Are you really that naïve. Is the Twitter guy you quoted really that dumb?
Until recently the entire private transportation sector has been geared to gas burning cars and trucks. From infrastructure to tax breaks to subsidies to layout of cities, it has been all geared towards selling ICE cars & gas
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.
In addition, electric cars will be a much higher portion of new car sales in 2050 because of California's action. In California, they are already 16% of the market.
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.
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
Boy are you gonna be surprised when you learn about capitalism.
I know that many people think of Californians as nutbar tree huggers, but the reality is that in Southern California especially, air pollution is a real issue. It's not just the number of cars there but the air inversions that create the problem. Phoenix, AZ has a similar issue.
Usually, I prefer that the free market settles this kind of issue, but in this case I think it is fair for California to try to protect its people.
In addition, electric cars will be a much higher portion of new car sales in 2050 because of California's action. In California, they are already 16% of the market.
By 2050 EVs will make up basically 100% of new car sales. It 10 years they will make up 80-90%
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
Which car companies does that leave you to buy from?
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.
Thats false. Electric cars require twice as much co2 to manufacture as gas vehicles .... 12 tonnes vs 6 tonnes. It takes 90,000 miles of driving before EV breaks even with GV. If you put 10 million new EV on the road you spew over 120 million tonnes of carbon into the air that wouldn't normally be there. These cars will completely overload an electrical grid that is already overloaded. So where is all of this electrical fairy dust coming from? Electric cars are bad for the environment.
NOTE FROM TED: This talk only reflects the speaker's personal views and interpretation. Several claims in this talk lack scientific support. We've flagged th...
I know that many people think of Californians as nutbar tree huggers, but the reality is that in Southern California especially, air pollution is a real issue. It's not just the number of cars there but the air inversions that create the problem. Phoenix, AZ has a similar issue.
Usually, I prefer that the free market settles this kind of issue, but in this case I think it is fair for California to try to protect its people.
Free markets are not so good with environmental externalities.
Setting aside pesky issues like the destruction of the planet due to global warming and ground level ozone and toxic tailpipe emissions, the auto industry has been holding on to the internal combustion engine for a couple of decades longer than necessary because it is simply more profitable. The internal combustion engine starts breaking down after 100k miles and rarely will the cost of repairs justify keeping a vehicle past 200k mi. EV engines do not break down over time the way the internal combustion engine does. Teslas are hitting 300, 400 and 500k without any engine issues. The batteries do break down over time and have to be replaced. But Tesla batteries have been getting 300-500k miles before needing to be replaced. Even with battery replacement cost going way up ($6-7k to $12-15k), you are still saving tens of thousands over the life time of a EV versus the internal combustion engine taking into account maintenance, repairs and having to buy a new internal combustion engine vehicle much more frequently than an EV. So, to be blunt, the internal combustion engine is a rip off compared to EVs and possibly one of the greatest consumer scams in history. That alone is justification for the government forcing obsolescence.
Thats false. Electric cars require twice as much co2 to manufacture as gas vehicles .... 12 tonnes vs 6 tonnes. It takes 90,000 miles of driving before EV breaks even with GV. If you put 10 million new EV on the road you spew over 120 million tonnes of carbon into the air that wouldn't normally be there. These cars will completely overload an electrical grid that is already overloaded. So where is all of this electrical fairy dust coming from? Electric cars are bad for the environment.
Without even opening the link one can see the following:
NOTE FROM TED: This talk only reflects the speaker's personal views and interpretation. Several claims in this talk lack scientific support. We've flagged th...
But then again, you did include within your post: YOU CANT BE THIS EFFING STUPID?
Are you really that naïve. Is the Twitter guy you quoted really that dumb?
Until recently the entire private transportation sector has been geared to gas burning cars and trucks. From infrastructure to tax breaks to subsidies to layout of cities, it has been all geared towards selling ICE cars & gas
Bjorn Lomborg is actually quite smart. He looks at solving climate change in ways that will not keep billions from advancing economically. I suggest you do some reading.
In addition, electric cars will be a much higher portion of new car sales in 2050 because of California's action. In California, they are already 16% of the market.
By 2050 EVs will make up basically 100% of new car sales. It 10 years they will make up 80-90%
Are those domestic or world wide?
Either way, I will bet $500 80% of new car sales in 2032 are not EVs.
Because they are not. The taxes on fossil fuels are already very high while electricity is often subsidized. Of course they only need to ban gas cars because they are afried even with those taxes and subsidies people wont go for the "better" product.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.