A little question about electric cars

[LovemyBolt]

It matters if you care about emissions. Evs create emissions. It's an unfortunate consequence of using energy. Splitting sentences into single words won't change that.

THE CAR DOES NOT EMIT! You are lying to say anything else than that. The source of the power may be minutely connected to fossil fuels. Minutely. But the car does not emit. How is that not understandable? Am I speaking the right language here? Pretty sure it's English.

[77TA]

It matters if you care about emissions. Evs create emissions. It's an unfortunate consequence of using energy. Splitting sentences into single words won't change that.

THE CAR DOES NOT EMIT! You are lying to say anything else than that. The source of the power may be minutely connected to fossil fuels. Minutely. But the car does not emit. How is that not understandable? Am I speaking the right language here? Pretty sure it's English.

Evs create emissions at the source of their energy. This can't be said any clearer and I won't bother saying it again, even if someone yells at me

[LovemyBolt]

THE CAR DOES NOT EMIT! You are lying to say anything else than that. The source of the power may be minutely connected to fossil fuels. Minutely. But the car does not emit. How is that not understandable? Am I speaking the right language here? Pretty sure it's English.

Evs create emissions at the source of their energy. This can't be said any clearer and I won't bother saying it again, even if someone yells at me

No they do not. You are lying. The EV is not creating anything. It is using and consuming that energy. It emits nothing.

[rustled]

It's unhelpful to make it personal, it's unhelpful to designate "tribes" and it's unhelpful to take "sides". It's simply our responsibility to hold our governments to account for how they spend public resources, and it's up to us to discuss these rebates honestly.

When the inability to prove EV rebates are a worthwhile expenditure results in personal attacks, that suggests a re-evaluation of support for EV rebates may be in order.

I can't believe how exhausting this is. I have no problem with any form of rebates from any level of government to anybody. They might need it.

That's been quite clear.

What ought to also be quite clear is that whether we like it or not, it is our responsibility to hold our governments to account for their use of public money for rebates in any form, all levels. Not everyone takes this responsibility seriously, and that's fine too.

What has been made clear in this thread is how heavily the governments providing these rebates rely on the public's willing assumptions of "greater good" - not on any actual evidence pro or con (and the unwillingness to look at an EVs emissions cradle-to-grave including the emissions used to create the fuel they use for energy is a rather significant indicator of a "con" - a rather substantial elephant in the room, as it were). There are simply no measurables to show these rebates are at all effective in their purported goal of "addressing climate change", no measurables to show their use of public funds for these rebates accomplishes what they are intended to do: "address climate change".

[LovemyBolt]

That's been quite clear.

What ought to also be quite clear is that whether we like it or not, it is our responsibility to hold our governments to account for their use of public money for rebates in any form, all levels. Not everyone takes this responsibility seriously, and that's fine too.

What has been made clear in this thread is how heavily the governments providing these rebates rely on the public's willing assumptions of "greater good" - not on an evidence. There are simply no measurables to show these rebates are at all effective in their purported goal of "addressing climate change", no measurables to show their use of public funds for these rebates accomplishes what they are intended to do: "address climate change".

Again, you refuse to accept the fact that sales of EV's increase with the rebates. And the effects after that which you also refuse to accept ie. the intended lowering of emissions which is an automatic default result of more EV's on the road thereby heading towards the purported goal..

[rustled]

That's been quite clear.

What ought to also be quite clear is that whether we like it or not, it is our responsibility to hold our governments to account for their use of public money for rebates in any form, all levels. Not everyone takes this responsibility seriously, and that's fine too.

What has been made clear in this thread is how heavily the governments providing these rebates rely on the public's willing assumptions of "greater good" - not on an evidence. There are simply no measurables to show these rebates are at all effective in their purported goal of "addressing climate change", no measurables to show their use of public funds for these rebates accomplishes what they are intended to do: "address climate change".

Again, you refuse to accept the fact that sales of EV's increase with the rebates.

Hogwash, making-it-personal nonsense. To be clear, I fully accept that rebates increase sales of EVs to those who can afford a new vehicle. It's moot, though - increasing EV sales is not the purported goal of the rebates. "Addressing climate change" is the goal.

