A little question about electric cars

[rustled]

That's fine, of course. It likely can't be done.

EVs do produce emissions, though. Ignoring this reality by fixating solely on the difference between ICE and EV while they're being driven doesn't make it go away.

As I said earlier, this sort of discussion lays bare the fuzzy "for the common good" "thinking" behind EV rebates, and shows us how governments get away with using our money to promote ideological agendas, to profit politically by virtue signalling, to provide opportunities for savvy profiteers, and to cut the cost of EV ownership for those who can afford to buy a product like an EV - all at the public's expense.

Unsurprisingly, our failure to hold our governments to account for this sort of waste drives an increased cost of government and decreased standard of living.

Please point out the tailpipe where emissions are emitted from on an EV.

That^^ is another very silly deflection.

Like it or not, in any realistic cradle-to-grave analysis of EVs, they are responsible for producing emissions, along with other forms of pollution and waste. The EV rebates are obviously extremely difficult to support with a rational, logical, on-topic analysis, and the inability of those defending these rebates to discuss this sensibly suggests there's significant ideological constipation in the defence of EV rebates.

[LovemyBolt]

Please point out the tailpipe where emissions are emitted from on an EV.

Here you go

Doesn't count. Especially not in BC. We're talking about the car emissions. An ICEV never stops emitting while it's running. We ALL enjoy electricity however it's made. Doesn't count to use that as an argument.

[LovemyBolt]

That^^ is another very silly deflection.

Like it or not, in any realistic cradle-to-grave analysis of EVs, they are responsible for producing emissions, along with other forms of pollution and waste. The EV rebates are obviously extremely difficult to support with a rational, logical, on-topic analysis, and the inability of those defending these rebates to discuss this sensibly suggests there's significant ideological constipation in the defence of EV rebates.

We will never find any common ground. I have stated how it's justified by governments to reach a goal. You don't accept that the goal and intent exists. nuff said.

[77TA]

Here you go

Doesn't count. Especially not in BC. We're talking about the car emissions. An ICEV never stops emitting while it's running. We ALL enjoy electricity however it's made. Doesn't count to use that as an argument.

Oh, it absolutely counts. Very funny.
Whenever an ev is using it's battery (running) it will need one of those big tailpipes to recharge it. It really does count lol. To say otherwise is a terrible lie.

[rustled]

That^^ is another very silly deflection.

Like it or not, in any realistic cradle-to-grave analysis of EVs, they are responsible for producing emissions, along with other forms of pollution and waste. The EV rebates are obviously extremely difficult to support with a rational, logical, on-topic analysis, and the inability of those defending these rebates to discuss this sensibly suggests there's significant ideological constipation in the defence of EV rebates.

We will never find any common ground. I have stated how it's justified by governments to reach a goal. You don't accept that the goal and intent exists. nuff said.

Just stating a faulty premise over and over again doesn't make that faulty premise less faulty. I accept the governments' stated goal of addressing climate change and their intent of addressing climate change with these rebates. I therefore expect them to show how the rebates reach the stated goal and the stated intent of addressing climate change. This requires a proper accounting for all emissions for which the vehicle and its use is responsible - not solely the emissions while the vehicle is being driven.

[77TA]

Here you go

Doesn't count. Especially not in BC. We're talking about the car emissions. An ICEV never stops emitting while it's running. We ALL enjoy electricity however it's made. Doesn't count to use that as an argument.

I had to read this again to be sure I read it right. I now realize that since we ALL enjoy oil and gas, wherever it come from, there is no argument against gas powered vehicles because their tail pipes don't count. That's some kind of super logic right there. I wish I would have thought to just say "doesn't count" when someone says ghg emissions cause climate change. Brilliant!

[BC Landlord]

I agree, what impact will little old Canada have on the planet? So do we just throw up our hands in defeat and fry in the sun and fires? If we can lead others to show others that these things can be achieved then don't we all win?

No, "we" don't. Only ideologues and lobbysts win. But to the vast majority of consumers, and as evident in low EV sales, they are still expensive and inconvenient option. And really, if some product was practical and competitive on the market, it would need no subsidies.

[hozzle]

Doesn't count. Especially not in BC. We're talking about the car emissions. An ICEV never stops emitting while it's running. We ALL enjoy electricity however it's made. Doesn't count to use that as an argument.

I had to read this again to be sure I read it right. I now realize that since we ALL enjoy oil and gas, wherever it come from, there is no argument against gas powered vehicles because their tail pipes don't count. That's some kind of super logic right there. I wish I would have thought to just say "doesn't count" when someone says ghg emissions cause climate change. Brilliant!

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

EV energy storage production...

2.JPG

3.JPG

4.JPG

[77TA]

I had to read this again to be sure I read it right. I now realize that since we ALL enjoy oil and gas, wherever it come from, there is no argument against gas powered vehicles because their tail pipes don't count. That's some kind of super logic right there. I wish I would have thought to just say "doesn't count" when someone says ghg emissions cause climate change. Brilliant!

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.

[LovemyBolt]

Oh, it absolutely counts. Very funny.
Whenever an ev is using it's battery (running) it will need one of those big tailpipes to recharge it. It really does count lol. To say otherwise is a terrible lie.

We produce oil and gas. Much of it gets burned. Once. We are converting the stored energy of the hydrocarbons out of the ground to up into the limited holding capacity of our atmosphere. It also stores in the oceans.
We produce electricity. Here in BC is primarily hydro which is all I care about for what I use. I don't use electricity made in China or Pennsylvania. I don't have any say in how they produce electricity. I'm here.
This is not a lie. Straight truth.

