benefits of their clean, silent cars, while passing on many of the costs of keeping their vehicles on the road to everyone else, especially the poor.



To be sure, electric cars are impressive. Some are quicker off the line than a Formula 1 race car. But there is no economic or environmental justification for the many billions of dollars in subsidies that America is already paying to speed their adoption.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660/
 
tumblr_mjo1g7rr371qlirvbo3_1280.jpg

Picher Oklahoma...

NCMA0080.jpg

Thompson Manitoba Canada...

foggy_nikel-kopi.jpg

Norilsk (aka Nickelograd) Russia...

All you do is trade one sort of pollution for another that is far worse. EV's are electronic. EV's are pollution magnets bigtime. Nickel, lead, lithium, silicon, cadmium, and a plethora of other hydrides and metals all of which are toxic are used in mass amounts to produce them compared to ICE vehicles. EV's won't "save the planet" nor will they cure so-called anthropogenic climate change. The climate will change regardless and we'll be stuck with more Picher's and Norilsk's...

ReallY???

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
 
The Staggering Ecological Impacts of Computation and the Cloud

Anthropologist Steven Gonzalez Monserrate draws on five years of research and ethnographic fieldwork in server farms to illustrate some of the diverse environmental impacts of data storage.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/...writes that,kilograms of water to manufacture.



Environmental impact of IT: desktops, laptops and screens

https://www.it.ox.ac.uk/article/environment-and-it

I doubt if you read even the first sentence of this link. Maybe the headline, but possibly not even that
 

Two points:

1. The EPA tries to excuse EV's at every turn and put them in the most favorable light they can.

2. I don't give a shit about reducing anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere because it's a fool's errand being pushed by total moron retards.

So, why the fuck would I pay more for a badly built, poor quality--and Tesla consistently rates at the bottom in quality--POS battery car?
 
The Left likes to treat skeptics of electrical cars as if they were Luddites. Truth is, making an existing product less efficient, but more expensive, doesn’t really meet the definition of innovation.

Even the purported amenities and technological advances EV makers like to brag about in their ads have been a regular feature of gas-powered vehicles going back generations. At best, EVs, if they fulfill their promise, are a lateral technology.

Which is why there is no real “emerging market” for EVs in the United States as much as there’s an industrial policy in place that props up EVs with government purchases, propaganda, state subsidies, cronyism, taxpayer-backed loans, and edicts. The green “revolution” is an elite-driven, top-down technocratic project.

And it’s increasingly clear that the only reason giant rent-seeking carmakers are so heavily invested in EV development is that government is promising to artificially limit the production of gas-powered cars.

In August 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emission. California claims it is banning combustion engines in all new cars in about 10 years. So, carmakers adopt business models to deal with these distorted incentives and contrived theoretical markets of the future.

In today’s real-world economy, Ford projects it’s going to lose $3 billion on electric vehicles in 2023, bringing its EV losses to $5.1 billion over two years. In 2021, Ford reportedly lost $34,000 on every EV it made. This year, it was losing more than $58,000 on every EV. In a normal world, Ford would be dramatically scaling back EV production, not expanding it.

Remember that next time we need to bail out Detroit.


And the fact is that if EVs were more efficient and saved us money, as enviros and politicians claim, consumers wouldn’t have to be compelled into using them and companies wouldn’t have to be bribed into producing them.


https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07...y-virtue-signaling-forced-on-america-by-left/

It is called socialism. Government controls what products are available to you
 
Back
Top