And the effects after that which you also refuse to accept ie. the intended lowering of emissions which is an automatic default result of more EV's on the road thereby heading towards the purported goal..

That's an assumption, and really should not be accepted as fact. Without the cradle-to-grave analysis comparing EVs to ICEVs, it's an unproven assumption based on preferred belief. If it is more than an assumption, the evidence would be available to us.

[LovemyBolt]

Hogwash, making-it-personal nonsense. To be clear, I fully accept that. It's moot, though - increasing EV sales is not the purported goal of the rebates. "Addressing climate change" is the goal.
That's an assumption. Without the cradle-to-grave analysis comparing EVs to ICEVs, it's an unproven assumption based on preferred belief. If it is more than an assumption, the evidence would be available to us.

It is impossible to discuss with someone that is unable to connect the dots after repeated attempts at explaining those dots. The EV does not emit. Therefor no added emissions. The more vehicles not emitting is the purported goal so as to have less overall emissions being emitted. That is utterly obvious to me without any belief required.

[rustled]

Hogwash, making-it-personal nonsense. To be clear, I fully accept that. It's moot, though - increasing EV sales is not the purported goal of the rebates. "Addressing climate change" is the goal.
That's an assumption. Without the cradle-to-grave analysis comparing EVs to ICEVs, it's an unproven assumption based on preferred belief. If it is more than an assumption, the evidence would be available to us.

It is impossible to discuss with someone that is unable to connect the dots after repeated attempts at explaining those dots.

Well, another way of looking at it is to consider just how difficult it to have a discussion when one insists on making connections regardless of a lack of evidence to support those connections, and refuses to consider the possibility that connection is an incorrect assumption. Which is a more accurate way of framing the personal part of the discussion, which is not actually the topic.

The EV does not emit. Therefor no added emissions. The more vehicles not emitting is the purported goal so as to have less overall emissions being emitted. That is utterly obvious to me without any belief required.

What's quite obvious to everyone, surely, is that an EV most assuredly IS responsible for an output of emissions - period. Comparing cradle-to-grave is the only way to know whether an EV produces fewer emissions than an ICEV over its useful life. And that is the only way to know if the rebates are effective in "addressing climate change".

[LovemyBolt]

Well, another way of looking at it is how difficult it to have a discussion when one insists on making connections regardless of a lack of evidence to support those connections, and refuses to consider the possibility that connection is an incorrect assumption.
What's quite obvious to everyone, surely, is that an EV most assuredly IS responsible for an output of emissions - period. Comparing cradle-to-grave is the only way to know whether an EV produces fewer emissions than an ICEV over its useful life. And that is the only way to know if the rebates are effective in "addressing climate change".

I have never argued against the apparent fact that the manufacturing of an EV is more carbon intensive. That a miniscule amount of fossil fuel generated power gets fed into the battery. But the car does not emit. An ICEV does.
Go study it yourself since you're so laser focused on the idea.
You too can enjoy the benefits of the rebates to put yourself in an EV. Even a Hybrid. Even used. But maybe you're so philosophically opposed to the concept of government rebates that just on principle you would not.

[rustled]

Well, another way of looking at it is how difficult it to have a discussion when one insists on making connections regardless of a lack of evidence to support those connections, and refuses to consider the possibility that connection is an incorrect assumption.
What's quite obvious to everyone, surely, is that an EV most assuredly IS responsible for an output of emissions - period. Comparing cradle-to-grave is the only way to know whether an EV produces fewer emissions than an ICEV over its useful life. And that is the only way to know if the rebates are effective in "addressing climate change".

I have never argued against the apparent fact that the manufacturing of an EV is more carbon intensive. That a miniscule amount of fossil fuel generated power gets fed into the battery. But the car does not emit. An ICEV does.

While that's relevant for determining whether or not the rebates are effective in reducing emissions, the cradle to grave emissions are what matters most. Ignoring this reality won't go away.

Go study it yourself since you're so laser focused on the idea.

Making it personal, and moot.

You too can enjoy the benefits of the rebates to put yourself in an EV.

