By on July 19, 2021

Last week, the European Union proposed banning the sale of all new internal combustion vehicles starting in 2035. With several member nations proposing restrictions in the coming years, EU leadership feels it can accelerate the timeline to force electric vehicles as the de facto mode of transportation. The European Commission has suggested making it illegal to sell gas or diesel-powered vehicles in 14 years, with aims to reduce CO2 emissions produced by automobiles by 55 percent (vs 2021 levels) by 2030.

But countries that still produce vehicles have expressed reservations about the scheduling. France absolutely agrees with mandating restrictions that would reduce greenhouse emissions. Though President Emmanuel Macron’s office has been pressing that hybrid vehicles would be able to do much of the heavy lifting and fears that an outright ban of internal combustion could hamstring the industry if conducted too early. Germany, which manufacturers more vehicles than other EU member nations, is of a similar mind. 

“I believe that all car and truck manufacturers are aware that stricter specifications are coming. But they have to be technically feasible,”  German Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer explained to Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA).

German manufacturers have been signaling a transition toward EVs louder than almost anyone. But the regional regulatory bodies have expressed concerns about accelerating the timeframe. This has been particularly true of Scheuer, who remains concerned about what’s actually achievable. He’s proposed phasing out fossil fuel combustion by 2035, only if synthetic fuels can be perfected to a point that wouldn’t force ICEs off the road.

There are concerns that synthetic fuels aren’t sufficiently energy-efficient to produce with confidence and will ultimately result in more pollution than battery-driven automobiles. But this is wholly dependent upon how much both technologies progress and how the infrastructure is set up. For example, Germany’s aversion to nuclear power resulted in it building a slew of coal-fired powerplants to offset renewable sources that ultimately reduced its air quality. Sourcing electricity from a coal-dependent area isn’t better for the environment, especially if the area is required to build thousands of EV charging points to make it possible. By contrast, synthetic fuels can use our existing fueling infrastructure. But they suffer from some of the pitfalls shared with hydrogen power (heavy efficiency losses during production) and are still dependent upon access to fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, studies tend to support whatever industry commissioned them in the first place. Though there’s sufficient evidence to suggest that the greenest solutions tend to be the ones that are the most localized. Manufacturing (or disposing of) batteries isn’t exactly good for the environment, nor is shipping them around the world. And the same goes for fuel refinement. If you’re drilling for crude, only to send it halfway around the world to be refined and shipped back, then you’re needlessly broadening your carbon footprint. But it’s a fairly normal practice in developed countries.

These issues are often more about perception and finances than actually deciding what’s possible or which technologies/practices will offer the lowest total amount of pollution. This frequently is embodied by the blind faith environmental activists seem to place on EVs and manufacturers’ willingness to court them while keeping internal combustion vehicles perpetually on deck.

“This is the sort of ambition we’ve been waiting to see from the EU, where it’s been lacking in recent years,” Helen Clarkson, chief executive of the Climate Group, a non-profit group that collaborates openly with business and government in a complicated, ethical slurry, told Reuters.

“The science tells us we need to halve emissions by 2030, so for road transport it’s simple — get rid of the internal combustion engine.”

In truth, the science is overwhelmingly complicated and European Union has been one of the biggest proponents of swapping to EVs, even if some of its other environmental actions have backfired horribly in the past.

While we already mentioned Germany’s air quality, the best example has to be Europe’s former love affair with diesel. In the early 1990s, the continent was operating under the assumption that diesel-powered vehicles tended to be more economical than their gasoline-fueled counterparts and thereby must be less taxing on the environment. Governments prioritized the fuel accordingly and diesel-powered passenger vehicles became the norm. Two decades later and Europe is still reeling from that sooty mistake, though diesel technology improved quite a bit thanks to the unbridled support it received. Electrification could be in for a similar future if not enacted responsibly — ditto for synthetic fuels, hydrogen, or any other miracle solution to our perpetual hunger for the planet’s resources.