Wrong conclusion on your next post. I enjoy gas for my home. It emits. Yup. I also enjoy electricity. I do not continuously emit when I drive. An ICEV does. So your super logic doesn't work.

[LovemyBolt]

Just stating a faulty premise over and over again doesn't make that faulty premise less faulty. I accept the governments' stated goal of addressing climate change and their intent of addressing climate change with these rebates. I therefore expect them to show how the rebates reach the stated goal and the stated intent of addressing climate change. This requires a proper accounting for all emissions for which the vehicle and its use is responsible - not solely the emissions while the vehicle is being driven.

Ok, we're past the goal and intention.
So you then don't agree that the rebates have helped in the uptick in EV sales in the provinces that have the additional rebate over the feds. ie. QC and BC. I am not arguing that EV's are more expensive for what seems to be a similar kind of ICEV. Never have. But the rebates can help. Remember also that rebates are available for used EV's as well. Not just new.
This has also been mentioned many times in many threads around here. It appears that the mining and manufacturing of EV's is more carbon intensive than the same for an ICEV. But then the ICEV just keeps on emitting where the EV does not. After a short period of time they equal out and then ICEV just keeps on going emitting more overall over time than an EV.
Here in BC we have little to no fossil fuel power generation which equals no emissions to power EV's.

[rustled]

Just stating a faulty premise over and over again doesn't make that faulty premise less faulty. I accept the governments' stated goal of addressing climate change and their intent of addressing climate change with these rebates. I therefore expect them to show how the rebates reach the stated goal and the stated intent of addressing climate change. This requires a proper accounting for all emissions for which the vehicle and its use is responsible - not solely the emissions while the vehicle is being driven.

Ok, we're past the goal and intention.
So you then don't agree that the rebates have helped in the uptick in EV sales in the provinces that have the additional rebate over the feds. ie. QC and BC.

It's not a matter of whether or not I "agree that the rebates have helped in the uptick in EV sales", though. Increased EV sales is NOT the stated goal - the stated goal is "addressing climate change".

Yes, there's an assumption an uptick in EV sales will address climate change - and that assumption seems to rely heavily on the silliness we've seen in this thread. The governments rely on the public going along with these assumptions instead of questioning them - it helps them avoid accountability.

For accountability, we ask for evidence. Evidence the use of public funds for EV rebates does lead directly to the stated goal of addressing climate change. Proof of efficacy.

This evidence should be simple enough to produce. Yet the governments can't produce it to show these rebates are effective in meeting the goal of "addressing climate change", nor can those who insist the rebates are achieving what they are intended to do.

[LovemyBolt]

It's not a matter of whether or not I "agree that the rebates have helped in the uptick in EV sales", though. Increased EV sales is NOT the stated goal - the stated goal is "addressing climate change".

Yes, there's an assumption an uptick in EV sales will address climate change - and that assumption seems to rely heavily on the silliness we've seen in this thread. The governments rely on the public going along with these assumptions instead of questioning them - it helps them avoid accountability.

For accountability, we ask for evidence. Evidence the use of public funds for EV rebates does lead directly to the stated goal of addressing climate change. Proof of efficacy.

This evidence should be simple enough to produce. Yet the governments can't produce it to show the rebates are effective in meeting the goal, nor can those who insist the rebates are achieving what they are intended to do.

Again, you are completely blind to the numbingly obvious fact that EV's don't emit. Not emitting means less in the air. More sales means yet less being added to the air. How are you not seeing this?

[rustled]

It's not a matter of whether or not I "agree that the rebates have helped in the uptick in EV sales", though. Increased EV sales is NOT the stated goal - the stated goal is "addressing climate change".

Yes, there's an assumption an uptick in EV sales will address climate change - and that assumption seems to rely heavily on the silliness we've seen in this thread. The governments rely on the public going along with these assumptions instead of questioning them - it helps them avoid accountability.

For accountability, we ask for evidence. Evidence the use of public funds for EV rebates does lead directly to the stated goal of addressing climate change. Proof of efficacy.

This evidence should be simple enough to produce. Yet the governments can't produce it to show the rebates are effective in meeting the goal, nor can those who insist the rebates are achieving what they are intended to do.

Again, you are completely blind to the numbingly obvious fact that EV's don't emit.

Kindly stop with these silly making-it-personal attempts to deflect away from the cradle-to-grave emissions of EVs. They are utterly nonsensical.

[BC Landlord]

We produce oil and gas. Much of it gets burned. Once. We are converting the stored energy of the hydrocarbons out of the ground to up into the limited holding capacity of our atmosphere. It also stores in the oceans.

As if our planet's atmosphere doesn't have winds, and oceans their currents.

We produce electricity. Here in BC is primarily hydro which is all I care about for what I use. I don't use electricity made in China or Pennsylvania. I don't have any say in how they produce electricity. I'm here.
This is not a lie. Straight truth.

Again, you are speaking as if emissions is a localized phenomenon, so every jurisdiction could dial it up or down at will. Like a thermostat.
Whatever people do in BC, its effects on climate change, whether being positive or negative, is so miniscule, that it's not even measurable. And that notion that BC should lead, and the whole world would watch and listen in awe and follow, can't be further from the truth. In fact, the vast majority of world's population is actually pragmatic.

Yes, I am all for new technologies. But in my books, those new technologies have to be more convenient and cost effective than their predecessors to win an adoption here. Otherwise, no one can "talk" me into them.