I do not own an EV so I am not speaking from personal experience. However, I do have a friend who test drives self-driving EV's. I asked him last week if he was concerned about hitting animals because EV's are quieter. His reply was no but he was concerned about people. As a runner I would have to agree that there have been times I couldn't hear a non ICE vehicle approaching and was surprised when I looked behind and saw one.
Because manufacturers only care about making money. They don't care about the climate change or any social consequences. Historically, manufacturers have had to be forced into not damaging the environment. If left up to them, they would continue what they're doing as long as it made money.
Mr. Lomborg doesn't seem to realize that oil companies receive 4.9 trillion (that's 'trillion' with a T) dollars in subsidies from governments globally, every year. If gas cars are so great, why do we need to subsidize the cost of oil? In a free market, these vehicles would be far less competitive (and don't get me started on the role that bribes and other political influence had in increasing infrastructure supporting cars in the 1950s and 1960s). In a truly free market, cars would be dinosaurs.
Their rationale is simple. Gasoline cars pollute the environment. They are the biggest contributor to climate change in California.
With regard to quality, someone might out of habit or ideology might hold onto gas cars without recognizing that they are costlier to operate, have worse acceleration, need more frequent repairs, cause more illness, etc. That's why companies advertise to generate brand loyalty as early as possible, because people then irrationally hold onto the brand. On the other hand, gas cars can be cheaper and will continue to be cheaper until electric cars are truly mass market items. Even now, Tesla has very high profit margins and could sell its cars a lot cheaper but doesn't have to lower the sticker price because of lack of competition.
Which is why I won't buy a car from a company that is trying to make money from me
The main reason is that gasoline cars allow for a breakdown of the free market. You can pollute for free, making them artificially cheap, a subsidy on a huge scale.
A trash collector can’t throw the trash he collects in your yard to save $, Jiffy Lube can’t pour used oil in a lake to save $, you bring your unused paint to a recycling center.
The trash collector pays to dump at the landfill. Jiffy Lube responsibly handles the oil, at a cost more than pouring it in a gutter.
But gas cars, they do none of this, they take the cost associated with their behavior and poof…make it everyone else’s problem and expense. Like LeBron James blowing his talcum powder around.
There is no line item on the receipt for a gas line purchase to address this, the asthma attacks, the ozone creation, the acid rain, the climate gases. If there were, has would be much, much more expensive.
Another way to eliminate this subsidy would be for gas cars to bottle their exhaust and dispose of it properly. Very expensive and probably not technically viable.
If gas cars were to take either of these steps, eliminate their subsidized behavior, they would become prohibitively expensive.
To specifically answer your question: because air pollution is the archetypal subsidy and subsidies are bad economically and, in general, morally.
theres a whole lot of emissions control that goes on with gas cars. sorta breaks you argument bud
I do not own an EV so I am not speaking from personal experience. However, I do have a friend who test drives self-driving EV's. I asked him last week if he was concerned about hitting animals because EV's are quieter. His reply was no but he was concerned about people. As a runner I would have to agree that there have been times I couldn't hear a non ICE vehicle approaching and was surprised when I looked behind and saw one.
almost got hit by a Tesla like this. Californias also have no regard for human life and WILL run you over
You can continue to think that if it makes you feel superior.
With the Inflation Reduction Act we are just now starting to take the kinds of steps that China has been taking for several years. But neither nation is doing enough. Not even close.
Why would pointing out that china doesn't care about the environment make me feel superior? Humans in general have already destroyed much of the planet.
The industrial revolution even though it drastically increased the quality of life for humans has done irreparable damage to the environment. Debating if gas or electric cars are better for the environment is like arguing if pestilence or plague is the better way to die.
People that passionately argue for something that is just slightly less horrible for the environment are strange to me. Electric cars under any definition are not good for the environment. Humans are a virus.
I do not own an EV so I am not speaking from personal experience. However, I do have a friend who test drives self-driving EV's. I asked him last week if he was concerned about hitting animals because EV's are quieter. His reply was no but he was concerned about people. As a runner I would have to agree that there have been times I couldn't hear a non ICE vehicle approaching and was surprised when I looked behind and saw one.
Yes, that's a problem. But there is a law now that EVs have to emit warning sounds at speeds where they are difficult to hear. Some older EVs don't have this feature.
If you took longer breaks, maybe you wouldn't have been so tired at the end.
Having a quiet EV on road trips helps with fatigue. It's even more relaxing if you have a Tesla that drives itself.
Even if by "biweekly", you mean every two weeks, that's 170 minutes for gas and oil changes during the year. If by "biweekly" you mean twice a week then it's 560 minutes.
You might still come out ahead with a gas car if you do a lot of long trips. But if you are driving so little that you only need oil changes twice a year, that's probably not the case.
Trust me, it's really nice to never worry about keeping your tank full. With an EV you leave home with a full battery every morning.
I’m an EV owner and am bullish on EVs, but can you ever just admit that you are wrong? sheesh You’re really annoying.
You were referring to a discussion that boils down to a matter of personal preference. I let him have the last word.
Most of you people are clueless. This is just another stupid leftist idea that only makes sense to the STEM challenged.
- EV cars have the far more quality problems of any class of vehicle.
- EV vehicles can't be used to tow anything real or for long trips.
- EV cars require more energy over their life than gas powered vehicles.
- Where does the energy needed to charge them come from? Wind? Wind turbines require more energy to manufacture, install, and maintain than they will produce in their lifetimes. As of today, this is true for every windmill installed on the planet. Solar is equally inefficient. Hydro is a good option, if all the rivers west of the divide either already dammed up, dried up, or both (see Hoover Dam). Nuclear is a great option, but greens also don't like it. What's left?
