I know EVs are a "minority" power source today, which automatically make Democrats love them, but INFRASTRUCTURE people!

Ok, if you are a Democrat, this will sound like nonsense. If you are not and you have the capacity to identify men vs women or you can walk and chew gum at the same time, this makes perfect sense.

Biden and the Democrats plan to FORCE automakers to ONLY produce electric cars. So if your 2006 GMC breaks down, cannot pass emissions, or it costs more to fix your car than its worth.....you will either have to scrounge for a replacement gas car from an ever shrinking population of gas cars OR buy a new EV that only costs the same amount as a new house was in 1981.

But think about these "allowed choices" from the so-called pro choice party. Imagine in 1994 if you needed to build spreadsheets, but President Clinton only allowed you to buy a 486 computer (only $2k back then from Best Buy, about $4k today). No typewriter, no 286, no 386, no pencil and paper, no Apple products, can't use your dad's C64... you must buy the latest technology at its zenith in price or you cannot make those spreadsheets. Is that a choice??? Democrats are literally making personal financial decisions "for you" in order to appease their green religion, then using their misinformation media to convince you that you'll be happier spending 150% more money for a car that has 97% fewer places to "fill up" today!??!! I understand EVs are the logical future, but the Democrat fetish forcing adoption of an entire technological biosphere that may not be sustainable long term is very troubling. Why can't we evolve towards EVs? Why can't we build the infrastructure? Why can't we allow economies of scale to lower the prices? No, Dems want it now, now, now, now during a period of terrible inflation and troubling mass layoffs.

He’s mostly right, except for EV bring the future. It has the same future as diesel cars.

I thoroughly agree. It also isn't a cureall. Personal vehicles are not the villains they are being made out to be. Transportation emissions include all transportation, not just personal vehicles. And there are other sources of greenhouse gases. Electricity generation itself is one of the worst offenders. The secondary market isn't developed, because who wants to pay for an ev with a battery that may fail tomorrow? And cost 1000's to replace? Have you seen the warranties they offer on these electric go-carts? Chevy Bolt has a 5/60 powertrain warranty, and they want $25-30K? For a vehicle with limited range and paltry recharging infrastructure? Notice how they are telling *you* that this is a crisis and *you* have to spend ridiculous amounts of money to solve it. If it is so necessary, why is it so expensive, if things are so dire why are they trying to make money? I'll wait until they start handing them out for free to illegal immigrants and then I'll "identify" as Nicaraguan.

Carbon is at 400 ppm. Exactly where it has been for the last 175 years.
Also note, if it falls below 150 ppm , plants will start to die lol

Actually 423.23 these days. Just before 1900 it was a bit under 300.

You're not even close.

The reason why it sounds like nonsense is because it is nonsense.

What's your evidence for "they're going to force us!!!"?

Y'all freak out of dumb shit like this all the time.

Do remember the freakout over LED bulbs? Fox News was doing whole segments singing the praises of the old lightbulb and had guest after guest talking about how they wer stockig up on the old filament light bulbs!

And what are you doing now? You're buying LED bulbs. Because they're cheaper to operate but more expensive at the register.

Just like EVs vs ICE.

Car & Driver did a breakdown. Without the tax credit for an EV vehicle, it's cheaper to buy and ICE vehicle.

With the credit, it's several $k cheaper.

The ranges are comparable- about 200ish miles on a single tank/charge.

80% of the charging for EVs is done at home from installed solar panels. So it's literally free to refill.

Over the 3 years it is cheaper to own & operate an EV. https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a32494027/ev-vs-gas-cheaper-to-own/

But y'all are gonna do what y'all always do: freak out over a consumer product change, swear you'll never switch to the new thing, and then when growing consumer demand makes the new thing more plentiful and cheaper, you'll switch.

"What's your evidence for "they're going to force us!!!"?"
In California the sale of gas powered cars is banned bt the year 2035. I'm sure there are many other states with similar bans in place. And while this may not be "immediate" from an individual perspective, it is almost impossible for the infrastructure to support an almost all electric fleet.
"Do remember the freakout over LED bulbs?"
I remember the change being mentioned in the news, but no freakout. And it's hardly comparable because it didn't require us to buy new lamps or build an entire infrastructure to support the switch.
"80% of the charging for EVs is done at home from installed solar panels. So it's literally free to refill."
That assertion is classist as f**k. Most people live in appartments, that even IF the apartments have solar panels (which is rare) the tenants don't benefit from an energy discount.

I actually considered switching the last time we were going to buy a new (to us) car. There were a lot of used Nissan Leafs available on Carvana for about $1000 less than the used gas cars (I guess no one wanted them). So I looked into available charging locations. We wouldve had to bus just as far from the available charging locations to work as we would've had to bus from home, so it literally made no sense to do it. And we live in a urban area.

People aren't objecting to the switch based on principle, there objecting to forcing the switch quicker than the infrastructure will be available to support it. Don't put the cart before the horse.

California isn't banning gas cars.

It's the sale of NEW gas cars.