What we’re relatively certain of is that introducing alternative energy solutions has required billions of dollars and will cost billions more if Europe is serious about adhering to these targets. La Plateforme Automobile (PFA), France’s primary industry lobby, estimates another 17.5 billion euros ($20.8 billion USD) will need to be spent in the middle of the next decade to continue developing the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the desired changes. Germany is looking at probably thrice that amount, with some analysts suggesting the European lobbying metrics are far too conservative. The European Commission is already operating under the assumption that simply building the necessary charging infrastructure will require over $100 billion by 2040.

Electrification will also result in widespread job losses, with PFA suggesting France would remove 100,000 automotive-related positions (over half the industry’s current strength) by 2035. Germany’s substantially larger automotive workforce would probably lose several times that figure.

Despite the industry habitually voicing a strong commitment toward electrification in press materials, lobbying groups tend to oppose governments prohibiting the sale of any type of vehicle. Most are telling the EU that a mixed approach is best, with automakers continuing to pursue all technologies until the market decides a clear winner. This continued to be true after the commission issued its latest proposal, reminding us that what’s being said isn’t always indicative of what’s being done. That doesn’t necessarily mean the mixed approach is wrong. But it serves as a reminder that it’s often easier to run with a solution that feels or sounds good than spending the extra time to figure out what’s actually going to be best — whether that pertains to consumer needs, financial reports, or what’s going into our atmosphere.

Then again, your author is stupidly operating under the assumption that these are serious conversations when there’s overwhelming evidence that manufacturers and government actors simply make arbitrary environmental or technological promises that are ultimately forgotten and reintroduced five years later as if they’re wholly novel concepts.

[Image: JL IMAGES/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

59 Comments on “Europe Proposes Banning Internal Combustion Cars By 2035...”


  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Commence the food fight.

    • 0 avatar
      tomLU86

      It takes money to make money. Many of Europe’s policies, and the US, destroy wealth.

      So the central planners will force the issue, and allocate resources.

      The way this plays out, Bill Gates and the Davos crowd don’t want you driving an oil powered car for sure, or any car for that matter.

      Most Europeans can survive without a car. Most Americans can not. But after being conditioned to live in isolation, some people may be more open to giving up their car.

      • 0 avatar

        We happily lived in USSR without cars. Everybody lived in government operated 1 or 2 bedroom apartment in high rise apartment building and rode government run public transportation. I think that is the goal the western countries are going to aspire also. In California both State and Federal governments are pushing to designate single family homes illegal as a symbol of systemic racism. Every town is required to build affordable high density apartment buildings a.k.a. projects.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          We have not fertilized lawns. if you take away this chem industry, you cut several points off. Why lawns need to be fertilized? I still don’t understand.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          I see you @insidelookingout posting about “happily living in the USSR”. I also noted Slavuta using the phrase “good old days of the USSR”

          I have to ask, if times were so good and people so happy, Why that whole overthrow of the Government and collapse of the Warsaw Pact bit? Seems like an action a happy populace wouldn’t take.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Art:

            They were just setting up for the Glorious New Russian Era of “Russian dashcam crash” Youtube videos.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “Why that whole overthrow of the Government and collapse of the Warsaw Pact bit?”

            0. Its the old commies that overthrew the government, not vice versa.
            1. People were tired to be told what to read, what to say (any modern US correlations?) Under the gloss, people lived their lives like everywhere
            2. Money – West offered $$$. Simple
            3. Freedom of travel abroad, freedom to earn money
            4. Poland and Russia were centuries at odds. Now, both countries well passed all conflicts, Poland is still in the “fight mode”
            5. USSR breakup was illegal. Referendum showed that landslide of votes was for new Union agreement and stay in the union.
            6. Gorbachev. He was too weak. He could of held everything in its place. It is his war with Yeltsin that caused all chaos. Yeltsin cared NOT about anything. When republics told him “we want to stay in the union”, he kicked them out.