- Finally, eliminating CO2 won't do anything for climate change since CO2 is a lagging indicator NOT a leading one. Besides which, there are about 7 billion other humans on the planet that are free to buy ICE vehicles and pump CO2 into a shared atmosphere.
For in-town use, fine. They are a reasonable option to reduce smog - which everyone can agree is terrible, but as a completely replacement for ICE vehicles they have a very long way to go.
Actually my new 2022 Bolt EUV Premier cost only $35,200 with the $6800 rebate I received. I get about 260 miles/wk on one fill with 50 miles left to spare (yes, that's more than the manufacturer's mileage estimate).
I don't care too much about pollution or whatever, but happened to buy a used Bolt for 20K because it looked like a good deal. It is just so much better than an ICE car that I am never going back to an ICE vehicle. Routinely get over 300 miles in the summer, 250 in the winter. In two years, it has happened to me once that I needed to go much farther, and I just rented a car. No biggie. If you like your ICEs, good for you. At the moment, the production of TVs cannot keep up with demand: it is almost impossible to find one. This is the real factor limiting EV adoption. By the way, also for this reason, EVs have terrific resale value: used Tesla sell for more than new. My Bolt right now is valued 5K more than what I paid a year ago.
Also how is my gas car more costlier to operate than an electric car? The amount I spend on gas and repairs is way less than the cost of an electric car.
You mentioned worse on acceleration- that's a very generalized statement. Depends on the cars. Also more frequent repairs? Depends on the car. Cause more illness? Brakes though...
You're making generalizations and saying someone with a gas car is irrational. Nah fam.
Most estimates of total cost of ownership (purchase price + fuel + maintenance)/years of use put electric significantly less costly than gas.
So most people make poor decisions when buying cars then. Find me a solid used car and the estimates you speak of are not accurate. Yawn.
So I should get rid of my gas car and someone else buys it and it is still causing harm to the environment and now I have another car whose production causes harm to the environment. Why not just keep the car you have and stop producing so many new ones?
Instead of forcing everyone to buy electric, why not just limit how often you can get a new car. Producing more and more cars does worse harm.
You shouldn't get rid of your gas car just to buy an EV. You are correct that doing so is not good for the environment.
But when it comes time to buy a new car, get an EV or you will regret your purchase.
Or I could buy a used gas car that: Is less expensive, already produced, and enjoy it more. How would I regret any of that? Cmon man!
DISPOSING EV BATTERIES IS ENVIRONMENTALLY HORRIBLE.
You don't have to shout.
It's true that building an EV requires more emissions than building a gas car. But studies show that after you have driven the EV for about a year, the lifetime emissions of the EV are less. Every year thereafter, the lifetime emissions of the gas car get worse and worse compared to the EV. And that's even if you charge your EV in a place like West Virginia, which gets its power from coal.
EV batteries are 100% recyclable. And they are recycled because the mineral content is very, very valuable.
Most of you people are clueless. This is just another stupid leftist idea that only makes sense to the STEM challenged.
- EV cars have the far more quality problems of any class of vehicle.
- EV vehicles can't be used to tow anything real or for long trips.
- EV cars require more energy over their life than gas powered vehicles.
- Where does the energy needed to charge them come from? Wind? Wind turbines require more energy to manufacture, install, and maintain than they will produce in their lifetimes. As of today, this is true for every windmill installed on the planet. Solar is equally inefficient. Hydro is a good option, if all the rivers west of the divide either already dammed up, dried up, or both (see Hoover Dam). Nuclear is a great option, but greens also don't like it. What's left?
- Finally, eliminating CO2 won't do anything for climate change since CO2 is a lagging indicator NOT a leading one. Besides which, there are about 7 billion other humans on the planet that are free to buy ICE vehicles and pump CO2 into a shared atmosphere.
For in-town use, fine. They are a reasonable option to reduce smog - which everyone can agree is terrible, but as a completely replacement for ICE vehicles they have a very long way to go.
I'm definitely not STEM challenged. My educational and vocational background is in science and technology.
EVs do not have more quality problems. They have a lot less because an EV only has about 25 moving parts while a gas car has hundreds of moving parts. Dealerships have been very reluctant to sell EVs because they don't make money on service.
It's true that towing long distances is difficult in today's EVs. It can be done, but you have to stop and charge a lot because the drag decreases range at an exponential rate. If long distance towing is something you do often, then that's the one time I would recommend not getting an EV until a few years from now when the towing problem is solved.
You are just dead wrong about energy. Wind and solar generate a lot more energy than consumed during production of the turbines and panels. I don't know where you got this idea.
You are also dead wrong about CO2 and climate change. The fact that you get this so wrong puts you in the category of STEM-challenged.
Actually my new 2022 Bolt EUV Premier cost only $35,200 with the $6800 rebate I received. I get about 260 miles/wk on one fill with 50 miles left to spare (yes, that's more than the manufacturer's mileage estimate).
I don't care too much about pollution or whatever, but happened to buy a used Bolt for 20K because it looked like a good deal. It is just so much better than an ICE car that I am never going back to an ICE vehicle. Routinely get over 300 miles in the summer, 250 in the winter. In two years, it has happened to me once that I needed to go much farther, and I just rented a car. No biggie. If you like your ICEs, good for you. At the moment, the production of TVs cannot keep up with demand: it is almost impossible to find one. This is the real factor limiting EV adoption. By the way, also for this reason, EVs have terrific resale value: used Tesla sell for more than new. My Bolt right now is valued 5K more than what I paid a year ago.
I had the same experience. I bought a Bolt in 2017 and I've been hooked on EVs ever since. Now I have two Teslas to go with it.
I don't really need three cars so I'm trying to decide whether to sell the new Tesla for a big profit, or sell the Bolt for a lot more than I ever imagined. I'll probably wait until the first of the year when the $4,000 used EV incentive kicks in.