So, in 12 years, you'll have your choice of a new EV or a used ICE car.

Hardly forcing you to do anything. You still have choices.

and the EV charging stations are powered by diesel fuel , do the math and find out you're only getting about 6 miles to gallon

Sus

WRONG! I have had Evs for 7 years. Chargers mostly have solar panels on top of them to power it

First off , welcome to Earth , because on this planet that doesn't happen

The ones I’ve seen do.

On what planet ? Solar panels on this planet can't generate enough power to charge EVs , unless they are massive in size . Technology isn't ready for Electric vehicles

It can try. You have to understand that we have to save our planet. For now, Evs are the best bet for cars

Did you know that all the World's Automakers were ready to roll out electric cars in 1999 , but Big Oil corporations bribed all the Politicians to stop it from happening ?

That’s me you or your company’s phone. It was a money thing not a problem of what is good for the environment or what tech can handle

But that's the rub , those electric cars were better and easier to charge than what is being produced now . Look for a video called "Who killed the Electric Car ?" , if you can still find it

However, you might not understand this little fact: This is not a matter of convenience. If you simply say “well it’s easier” you are MISSING THE POINT! There is this little thing I like to call climate change. It is destroying the environment and will eventually kill animals and plants. (Animals includes humans, something you might not understand cause you failed 4th grade science) At least in California, there are enough ev chargers now to make it across NorCal then down to the border in socal with only about 5 extra hours of charging, of which they should be about r5 minutes each, in which you can grab lunch.
EVs are the future, and once we can develop sodium batteries (already in progress in china) Electrify America, for example, is carbon neutral. There are car brands, like Rivian (carbon neutral by 2030) or Jaguar (going all electric in 2025) that are doing big things. You have to look at the big picture, not the little things like convenience. And I can walk and chew gum

.... So, you guys are in favor of building EV infrastructure now?

Not sure who "you guys" is, but I think building ev infrastructure is a necessary prerequisite to ev conversion, if that is the direction we're going. Currently it seems like thigs are going the other way around. Personally, I would prefer to see more development of hydrogen, but thats me.

You'd rather we ditch a tech that's ready to go as soon as we gather the political will to build the infrastructure for a tech that isn't even clear that it's going to be possible even with all the best infrastructure money can buy?

Well, now you know why you're not in office.

The problems with EV tech, have been outlined by myself and others above, so I won't repeat them. Basically, this tech is a cash grab ripoff. And Im not in office because I probably called some a poopiehead in kindergarten and am therefore ineligible due to a failure to adhere to some absurd standard which has not been invented yet but will be enforced retroactively whenever someone decides what it is.

y'all said the problem was infrastructure. So, let's build infrastructure. The people who built the train lines didn't say "yeah, but, the infrastructure isn't there yet and if we just give it fifty years we'll all have trucks anyway" - that's not how you get things done!!!!

That's one of the problems listed, yes. *If* everything is to go electric, it is appropriate to have a more developed infrastructure before mandating it. The people who built the train lines didn't expect ordinary citizens to buy locomotives, do it before there was available track to reach their destination, or pass laws to force the productive of locomotives and coal while making hay more expensive for those who own horses.

Great, so when are we going to see you voting to expand that infrastructure?

The meme does exaggerate the availability of fuel by comparing EV charging stations to gas "pumps" available, which is difficult to get an accurate number to prove or disprove... The number of gas stations is around 135K and has been on the decline for decades. The number of EV charging stations is around 62K and keeps growing.

Nope. Try again

Not nope - Just deliberately misleading by omission of important detail.

The reason why cars and trucks are so inefficient at burning fuel is because the engine has to cover a wide range of revolutions per second depending on how you drive.

A power plant - even a coal one - has a set and predictable operating point, and can be engineered to be efficient accordingly.

Ideally, all of our power will be clean someday, but even if we were still using coal entirety, powering your car by power plant rather than internal combustion still cuts emissions down by a lot.

American Viking knows this because of course I've told him before - but he's ignoring this as usual.

During the Cambrian period 500 million years ago, CO2 constituted over 5,000 parts per million of the Earth's atmosphere. Then, 150 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, CO2 was 1,700 parts per million, more than four times what it is now. Life thrived during those periods. How can 400 parts per million be a threat to our existence?

Before humans started burning fossil fuels about 200 years ago, CO2 made up 250 parts per million of our atmosphere. It has been growing at about one part per million per year for the past 150 years. In other words, a very small magnitude is growing at a very slow rate. Is there any reason that rate will accelerate when it hasn't in a century and a half?

sure...

What does that have to do with the topic that YOU YOURSELF SET regarding emissions from power plants against standalone cars?

Yes... your whole reasoning for the globull warming farse just fell apart...

What's a farse

"During the Cambrian period 500 million years ago, CO2 constituted over 5,000 parts per million of the Earth's atmosphere. Then, 150 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, CO2 was 1,700 parts per million, more than four times what it is now"

In other words, CO2 levels were much higher at a time when humans didn't exist. What was your point, again?