            But also, who said that everything was so “natural”. East Germans even today feel GDR was better for them. Because reunification went badly and was more of an annexation.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            “People were tired to be told what to read, what to say (any modern US correlations?) Under the gloss, people lived their lives like everywhere”

            Not really. I can say whatever I want about my government. there is no KGB “Circle of accountability” to lock me up if I step out of line. People howling about your opinions on line does not equal a trip to the Gulag or a night in a KGB Prison choosing between trying to balance on a little stool or standing in ice water.

            Poland is in fight mode? It is Russia that keeps annexing and invading countries. Poland likely just wants to avoid being run over again. What provacative action has Poland taken?

            And I gotta tell you, I go over to the former GDR pretty regularly. Based on my experience in talking with people that lived through it, I’m gonna need a source for that. Oh I’m sure the people that were in Honecker’s orbit miss it, but I don’t know any normal folks that were fans.

            By my recollection though, yes…it was hard liners that initially overthrew Gorbachev and attempted the coup. With the backdrop of what was going on in the rest of Eastern Europe though, they couldn’t keep a lid on it and the Soviet People ended up driving the next moves. Don’t pretend those same hard liners settled on Boris Yeltsin as their man.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            And for a referendum to carry any weight, it would have to be held in each country the Russians forcibly occupied when the Soviet Union was created. The citizens of Moscow and Russia Proper don’t get to vote on weather they retain a union with Latvia, Lithuiania and Estonia for example. Those countries didn’t get a vote when they were absorbed into the Soviet Union. Any union is an issue for those countries alone to decide.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “I can say whatever I want about my government. There is no KGB “Circle of accountability” to lock me up if I step out of line.”

            I believe you’re totally wrong. And I don’t see the difference. You think.. Again, !!you think!! that KGB just went around and threw people in jail. No. They would monitor you, collect a dossier, and if you cross a certain line they would talk to you first. If they could use you, they would use dossier as a leverage.
            Right now, FBI is in the “collecting” stage. We’re not yet at “punitive” stage. Although some Jan6 people already are.

            FBI today reminds me NKVD, not KGB. After all KGB was serving the state. NKVD was serving a dear leader and his power agenda. USSR in 1980 and 1935 – two different countries.

            “It is Russia that keeps annexing and invading countries.” – in 1721 Russia purchased from Sweden and annexed what is today Baltic states and Finland. Crimea was won in the war against Turks.
            After that Russia had not annexed anything.

            “Poland likely just wants to avoid being run over again.” – yea. They are like a kid who comes from behind and hits you and then runs away. You catch him and give him a slap in the butt. In 1919 when Russia was busy with its civil war, Poland decided to break free and take some parts or Russian territory with it. After WW2 Stalin gave Poland parts of Germany in exchange of Poland giving Ukrainian-populated region to Ukrainian SSR.
            When Poland was in Warsaw Pact (Not Moscow – Warsaw!), they were just too glad to participate in 1968 action in Prague. Nobody today remembers that. Poland was in cahoots with USSR. In 1956, in Hungary was a little skirmish but not in Poland. Because same situation was there too. Soviets and Poles agreed to a limited democracy in Poland in exchange for loyalty.

            “What provacative action has Poland taken?” – Join NATO. But even more so, installing US missile systems, which said to be defensive but can be use to launch nukes.

            “GDR…I’m gonna need a source for that.” – take a look at this.
            “Only 38 percent of East Germans think reunification succeeded, according to a government report released in September.”
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/30-years-after-the-fall-of-the-berlin-wall-children-of-a-united-germany-remain-divided/2019/11/07/08840a18-ff89-11e9-8341-cc3dce52e7de_story.html

            For example, GDR had may be the strongest army in Europe after USSR. What the reunification did? – they sold all the GDR equipment (including to US) and let professional military people go. They also had work bans. Even if you were a janitor in GDR political office, you could not hold a government position, including a janitor. Basically, they created about 1.5M second class citizens. GDR had excellent public services including child care. If you talk to somebody who had not lived in both systems, you don’t truly get a correct picture. And the thing is, as time passes by, it is harder to understand as people i mentioned are dying out. But East and West are still 2 different Germanys. This is becoming more of a grey area as time goes on.

