By on September 19, 2019

They’re coming, and if you want to hang on to what’s near and dear to you, you’ve got to make a decision. And fast.

Well, maybe give it a few years.

As lawmakers and wannabe lawmakers go hog wild on proposed internal combustion bans in Europe, the idea has taken hold in North America. Different culture, different travel distances, different landscapes, but the same rhetoric. Same solutions. Same challenges, too, though there might be a few additional ones over here.

When they come for your car, what will you do?

Oh, you’ll still be allowed to buy a new vehicle, alright — it just won’t have any cylinders pumping beneath the hood. Under proposals issued by the Justice Democrats in the U.S. and the Green Party in Canada, all internal combustion passenger vehicles would have to disappear from new car lots in 10 years. A lot of other things will also have to disappear to reach the goals of both manifes- er, proposals. But that’s another matter.

Given the astronomical amounts of cash needed to fund the other policies stuffed into each plan like a legislative Kinder egg, it’s hard to imagine EV subsidies will be of the sky-high, I-don’t-care-as-long-as-I’m-getting-all-this-cash variety. The free ride will be found at your local college, not in your driveway.

It’s hard not to think of that Rush song at times like these. Frankly, I don’t relish the thought of having vehicular choice taken away from me any more than I like the idea of watching Jim Hackett try on a halter top and a pair of Daisy Dukes. It’s nice to choose between environmental stewardship and a vehicle that satisfies other needs, including versatility, range, price, and that visceral feeling of being in control of an amazingly complex mechanical beast. A vehicle with a throaty (or any) exhaust.

Maybe EVs will be everything we could ever dream of in a decade’s time. Maybe they won’t. But there’s a set of crosshairs placed over the ninety-eight-point-something-percent of new vehicles sold today by people who might eventually get what they want.

Sure, you might be able to keep your existing car come 2030, but driving it to work on the daily? Entering urban cores? This remaining fleet could be, as they say, problematic. Owners might find their movements severely restricted. Maybe these reviled relics will even become the automotive equivalent of a “wall hanger” firearm — something that, while nice to look at, is deemed unfit for actual use.

Should such laws come to pass, do you plan to go gently into that good, green night, or is your plan to rage against the dying of the (check engine) light? What form will your resistance take?

[Image: Murilee Martin/TTAC]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

124 Comments on “QOTD: Flee, Go Underground, or Give In?...”


  • avatar
    Hummer

    Next is private home ownership along with owning land.

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      Indeed, forced collectivism requires the surrender of natural rights such as life, liberty, and property.

      • 0 avatar
        CaddyDaddy

        Leftist / Collectivists have no core values, so they justify the fleecing of your property, rights or freedom by evolving the fluid standards of the day. Eventually, people will resist and then the rifles come out to take what you got, carried by those individuals sanctioned by the state’s ruling powers. Eventually the eat their own. Please see ( French Revolution, Stalin’s 20,000 and the purge of his Generals).

        Unfortunately, the promise always starts with “Free Stuff” or an impending fake crisis that never arrives.

      • 0 avatar
        Hydromatic

        And you think the hippy-dippy socialists are gonna accomplish that? In the meantime, Corporate America’s devising slicker, quieter ways of doing just that, except instead of everyone surrendering to a collectivized state government, you’re surrendering to corporate rule, with every city a company town and every dollar you make rendered in company script.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      No one will be coming for your cars. The premise of this article is just silly.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        What RHD said.

        • 0 avatar

          Pretty much it’s politically impossible on a large scale. You may see car bans in cities LIKE NYC, where you park on the edge of the city and take the train in but other then that, it will just be emission regs that push away from internal combustion for the foreseeable future.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            If ICE car bans happen in NYC, it’ll be because the majority of people in NYC *don’t* own cars. They wouldn’t be trading much away.

            Good luck with that in any city where the majority of voting citizens *do* own cars.

            But in the end, let’s say that the only cars left in Manhattan are electric – that’ll mean that the same apocalyptic traffic jams they have now will simply be “electrified.” Parking issues will transform into car-charging issues. Garage owners will still sodomize the finances of EV drivers, just like they do with ICE drivers now.

            What changes? Besides less tailpipe emissions, not much.

          • 0 avatar

            I could actually see places like Manhattan banning personal cars coming in and out at some point. But it would really be due to density more then anything else. I could see a point where the very densest core of many cities ban personal cars which I guess could be as simple as banning parking, and I wouldn’t complain much but once your out of those dense cores the US isn’t the most friendly place for the carless, you can do it but it limits your options on employment etc.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @FreedMike: “But in the end, let’s say that the only cars left in Manhattan are electric – that’ll mean that the same apocalyptic traffic jams they have now will simply be “electrified.” Parking issues will transform into car-charging issues.”

            — But at least the air will be breathable again.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            People visiting NYC pretty much have to do that now. There’s no parking, and fewer lanes due to bike paths. The city has returned to losing population again.

        • 0 avatar
          MRF 95 T-Bird

          Same here. I really hate these theoretical “They’re coming for your…”
          I reside in a outer borough neighborhood in NYC. I know well enough when to drive and when to avail myself of the mass transit options that are available to me.
          The best and most environmentally sustainable means for moving the most number of people is a efficient mass transit system.

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          RHD – agreed. But if it does happen, Mr. T knew the answer:
          – Cue the theme music
          – Get out the scrap metal
          – Grab the oxy-acetylene torch (because no line power required)
          – Begin front-end vehicle modifications for the coming carnage

  • avatar
    Mike Beranek

    Uh, no, it’s going to be a lot longer than 2030 before the Gubmint come fer ma cawr. Our transportation infrastructure is no where near ready to support a fleet of 300 million electric vehicles. The electric vehicles themselves are not produced in any significant quantity and don’t have the range to replace ICE. Half of the US population doesn’t even believe in science, let alone climate science. And transitioning passenger cars to electric power is a whole lot easier than transitioning locomotives, ships, heavy construction equipment, and farm equipment.
    By 2050, we might be in a situation where ICE passenger vehicles are no longer sold new. The remaining ICE cars be a small percentage of the total fleet and will be used mostly in rural areas where charging is not always available. They might be running on E85 or even E100 by then.
    It will never be illegal to drive your classic ’70 Chevelle with the LS6 454 on public roads. You might need to adapt it to run on a different fuel, and you might have to pay more to maintain, license and insure it. But it will never be illegal, because by the time our daily-driver ICE fleet is all gone, ICE cars will account for so few miles driven that they won’t matter.

