A little question about electric cars

[LovemyBolt]

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".

Kindly stop lecturing me on what I can say. Leave that to ferri. Report me. Whatever. This topic has run all over the place. There's no recovery unless ferri does some serious time consuming editing.
Whether naysayers here would use available rebates is entirely relevant to the argument so as to find those people being hypocrites which I highly suspect they would be if there came an opportunity to use them.

I think they're easily justified. You don't agree. That's that.

[rustled]

Whether naysayers here would use available rebates is entirely relevant to the argument so as to find those people being hypocrites which I highly suspect they would be if there came an opportunity to use them.

Whether or not people are hypocrites is not the topic, though.

It seems pretty obvious all the deflection away from the actual topic is to avoid simply acknowledging the truth: there's simply no evidence with which to justify the rebates for EVs, only hazy assumptions.

[LovemyBolt]

Whether or not people are hypocrites is not the topic, though.

It seems pretty obvious all the deflection away from the actual topic is to avoid simply acknowledging the truth: there's no evidence with which to justify the rebates for EVs, only hazy assumptions.

And as I've already said, we disagree.

[rustled]

Whether or not people are hypocrites is not the topic, though.

It seems pretty obvious all the deflection away from the actual topic is to avoid simply acknowledging the truth: there's no evidence with which to justify the rebates for EVs, only hazy assumptions.

And as I've already said, we disagree.

Regardless of whether or not we disagree, the lack of evidence to justify the rebates for EVs speaks for itself - as does the reliance on hazy assumptions.

[LovemyBolt]

Regardless of whether or not we disagree, the lack of evidence to justify the rebates for EVs speaks for itself - as does the reliance on hazy assumptions.

Again, we disagree on the evidence. Shall we do this to the end of our days? I will not concede to you, you will not concede to me. We've long since been at a stalemate. Why do you persist?

[rustled]

Regardless of whether or not we disagree, the lack of evidence to justify the rebates for EVs speaks for itself - as does the reliance on hazy assumptions.

Again, we disagree on the evidence.

There's yet to be any evidence on which to disagree. If there is any actual evidence to justify the EV rebates, it likely would have been shown by now. Instead, we've been shown only assumptions.

[LovemyBolt]

Again, we disagree on the evidence.

There's yet to be any evidence on which to disagree. If there is any actual evidence to justify the EV rebates, it likely would have been shown by now. Instead, we've been shown only assumptions.

Again we disagree and I've already made these statements. The rebates help people buy the vehicle, the more of these vehicles on the road the less emissions overall, ergo, rebates help the goal. Again. I repeat. These are not assumptions. You just don't like them. And that's fine. We disagree.

[rustled]

There's yet to be any evidence on which to disagree. If there is any actual evidence to justify the EV rebates, it likely would have been shown by now. Instead, we've been shown only assumptions.

Again we disagree and I've already made these statements.

We can't possibly disagree about evidence that hasn't been provided.

The rebates help people buy the vehicle, the more of these vehicles on the road the less emissions overall, ergo, rebates help the goal. Again. I repeat. These are not assumptions.

Repeating it won't change reality: those are assumptions.

No evidence has been provided to show an EV's cradle to grave emissions are less than an ICEVs cradle to grave (or "overall") emissions - and that is the evidence required to justify the rebates. Merely selling more EVs is not proof of reduced emissions. Merely driving more EVs is not proof of reduced emissions. Because without a cradle to grave analysis, there is no proof the increased sales, or ownership, or driving of EVs actually results in reduced emissions per vehicle compared to the sales, ownership or driving of similar ICEVs, cradle to grave.

It's that simple.

[LovemyBolt]

We can't possibly disagree about evidence that hasn't been provided.

The rebates help people buy the vehicle, the more of these vehicles on the road the less emissions overall, ergo, rebates help the goal. Again. I repeat. These are not assumptions.

Repeating it won't change reality: those are assumptions.

No evidence has been provided to show an EV's cradle to grave emissions are less than an ICEVs cradle to grave emissions - and that is the evidence required to justify the rebates. Merely selling more EVs is not proof of reduced emissions. Merely driving more EVs is not proof of reduced emissions. Because without a cradle to grave analysis, there is no proof the increased sales, or ownership, or driving of EVs actually results in reduced emissions overall.

It's that simple.

Wrong. You just can't abide it. It's obvious and plain as day to me but completely opaque to you. I don't need "evidence". EV's don't emit. You are the one repeating your mantra just as much as you are accusing me of.

[rustled]

We can't possibly disagree about evidence that hasn't been provided.
Repeating it won't change reality: those are assumptions.

No evidence has been provided to show an EV's cradle to grave emissions are less than an ICEVs cradle to grave emissions - and that is the evidence required to justify the rebates. Merely selling more EVs is not proof of reduced emissions. Merely driving more EVs is not proof of reduced emissions. Because without a cradle to grave analysis, there is no proof the increased sales, or ownership, or driving of EVs actually results in reduced emissions overall.

It's that simple.

I don't need "evidence". EV's don't emit.

It's quite obvious EVs emissions while they're being driven cannot be used, alone, to prove they are responsible for fewer emissions cradle-to-grave, or "overall", than comparable ICEVs.

[LovemyBolt]

It's quite obvious EVs emissions while they're being driven cannot be used, alone, to prove they are responsible for fewer emissions cradle-to-grave, or "overall", than comparable ICEVs.

Wrong.

[spooker]

It is strange not to accept reality of EV production...

EV energy storage production...
2.JPG
3.JPG
4.JPG

Who knows, maybe to some people that doesn't count either.
It's a waste of time debating with those that refuse to see the whole picture.

And no one is disputing that there are GHG emissions during the production of an EV, that's been established here there and everywhere ... and even when EVs are fuelled by coal-generated electricity they still have fewer emissions after 5 years ...

[rustled]

It's quite obvious EVs emissions while they're being driven cannot be used, alone, to prove they are responsible for fewer emissions cradle-to-grave, or "overall", than comparable ICEVs.

Wrong.

It's an interesting double-down. Gives us a pretty good insight into the lack of reason in some of the public attitudes propping up the government's use of EV rebates.

[LovemyBolt]

It's an interesting double-down. Gives us a pretty good insight into the lack of reason in some of the public attitudes propping up the government's use of EV rebates.

No it doesn't. That's how you want to see it. I see their use of rebates as obvious. Again, we disagree. It's interesting that budgeted buckets of money ran out due to demand and so they added more. Seems to have worked to head towards that goal.

[rustled]

It's an interesting double-down. Gives us a pretty good insight into the lack of reason in some of the public attitudes propping up the government's use of EV rebates.

No it doesn't.

It does, and it's quite helpful. This explains why it's so easy for governments to get away with claiming the EV rebates they're using public resources for are effective for "addressing climate change", despite not providing any evidence the EV rebates they're using our resources for actually are effective for "addressing climate change". People simply want to believe the marketing, so we see assertions that because an EV "doesn't emit" while it's being driven, an EV must be responsible for fewer emissions than a comparable ICEV "overall".