            “Don’t pretend those same hard liners settled on Boris Yeltsin as their man.” – No. Yeltsin was super popular. Like, super super. He could do anything. Even shoot tank rounds at his own parliament after being impeached. Yes, he did this. And do you know who was his PM and protege – Putin. In USSR and its communist regime a KGB colonel would never come even close to such positions in the government.

            “Russians forcibly occupied when the Soviet Union was created” – USSR wasn’t created forcibly. Poland, Baltics and Finland were let go. They were part of Russian Empire before Bolshevik revolution

            “Latvia, Lithuiania and Estonia for example. Those countries didn’t get a vote when they were absorbed into the Soviet Union.” – again, these were part of purchase from Sweden in 1721. Then they were taken from Russian empire by Germans in WW1. Then there was short period of independence due to German surrender. USSR did not take them back at that point. Later, when USSR under Molotov -Ribbentrop agreement with Germany were taking back part that Poland, which took it from Russia in 1919-1921, USSR and Lithuania agreed to – 20K Soviet troops stationed there in exchange that USSR gives them Vilno and the region. Currently this is their capital. Otherwise they would see it in the next life. In 1940 USSR through diplomatic pressures forced Baltic states to cooperate. And they basically surrendered and joined without a fight.

            To top the cake, Baltic people, especially Latvians were among most trusted supporters of Bolshevik movement. Latvian Red Guard! And commanded entire fronts for red Army in civil war.
            Polish were founders and leaders of NKVD and prominent soviet military leadership.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Arthur Dailey,

            welcome to tell me which dates and statements are incorrect. I can either explain or say “oh yea”. But you just threw a bone without any meat. I ain’t buying that. Wikipedia is discredited. Not saying you can’t learn something in it, like some hard dates. But in many instances it is just BS. Even in the page you’ve sent. They write “Georgia” referring to the area of modern day country in 1830. There was no Georgia in 1830. In 12xx was may be. But in 1830 there were small kingdoms, not a country. So, Russian empire had not expanded into “Georgia” because Georgia did not exist. There goes your wikipedia

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Hey Vanderlay,

            you think you can say anything… for now. But in UK, may be not. or not anymore. A new law there…. you read

            https://newspunch.com/uk-journalists-will-face-14-years-in-prison-for-stories-that-embarrass-the-government-under-new-law/

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          “I think that is the goal the western countries are going to aspire also.”

          Communism? Finally some honesty about the Uniparty and globalist stodges.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Slavuta: Some of your dates and statements are incorrect. Just check Wikipedia for a breakdown of the expansion of the Russian Empire.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russia

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          I.L.O.

          “Everybody lived in government operated 1 or 2 bedroom apartment”

          This is a simplified version

          – people lived in gov apartments (single family)
          – in gov apartments (multi family) (horrible I must say)
          – cooperative apartments (private property/mortgage)
          – private houses
          – collective farm houses
          – split house apartments (part of the house)
          – Factory barrack rooms with common kitchens/baths

    • 0 avatar
      bullnuke

      There was a reason that my ancestors from the Alsace-Lorraine, who had to change their surname depending upon whether the French or the Germans were being favored, left on a ship for Baltimore back in the late 1700’s never to return…

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Ban the diesels then we’ll talk.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      didn’t the same klowns virtually mandate diesels a decade or so ago?

      they have a great track record

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Europe kept pimpin’ diesels hardcore, long after diesel-related health/death/birth issues were very well established. But when Europe did finally admit diesels are a huge problem, they only highlighted the environmental fallout.

  • avatar
    jmo

    This is going to be a huge boon for France which gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear. Électricité de France also has a very enviable safety record which will allow France to scale up and be an ever larger exporter of electricity…. France is the world’s largest exporter of electricity.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “The science tells us we need to halve emissions by 2030, so for road transport it’s simple — get rid of the internal combustion engine.”