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      My uncle has a country place, that no-one knows about
      He says it used to be a farm, before the Motor Law
      On Sundays I elude the ‘Eyes’, and hop the Turbine Freight
      To far outside the Wire, where my white-haired uncle waits

      – Rush: Moving Pictures / Red Barchetta | 1981

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      “Half of the US population doesn’t even believe in science”

      According to the article from a couple days ago on Germany, neither do the protesters there.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Mike Beranek:

      • Uh, no, it’s going to be a lot longer than 2030 before the Gubmint come fer ma cawr.
      — For the general population, that is absolutely true. However, city centers can do so and do so easily as traffic congestion has made maneuvering through the cities next to impossible (in a timely manner) and ICE is at its worst as far as pollution is concerned in such congestion. They can and will force ICE drivers to park outside of the restricted area and use public transportation–i.e. electric buses, taxis, subway, etc.–to travel within those areas. The advantage quickly becomes one of FAR more efficient public transportation simply because there are far, far FEWER private cars to slow it down. You want to drive downtown, then you will need to be driving an electric car.

      • Our transportation infrastructure is no where near ready to support a fleet of 300 million electric vehicles.
      — Our transportation infrastructure is growing to meet that need, even now. In many ways it already exceeds current NEEDS, though only Tesla has the placement of such to meet cross-country driving needs. The others are almost all in private parking lots such as Walmart or parking garages. Then again, with the exception of cross-country trips, half of the population simply doesn’t need public chargers to support their driving; they can charge at home to meet their daily driving requirements.

      • The electric vehicles themselves are not produced in any significant quantity and don’t have the range to replace ICE.
      — EVs currently take just short of 3% of the global transportation market and just over 2% of the US market at this time. If we accept reports that the average annual new car sales in the US comes out to about 15 million vehicles, that adds up to 300,000 EVs this year added to the roughly similar number already purchased over the last 7 years. And production rates are obviously growing as more manufacturers add to the number of available EVs.
      As far as their range, the total range is relatively insignificant to the calculation since their average range more than meets the average daily driving by Americans. The only time such range even comes into consideration is when a road trip comes up and with 200 miles or more (significantly more in some cases) of effective range, those road trips are not as restricted as you want to believe. Sure, it might mean a change of habits but that change itself is for the better as it becomes more difficult to succumb to “highway hypnosis” on the drive.

      • Half of the US population doesn’t even believe in science, let alone climate science.
      — Actually, that’s not true. 80% of the US population believes in science while most of the rest simply don’t understand it. The few who don’t WANT to believe in it are the ones opposing climate science, even while taking advantage of it. After all, as it gets hotter, more air conditioners are needed, which uses energy which is currently more than 50% generated by fossil fuels. Those regions that will see colder weather during the winter (more extreme shifts from hot to cold) will see higher fossil fuel use to heat their homes and businesses, meaning more money for the ones denying there’s even a problem.

      • And transitioning passenger cars to electric power is a whole lot easier than transitioning locomotives, ships, heavy construction equipment, and farm equipment.
      Except that ships, locomotives and even heavy construction equipment already use electric power and have, in some cases, for over 100 years! Though admittedly they still use Diesel engines to generate that electricity in most cases. However, we are already aware of battery-powered ships plying ferry routes, experimental battery-powered heavy equipment actually realizing an energy GAIN in mining sites and yes, even battery powered locomotives used in switching where there is a lot of stop-and-go type of operation–again where the ICE is at its worst in economy and pollution. By comparison, as you said, transitioning to batteries in cars is simple, simply because they’re lighter and the energy demand is really far less than the energy spent in an ICE car.

      • By 2050, we might be in a situation where ICE passenger vehicles are no longer sold new. The remaining ICE cars be a small percentage of the total fleet and will be used mostly in rural areas where charging is not always available.
      — I expect we will realize this 10-15 years before you think. It’s conceivably possible that the 50% breakover point could come even sooner. By then it will come down to oldsters unwilling to accept change and the extreme rural conditions you describe. Even in the US, there are areas where grid electricity is unavailable but even then, solar may fill gaps where stringing wires is just too expensive. Some of those areas are surprisingly close to major cities, too, even if the roads to get there are little more than gravel tracks.

      • It will never be illegal to drive your classic ’70 Chevelle with the LS6 454 on public roads. You might need to adapt it to run on a different fuel, and you might have to pay more to maintain, license and insure it. But it will never be illegal, because by the time our daily-driver ICE fleet is all gone, ICE cars will account for so few miles driven that they won’t matter.
      — But it will be illegal to drive that classic car in a city center UNLESS it is to a specific event such as a car show or antique auction. And maybe not even then. You may need to trailer it in behind an EV.

      • 0 avatar
        Flipper35

        The last three vacations we took we could not have taken with an pure EV as they are now and with the current infrastructure. My daily commute would be fine, but we would still need an ICE vehicle until they get the charge times down and as populated as filling stations now.

        Will that be here in 10 years, I have my doubts. They are getting better though.

        For the record, I have been looking at ways to use an EV but so far it would be in addition to the ICE, not a replacement but at least now I could take one to the nearest big city and not worry about getting home.

        That said, the Model 3 would not be for me. A lot of gimmicks for gimmicks sake and the styling is off to me. The model S is a handsome car.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        I do remember Mr. J Baruth discussing how the true divide in the US is Urban v Rural and that the rural areas of any give state have more in common with each other than they they do with the urban centers of the state in which they are located.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        You’re quite the optimist. Never underestimate The Future’s ability to give you a headfake and run past you in an entirely different direction than you anticipated.

    • 0 avatar

      “doesn’t even believe in science, let alone climate science.”

      It is two different things. You cannot believe in both.

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    Cultural genocide always precedes human genocide.

  • avatar
    TR4

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      Destruction of classics in Cash for Clunkers was real – Next time it will be a TR4 in the electric arc furnace to make rebar.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        *Completely voluntary destruction of classics, that was realistically driven by kick-starting a stalled auto industry far more than any ideology.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        And that rebar will be embedded in concrete at a cost of 800lbs of CO2 for every cubic yard of concrete.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        TR4 steel is that bad? Most of America’s steel production is from recycled iron and steel. I’d hate to think structural steel I-beams and bridge girders are rebar-quality.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “Destruction of classics in Cash for Clunkers was real ”

        nobody was turning in desirable classic cars for that, you lying POS. they were turning in worn out heaps.

        Hint: if you have to lie to make your point, your point is not worth listening to.

        • 0 avatar

          There was indeed some classics turned in under Cash for Clunkers. My local Dodge dealer ended up with a bunch of XJ Cherokees some CJ jeeps a remarkably clean C 10, I also found a list of some of the odd turn ins including hundreds of Japanese sports cars.
          https://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/24/shed-a-tear-for-clunkers-that-deserved-better/
          That said I know what they were trying to do I just think there may have been some better ways to do it.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Hypothetical EV mandates I could survive through. It is AV mandates or extreme restrictions on travel or vehicle ownership that would cause me to exit the country.

  • avatar
    raph

    When they come for my car? Im going to just live out the “The Last Chase”.

    It’ll be buried under my garage and I’ll sneak out and scavenge parts for it then make my escape!

    Man I really enjoyed that movie as a kid. I’ll have to see if I can find it and watch it again to see how cheesey it really might have been.

    Back in the early 80’s though it was solid entertainment for this young viewer ( and no doubt comtributed to my casual disregard for speed limits as a younger man ).

  • avatar
    Robotdawn

    The good thing is, at least in the US, our system of government is designed to hamstring extreme viewpoints from both sides of the spectrum. 2030 may fly in these parliamentary governments but it’ll be a lot longer before something extreme happens to ICE cars in the US.
    And by that time I doubt they will bother “coming for our cars”, as the incremental laws restricting ICE cars use and the theoretical availability of convenient electric vehicles will make the pain of trying to seize personal property not worth the squeeze.
    Now, Canucks. Sorry about your bad luck in government choice.

    • 0 avatar
      Mike Beranek

      This is pretty much what I was saying. Our society doesn’t move fast enough to reach the level private vehicle confiscation in our lifetime- or our children’s.

    • 0 avatar
      retrocrank

      Our system of gov’t, true. It’s too busy arguing with itself over who had sex with who while worrying about re-election politics.

      Other forces won’t be so slow: Go find a recent New Yorker article, “Money is the Oxygen….” by Bill McKibben. You don’t have to like or agree with the author or the magazine’s tendencies but the principle discussed seems quite valid – once the people who control the money funding the infrastructure – banks, investment houses, insurers – decide fossil fuels are not a good investment, our ICEcars will be very expensive to run if not unusable very quickly. Whether or not “global warming” is real is a circus act sideshow.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “Our system of gov’t, true. It’s too busy arguing with itself over who had sex with who while worrying about re-election politics.”

        and letting industry lobbyists essentially write laws.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Fake news and click bait. “Under proposals issued by the Justice Democrats in the U.S. and the Green Party in Canada, all internal combustion passenger vehicles would have to disappear from new car lots in 10 years.” We all know that neither proposal has a hope of being enacted.

    I would however appreciate reading why ICE powered vehicles are preferred by many of the B&B.

    As I understand it the primary reason that ICE won the propulsion competition in the early 20th century is that petroleum was cheap, easy to transport and safer than its competition. That will not be the case in the future, and in fact those competitive advantages are quickly disappearing.

    As for performance, maintenance and longevity, other forms of propulsion/engines are now equal to or superior to ICE.

    And the sooner we in the western hemisphere develop replacements for petroleum use/products, the sooner those who fund and propagate fundamental Islamism and its violent offshoots, will be left without funding. Allowing the Arab Peninsula and its surrounding states to return to global inconsequence.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “I would however appreciate reading why ICE powered vehicles are preferred by many of the B&B.”

      They sound cool and the mechanical aspect appeals to my spectrum disorder. This is some good stuff: youtube.com/watch?v=kkHZyjiT_wk

      I’m not saying I’ll have an ICE vehicle as my primary transportation forever, but I’ll always keep one around for occasional use as long as it is legal. Similar to how some people still ride horses today (which are allowed on many public roads and even have certain places specifically dedicated to them).

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      Since you asked, in no particular order:

      -Sound…it seems so simple, but is such a deeply ingrained part of driving a car. Even a Tesla sounds like a golf cart to me.

      -Feel…a well calibrated and tuned ICE is a thing of beauty to run up to high RPM. Max torque at 0 RPM is great for straight line acceleration, but loses its fun quickly when driving for anything but a commute.

      -Control…I still prefer a manual transmission, something that’s decidedly unlikely to ever appear in an electric car.

      -Connection to the car…I still enjoy working on my cars/engines. This is not possible in the same way with an EV.

      Admittedly, with each generation of downsized turbo engines and encroaching autonomous control, my excuses for preferring ICE cars become less and less applicable. For that reason, I can see myself accepting an EV as a daily commuter car when they reach cost and range parity. I might even accept a limitation on annual mileage for my older gas cars, since they would be for fun only by that point. But, if there was truly a confiscation program to remove them from the road entirely, I would need to look into moving.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        If EVs take over holistically (or even with a lot of government help) then ICE becomes the purview of hobbyists. They become flintlocks and Atari. Telling a hobbyist that they can’t drive (or maybe even can’t own) their ’99 Aurora along rural roads for a few hours every month seems like draconian spite.

      • 0 avatar
        retrocrank

        +1….
        And, there are no electric TCs. (real TCs, not that toyota suppository).

    • 0 avatar
      Zipster

      Arthur:

      Perhaps if you elaborated in more detail, some of the more intellectually challenged contributors to this site might begin to understand the implications of the United State’s dependency on Arab oil and how so much of it was necessitated by the profligate consumption of this country.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I think it’s personal preference, Arthur, and I wonder how many folks who are railing against EVs have driven something like a Model 3. I have. And I’m here to preach it: if Tesla would improve the front end styling and get rid of that stupid IPad control/gauge system, when I’m done with my A3 in a few years, I’d trade it on a Model 3 with zero hesitation.

      The experience of driving the Model 3 is different – the performance is solid, but it’s somewhat sterile – but it’s not bad by any means. It doesn’t come with the sound and feel of an ICE car, and perhaps I’d miss that, but the EV’s endless, instant power delivery is intoxicating in its’ own right, and the idea of just fueling it up every night in my garage is appealing.

      I think the critics should try one before they climb on their sopaboxes, personally.

      • 0 avatar
        Featherston

        @ FreedMike – I don’t have time to do a write-up at the moment, but I did a day-trip in a Model 3 last Saturday, about 240 miles round trip.

        Spoiler alert: We’re still in agreement. This topic should be less a “They’re banning rock music”-type discussion and more of an “LP vs cassette vs CD”-type discussion.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        I’m very very likely to have an EV as my next vehice (not a Tesla, though.) My current daily is a 6-cylinder pickup, and as far as its sound goes it’s a definite “meh.” I wouldn’t care any less if the thing made no noise at all. I’ll leave that to the bikes (a v-twin and a screaming triple.) which- at 46 and 58 mpg respectively- won’t feel bad about tooling around in when I feel like it.

  • avatar
    pwrwrench

    More than 40 years ago it was predicted that there would be no cash money or paper in offices by 1990.
    Also, in the 1980s I heard a discussion between two research scientists. They were predicting that a 1995 Honda Civic would get 14 mpg, or less, to meet the 1995 emission standards.
    Obviously not everything happens as forecast.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    I am hopeful my state will simply ignore the law and not enforce it as that has become a legit policy now (Marijuana, immigration, abortion, etc.)

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    In today’s news, people nobody listens to said something outrageous! Everybody freak out!

  • avatar
    Lokki

    The sky is not falling quickly but gradually squeezing us down….again. For those that scoff at the idea that government could become so powerful that in the course of 20 years or so it could completely take control of every aspect of every citizen’s life to the point of imprisoning everyone who disagree with it, I refer you to 20th Century history.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Your fears are rational, but the answer is for us to “reclaim” our system, which has everything to do with getting rid of the money in politics and zero to do with electric vehicles.

      If EVs “take over,” it’ll be because the car buying public wants it that way.

  • avatar
    Maymar

    Considering how hard it is for the sort of walkable transit friendly neighbourhoods I’d like to live in to get built (and the sort of development you’d need in place before you could even consider mass diktats regarding the automobile) because politicians are scared of angering homeowners who care about “the character of their neighbourhood,” even in a large ostensibly progressive city, I see zero chance of any government really coming for anyone’s car, at least not before capitalism comes for it first.

  • avatar
    Matt Foley

    I believe in the validity of the scientific method. I do not believe in the climate-fear hucksters currently passing themselves off as “scientists.”

    Once upon a time, foolish people wouldn’t listen to scientists like Copernicus or Galileo. Now the same sort of fools put their blind faith in “Science,” as if Science were some all-powerful, all-knowing God.

    https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

    I’m hoping that before “gubmint come fer ma cawr,” the people will revolt and we’ll revert to being a constitutional republic again.

    • 0 avatar
      Mike Beranek

      You disparage scientists by using the Internet, which was invented by scientists, using a computer device that was invented by scientists. The code that makes TTAC function was written by scientists, and the fiber optic cable that your opinions travel across was invented by scientists.
      I guess since they completely botched all of those things they must be wrong about the climate too, huh?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        People are gonna believe what they believe.

        My dad joked that he would be able to smoke, eat bad crap, and not exercise, and get cured. His practicing scientist (his doctor) told him otherwise. The scientist was right. He got lung cancer when he was 69, and because he had developed diabetes and was in poor health overall, the cancer treatments killed him before the cancer did.

        Could he have lived to 100 with his lifestyle, and died in a car accident? Entirely possible…but not probable. And frankly, who wants to *be* 100 with diabetes and a bad ticker? Either way, the scientist was right – he was going to die early, or die later, after having a poorer quality of life. Seems to me that’s the same choice we have with climate change.

        Do I believe *all* the stuff that climate scientists are selling? Not necessarily – it’s an inexact science. But I think they’re mainly on target. Besides, if we’re going to progress as a species, we’re eventually going to have to develop something other than fossil-fueled energy to make it happen. Might as well do it now.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        I don’t know about Matt, but I don’t disparage scientists who do science. Actually, your examples are more applied science and engineering than pure science, but apply pure science discoveries.
        As to climatologists, whenever someone states the science is settled, they cease doing science. Or so Sir Karl Popper would say. When they can comprehensively hindcast weather/climate over the past century or so then I’ll take them seriously about forecasting. Richard Feynman observed that if your theory doesn’t track reality, then your theory is wrong, not reality. I don’t think climatologists, after 1/3rd of a century of spoliating weather data and fiddling with their computer models, accept that.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          In the United States, weather has been recorded to a greater or lesser extent since the late 18th century–most notably starting with Benjamin Franklin in his Philadelphia newspaper and later the Poor Man’s almanac. During those now 250 years and perhaps longer, the database has spread, since more locations started logging their weather daily and their instruments have become more accurate. The data is there to be read and I’m quite sure the majority of that data, if not all of it, has been transcribed into computer files and with each new generation of storage medium, probably moved and updated into the most current format.

          That said, let’s not forget that over the last 50+ years, we have also been able to take satellite images and correlate the imagery to the exact date and time of the reports, to the point that the visible cloud cover (and later infrared and moisture maps–and more) can be directly related to ground and air measurements and accurately determine cause and effect for nearly every square mile of this country. Of course, other countries have also seen similar results.

          By measuring these historical events and developing a running forecast system that is becoming ever more accurate–to the point we can pretty well forecast individual events a week or more ahead of time–we can now forecast general weather effects over an increasing period of time. Taking into account the mathematics of fluid dynamics, the geography of the land and even thermodynamics, we can better recognize the likely future–barring any sudden and drastic change to the calculations.

          As such, the realization that temperatures have risen around the globe over that 250 years plus cannot be passed off as a theory, it is recognized fact. The study of geology, biology and oceanography gives us clues and in some cases direct data for conditions going back thousands of years and in some cases, millions of years–albeit the data gets spotty as natural methods of preservation aren’t necessarily “air tight” when you’re relying on ice, crystal formation and tree sap to hold those samples. But they do still give us data. The same goes for actual fossils, such as those found in those coal seams we so wantonly break up and burn. Peat bogs which are famous for their thick mat of plant life yet are also so deadly if you enter them unprepared are tomorrow’s coal seams in the making… Tomorrow meaning millions of years from now. Get my point?

          Those computer models are based on Real Science. Those computer models get updated and improved as their predictions get compared to the reality over time. We are to a point where we can estimate future conditions based on everything we have observed and calculated up to now. We cannot assume that Global Warming, whatever you want to call it, is a hoax. As we learn more, we can fine tune those models and estimates and as we do so, the future looks less inviting. But worse, too many people don’t even consider what the changes mean to society and the people in the regions most directly affected. Yes, Anthropology is a science–the science of society–and as the weather continues to warm and become more extreme and violent (in both directions, as some areas are already realizing very wide swings in temperature between summer and winter), those people will be forced to migrate–either seasonally or more likely through attempted conquest of more livable lands. Science can help to reduce this need through such things as turning salt and brackish waters into potable and irrigation water but we can also minimize the overall effects by reversing the conditions that caused this uncharacteristic rise in global temperatures.

          No, I don’t mean we need to drop back into the Stone Age or whatever, I mean all we have to do is reduce the amount of pollutants we put out and actively work to limit the energy we waste. We can make our roofs strong enough to plant grasses and gardens for food and insulation; we can find ways to collect and store solar heat that requires little more than a simple water pump or go as far as using photovoltaic cells to turn that sunlight directly into electricity. We can do many things that would reduce our costs of energy by simple physical means and even cool our homes by other simple means that reduces the demand to always burn something to change its energy state. We can do all of these things… but we won’t. Why? Because society as a whole is too lazy to do these things for themselves and rely on others to do it for them…almost always to their own detriment as the current ways mean more money for those who are too cheap, too weak or simply unable to do them for themselves.

          So, we either spend our money now to change the future or we let the future happen, forcing us to spend the money to adapt. Either way, we’re spending money but by spending now to do it right, less money is spent in the future just to survive.

          History is out there. We know what has happened in the past. True, history changes as we discover new facts but much of that change is political, not climatic. For instance, by now I’m sure we all know that the Vikings beat Columbus to the Americas by over 500 years. The Vikings ultimately merged with the Native Americans of their day; the Spaniards and others conquered and changed the continents’ political status.

          And the weather changed.

      • 0 avatar
        Lokki

        “I guess since they completely botched all of those things they must be wrong about the climate too, huh?”

        The real question is why would you trust them about the climate? Scientific research is a slow and ugly business of sorting through mistakes, bias, fraud, and facts. It takes a long long time to sift through the dross to arrive at a repeatedly provable conclusion about -anything-

        Here are some quick examples –

        [A] well-known ‘error’ in the history of human chromosome counting. In the early 1920s, T.S. Painter, supported by a number of independent investigators, placed the count at 48, which was to hold as a fact for more than 30 years. In 1956, Tjio and Levan surprisingly revised the count to 46.

        Farmers have relied upon glyphosate-based herbicides to kill unwanted vegetation for more than four decades, but its use sparked hefty debate in 2015, when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that it was “probably carcinogenic,” adding it to a category that also contains red meat, for instance. This followed previous conclusions by research agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans.

        “Retractions are definitely on the rise” and there are 10 times as many corrections as retractions, said Dr. Ivan Oransky, a health journalism professor at New York University and co-founder of Retraction Watch, a website that tracks errors in science journals.

        China is investigating claims of academic fraud involving mostly Chinese cancer researchers after more than 100 articles were withdrawn from a foreign medical journal.

        German publisher Springer announced in April the retraction of 107 articles from Tumor Biology after finding evidence the “peer review process was compromised”.

        Scientists at the Institute for Animal Health in Edinburgh secured a £200,000 government grant to find out whether BSE has jumped the “species barrier” from cows into sheep. An inquiry is now under way after it was found that scientists had been mistakenly testing cattle brains instead of sheep brains for five years.

        The number of weather stations providing data to GHCN plunged in 1990 and again in 2005. The sample size has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s, and is now smaller than at any time since 1919. The collapse in sample size has increased the relative fraction of data coming from airports to about 50 percent (up from about 30 percent in the 1970s). It has also reduced the average latitude of source data and removed relatively more high-altitude monitoring sites.

        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653928

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          So…science has been wrong in the past on several issues, so it must be wrong on this one too.

          Got it. I’ll play along.

          Let’s leave global warming out of the equation and ask ourselves what’s better for us – fossil fuels that generate HUGE amounts of pollution to extract and use, and will eventually run out, or stuff that doesn’t generate huge amounts of pollution, and won’t run out.

          And ask yourself a very silly question: how much money could you make on the latter energy type?

          Alt energy is the future, global warming or not. Eventually, even without global warming, global industrialization is going to generate pollution levels we can only imagine today, and no one disagrees about how harmful that pollution is. Stuff like smog, acid rain, water pollution…you name it. And as more people use more energy, it’s only going to get worse. That’s why fossil fuels need to be replaced. And if we figure out that global warming was BS, then fine – we’ll still have better, cleaner energy that doesn’t f**k with the planet as much. I don’t see that as anything but a win.

          The people who want you to believe otherwise all know that alt energy puts them out of business. That’s why they fund “climate skepticism.”

          You got bought…cheap.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “The real question is why would you trust them about the climate?”

          no the REAL question is why should we ignore them because some guy on the internet’s “gut feeling” tells him it’s not true?

          ‘cos that’s all this is. We have long had an anti-knowledge bent in this country (famously bemoaned by Isaac Asimov) that tells us “experts” are to be distrusted. So when those evil “scientists” tell us something we don’t want to be true, we “rugged individualists” refuse to believe it.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Actually, I’d say we believe scientists all the time when they’re doing stuff we dig. No one complained when science gave us airplanes that would get us to our vacation spots in four hours, versus spending two days in a car. No one complained when science gave us radios, TVs, computers, and the Internet.

            But when the scientists say we need to make life changes, we become “ruggedly individualistic” and tell them to bugger off.

            Example: my dad. He loved anything technological that science could conjure for him. But when science told him to stop smoking, lose weight, and stop eating sh*tty foods, he became “ruggedly individualistic” and told them to take a hike. He got lung cancer at age 69, and because his health was poor (all that crappy eating and no exercise earned him a solid case of Type II diabetes), the cancer treatments killed him before the cancer could. Addicts love that science can bring them new drugs but hate that science tells them they can’t use the new drugs anymore. And so on.

            Not saying I’m innocent as charged here, but resistance to change is an unfortunate feature of human nature, even if the change is something good. That, I think, is what’s going on here.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        “The code that makes TTAC function was written by scientists”

        Ummm, no. TTAC runs on an outdated version of WordPress. No Scientists involved. Furthermore I crank out a ton of code and I am pretty freaking far from a Scientist.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      @Matt, you state that you “believe in the validity of the scientific method” and then go on to disbelieve the research and findings of over 80% of those trained in the applicable sciences who have concluded through their research that climate change is occurring and that human activities are influencing this.

      So you cannot have it both ways. If you believe in scientific research then you agree that climate change is occurring. If you do not believe that climate change is occurring then you a disagreeing with peer reviewed scientific research.

    • 0 avatar
      smartascii

      This argument again. Climate science is about physics and predictions. If you drop a ball, it will bounce. Physics. If you drastically change the balance of gasses in the atmosphere, the world will change. Physics. If you tell me where the ball will go when it bounces, you’re making predictions. Now, the more you observe the bouncing ball, the more you learn about its behavior, and the better you’ll get at predicting its behavior, but you still might get it wrong, because of variables you can’t completely understand. And we’re definitely at that stage with climate science. But using that fact to insist that the ball therefore doesn’t bounce at all is foolhardy and contrarian, and it doesn’t do anyone any good.

      • 0 avatar
        Lokki

        To continue your ‘Climate Science is like a ball bouncing’ analogy-

        The question is not whether the ball will bounce but whether we have the skills to accurately predict how high the ball will bounce, and in what direction…. in the future.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @Lokki:
          By this logic, since science cannot predict the exact date when smoking will destroy your health, the only logical thing to do is keep smoking. Right?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @FreedMike: And too many people have already experienced what happens when you do that. Interestingly, the minute you stop smoking, you start extending your life again as the body heals the damage. My own father smoked heavily for most of his life but when he stopped–cold turkey–he gained another 16 years to his life.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Lokki: In the short term, we’ve gotten quite good at predicting where the ball will bounce over the short term. While not exact, we’re good at predicting moderate-term conditions out to a month and more. We’re at least fair at predicting overall conditions over the course of a year or more–barring unexpected events like a forest fire or volcanic eruption. This means that any truly long-term predictions can certainly say a bounce of that ball is going to happen and can offer a reasoned probability of which way it will bounce.

          All of the projections assume certain geological or geopolitical events will remain somewhat stable. If, however, something like this rollback of CAFE and CARB regulations takes hold, certain atmospheric conditions WILL change, at which point the question becomes one of, “did we just push the ball that much harder, to make it bounce higher?” We’re not looking at a case where we just dropped the ball–now we’ve thrown the ball and the reaction is likely to be more extreme.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    If you can give me 350-400 mile range on a charge (15 to 30 min charging time) 0-60 mph in the 5-6 sec range, 15 sec quarter mile, and at the non subsidized transaction price of a Camry… Then sign me up for instantaneous torque of an electric motor. (Oh yeah and the interior and cargo space of the current midsize class of sedan.)

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    All this assumes, of course that the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of folks who own cars are just going to say, “OK, take my gas powered car that I spent $40,000 on away.”

    #NotHappening. Any politician outside Berkeley, California who proposes this is going to be looking for a job in short order.

    Could it happen if the government offered something like a buyback program? Well, folks would be less inclined to stage a torch-and-pitchfork parade, but given that Congress can’t seem to agree on a time for lunch breaks, much less funding the government, where’s the political consensus for this? I don’t see it.

    And to explain why this REALLY isn’t happening, let’s move on to today’s Daily Double:
    -This exceptionally well funded interest group stands to lose everything if gas powered cars are outlawed, and will pay off EVERYONE to make sure that won’t happen.
    -What’s Exxon, Alex?

    Again…#NotHappening

    EVs ARE going to become a lot more popular. But an “EV takeover” will require the car market to demand it, and I don’t see that happening 100%. My completely uneducated guess is that they eventually end up taking about 30-40% of the market. The wild card isn’t EVs, though – it’s how electricity is produced. If something like fusion power becomes commercially feasible, it’d make electricity almost unbelievably cheap, making the electrification switch happen quicker.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Correct. ICE cars are not going away anytime soon. The whole infrastructure of the entire county has to change before battery powered vehicles become the norm. When my local gas station has a Mr Fusion charging bay next to the pumps then I’ll become worried.

  • avatar
    R Henry

    I am 52. I do not expect any American ICE auto bans in my lifetime. My son can figure out how to keep his ’68 Mustang legal on his own…I will be long gone if/when any such bans are implemented.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    If they come for my EV, then I guess I’ll trade up for an even better one.

    But TTAC is this:
    1. Gasoline isn’t going anywhere, because Americans will pay *any price* for a gallon of it.
    2. The 2nd Amendment will protect the unwritten right to purchase that gallon of gas.
    3. Just as with threats against funding Social Security, any legislator voting to eliminate ICE cars will be out of a job.

    • 0 avatar
      Zipster

      Just like “Hummer” another Second Amendment nut. He doesn’t have a brain, but he’s got an AR-15!

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        My brain allowed me to obtain my masters in Mechanical Engineering, but I suppose that’s not a “real degree” since smart people (climate scientists) have liberal art degrees.

        Majority of this country supports the 2nd amendment so you seem to be the nut.

        • 0 avatar
          -Nate

          @ Hummer ;

          I’m a firearms owner but I don’t think private Citizens need machine guns….

          My son has a custom made AR15 variant, it’s very nice but not much use anywhere for any reason so it just sits in the safe .

          Firearm owners need to be more active in training and responsible ownership, not just blind support of an amendment they clearly have no understanding of (not necessarily you) .

          Like driving, one must be responsible else others will take them away, I/you/we don’t want that to happen but it might in my lifetime due to the screwballs .

          -Nate

  • avatar
    bunkie

    No one will “come for your ICE vehicles”

    You will, eventually, give them up because they will no longer be practical.

  • avatar

    Pretty Much it will be like horses and model T’s at some point.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Wow, Steph managed to write something so unhinged that even the right-leaning commentariat here, with just a few exceptions, is prepared to drag him back to reality.

    Yes, EVs are going to slowly increase in number, and it’s conceivable that either or both of these will happen: (1) new ICE sales are sharply limited or (2) ICE cars are banned from urban centers.

    That just means that unless you live in rural South Dakota your everyday car will become an EV. And when everyone’s everyday car is an EV, the market will have plenty of incentive to supply charging infrastructure. The only functional drawback is that very long road trips will take a bit longer because fast charging is a bit slower than gassing up. In exchange for that, anyone with a garage will be able to avoid fillup stops in daily life.

    The other thing that will have to happen–it’s just math–is that more Americans will move into urban centers where they use cars less. That doesn’t mean everyone, and if you don’t want that kind of life then you won’t have to live it. Right now, there are more people who want to live in urban centers than there is housing available for them (as demonstrated by sky-high housing prices), so the expansion of urban centers will just be satisfying pent-up demand.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “Yes, EVs are going to slowly increase in number, and it’s conceivable that either or both of these will happen: (1) new ICE sales are sharply limited or (2) ICE cars are banned from urban centers.”

      What will happen is the BEV will slowly increase and be treated as a commodity similar to Iphone, while the economically viable ICE will be legislated out of existence. This is all by design, stack and pack in limited urban centers which will allow for constant surveillance and effective law enforcement response. Don’t believe me? London had been CCTV capital of the world since the dawn of the 21st Century, China has eight of the ten most surveilled cities, and recently in Hong Kong it was discovered that facial recognition technology among other things were in lamp posts.

      The BEV fits well into this model because of its more limited range and the fact unlike an ICE, it could be designed to self immolate if a signal is sent to it from an OnStar like technology. If they start chipping people themselves as we have seen in science fiction, a 24/7 environment could be constructed where if you are labeled an enemy of the state, your access to electronic systems could easily be terminated. Great, a new type of prison where you can be blacklisted.

      The timing of this, and what I perceive to be an acceleration of this plan in only the past few years, is curious due to the unusual events in Saudi Arabia since 2015:

      1. The death King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz in 2015, he being the sixth of the original seven sons of Abdul Rahman bin Faisal (1875-1953). From what I read, there were rumors of a succession crisis at the time from the nephews of the final son, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, but ultimately Salman prevailed and was made King.

      2. On 25 Feb 2015, about a month after Abdullah bin Abdulaziz’s death, Israel was granted access to KSA airspace for the first time from what I can tell, to strike their common enemy, Iran (who are Shia).

      3. On 21 March 2015, after taking over the Yemeni government, the Houthi-led Supreme Revolutionary Committee declared a general mobilization to overthrow President Hadi and expand their control by driving into southern provinces (Hadi fled to KSA).

      4. The Saudis, having gathered a small coalition, launched air strikes against the Houthis starting 26 March. The architect of the operation is believed to be Salman’s son, Mohammed bin Salman.

      5. Starting after April in a second operation, the Saudi coalition sent ground forces into Yemen, estimated at 10,000 troops and 30 helicopters. The Saudis four years on have still not defeated the Houthi rebels, who occupy about a third of the country to the west.

      6. A few days before 22 June 2017, King Salman replaced Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz with his own son, Mohammed bin Salman. There were rumors of a coup, and it is known Israel, a nuclear power, sent a contingent of aircraft allegedly in support of MbS’s succession.

      7. MbS, now the legitimate Crown Prince, arrests many of his cousins on trumped up charges and holds them in a hotel, allegedly torturing them, unless they paid for their freedom. Effectively, MbS shook down his family for money. Quoting the NYT: “In November, the Saudi government locked up hundreds of influential businessmen — many of them members of the royal family — in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton in what it called an anti-corruption campaign.

      Most have since been released but they are hardly free. Instead, this large sector of Saudi Arabia’s movers and shakers are living in fear and uncertainty.

      During months of captivity, many were subject to coercion and physical abuse, witnesses said. In the early days of the crackdown, at least 17 detainees were hospitalized for physical abuse and one later died in custody with a neck that appeared twisted, a badly swollen body and other signs of abuse, according to a person who saw the body.”

      8. Allegedly MbS, who appears to be defacto King in most aspects, threatened to blockade it’s oil rich neighbor, Qatar, and allegedly dissuaded by then Secy of State Tillerson of invading Qatar. This is especially significant since his own armed forces are still warring in Yemen, he essentially almost created a two front war.

      9. MbS is attempting to IPO KSA gov’t held Aramaco in order to raise funds for KSA.

      10. Most recently a Saudi oil processing facility was hit with a drone or missile, taking about half their oil production offline for an extended period of time. This may have been done in relation to the upcoming IPO.

      So what to make of this?

      1. MbS despite likely infighting and coup attempts, has secured his succession to the KSA throne. MbS has the backing of both the USA and separately Israel, the region’s premier military and nuclear power.

      2. MbS started a war in 2015 which his armies still cannot win and has devolved into a stalemate. He allegedly wanted to start another one a few years later with oil rich Qatar. These moves seem to have a certain desperation to them.

      3. MbS is actively raising funds be it graft or IPO for the KSA gov’t, who historically sat on a boat load of cash. His war in Yemen has likely cost them more than was estimated.

      If we couple these unusual events for the Sauds with the very real possibility their long standing oil fields have in fact hit their peak as predicted by Simmons in “Twilight in the Desert”, we are facing a very serious geopolitical situation both for the Middle East but also the USA since its currency relies on international oil for trade since about 1971.

      All of this occurs in a period where the EV is rapidly pushed out and the ideas of Agenda 2030 are starting to be implemented. This is coincidence?

      https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-said-to-mull-air-passage-for-israeli-jets-to-attack-iran/

      https://www.globalresearch.ca/18-israeli-fighter-jets-landed-in-saudi-arabia-to-prevent-coup/5595993

      https://thearabweekly.com/operation-decisive-storm-three-years

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/11/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-corruption-mohammed-bin-salman.html

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman#cite_note-179

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aramco-ipo-banks/saudi-aramco-gives-nine-banks-top-roles-on-worlds-biggest-ipo-sources-idUSKCN1VW1PO

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom

      https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/

      scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3024997/why-are-hong-kong-protesters-targeting-lamp-posts

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Good grief.

        The reason we’ll be concentrated into urban centers is not Agenda 21 conspiracy bull$#it, it’s that there is nowhere else to grow that has a) room, b) water, and c) jobs. Suburban sprawl takes up a huge amount of land per person and even in a place as big as America there isn’t room to have everyone take up that much space and be able to commute to job centers in a reasonable amount of time.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Yep. Forget about sprawl being bad for the environment – the main problem is cost. The price of roads, freeways, light rail lines and transit needed to support sprawl is INSANE. Ten years ago, Denver spent over a billion dollars to widen one ten-mile part of I-25, and now we get bumper-to-bumper, dead-stopped traffic jams…on weekends. Ridiculous. You could probably build a Disney World on the moon for what it would cost to truly “fix” the highways in this city alone.

        • 0 avatar
          Reino

          To the opposite effect: more and more jobs are created that don’t require physical commute. Which is why you also see rising housing prices in picturesque rural towns like Buena Vista, CO. High salaries + work from home means people can disperse to rural areas and free themselves from the cities.

          Many things in culture and technology are due to change in the future. One constant, however is that eventually a person gets sick of apartment living and mass transit wants a house and a car.

          • 0 avatar
            -Nate

            @ Reino :

            Don’t be too sure about that ~ I go through Downtown Los Angeles every day or three and many of the old high rise office buildings have been successfully converted to living quarters, I dunno if flats, condos or what but areas I know used to be dangerous after sun set are now full of families walking to the store with young children and infants in strollers, it’s weird to me as I lived in Downtown briefly in the 1970’s and couldn’t wait to get out, others I meet & talk to seem to enjoy living in what to me seem like rabbit warrens….

            I grew up Down East and hated the endless apartments jammed in rows for miles and miles (forget about blocks) with very few being able to own any vehicle at all and traffic jammed from sun up to after sun down .

            Not everyone likes the same things ~ I hope to never live Rural again but I also dislike the over crowded cities ~ why I live in The Ghetto : unlike what the T.V. shows you it’s mostly families in single family homes rasing their children as best they can, walking their dogs, going shopping nearby, so on and so forth .

            A good, Conservative, family based American values life .

            I’d be interested in seeing what other large old American cities are doing with inner city housing, I just want no part of it .

            -Nate

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        You’re missing the big picture.

        -A sudden push for EVs in the wake of 2008, and it seems to have been accelerated more recently.
        -A prediction backed up with facts that the Sauds will peak on or after 2005.
        -Agenda 2030 like it or not is a real document and it calls for more urbanization.
        -Strange events in KSA since 2015.
        -USD being linked to petroleum since about 1971.
        -US debt at record levels since 2003 because of wars over oil and then fiscally insane policies being implemented by the last and most recent administration.

        Then today:

        “However, a number of my sources suggest things look increasingly questionable in the desert kingdom. Looking at the photos of the Houthi drone strikes, the damage and the holes made in the gas tanks look suspiciously regular and well placed. MBS’s shakedown of his royal cousins and the nation’s business leaders stands alongside rising revulsion at his own spending. As defacto absolute ruler he feels above question, but domestic tensions are rising. More than a few analysts suspect the Houthis may have had inside assistance for a growing Saudi domestic insurgency.”

        Repeat

        “More than a few analysts suspect the Houthis may have had inside assistance for a growing Saudi domestic insurgency.”

        https://morningporridge.com/the-morning-porridge/f/blains-morning-porridge—sept-20th-2019

        Maybe an inside job? MbS making some draconian moves since 2015 while his armies are well armed with advanced US weapons and has the backing have two nuclear powers. A war he can’t end which is draining his country’s resources. A faction inside the family strikes back? What are we really looking at here, a Saudi civil war? An Iran strike in retaliation for the recent attack? Both would have a huge impact on the entire world. You’re talking about a President who I believe would go nuclear if it came to it. This is really not good. What if there was another embargo? Now the EVs start to make more sense despite their lack of love from the buying public. Tesla might become a selling phenom overnight real soon.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “more Americans will move into urban centers where they use cars less. That doesn’t mean everyone, and if you don’t want that kind of life then you won’t have to live it.”

      Ideally this will also end the suburbanization that some outskirt rural communities are dealing with.
      Then I can head out to rural SD and largely be left alone.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    Though the premise of the article is pure clickbait, the EV future isn’t that far off. I saw an ad on TV last night from PetroCanada, one of the largest gas station networks up here. It was advertising their coast to coast “electric highway” of EV charging stations. Even the retailers see the writing on the wall. There will always be a market for ICE vehicles that need the range, though many will likely be hybrid.

    For those raging against the clouds, think about this: most of the disastrous, expensive foreign interventions the USA has been dragged into over the last 50 years have been due to petropolitics. Sure, shale oil has changed the equation a bit, but wouldn’t it be great to have no reason to become embroiled in that part of the world? Plus, anyone I know with an EV loves it. They don’t miss the racket or maintenance needs of an ICE one bit.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “most of the disastrous, expensive foreign interventions the USA has been dragged into over the last 50 years have been due to petropolitics”

      Nailed it.

      “Sure, shale oil has changed the equation a bit, but wouldn’t it be great to have no reason to become embroiled in that part of the world?”

      Shale was never a long term solution IMO.

      “It was advertising their coast to coast “electric highway” of EV charging stations. Even the retailers see the writing on the wall. There will always be a market for ICE vehicles that need the range, though many will likely be hybrid.”

      Because of the huge cost of such new infrastructure, and the fact the Western governments are for the most part bankrupt, I agree what will likely play out is a hybrid approach. I’ve advocated for this approach for years, most of the industry will never recover the monies wasted on the BEV and *significant* battery technology and proper disposal has yet to be seen. Significant being <10-15 min charges, 500+ mile ranges, and life up to ten years in a mass produced mode. Toyota will come out far ahead when the cards are revealed over the next five years.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “the EV future isn’t that far off.”

      Maybe. I just don’t see it in the current sales numbers though.

      insideevs.com/news/368729/ev-sales-scorecard-august-2019/

      While the Model3 has definitely been a successful product, nonTesla things with a plug have sold in volume about equal to the Toyota 4Runner this year. BEV sales are even lower. And, that’s with electric subsidies. Even with a relatively low overall volume, growth is looking to be mostly flat for 2019.

      At some point if BEVs are going to become so popular as to render ICE vehicles a curiosity then people are going to need to begin buying them in large numbers. A $150K Taycan or Honda city car sold only in Europe isn’t going to accomplish that.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Some cars are more equal than others.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      As if every conceivable flavor of socialism (such as Democratic Socialism as espoused by Bernie Sanders et al) is exactly like Bolshevism, the target of staunch Socialist journalist and writer Eric Blair (aka George Orwell).

      Some of us have actually read all of Orwell’s books and have a better-than-average understanding of his motivation. Homage to Catalonia is a good place to start if you want to go beyond parroting pithy phrases.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        This is an incredibly multifaceted issue, but this doesn’t mean some of Orwell’s wisdom is not adroit. Despite economic realities, scientific limitations, and consumer preferences a huge amount of money is being dumped into BEVs, cui bono?

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          …and 60 years ago, huge amounts of money were being poured into computer technology. Cui bono?

          1) Computer companies, a major employment section in this country.
          2) Software companies, a major employment section in this country.
          3) The people who sell computers and software, a major employment section in this country.
          4) Companies that used computer technology to increase productivity and profits.
          5) This website.
          6) You.
          7) Anyone who invested in computer companies, Internet companies, software companies, or the companies that used all that tech to make more money.
          8) The government, which recouped whatever investment it made in the tech in the first place many, many times over, allowing it to keep functioning.

          It’s about making money, in the end. That ain’t Orwellian or communistic at all.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I got to run but ARPANET and what it spawned isn’t in the same class of event as a BEV, which have existed in some form since the late 19th Century.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    As long as the political class commutes in kerosene powered jets and 91 Octane guzzling large black SUVs, I’ll feel morally justified in my Caddy/Sonoma/Camaro/Equinox or whatever replaces them in the future.

  • avatar
    PentastarPride

    Hopefully we reinstate McCarthyism and ensure that any lawmaker even thinking about snatching ICE cars (or doing anything else that interferes with the American way of life) is impeached and imprisoned.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I suspect just the opposite will happen. Technology unfortunately enables the national security state which began after 1947. Without technology, enforcing such a thing is much more difficult. Now it’s point, click, done.

  • avatar

    How are there nearly 90 comments and not one reference to the movie: Firebird 2015 AD?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    They might put so much ethanol in our gas that we eventually might be forced into EVs. I believe it will be a long long time before EVs become the majority of the vehicles. We might see more EVs by 2030 but they won’t be the majority. By the time EVs become the majority I will be so old or dead so I am not going to worry about it. I do see that more and more of our freedoms and rights will be taken away and yes we might become like Europe where we don’t own the land our homes are built on. Not in favor of that but I do see it eventually happening. What I don’t see is that the majority of the people will giving up their own transportation. Possibly the large metropolitan areas will become where it is so expensive to own your own vehicle but I doubt that will happen in smaller metropolitan and rural areas. Most of us should not spend the time worrying about this as many of the past predictions have not come true. I haven’t seen the flying cars that were promised in the 50’s and 60’s.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Homeownership may be less common in Europe than it is here, but I’m not aware of any country in Europe where one cannot own land or a home – plenty of folks do.

      Then again, no one ends up in bankruptcy court over a trip to the ER in Europe. Their tax rates are high for a reason.

    • 0 avatar

      “I haven’t seen the flying cars that were promised in the 50’s and 60’s.”

      You should watch Falcon Heavy launch. It is still available on youtube.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Vulpine–No 2 and 3 of what you stated is not only Trump but the position of many Republican elected representatives. Many Republicans call Social Security entitlements. I doubt most Republicans would support what is happening to farmers especially the tariffs. I think that California should be allowed to set their own standards but that those standards should not be forced on the other states unless those states choose to follow California standards. There are more pressing issues than going to war with California over California wanting stricter standards

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @FreedMIke–There are still leaseholds in Great Britain the land is leased but they are less common than they were. Probably I misspoke and shouldn’t give any of the regulators any ideas.

  • avatar

    Daimler Benz, the company that invented automobile, announced that they stop development of IC engines to focus on EV development. If it isn’t the writing on the wall then I don’t know what is. ICE is doomed because car companies will stop offering cars with ICE. EV is more efficient, less problem prone, simpler, require much less maintenance, faster, have more torque, more space, electricity can be generated using any available source of energy including renewables (try that with ICE), electricity easier to deliver to charging stations, it is safer. Model 3 beats any ICE car, even Porsche.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    @SCE to AUX
    A little off topic, but I finally understood your screen name.

    What an incredible Apollo 12 story!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: Pontiac out of business pre-2015. Your argument is invalid. :-)
  • bumpy ii: Ha! But you know half the crowd in here would sell body parts for velour bench seats and a column shifter...
  • MWolf: I have a couple. I had a 1990 Cadillac Sedan DeVille. Say what you want, but this thing had the most...
  • Corey Lewis: Ruint! No remaining dignity.
  • DenverMike: The CARB can be safely killed off now. It’s too irrelevant and redundant to the Ca EPA, US EPA and...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States