R1T - It was a good experiment but…

[Donald Stanfield]

We won't agree on this one no matter what. I personally think buying ICE in 2024 is irresponsible unless it's actually necessary.

It's okay to think that, but know you are in the minority with that opinion. Most people consider their personal use case first and foremost, followed by concerns like environmental reasons second. It's fine for you that you put the environment over convenience but most people will not do so.

The reason I mention it is thinking like the person who is exhibiting the behavior you want to be changed is the best way to facilitate that change. Talking about responsibility and duty isn't going to get it done for someone who doesn't share the same values or share them to the same degree.

Sponsored

 

[Jonger1150]

It's okay to think that, but know you are in the minority with that opinion. Most people consider their personal use case first and foremost, followed by concerns like environmental reasons second. It's fine for you that you put the environment over convenience but most people will not do so.

The reason I mention it is thinking like the person who is exhibiting the behavior you want to be changed is the best way to facilitate that change. Talking about responsibility and duty isn't going to get it done for someone who doesn't share the same values or share them to the same degree.

I agree, most people won't change their behavior voluntarily, that's why the "mandates" are unpopular with half the voting population, but they will be required.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I agree, most people won't change their behavior voluntarily, that's why the "mandates" are unpopular with half the voting population, but they will be required.

Do you think forcing people to do things makes them want to do them? That never works long-term, especially in a polarized political climate. Positive incentives work, but negative enforcements don't. There are many examples to choose from on why mandates don't work. Not to mention the arrogant way it comes across when you tell others their priorities instead of fixing their barriers to doing what you want.

 

[Thedude]

We won't agree on this one no matter what. I personally think buying ICE in 2024 is irresponsible unless it's actually necessary.

Personal transportation is only a small portion of overall US greenhouse gas emissions with a 16% share. There are better places to focus on changes (large scale power generation, building and associated utility efficiencies, etc) that can have a larger impact. I get that it’s one of the direct ways you can contribute but irresponsible is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Jonger1150]

Do you think forcing people to do things makes them want to do them? That never works long-term, especially in a polarized political climate. Positive incentives work, but negative enforcements don't. There are many examples to choose from on why mandates don't work. Not to mention the arrogant way it comes across when you tell others their priorities instead of fixing their barriers to doing what you want.

There are no plans of forcing people to do anything. There are plans by the EU and 17 States (50% of the population) to disallow sales of new internal combustion vehicles in 2035. We have been imposing fines on manufactures for decades, so it's not like this is anything new.

By 2035 or sooner, fast charging high capacity batteries should be quite common. If not, they'll have no choice but to extend that period of time before implementing that restriction.

Environmental laws have never been optional. You can't buy DDT or leaded gasoline right now because of laws. HVAC and appliances require a fraction of the electricity today because of mandates on manufacturers.

 

[Jonger1150]

Personal transportation is only a small portion of overall US greenhouse gas emissions with a 16% share. There are better places to focus on changes (large scale power generation, building and associated utility efficiencies, etc) that can have a larger impact. I get that it’s one of the direct ways you can contribute but irresponsible is a bit of a stretch.

All those technologies are tied together. Power generation is key, but that power generation based carbon reduction won't mean much if we allow 350M individual tiny generators to emit carbon with 25% efficiency.

 

[Thedude]

All those technologies are tied together. Power generation is key, but that power generation based carbon reduction won't mean much if we allow 350M individual tiny generators to emit carbon with 25% efficiency.

They aren’t tied together at all. Power generation and building/appliance standards are completely independent from transportation. Combined they account for roughly 38% of emissions, so a 50% reduction to those is equivalent to completely eliminating all emissions form the personal vehicle transportation sector.

There is no one golden bullet and EVs are definitely not the one cure to human emissions. To say buying an ICE truck is irresponsible is no different than saying someone who lives in Alaska is irresponsible because our electricity is almost all fossil fuel based.

 

[Jonger1150]

They aren’t tied together at all. Power generation and building/appliance standards are completely independent from transportation. Combined they account for roughly 38% of emissions, so a 50% reduction to those is equivalent to completely eliminating all emissions form the personal vehicle transportation sector.