    Three BS statements from so few words – impressive.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      I actually agree with you – mostly. If the idea is to focus all of that effort to halve emissions solely from transportation, then this goal is bound to fail. There as so many places where waste can be cut – look at a typical city skyline at night. Most of that light is wasted energy. Or inefficiency run buildings. We managed to cut over 35% of the energy used by our city buildings by making efficient operation a priority for our stationary engineers. That, plus equipment replacement, building envelope improvements, LED conversions, lighting controls, etc. This approach would be a huge step toward that goal. Yes, transportation is ripe for improvements, sure. As is the way fuel is extracted, refined, and delivered. But to focus only in one sector makes me skeptical of what the real goal is. And frankly, you better have the electrical distribution and clean generation in place – first.

      • 0 avatar
        SoCalMikester

        its going to happen when it does. no purpose in worrying about it, and the infrastructure for charging will increase as the car sales increase

    • 0 avatar
      Funky D

      One thing we have learned over the last few years, and especially since 2020. The “science” is anything the power-hungry politicians want it to be.

      It is getting harder and harder to find actual science that hasn’t been politicized and bastardized.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    eh, nothing to talk about. in 2035 EU will be a distant memory.

    “The science tells us we need to halve emissions by 2030,”
    While Europe will do the acrobatics, Asia will keep growing (save for Japan) into many billions. And Africa will gain half a billion people. They ain’t plan no electrification. Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam will make a Billion people together.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    There’s a grain of rationality to all this. Like China, maybe 20 more years). Europe is much more densely populated than the US, so range is not as much an issue. And, to their credit, the French have built an enviable record with nuclear-generated electricity.

    But solar power is not all that effective, because most of Europe is in northern latitudes, even though its climate is comparatively mild. Wind power is . . . well its troubles are well-documented.

    So if the French were able to persuade their German neighbors to end their aversion to nuclear power, this might make sense. The other stuff is a good example of “hope is not a strategy.”

  • avatar

    Europe has an excellent safe public transportation, the one we can only dream about. So why the hassle to own the car and pay for insurance, repairs, maintenance, depreciation?

    • 0 avatar
      RangerM

      Because I can afford to not sit next to, listen to, smell or generally be around the people who ride public transportation, nor they me.

      And that’s brutal, but also true for most people.

      Give us another COVID (it’ll probably require something with a higher fatality rate, really) and public transportation is a distant nightmare to much of the U.S.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    The word “science” has been so amazingly destroyed it’s now meaningless. Anyone that says “trust the science” or similar is immediately to be questioned. Because there hasn’t been an ounce of science driving these absurd policies.

    The word “science” has become as meaningless as the word “racist”. When everything under the sun is “racist” the word loses meaning and people laugh when you throw it around and attempt to apply it to things that just are not racist (math is racist, the heat island effect is racist, apple pie is racist, etc).

    Same with “trust the science”. That’s a dead giveaway they are lying

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Agreed. If we “trusted the science” on gender fluidity, DNA would settle things pretty quickly.

    • 0 avatar
      wolfwagen

      Agreed.
      Which science? the one that said we were going to have another ice age, the one that said all the polar ice caps were supposed to have been totally melted by now, the one that said we only have 12 years left, the one that supported the pause? I lost track

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Ah, so if scientists made incorrect predictions in years past, we should never listen to them again.

        Got it.

        • 0 avatar
          Rick T.

          No. But when you’re spectacularly wrong, your burden of proof rises accordingly. YMMV.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, it means scientists do the best they can with the technology and information they have at the time.

            Yet another variant on the “if science can’t prove this 100% then I’m not buying it” BS argument. Well, they can’t prove that if you smoke a pack a day and eat McDonald’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and don’t exercise, you’ll die at 61 of a heart attack, either. So just ignore it when the doctor tells you to get in shape, stop smoking and eat better…right?

            Yeah, didn’t think so. But here’s the thing: even if doctors are dead wrong about all that, if you eat better, don’t smoke, and exercise, you’re going to look and feel better. Who doesn’t want that?

            By the same token, even if scientists are wrong about warming, less pollution will be a good thing for everyone, don’t you think?