Also moot.

Even a Hybrid. Even used.

Ditto, and off topic.

But maybe you're so philosophically opposed to the concept of government rebates that just on principle you would not.

To be clear, I'm opposed to wasteful government rebates which serve political agendas yet are not effective in achieving their purported goal. It seems to me any sensible person would oppose rebates which serve political agendas yet are not effective in achieving their purported goal! Governments wasting our resources isn't something any sensible person would support.

[BC Landlord]

THE CAR DOES NOT EMIT! You are lying to say anything else than that. The source of the power may be minutely connected to fossil fuels. Minutely. But the car does not emit. How is that not understandable? Am I speaking the right language here? Pretty sure it's English.

Just how important to you is that your vehicle "does not emit", whatever that means? And that at a significant cost added. I get it from your handle that you own a Chevy Bolt. So, how do you justify spending a $40 to 50-ish on a compact-sized vehicle? And one that has almost no resale value after its battery is done, which is about 10 years, at best. Where is the rationale here? Just don't come back with that "saving the planet" shtick again.

[LovemyBolt]

Just how important to you is that your vehicle "does not emit", whatever that means? And that at a significant cost added. I get it from your handle that you own a Chevy Bolt. So, how do you justify spending a $40 to 50-ish on a compact-sized vehicle? And one that has almost no resale value after its battery is done, which is about 10 years, at best. Where is the rationale here? Just don't come back with that "saving the planet" shtick again.

I don't like buying gas. Again what? I didn't make the decision to buy an EV for enviro reasons. Simply that I finally had enough of buying gas. No car is an investment other than an obscure gamble on certain options etc.
I make those comments to argue against those arguing against the topic of EV's using falsehoods and misinformation.They're welcome to their opinions until those opinions are based on falsehoods. People can of course make all their own decisions on what they like to spend their money on. It's when they rail against those that made their own decisions and how they got there. The rest is your conjecture. We don't know what the future holds.

[LovemyBolt]

To be clear, I'm opposed to wasteful government rebates which serve political agendas yet are not effective in achieving their purported goal. It seems to me any sensible person would oppose rebates which serve political agendas yet are not effective in achieving their purported goal! Governments wasting our resources isn't something any sensible person would support.

So if you found yourself in the market, under changing circumstances of your life, that lead you to needing a product, you would not help yourself to any possible rebates or discounts or deductions simply on principle? I certainly doubt it. Everybody would make use of any opportunity to reduce their out of pocket. Nobody is that pure.

[GordonH]

To be clear, I'm opposed to wasteful government rebates which serve political agendas yet are not effective in achieving their purported goal. It seems to me any sensible person would oppose rebates which serve political agendas yet are not effective in achieving their purported goal! Governments wasting our resources isn't something any sensible person would support.

So if you found yourself in the market, under changing circumstances of your life, that lead you to needing a product, you would not help yourself to any possible rebates or discounts or deductions simply on principle? I certainly doubt it. Everybody would make use of any opportunity to reduce their out of pocket. Nobody is that pure.

If EV’s are so great for environment why are taxpayers providing glorified welfare to purchasers.

[rustled]

To be clear, I'm opposed to wasteful government rebates which serve political agendas yet are not effective in achieving their purported goal. It seems to me any sensible person would oppose rebates which serve political agendas yet are not effective in achieving their purported goal! Governments wasting our resources isn't something any sensible person would support.

So if you found yourself in the market, under changing circumstances of your life, that lead you to needing a product, you would not help yourself to any possible rebates or discounts or deductions simply on principle? I certainly doubt it. Everybody would make use of any opportunity to reduce their out of pocket. Nobody is that pure.

Kindly stop making this personal. Speculating about whether or not any individual here has taken advantage of a rebate the government provided despite there being no evidence to show that rebate was effective - or was even counterproductive - is not helpful, and whether or not anyone has done so or refused to do so on principal is not the topic.

The issue under discussion here is the use of public funding to promote EVs to those who can afford one, having all of us help pay for these rebates, and whether or not this can be justified with actual evidence proving the use of public funds for this purpose has measurably and provably met the goal of "addressing climate change".