There is no one golden bullet and EVs are definitely not the one cure to human emissions. To say buying an ICE truck is irresponsible is no different than saying someone who lives in Alaska is irresponsible because our electricity is almost all fossil fuel based.

They are tied together. We can't decarbonize transportation without decarbonizing power generation. There's absolutely no argument that can dislodge that reality.

 

[Thedude]

They are tied together. We can't decarbonize transportation without decarbonizing power generation. There's absolutely no argument that can dislodge that reality.

If you’re basing that on powering EVs with fossil fuel power plants I can see your point. I will counter that even an EV powered by coal is still cleaner in the long run (about seven year breakeven if I recall the study) than a comparable ICE vehicle.

It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing approach. Buy EVs as they continue to develop into viable alternatives, phase out dirty power plants as cleaner generation options become both affordable and effective.

 

[ads75]

We won't agree on this one no matter what. I personally think buying ICE in 2024 is irresponsible unless it's actually necessary.

Its clear from your soapbox that you feel that way. In your original reply to this thread you said the OP should have bought a different version R1T, which wasn't available when he purchased. He gave the R1T a solid shot, for 18 months, long enough to know if he liked it or not. It wasn't a couple of weeks. You outright ignored his other reasons for going back to ICE. It may come easy for you to be smug and judge those that try an EV for a year or two, and go back to ICE, when you completely ignore their reasons for doing so. Its clear you don't want a discussion, you just want to judge people that don't agree with you, because your use case works for you, so it must work for everyone else. You are also ignoring the fact that you own one of the most inefficient EVs on the road, why couldn't you buy something more effecient

 

[Donald Stanfield]

There are no plans of forcing people to do anything. There are plans by the EU and 17 States (50% of the population) to disallow sales of new internal combustion vehicles in 2035. We have been imposing fines on manufactures for decades, so it's not like this is anything new.

By 2035 or sooner, fast charging high capacity batteries should be quite common. If not, they'll have no choice but to extend that period of time before implementing that restriction.

Environmental laws have never been optional. You can't buy DDT or leaded gasoline right now because of laws. HVAC and appliances require a fraction of the electricity today because of mandates on manufacturers.

Laws only work when most people agree with them. That's why the mandates you're talking about keep getting pushed back. All you're really doing by trying to legislate a minority opinion is getting people to dig their heels in harder to oppose you.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Its clear from your soapbox that you feel that way. In your original reply to this thread you said the OP should have bought a different version R1T, which wasn't available when he purchased. He gave the R1T a solid shot, for 18 months, long enough to know if he liked it or not. It wasn't a couple of weeks. You outright ignored his other reasons for going back to ICE. It may come easy for you to be smug and judge those that try an EV for a year or two, and go back to ICE, when you completely ignore their reasons for doing so. Its clear you don't want a discussion, you just want to judge people that don't agree with you, because your use case works for you, so it must work for everyone else. You are also ignoring the fact that you own one of the most inefficient EVs on the road, why couldn't you buy something more effecient

I also hope he doesn't use anything made from plastics as those are what the majority of oil is used for.

 

[Jonger1150]

If you’re basing that on powering EVs with fossil fuel power plants I can see your point. I will counter that even an EV powered by coal is still cleaner in the long run (about seven year breakeven if I recall the study) than a comparable ICE vehicle.

It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing approach. Buy EVs as they continue to develop into viable alternatives, phase out dirty power plants as cleaner generation options become both affordable and effective.

Even this has to be fought over these days. It all has to change and I'm aware it won't overnight, but it will require pushing and shoving to do it.

 

[Jonger1150]

I also hope he doesn't use anything made from plastics as those are what the majority of oil is used for.

Burning oil emits carbon dioxide. Using it for materials doesn't.

There's a big difference.

A lot of people want to get rid of both due to our oceans becoming overloaded with it, but even I'll draw the line there.

 

[Jonger1150]

And if you don't "believe" in climate change, we can't have this discussion. I won't debate whether the tooth fairy is real just like I won't debate whether climate change is.

Sponsored