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Not to mention when virtuous politicians make very expensive policies based on those spectacularly wrong predictions…..you have to wonder if the predictions were made specifically to get the policy passed.

          • 0 avatar
            SoCalMikester

            a war was fought because the USA was spectacularly wrong about WMDs

        • 0 avatar
          wolfwagen

          No, but when you cherry-pick data or use incorrect data, or misinterpret the data the results are wrong. When your data is proven incorrect you admit your mistake not double down.

          If I tell my friends wife that I see him every Wednesday have lunch with a younger woman, and he kisses her, hugs her and they seem very close, but leave out the fact that it is his daughter from a previous marriage (which the wife knows about), and said wife cracks him in the head in the head with a pot when he comes and then files for divorce because he is cheating, whose wrong?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Uh…all this proves is that the wife was stupid enough to injure her husband because she was ignorant. She had no idea her husband had a kid? LOL…okay. Well, I’d say we’re injuring the planet out of ignorance too. Thanks for helping me make my point.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    The linked article headline: “EU Proposal To Sunset ICE Vehicles Opposed By France, Germany”

    (the link, repeated from the article)
    https://fordauthority.com/2021/07/eu-proposal-to-sunset-ice-vehicles-opposed-by-france-germany/

    Possibly-ignorant question:
    Doesn’t Germany usually get just about whatever it wants in the context of the EU?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union

  • avatar
    tylanner

    Conveniently editorialized headline…..

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    ““The science tells us we need to halve emissions by 2030, so for road transport it’s simple — get rid of the internal combustion engine.””

    LOLOLOLOL, is this the same science that’s been frequently wrong since 1/2020 and is helping to construct a two tiered Gattaca style dystopian society in Europe?

    When can the heads start coming off? Robespierre is late and I’m getting impatient.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      If you’re talking about COVID, it was a brand new disease early in 2020 with the consequence that medical science was figuring it out as they went. Naturally, they made mistakes along the way. A deliberate one was discouraging the public from wearing masks, even though they knew better, in order to save the limited supply for hospitals where they were needed desperately. Lose the doctors and nurses to COVID and there’s no one left to treat patients. The great success has been vaccines. We hear about Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson but other countries (e.g. Russia and China) have developed their own. All of them are successful. They do a good job of keeping you from catching the virus and a near perfect job of keeping you out of the hospital and the grave. The current surge in the US is entirely among those refusing (or unable) to be vaccinated. I shudder to think what the death toll will be like among children too young for vaccination after they are forced back into school in a few weeks.

      • 0 avatar
        kcflyer

        Well since the death rate for COVID among young children has been lower then that for the flu should we just cancel in person school forever? That way the next generation will be dumb enough to keep the democratic socialist in power.

      • 0 avatar
        Rick T.

        “A deliberate one was discouraging the public from wearing masks, even though they knew better, in order to save the limited supply for hospitals where they were needed desperately.”

        Pretty much tells you what they think of us when they could have tried the argument truthfully and asked everybody to be more careful in their daily lives until supplies would increase.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        Fauci lied about mask effectiveness. He was willing to lie then, a lie that cost people their lives, he lied about not funding gain of function research, he dismissed the possibility that COVID was lab made, which is also looking more likely. Why should anybody believe what he says?

        As for mass mortality if kids go back to school, about 400 of the 600,000 US deaths are kids age 0-18, less than .7%. 80% of Covid deaths were of people 65 and over, most with pre-existing conditions, old and sick people die, not kids.

        • 0 avatar
          SoCalMikester

          if they cant get their kids vaccinated (age?) and they arent willing to get themselves vaxed that makes it more likely for their kids to literally kill them?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “Naturally, they made mistakes along the way.”

        SCIENCE: You f***ed up, you trusted us.

        Seriously though, this is a valid point because science is never absolute and it is always changing. Yet certain lunatics keep repeating falsehoods that *it is* absolute, when they it is say of course.

        “They do a good job of keeping you from catching the virus”

        False, many new diagnosis have been those who were injected. There is some evidence being gathered showing the treatment helps prevent spreading it, the most optimistic figure I saw (from a very biased source) was 40%. The real average figure will likely be under that but hopefully (and likely) double digits.

        “and a near perfect job of keeping you out of the hospital and the grave”

        True and this was the aim of the treatment.

        “I shudder to think what the death toll will be like among children too young for vaccination after they are forced back into school in a few weeks.”

        Zero to near zero of the current and known virus.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          UK top scientific advisor, in a press conf with PM B.J. (hmmm interesting) said, that in UK currently 60% of COVID hospitalizations are fully vaccinated people. Or, as I say, double-tapped.

  • avatar
    stuki

    “Unfortunately, studies tend to support whatever industry commissioned them in the first place. ”

    Not sure about “unfortunately.” “Studies” is, after all, in progressive dystopias, simply contemporary slang for the age old “the gods say…”

    “The science tells us we need to halve emissions by 2030, so for road transport it’s simple — get rid of the internal combustion engine.”

    No, it doesn’t. Science isn’t normative, period! Scientism (and perhaps other variations of dumb people trying to belong by acting like uncritical, cheering groupies) is, though. “Science” has no stronger opinion on what some guy called “we” supposedly “need” to do, than it once did about Negroes and Jews being “inferior.” Only rank idiots were ever dumb enough to believe it did and/or does.

    “the continent was operating under the assumption that diesel-powered vehicles tended to be more economical than their gasoline-fueled counterparts and thereby must be less taxing on the environment”

    Like most Americans (worse actually. “We” at least have lunatics who don’t fall for every.single.idiocy spouted from up high ), Europeans are a gaggle of hapless dupes. Hence can be relied on to always operate under any assumption lobbies as powerful and sophisticated as the German autolobby tell them to operate under. The Germans couldn’t compete effectively with Asian competition in sensible engines. So they did what they always do: Sucker the illiterate dunces which make up all of Brussels, into stacking the playing field in favor of some weird, pointlessly overcomplicated niche where they still did enjoy some arbitrary, artificial “competitive advantage.” “The environment” was, is and will never be any more than a convenient punch line to get idiots to line up for the mindless fistpumping and “expert”-cheering which makes up the entirety of the progressive delusion.

    It’s no different from Trump/Biden’s current obsession with making up childish excuses for why Americans should pay more for has-beens long since ran into the ground by rank retards in PE and other FIRE rackets, instead of getting better stuff for less from more competent Chinese.

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    I say let Europe try to go electric, if it fails there ‘s no hope here in the great wide open save for large metro areas. Given the shorter distance traveled, abundance of govt supported rails , car ownership in Europe has never been a necessity for most.
    What is sad is that Europe is going to align themselves with bad actors in order to meet it’s new clean electrical demands-meaning natural gas from Russia.(nord2)
    It’s already happening. Crimea/Ukraine would’ve benefitted from this new pipeline but they’ve been squeezed out while the EU let them get taken over.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    I compare today’s ‘electric’ vehicles to those silly CFL spiral lightbulbs that we switched to.

    Yes they used less ‘power’ than incandescent light bulbs which converted most of their energy use to creating heat.

    But the CFLs were only an inexpensive ‘stop gap’ until LEDs came on the scene.

    Originally LEDs were prohibitively expensive. But now their pricing is modest. They are more efficient, last considerably longer, don’t produce heat and can now be used in multiple applications.

    All in all in many ways a ‘superior’ product to the old incandescent bulbs.

    Look for a similar evolution in vehicle propulsion.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • redapple: ITS NOW 18 HOURS AFTER posting this from TTAC. Only 4 comments. On A new HONDA SUV. HUM. Honda is joining...
  • Jeff S: There have been rumors that the Titan will be discontinued first in Canada and eventually in the USA. Nissan...
  • Jeff S: There will be a growing market in used ICE vehicles until the infrastructure to support ICE no longer...
  • ToolGuy: You ok, Matt?
  • MoDo: I wouldn’t be surprised if this backfires on AN. Manley isn’t really a retail guy and that’s...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber