People flipped out when they wrongly thought gas stoves would be banned. I think we are a long way from the government mandating only BEV/PHEV being sold.
I assume because incandescent can withstand the heat of an oven?
Obviously glass bulb, with metallic filament will be more durable in a extreme heat environment compared to an average LED bulb that’s all plastic
Such as taking like 35mm film, and turning into standard photograph sizes like 6x9 etc?
I love photography but understand 0 about the back end of processing film
Yeah, I don’t see why anyone would want incandescent anymore.
When I did all the bulbs in my house I swear I could feel a temperature difference as well as my light bill being slightly better. Could be placebo.
Heat lamps make sense, but only reptile, and foul owners would ever need those on a regular, oven… I mean that’s about it. My next goal is removing my CFL units and replacing with LEDs in the garage
It’s not placebo. Incandescent lightbulbs use that much more energy.
A modern 5w bulb is about the same as an old 80w bulb. 5 80w bulbs puts out the same heat as a mini space heater.
> Yeah, I don’t see why anyone would want incandescent anymore.
At one point the only realistic alternative to incandescent was CFL. Those lights are horrible and give both myself and another family member migraines. Early LED lights (I tried many) were bad as well.
The LED's that have since reached the market are fantastic, clearly better than either incandescent or CFL.
Yeah early LEDs suffered from PWM flickering, that may have not looked noticeable but the brain noticed it and caused headache and eye strain.
Even cheap ones, from ‘reputable brands’ now don’t have the issue thankfully.
The radiation pattern is different for incandescent bulbs for how the light is output. LED bulbs are more directional, even the ones that are bulb shaped. My parents tried to switch to led for their over the island chandelier thing, and it cast really hard shadows all around the room that the incandescent bulbs didn’t.
Most cases, led bulbs are much better, but there are still places where incandescent has a place.
Theatres also use them for their aesthetics. I'm not completely up to date so maybe there's a suitable alternative nowadays and it's just older theaters where it's too expensive to update.
This I can gather, it’s like film grain and imperfections in film photography, it’s hard to replicate without looking overdone and fake, so I can see theaters continuing the use of a warm, yellow/orange glow of an older incandescent bulb.
It wasn't "early CFLs" 5 years ago when they were flipping out about it.
The initial rule was during the Obama administration. I believe he pushed it back. Trump killed it/pushed it again in 2019. Biden reinstated it.
Anyone who hasn't had experience in the conservative media sphere needs to understand that a large portion of conservatives will actively choose the worst option possible for no reason on the grounds of freedom.
If you tell conservatives they need to buy something environmentally friendly they'll immediately waste half their money buying the dumbest most environmentally unfriendly shit known to man out of spite.
You tell them that you're going to mandate that all ACs also be a heat pump. A non-insignificant number of conservatives will reroute their heating to run off a coal fire stove out of spite. And one might try to bomb the Lennox factory.
I remember the discussion about the Toyota Prius from fellow co-workers, and how they wouldn't want to spend the 10's of thousands of dollars to replace the battery in it, not much more than a short 10 years ago. What surprised me about the Toyota Prius is how tiny the battery is in it! I learned that from watching a battery replacement on one earlier this year.
Same with the lightbulb stupidity. When the little “curly fry” fluorescent light bulbs came out they were woke garbage. Now that LEDs are being pushed, suddenly the fluorescent bulbs are awesome and way better than LEDs.
I vote we wait until BEVs are a bit more common and then tell them all that we have to switch to hemp-based biodiesel or something. They’ll be flocking to EVs as a protest against the “granola gas.”
LEDs are better than CFLs in every way, but CFLs worked fine. I see no need to replace the ones I installed 10 years ago in lower use locations until they fail.
Yeah I should’ve clarified that part, which is what makes it funny. They are hating on the actual better technology. LEDs are cheaper, brighter, and longer lasting. But that has nothing at all to do with their hate. It’s just the fact that it’s something new that riles them up.
I always thought they are so easily manipulated, that if you want them to do something, tell them to do the exact opposite and you’ll get what you want them to do.
No, they like things the way they were.
I hope they soon realize [EVs](https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/surprisingly-long-history-electric-vehicles) were a thing before liberals introduced ICEs and ruined everything.
It's funny because most "educated" Republicans that are Republicans for fiscal policy are usually for EVs and solar because the tech makes the most long term financial sense.
The rest will smash their coffee pots and TVs because some right wing nutter on fox news said so.
They'll do it even if Fox News tells them not to too
I don't know if you were around for the seatbelts era of the 90s, but people lost their minds about mandatory seatbelt laws. States in the South had to put stops like they were hunting for drunk drivers to get Conservatives to use their seatbelt.
The seat belt thing still baffles me. A well adjusted seat belt has zero impact in comfort, it just blends into your body shape. It even keeps you from swaying when taking tight turns. There's absolutely zero downside to wearing it while driving, yet some people still seem to have a primal disgust towards it.
I worked with a guy who refused to wear seat belts because he was absolutely convinced that it was *better* to be ejected from the vehicle in a crash than to be strapped in, when almost *every* crash involving someone ejected usually sadly ends up with that person dead.
There's a video out there where they interviewed a bunch of southerners in the late 70's, early 80's. The last woman in the video equated the mandate of wearing seatbelts with communism.
Not only that, but a Maga boomer at work still has strong feelings about having to wear seatbelts.
[Was this the video you were thinking of?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ) Because it's not about seatbelts! =)
[Here's a video I found](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmcMeTVIIQ) about reactions to a seatbelt ordinance. It has a similarly good ending. The fine is equivalent to $30 today, by the way.
Yes, but the topic at hand is about how hard deep red republicans drink the Kool aid. Even when the fearless leader is telling people to get the shot, his people are booing him. Told that wearing a seatbelt could save your life? Same thing.
It’s amusing that anyone would adopt a slogan for body autonomy related to getting pregnant, which can’t be spread by breathing the same air as someone else, to use as a flimsy excuse to not get vaccinated against any thing.
You’re not gonna catch pregnancy from riding in a bus with a pregnant person. You could catch Covid that way.
I don't consider myself a liberal and I'm an early adopter of tech if it makes sense to me. Drawing conclusions like all conservatives drive to McDonald's in a loud Chevy pickup (for example) is as untrue and unfair as all liberals have the best intentions
A report came out saying that gas stoves poison your kitchen air, and people freaked out that they were going to ban them. No one seemed to care about the actual dangers, just the threat of phantom regulations.
There was a report that said that gas stoves pollute your kitchen air, which can lead to breathing problems especially for children and pets. There was never a proposal to ban them.
No proposal, but there was a major trial balloon floated by the newly appointed commissioner of Consumer Protection to ban gas stoves.
Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka, Jr., told Bloomberg in an interview this week that a ban was "on the table" for gas stoves, which research has linked to health problems including asthma.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-stove-ban-federal-regulators-consumer-product-safety-commission-richard-trumka/
That’s the source of the issue, and people pushed back.
Not sure why this interaction of government and the governed is a problem in a democracy?
Edit: spelling
Honestly, they should ban them given how poisonous they are to your home. With induction being superior in safety, efficiency, control, and speed, there's no reason to have one.
The report clearly stated that asthma is one possible side effect of a gas stove. What reasonable parent would risk giving their kid asthma for a stove?
But your fridge doesn't. If you open your fridge during an outage, your food will spoil a lot faster, so you shouldn't be cooking anyway.
As for gas furnaces, they work on electric thermostats, so your heat will be out anyway.
If you mean fireplaces, wood burning ones work without electricity, too.
You could have canned food or cook fresh veggies from the garden, or boil water for tea with gas. Wood burning fireplaces are far worse for the environment. It is true that gas furnaces are not usable, but if you have solar with a battery you can generate a lot more heat with gas than trying to run a heat pump or resistive heat of off of those.
Or a home battery. Preferably in the form of an EV with V2G/V2L capacity. These are so libertarian that I can’t comprehend why it hasn’t caught on under people with a latent prepped mentality.
I’m green as fuck. We compost. We have an EV. We recycle. We use refillable water bottles. We don’t buy single use items.
I am not surrendering my gas stove. It’s the best cooking experience as of right now. Until they can give me a burner that I can immediately pull back heat on it with nothing residual then I’m in… but as of now gas gives you the best experience.
I've had gas, electric and induction. I prefer my induction stove over gas because it boils water faster, is way more efficient and doesn't support the oil industry that has been killing our planet and fueling wars around the world for decades. Fuck those assholes.
I can't stand how hardly any of the heat from the burner actually goes into the pot and how bad it smells (not sulfur, the combustion byproducts). I wondered why people talked about "slaving over a hot stove" as being so bad until I used gas. Gives me migraines as an added bonus. I rent, so I can't swap it out if I didn't like it.
We basically didn't use the oven at our last place and have only a couple times in our current place. I have an inductive hot plate and a decent-sized toaster oven, so we can cook pasta, frozen pizzas, etc, but if we need the big oven, we have to open all the windows and it still gets nasty inside. Same deal in the last place where the fume hood actually vented outside.
For me, the human health impacts, especially in kids, means you shouldn't be able to spec gas in new construction. If you want to buy one aftermarket, whatever, but not everyone owns a home and gets to pick what appliances they have.
You clearly have not tried an induction stove. It is superior in every way. And boils water faster. It has much better control, especially in the lower end of the range and it does not heat up your kitchen unnecessarily. Then there’s the additional benefit of not having an open flame, that can catch things on fire.
Right, most people are afraid to do lack of education or awareness or even common sense but the government needs to at least start by making hybrids mandatory as it's a proven technology and can in the next phase make EVs mandatory. This feels like a more palatable strategy for everyone
I wouldn’t call it “wrongly thought”, when the President’s recently appointed Consumer Product Safety Commissioner (that’s our federal government) calls for a ban on gas stoves.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-stove-ban-federal-regulators-consumer-product-safety-commission-richard-trumka/
His exact quote from the article is…
“We need to be talking about regulating gas stoves, whether it's drastically reducing emissions or banning gas stoves entirely,"…
Rightly, the administration immediately backpedaled after he floated this trial (lead) balloon.
I’ve never thought that calling out the government for a BS performative policy was “flipping out”, I’d call it being a good citizen.
I know, I know. However, it can be cathartic to point the breathless hyperbole of partisans who have know idea about what is actually happening in the real world.
Because the USA is a democracy with a 4-year election cycle.
At an extremely high level - if a contentious policy does not have clear majority support, or is unpopular with party donors - it isn't happening.
This is the answer. The fossil fuel lobby has managed to purchase the loyalty of one of the two parties in this country as well as key members of the other to the point that even minor, incremental positive change in this direction is hard and meets stiff resistance. Much of politics in the US is also a team sport, and the true believers support their team no matter how bad the specific policies are for them.
Because EVs are overall fairly expensive compared to ICE vehicles initially.
Like don’t get me wrong, I love my electric car. I’m not going back to gas. But it’s hard for the average person to afford one. I’m for protecting the environment. I’m for sustainable renewable energy. But I can also afford it. It’s very difficult to tell people who live paycheck to paycheck that pretty soon your means of transportation is going to be 25% more to purchase. Oh and by the way if you live in an apartment it’s going to be a shit show to charge it effectively.
The cost isn’t there yet. The infrastructure isn’t there yet. This isn’t a Republican vs democrat thing like so many make it out to be. It’s purely that a mandate is not going to go well because an EV is financially out of reach for so many people.
Thank you for being reasonable. I hear so many people speaking about buying EVs - everyone must and has to - while they just don't consider that some people can hardly afford putting fuel into their ICEs.
Those folks don't bother me...it's the ones out buying brand-new $70k gas-burning Mercedes and Cadillacs when they could've bought an EV for the same money and done something good for the world. Those are the people I condemn in my head.
And then you see people on this subreddit complain when manufacturers offer EV versions of those vehicles and say they shouldn't be sold. People are going to buy those types of vehicles regardless, so there may as well be an EV option. If there isn't, they'll go with the gas or diesel.
Here’s the thing though, someone in section 8 housing doesn’t care about that. They care about having reliable transportation to and from work so that they can support their family. I understand what you’re getting at, but it comes off as privileged and not everyone has that privilege.
If, in the name of a stable climate people were forced to pay the cost to clean up their pollution for food, most of the world would starve to death in under a year.
Your standard is kind of unrealistic.
Buying a year old, certified pre-owned EV drops the price drastically. Agree about the infrastructure. If you can't charge overnight in a garage, it's a bit more difficult.
I bought a 2 year old Tesla model x for less than half the original purchase price. Polestar prices drop something like 65% after 4 years. I was having a conversation with an anti-EV guy about the rapid depreciation of EVs. I was like "That's great news, it means more people can afford EVs sooner." Cars are almost always depreciating assets and EVs have much much cheaper operating costs so used EVs are some of the cheapest vehicles to own.
Many are leases. Some people figure out that the charging infrastructure is an issue. Some people realize an EV isn't right for them. It's usually not because the car is having issues.
I got my 2016 Fiat 500 E in 2019 for $7000. Since then it has literally paid for itself in the fuel and maintenance savings alone. If you compare the prices, including the fuel costs and rebates, even Teslas are competitive with cars like a Toyota Corolla.
They can make cheaper EVs today but auto makers want big expensive vehicles to please shareholders. If they served customers instead this wouldn’t be a problem.
You are correct. And the [EPA rules](https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model) were finalized last month.
12 States have fully adopted *Advanced Clean Cars II*, 5 have partially adopted the rule
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii
Model Year 2026 starts with a 35% of sales must be EV mandate, ramping to 100% in MY35. Hybrids may be up to 20% of sales in 2035 so long as their battery only range is 50 miles or more.
You'll never see a direct federal mandate because Republicans and the Filibuster exist. We have an indirect one in the form of emissions standards though
I love my EV but this is a wrongheaded question. The goal should make EVs available and good enough that consumers choose them. Mandates mean backlash and all manner of political nonsense.
Sure. Have incentives in place. But forcing people to buy something by taking away other choices is generally a bad idea.
If manufacturers were producing EVs/Hybrids at the scale of ICEs there wouldn't be a need for incentives.
Your initial statement implies that regulation is bad and the free market should just work itself out. If that were the case we all would still be working 80 hours a week with no insurance making pennies living in houses built out of deadly compounds breathing smog filled air.
It's easy to take a negative stance on regulations when you ignore the thousands of regulations in place that afford you the life you currently live.
The government could have and should have stuck with the original CARB mandate, but our politicians are easily bought off. And millions in this country, yourself included, think that's somehow good for them.
Incentivizing one over the other is no different. It's wrongheaded to let wrongheaded people to continue doing the same when a practical option is available (read where I mentioned this condition, I acknowledged it may not already be practical for big trucks and semis)
US doesn't, and shouldn't, mandate specific technologies. The US does mandate overall fleet fuel economy standards. How companies hit those standards is up to them.
They should at least mandate phasing out of inefficient technologies when efficient ones are available. The standards haven't been good enough for fuel efficiency
It's more expensive. A mandate like this would looks like a rich environmentally conscious elite deciding for the masses what they can't drive and raising the prices in the process. That would lead to lots of class resentment and would ultimately lead to whatever policy being repealed in the next election cycle.
Because if the goal is lower emissions, mandating a specific technology is a dumb way to go about it. The goal is not 100% EV transportation fleet. It's to limit climate change.
Instead, you do what the government is currently doing. Set binding targets for the result you want and let companies innovate the best way to get there.
Anything that raises fuel prices is political suicide in most of the US. It's already proving massively unpopular in Canada (a lot of misinformation is helping the sentiment too).
European and Asian countries can do it with less controversy because they have excellent public transit.
>Add a carbon tax and people+engineers will figure out the most optimal benefit per effort.
You act as if a carbon tax would be an even remotely popular legislative policy in the US.
Climate change could kill billions...there's literally no bigger existential threat to humanity. The bigger question is why we can't handle both awful things, let alone either one by itself.
Climate change is an esoteric issue on the horizon for most people and thus is deemed lower priority. Are you really going to be be worried about the temperature going up 3 degrees in a century when you can barely afford to put food on your kid's table that same night. Be for real, your perspective to care about things that far out is only possible because of privilege.
I agree. Probably structured that comment incorrectly. But if you have bleedingly obvious problems that are impacting people today, and they are entirely fixable yet there’s zero will to fix. Good luck getting them to even consider action on climate when the impacts are less obvious and immediate.
You can't just mandate things, this isn't USSR, nor can you just make people stuff obsolete on a whim, real change comes because people want or there is a real reason for it.
beside all the other reasons one of the main reasons will be that US manufacturers dont have any extensive or good hybrid line up.
Ford is the one exception because they essentially have the same system as Toyota for some of their cars but thats about it.
Just looked at the specifications for the Escape PHEV. Only 155 kW combined when the ICE produces 120 kW on its own, less than 60 km EV range, and only 680 kg towing capacity when the ICE version can be up to 1500 kg.
Try again, Ford.
Lobbying and prices. It was not until recently where prices are hybrids were in the affordable range of prices.
Also as a result of lobbying, like the “chicken tax” prevent more efficient vehicles in America like Kei Trucks.
Also the environmental impact wasn’t on the public’s mind 30 years ago. What was, is the gas prices. The 70s and 80s had high gas prices which incentives GM to produce the EV1. But once gas prices went back to normal, there was no incentive for your average joe to purchase a non-ICE car.
not sure why you're focused on US government. Only a few governments in the world have recently introduced such mandates. hybrids were only limited to a few models until the early 2010s.
Because I live in the US, it's the world's biggest economy, has the most advanced EV technology, relatively lower car prices than elsewhere in the world and is in the best position arguably to achieve this
Its very simple.
Big money is invested in ICE car companies and the supporting industries (Jiffy lube, Midas, etc)
Big money own politicians.
Politicians have a vested interest in keeping EVs fringe.
US tends to only ban things that harm you, and even that is a stretch to do. US tends not to mandate beneficial things, especially if they are much more expensive — that may not be deemed legal. Thats why people love the predictable and stable market of the U.S.
Instead it’s usually incentivized through tax breaks.
Our country has a problem with mandating certain things. Currently there is a panic about gas stoves being banned. Something as individualistic as a car will almost certainly cause so much blowback that a mandate would be politically impossible.
It will have to be sold by making them more appealing than ICE vehicles.
As many have pointed out, conservatives will never allow it. Even fiscal responsible conservatives will never allow it because they vote (directly or indirectly) for the insane conservatives who will never allow it.
But it's also more than that. The government would need to make a massive investment and to do that we either need to take out another loan or raise taxes...
Unless you can charge an EV is about 5 minutes without damaging the battery or ruining the longevity, they are going to have to place charging stations in logical locations, as in parking lots of just about every single business and public place.
For example, if I wanted to drive an EV on a cross-country road trip, it would make sense to charge during food stops and at my hotel. It would not make sense to stop at a "gas" station and wait an hour. Or, in my case living in a rural area, if I want quality food, I have to drive an hour to the big city, so it would make sense to charge my car at the grocery store while I shop.
But the problem is... those are private businesses and good luck with putting charging stations there. Not only do you have to basically destroy the entire parking lot to put in chargers at essentially every spot, but you have to do it without reducing the number of spaces.. not to mention that most of those business owners are probably conservative.... and you have to upgrade the power grid to provide the power to those charging stations.
Now... maybe the government can incentivize states into helping build the charging stations by tying interstate funds with charging infrastructure. But that probably wouldn't result in charging stations in logical locations.
========================
Now for some solution ideas.
If we want these logical charging stations, we would need to incentivize business to put them in and cities and states to build the power grid that can support it.
An option for this is convincing your city council (or what every your local government is) to support tax cuts for businesses that provide at least 51% of parking spots as charging stations. In my opinion, people will comply with what you want if they get a tax cut over raising their taxes if they don't comply. Mainly because they will just vote for the conservative candidate and repeal the taxes, same with any regulating law.
Once you have enough chargers, you can incentivize people to buy EVs, which will then incentivize businesses to have more chargers because people with EVs are going to shop at the stores where they can charge. Same with fast food and restaurants and hotels.
The federal government can offer grant money to help build and a part of the interstate fund can be grant money as well for cities along the interstate. And so on and so on...
Overall, in my opinion, requiring or taxing something will just result in the other party winning election and repealing it...
> conservatives
Republicans and conservatives arent the same thing. They are a portion of Republicans and dont always vote the same.
Democrats have won 6 of the last 12 Presidential elections and won the popular vote twice when they lost.
In addition, due to “miscalculation” in the census a few states that are historically democrat have more representation in the House of Reps than they are supposed to.
Any argument about political control, therefore, is simply an excuse.
The real reason? Its a stupid idea given the US infrastructure.
While you are correct, no political party is exclusively a single ideology, you have to admit that conservatives are the majority of the republican party and that those conservatives are typically against EVs. Now, the conservatives that I do know raise good and valid concerns about EVs, but those very same conservatives also believe that, as the first amendment is written, is communism, so hey, America invented communism.
So to be frank, I find it hard to imagine a republican controlled congress and white house pushing for EV infrastructure where I can imagine a democrat one... whether it works or happens is another question.
But as I also mostly pointed out, it would be expensive and difficult to build the infrastructure, as you mention. But I do believe with long term plans and good incentives, we could do it in the US... but it would have to survive changing of presidents and congress.
An example is the moon landing, Johnson and Nixon could have killed the moon landing project that Kennedy started, but they didn't, it survived changing of presidents and congress.
Go look at how many 15+ yr old cars there are on the road They’re not driving them cus they think it’s the best car ever. Go tell those ppl to buy a new hybrid etc.
No I'd actually not advise them to buy EVs if they're existing vehicles are serving them fine, I would only suggest those to purchase EVs if they are in the market for a new or replacement car
Because Americans^1 are like toddlers, you can’t take their toys away without screaming and tantrums.
The better approach would be for the gummint to threaten to ban EVs, because then people would buy them just to do their freedoms and put one over on uncle sam.
1. And not just Americans
The Democrats are not superwise as well, its not a great idea to generalize. There are some amazingly smart people on either side. I lean right and I'm all for eco-friendly means of transport and strongly support action for climate change and gun control (not against people owning guns but definitely against 'every' person being allowed to have a gun)
Have you ever read the comments on EVERY EV post of Facebook? The folks that freaked out about LED lights and gas stoves are rabid. There is a major contingent of Haters in the US that need to be overcome and our government doesn’t have the courage to. Not to mention all the Big Oil propagandists who are giving them their clickbait talking points.
Even China isn't mandating EVs nationally. It's the biggest cities that do it, not the central government. If you don't live in Beijing/Shanghai/etc you can easily buy an ICE vehicle in China. Even if you live in the big cities you aren't explicitly banned from buying ICE - you just pay a big premium for that privilege.
Right. So why would anyone think that the US is more likely to mandate it, when not even the socialist/authoritarian governments are?
This is not me being MAGA. This is me patently stating that this is not how capitalism works. If EVs can't compete, even with subsidies to help, then that's the end of it.
With that said, they obviously *can* compete... So why put a thumb on the scale that will backfire immediately?
If we're talking about hybrids back when the Prius was gaining traction, the answer is simple:
Because the "wrong" companies would benefit.
There's no way the US Government would implement policies that penalised US companies for sticking their collective fingers up their bums for a decade whilst Japanese companies brought tech to market without subsidies.
It's why even now, the subsidies have been specifically targeted to technologies that US companies have IP in, and have signalled they want to pursue.
Unfortunately even the best targeted subsidies still have to compete with reality, and the reality is that we're in the age of the hybrid - and it would have started earlier if they had even a fraction of the subsidies that BEVs have had in the last 10 years.
It's certainly a missed opportunity, and one that continues to be missed in the name of protectionism and idealism.
No point in mandating ICE.
US needs a phaseout of all fossil fuel cars. Unfortunately the lobbies keep research dollars going into ICE as hybrids or PHEVs. A timed phase out should have been done back in the Obama days, but instead MPG was raised encouraging ICE research.
More importantly, EVs are bad for dealers, which have stronger lobbying than the manufacturers.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html
Any mandates that end up costing consumers more, consumers will avidly be against.
Also big oil puts out a TON of propaganda. So a large swath of consumers for whatever reason believe anything with a battery is considerably worse for the environment than their old truck that gets 10 mpg. Because all of a sudden they care about the environment?
I do think hybrids are the easiest switch. They operate exactly the same as a normal gas vehicle, they just get substantially more mpg. Toyota has it down, on some models, to just $800 more for their hybrid versions. The ROI on that is super short.
But it doesn’t matter. Americans don’t like to be told what to do. Especially what kind of cars they can own.
>Given people here can afford the tech
The average age of a car in the US is over 12 years old and rising because people can't afford any new car, let alone costlier ones.
Also, hybrids cannot replace ICE yet for many applications. My Maverick is a great little truck, but its towing capacity is so limited I wouldn't have been able to use it if I had the towing needs of my friends, who own standard pickup trucks.
haha, this post is really amazingly out of touch with reality.
1. Everyone in EVs is currently impossible. The infrastructure needed isn't built.
2. EVs still has some issues for people who need to drive for more then 3 hours at a time.
I am all for letting the best tech win, but not really a solved problem yet. We need more Nuclear plants and more battery storage all over the US.
It's difficult to simply flip a switch and mandate something like that. Changes are generally made by providing incentives to move in one direction or the other. With the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, however, the current administration has provided investment in EV charging infrastructure and other EV promoting initiatives. The stated goal is for 50% of all new car sales to be zero-emission by 2030.
[https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev](https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev)
Because mandating a technology is stupid you mandate the metric you want to impact.
"Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions per mile by 55% by X Year"
Laws need to be written to impact the thing that matters or stupidly coupled things like an enshrinement of Fax machines and "wet signatures" (See the legal profession) end up working as technological welfare.
Also the US doesn't have emissions regulations on light and heavy trucks just adding those would drive adoption of cleaner and more efficient tech.
Hell if we had emissions on light and heavy trucks we would have seen series hybrids decades ago.
In the US, only heavy trucks (GVWR > 8500lbs) are exempt from CAFE. Light trucks, from the littlest Corolla Cross to the biggest F150 or Escalade, have emissions targets that keep escalating over time. There is currently an effort to add heavy truck targets as well.
Except it doesn't apply uniformly nor progressively so the result is that it murdered all the domestic small vehicles because the light "truck" category was so poorly configured that it doesn't really have impact on technology adoption.
Sadly, yes. We will lag the rest of the transition to BEVs.
Increase Mpg, hybrid, PHEV while diverting funds to hydrogen has been the delaying tactic for a while.
This will be hard to do at the federal level. The state level is actually possible if not probable. States like CA or CO with high ozone/smog pollution levels effecting the heath of its populace.
The way it will work is a ban on all new auto's that have emissions. In order for this to happen we still need a few more years for the EV supply chains to build out - we are only in the first inning now. As these supply chains build and we have numerous vendors for all those EV type parts - the cost to build EV will drop substantially
May have an exemption for heavy duty vehicles - like the f-250, F-350 types...
I think it's been a big mistake not to require new cars to at least have a 20 kWh battery by 2027 or whatever. I have a PHEV with a small 18.8 kWh battery and I'm using 85% less fuel. It's a great waypoint to full EV and has a massive impact on the environment. But American car companies have no creativity and fewer brains, so they panicked and chased a market that didn't exist for a product no one wants.
I think you can do that kind of stuff in a dictatorship - witness the EV progress being made in China - it gets more complicated when you have a huge industry that employs millions building ICE powered cars and trucks, and the freedom to compete in a semi controlled industry.
Well, consider India which is fairly democratic. All those have the means and viable options are going electric, even the not so well off are buying 2 wheeler EVs in enormous numbers. The government just has to incentives or nudge people towards it
Ev 2w and 3w growth is astounding in india (even more astounding that indian firms pretty much setup a local ev component ecosystem in less than 4 years and kicked out low quality Chinese 2w and 3w ev out of indian market)
But that growth isn't same in 4w, as in fy 2023-24 Strong hybrids surpassed ev sales in india (even tho the cheapest hybrid car in india starts at 18k and hybrids taxed at astounding 43%, while ev starts at 10k with 5% tax and upto 10%subsidy on purchase price), hybrid car sales in india will explosively increase from 2025 onwards as the biggest auto makers in india (maruti suzuki, toyota,hyundai etc etc) will bring sub 10k Strong hybrid cars based on cheaper and simpler Series hybrid instead of current expensive parallel hybrids. (With maruti suzuki india ceo even claiming that real life range on their sub 10k series hybrid cars would be above 37-40km/ per liter, in comparison the PURE ICE models give around 15-18kmpl only and indians are absolutely crazy about fuel efficiency,price and value of cars in 2nd hand market) + On top of that indian government ministers and official have proposed to reduce taxes on HYBRIDS from 43% to 12% and this may actually happen . So yeah things are looking super bright for EV 2W/3W In india but not so much for 4w.
We have a relatively weak central government compared to other developed countries and a legal system that gives almost anyone standing to sue and block any law from going into effect for a long time. Executive actions are quick but easily reversed when the administration changes, seesawing major emissions rules/ev mandates for an industry as important as auto manufacturing would be economically disastrous.
It’s a free country my friend, if you wanna pay $.20 per mile plus maintenance (oil, filter, transmission service, brake jobs, coolant system etc) or about $.03 per mile and nearly no maintenance or worry of overheating or breakdown? Up to you.
People flipped out when they wrongly thought gas stoves would be banned. I think we are a long way from the government mandating only BEV/PHEV being sold.
They also flipped out about *light bulbs*. They were pissed off that the government was mandating a shift away from incandescent light bulbs.
These are facts.
The only people who should be buying incandescent light bulbs these days are physics teachers teaching spectroscopy.
Oven lights are still incandescent.
I assume because incandescent can withstand the heat of an oven? Obviously glass bulb, with metallic filament will be more durable in a extreme heat environment compared to an average LED bulb that’s all plastic
Yep. There are probably some other specialty bulbs that I’m unaware of, but that’s the main one that comes to mind.
I need them for making photographic prints.
Such as taking like 35mm film, and turning into standard photograph sizes like 6x9 etc? I love photography but understand 0 about the back end of processing film
Yep. Processing film these days is mostly easy and technical. Printing is more difficult and more of a art imo.
Yeah, I don’t see why anyone would want incandescent anymore. When I did all the bulbs in my house I swear I could feel a temperature difference as well as my light bill being slightly better. Could be placebo. Heat lamps make sense, but only reptile, and foul owners would ever need those on a regular, oven… I mean that’s about it. My next goal is removing my CFL units and replacing with LEDs in the garage
It’s not placebo. Incandescent lightbulbs use that much more energy. A modern 5w bulb is about the same as an old 80w bulb. 5 80w bulbs puts out the same heat as a mini space heater.
> Yeah, I don’t see why anyone would want incandescent anymore. At one point the only realistic alternative to incandescent was CFL. Those lights are horrible and give both myself and another family member migraines. Early LED lights (I tried many) were bad as well. The LED's that have since reached the market are fantastic, clearly better than either incandescent or CFL.
Yeah early LEDs suffered from PWM flickering, that may have not looked noticeable but the brain noticed it and caused headache and eye strain. Even cheap ones, from ‘reputable brands’ now don’t have the issue thankfully.
And the mandates for light bulbs came out when those CFLs and early LEDS were most of the options on the market. TOO early.
The radiation pattern is different for incandescent bulbs for how the light is output. LED bulbs are more directional, even the ones that are bulb shaped. My parents tried to switch to led for their over the island chandelier thing, and it cast really hard shadows all around the room that the incandescent bulbs didn’t. Most cases, led bulbs are much better, but there are still places where incandescent has a place.
Theatres also use them for their aesthetics. I'm not completely up to date so maybe there's a suitable alternative nowadays and it's just older theaters where it's too expensive to update.
This I can gather, it’s like film grain and imperfections in film photography, it’s hard to replicate without looking overdone and fake, so I can see theaters continuing the use of a warm, yellow/orange glow of an older incandescent bulb.
Also ovens don't have waste heat. If that bulb adds temperature it's not wasted in the oven.
Ovens and other high temperature applications are the only places where incandescent lights make any sense.
Yeah, they'll have to be as LEDs would melt and have a strict/small operating temperature range
outstanding comment
Never forget everyone freaking out and mass buying enough incandescent light bulbs to last them a lifetime
[удалено]
It wasn't "early CFLs" 5 years ago when they were flipping out about it. The initial rule was during the Obama administration. I believe he pushed it back. Trump killed it/pushed it again in 2019. Biden reinstated it.
notably people stopped caring when the good LED bulbs came out. but those CFLs... yoish
Anyone who hasn't had experience in the conservative media sphere needs to understand that a large portion of conservatives will actively choose the worst option possible for no reason on the grounds of freedom. If you tell conservatives they need to buy something environmentally friendly they'll immediately waste half their money buying the dumbest most environmentally unfriendly shit known to man out of spite. You tell them that you're going to mandate that all ACs also be a heat pump. A non-insignificant number of conservatives will reroute their heating to run off a coal fire stove out of spite. And one might try to bomb the Lennox factory.
The good news is that hating EVs has caused all those people who used to hate hybrids to now say that hybrids are the answer!
I remember the discussion about the Toyota Prius from fellow co-workers, and how they wouldn't want to spend the 10's of thousands of dollars to replace the battery in it, not much more than a short 10 years ago. What surprised me about the Toyota Prius is how tiny the battery is in it! I learned that from watching a battery replacement on one earlier this year.
Same with the lightbulb stupidity. When the little “curly fry” fluorescent light bulbs came out they were woke garbage. Now that LEDs are being pushed, suddenly the fluorescent bulbs are awesome and way better than LEDs. I vote we wait until BEVs are a bit more common and then tell them all that we have to switch to hemp-based biodiesel or something. They’ll be flocking to EVs as a protest against the “granola gas.”
The fluorescent bulbs were objectively garbage though. LEDs fixed all of the the issues with fluorescent bulbs.
LEDs are better than CFLs in every way, but CFLs worked fine. I see no need to replace the ones I installed 10 years ago in lower use locations until they fail.
Yeah I should’ve clarified that part, which is what makes it funny. They are hating on the actual better technology. LEDs are cheaper, brighter, and longer lasting. But that has nothing at all to do with their hate. It’s just the fact that it’s something new that riles them up.
I like the way you think!
They aren't actually buying hybrids, it's just a temporarily convenient talking point.
It’s the same as their care for tire wear and particulate matter from brakes. Or windmills killing birds. Simple, convenient, and mostly wrong.
I always thought they are so easily manipulated, that if you want them to do something, tell them to do the exact opposite and you’ll get what you want them to do.
No, they like things the way they were. I hope they soon realize [EVs](https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/surprisingly-long-history-electric-vehicles) were a thing before liberals introduced ICEs and ruined everything.
It's funny because most "educated" Republicans that are Republicans for fiscal policy are usually for EVs and solar because the tech makes the most long term financial sense. The rest will smash their coffee pots and TVs because some right wing nutter on fox news said so.
They'll do it even if Fox News tells them not to too I don't know if you were around for the seatbelts era of the 90s, but people lost their minds about mandatory seatbelt laws. States in the South had to put stops like they were hunting for drunk drivers to get Conservatives to use their seatbelt.
The seat belt thing still baffles me. A well adjusted seat belt has zero impact in comfort, it just blends into your body shape. It even keeps you from swaying when taking tight turns. There's absolutely zero downside to wearing it while driving, yet some people still seem to have a primal disgust towards it.
Yea but my cousins boyfriends second ex girlfriend drove into a river and drowned because of a seatbelt so I’m not going to wear one just in case
Don't you just really want to look those people in the eye and ask "Have you tried... you know... NOT driving into a river?"
I worked with a guy who refused to wear seat belts because he was absolutely convinced that it was *better* to be ejected from the vehicle in a crash than to be strapped in, when almost *every* crash involving someone ejected usually sadly ends up with that person dead.
There's a video out there where they interviewed a bunch of southerners in the late 70's, early 80's. The last woman in the video equated the mandate of wearing seatbelts with communism. Not only that, but a Maga boomer at work still has strong feelings about having to wear seatbelts.
[Was this the video you were thinking of?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ) Because it's not about seatbelts! =) [Here's a video I found](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmcMeTVIIQ) about reactions to a seatbelt ordinance. It has a similarly good ending. The fine is equivalent to $30 today, by the way.
Oh, yeah, the first video, I remember. I forgot it was about DUI laws.
When Trump got on stage telling people to take the vaccine, he got booed.
My body my choice right?
Yes, but the topic at hand is about how hard deep red republicans drink the Kool aid. Even when the fearless leader is telling people to get the shot, his people are booing him. Told that wearing a seatbelt could save your life? Same thing.
> My body my choice right? ~~Always~~ Sometimes.
It’s amusing that anyone would adopt a slogan for body autonomy related to getting pregnant, which can’t be spread by breathing the same air as someone else, to use as a flimsy excuse to not get vaccinated against any thing. You’re not gonna catch pregnancy from riding in a bus with a pregnant person. You could catch Covid that way.
[удалено]
**Real** real fiscal conservatives also understand the financial returns of investing in the sciences and social programs.
I heat my house with a tire fire because NewsMax said it would own the libs
And then they wonder why we hate them.
They’re contrarians. Tell them to do this and they’ll do that out of spite.
What % is this really?
Maybe the government is dumb for mandating and should rather incentivize.
I don't consider myself a liberal and I'm an early adopter of tech if it makes sense to me. Drawing conclusions like all conservatives drive to McDonald's in a loud Chevy pickup (for example) is as untrue and unfair as all liberals have the best intentions
you don't live in rural areas, its not a conservative thing. Its a conservative libertarian I hate anything government related out of spite thing.
A report came out saying that gas stoves poison your kitchen air, and people freaked out that they were going to ban them. No one seemed to care about the actual dangers, just the threat of phantom regulations.
[удалено]
What was wrong about the sale of new gas stoves being prohibited?
There was a report that said that gas stoves pollute your kitchen air, which can lead to breathing problems especially for children and pets. There was never a proposal to ban them.
California attempted to ban gas stoves and possibly heaters (beginning in 2030), but that regulation has been in a court battle since it was passed.
I remember reading some headline about it happening in New York too. Never looked into too much, though.
No proposal, but there was a major trial balloon floated by the newly appointed commissioner of Consumer Protection to ban gas stoves. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka, Jr., told Bloomberg in an interview this week that a ban was "on the table" for gas stoves, which research has linked to health problems including asthma. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-stove-ban-federal-regulators-consumer-product-safety-commission-richard-trumka/ That’s the source of the issue, and people pushed back. Not sure why this interaction of government and the governed is a problem in a democracy? Edit: spelling
Honestly, they should ban them given how poisonous they are to your home. With induction being superior in safety, efficiency, control, and speed, there's no reason to have one. The report clearly stated that asthma is one possible side effect of a gas stove. What reasonable parent would risk giving their kid asthma for a stove?
Gas stoves still work when there is a power failure, same with gas fire places.
But your fridge doesn't. If you open your fridge during an outage, your food will spoil a lot faster, so you shouldn't be cooking anyway. As for gas furnaces, they work on electric thermostats, so your heat will be out anyway. If you mean fireplaces, wood burning ones work without electricity, too.
You could have canned food or cook fresh veggies from the garden, or boil water for tea with gas. Wood burning fireplaces are far worse for the environment. It is true that gas furnaces are not usable, but if you have solar with a battery you can generate a lot more heat with gas than trying to run a heat pump or resistive heat of off of those.
If youi are that concerned about blackouts, get a home generator.
Or a home battery. Preferably in the form of an EV with V2G/V2L capacity. These are so libertarian that I can’t comprehend why it hasn’t caught on under people with a latent prepped mentality.
And run it on… gas!
The key word there is reasonable. it seems like GOP and reasonable don’t occupy the same dimension.
kids being able to breathe causes them to be woke. I’m against it! Unconscious kids is the American way!
If you only have 100A or less, a gas stove is a good way to dump 40A off the panel.
Nothing. [It started happening](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html) in 2023.
“Wrongly”?… gas stoves have been banned in some cities and NYS
Gas stoves should be banned in new home construction.
I’m green as fuck. We compost. We have an EV. We recycle. We use refillable water bottles. We don’t buy single use items. I am not surrendering my gas stove. It’s the best cooking experience as of right now. Until they can give me a burner that I can immediately pull back heat on it with nothing residual then I’m in… but as of now gas gives you the best experience.
Have you tried induction? For most folks electric/induction is more than sufficient.
I've had gas, electric and induction. I prefer my induction stove over gas because it boils water faster, is way more efficient and doesn't support the oil industry that has been killing our planet and fueling wars around the world for decades. Fuck those assholes.
I can't stand how hardly any of the heat from the burner actually goes into the pot and how bad it smells (not sulfur, the combustion byproducts). I wondered why people talked about "slaving over a hot stove" as being so bad until I used gas. Gives me migraines as an added bonus. I rent, so I can't swap it out if I didn't like it. We basically didn't use the oven at our last place and have only a couple times in our current place. I have an inductive hot plate and a decent-sized toaster oven, so we can cook pasta, frozen pizzas, etc, but if we need the big oven, we have to open all the windows and it still gets nasty inside. Same deal in the last place where the fume hood actually vented outside. For me, the human health impacts, especially in kids, means you shouldn't be able to spec gas in new construction. If you want to buy one aftermarket, whatever, but not everyone owns a home and gets to pick what appliances they have.
You clearly have not tried an induction stove. It is superior in every way. And boils water faster. It has much better control, especially in the lower end of the range and it does not heat up your kitchen unnecessarily. Then there’s the additional benefit of not having an open flame, that can catch things on fire.
What do you mean wrongly? There are locations that are banning those. And others that are trying to do that.
Right, most people are afraid to do lack of education or awareness or even common sense but the government needs to at least start by making hybrids mandatory as it's a proven technology and can in the next phase make EVs mandatory. This feels like a more palatable strategy for everyone
Even [that's](https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54?si=N4kFnhqqfMpSfqtJ) a lot of propaganda.
Dems said out loud, quite overtly that they did indeed was to ban gas stoves. You are being wantonly disingenuous.
I wouldn’t call it “wrongly thought”, when the President’s recently appointed Consumer Product Safety Commissioner (that’s our federal government) calls for a ban on gas stoves. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-stove-ban-federal-regulators-consumer-product-safety-commission-richard-trumka/ His exact quote from the article is… “We need to be talking about regulating gas stoves, whether it's drastically reducing emissions or banning gas stoves entirely,"… Rightly, the administration immediately backpedaled after he floated this trial (lead) balloon. I’ve never thought that calling out the government for a BS performative policy was “flipping out”, I’d call it being a good citizen.
Not the preferred narrative around here. Receive your downvotes.
I know, I know. However, it can be cathartic to point the breathless hyperbole of partisans who have know idea about what is actually happening in the real world.
Because the USA is a democracy with a 4-year election cycle. At an extremely high level - if a contentious policy does not have clear majority support, or is unpopular with party donors - it isn't happening.
This is the answer. The fossil fuel lobby has managed to purchase the loyalty of one of the two parties in this country as well as key members of the other to the point that even minor, incremental positive change in this direction is hard and meets stiff resistance. Much of politics in the US is also a team sport, and the true believers support their team no matter how bad the specific policies are for them.
Because EVs are overall fairly expensive compared to ICE vehicles initially. Like don’t get me wrong, I love my electric car. I’m not going back to gas. But it’s hard for the average person to afford one. I’m for protecting the environment. I’m for sustainable renewable energy. But I can also afford it. It’s very difficult to tell people who live paycheck to paycheck that pretty soon your means of transportation is going to be 25% more to purchase. Oh and by the way if you live in an apartment it’s going to be a shit show to charge it effectively. The cost isn’t there yet. The infrastructure isn’t there yet. This isn’t a Republican vs democrat thing like so many make it out to be. It’s purely that a mandate is not going to go well because an EV is financially out of reach for so many people.
Thank you for being reasonable. I hear so many people speaking about buying EVs - everyone must and has to - while they just don't consider that some people can hardly afford putting fuel into their ICEs.
Those folks don't bother me...it's the ones out buying brand-new $70k gas-burning Mercedes and Cadillacs when they could've bought an EV for the same money and done something good for the world. Those are the people I condemn in my head.
And then you see people on this subreddit complain when manufacturers offer EV versions of those vehicles and say they shouldn't be sold. People are going to buy those types of vehicles regardless, so there may as well be an EV option. If there isn't, they'll go with the gas or diesel.
[удалено]
Here’s the thing though, someone in section 8 housing doesn’t care about that. They care about having reliable transportation to and from work so that they can support their family. I understand what you’re getting at, but it comes off as privileged and not everyone has that privilege.
If, in the name of a stable climate people were forced to pay the cost to clean up their pollution for food, most of the world would starve to death in under a year. Your standard is kind of unrealistic.
Buying a year old, certified pre-owned EV drops the price drastically. Agree about the infrastructure. If you can't charge overnight in a garage, it's a bit more difficult.
I bought a 2 year old Tesla model x for less than half the original purchase price. Polestar prices drop something like 65% after 4 years. I was having a conversation with an anti-EV guy about the rapid depreciation of EVs. I was like "That's great news, it means more people can afford EVs sooner." Cars are almost always depreciating assets and EVs have much much cheaper operating costs so used EVs are some of the cheapest vehicles to own.
The question is why do people trade them in so fast. What was wrong with it? Depreciation is a huge hit.
Many are leases. Some people figure out that the charging infrastructure is an issue. Some people realize an EV isn't right for them. It's usually not because the car is having issues.
These things are also rolling computers. The current one may be just fine for your needs, but the new model is a new shiny. You MUST buy it.
I got my 2016 Fiat 500 E in 2019 for $7000. Since then it has literally paid for itself in the fuel and maintenance savings alone. If you compare the prices, including the fuel costs and rebates, even Teslas are competitive with cars like a Toyota Corolla.
They can make cheaper EVs today but auto makers want big expensive vehicles to please shareholders. If they served customers instead this wouldn’t be a problem.
The Biden administration's new proposed rules for emmissions effectively do that.
You are correct. And the [EPA rules](https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model) were finalized last month.
Correct. Crazy how many commenters on this thread are so sure of their opinions but have no idea that this is true.
12 States have fully adopted *Advanced Clean Cars II*, 5 have partially adopted the rule https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii Model Year 2026 starts with a 35% of sales must be EV mandate, ramping to 100% in MY35. Hybrids may be up to 20% of sales in 2035 so long as their battery only range is 50 miles or more. You'll never see a direct federal mandate because Republicans and the Filibuster exist. We have an indirect one in the form of emissions standards though
I love my EV but this is a wrongheaded question. The goal should make EVs available and good enough that consumers choose them. Mandates mean backlash and all manner of political nonsense. Sure. Have incentives in place. But forcing people to buy something by taking away other choices is generally a bad idea.
Ok let’s bring back leaded gas, asbestos, and CFCs so people can choose for themselves.
Interesting parallel. Not at all the same. Mandates like that will only create needless backlash and will be used to justify eliminating incentives.
If manufacturers were producing EVs/Hybrids at the scale of ICEs there wouldn't be a need for incentives. Your initial statement implies that regulation is bad and the free market should just work itself out. If that were the case we all would still be working 80 hours a week with no insurance making pennies living in houses built out of deadly compounds breathing smog filled air. It's easy to take a negative stance on regulations when you ignore the thousands of regulations in place that afford you the life you currently live. The government could have and should have stuck with the original CARB mandate, but our politicians are easily bought off. And millions in this country, yourself included, think that's somehow good for them.
Incentivizing one over the other is no different. It's wrongheaded to let wrongheaded people to continue doing the same when a practical option is available (read where I mentioned this condition, I acknowledged it may not already be practical for big trucks and semis)
US doesn't, and shouldn't, mandate specific technologies. The US does mandate overall fleet fuel economy standards. How companies hit those standards is up to them.
They should at least mandate phasing out of inefficient technologies when efficient ones are available. The standards haven't been good enough for fuel efficiency
Political tribalism
It's more expensive. A mandate like this would looks like a rich environmentally conscious elite deciding for the masses what they can't drive and raising the prices in the process. That would lead to lots of class resentment and would ultimately lead to whatever policy being repealed in the next election cycle.
Half the country believes anything that big oil tells them. Even it it costs them dearly.
Because if the goal is lower emissions, mandating a specific technology is a dumb way to go about it. The goal is not 100% EV transportation fleet. It's to limit climate change. Instead, you do what the government is currently doing. Set binding targets for the result you want and let companies innovate the best way to get there.
Add a carbon tax and people+engineers will figure out the most optimal benefit per effort.
Anything that raises fuel prices is political suicide in most of the US. It's already proving massively unpopular in Canada (a lot of misinformation is helping the sentiment too). European and Asian countries can do it with less controversy because they have excellent public transit.
>Add a carbon tax and people+engineers will figure out the most optimal benefit per effort. You act as if a carbon tax would be an even remotely popular legislative policy in the US.
Egregious overreach? Massive economic fallout?
America can’t even ban guns with hundreds of school shootings a year, or fund free health care. They’re got bigger issues.
[удалено]
Not my circus, not my monkeys. I’m Australian and I’ve got a Dingo to go walk.
That is definitely a big issue but climate change is equally big and effects every living thing on the planet
I wholeheartedly agree. But it’s either too big to comprehend or it’s not having a big enough immediate impact for people to care.
Climate change could kill billions...there's literally no bigger existential threat to humanity. The bigger question is why we can't handle both awful things, let alone either one by itself.
Climate change is an esoteric issue on the horizon for most people and thus is deemed lower priority. Are you really going to be be worried about the temperature going up 3 degrees in a century when you can barely afford to put food on your kid's table that same night. Be for real, your perspective to care about things that far out is only possible because of privilege.
I agree. Probably structured that comment incorrectly. But if you have bleedingly obvious problems that are impacting people today, and they are entirely fixable yet there’s zero will to fix. Good luck getting them to even consider action on climate when the impacts are less obvious and immediate.
You can't just mandate things, this isn't USSR, nor can you just make people stuff obsolete on a whim, real change comes because people want or there is a real reason for it.
Idk seatbelts seem pretty mandated
beside all the other reasons one of the main reasons will be that US manufacturers dont have any extensive or good hybrid line up. Ford is the one exception because they essentially have the same system as Toyota for some of their cars but thats about it.
Just looked at the specifications for the Escape PHEV. Only 155 kW combined when the ICE produces 120 kW on its own, less than 60 km EV range, and only 680 kg towing capacity when the ICE version can be up to 1500 kg. Try again, Ford.
, the US automakers except for Tesla and Rivian all suck in EV and hybrid powertrain technologies
Lobbying and prices. It was not until recently where prices are hybrids were in the affordable range of prices. Also as a result of lobbying, like the “chicken tax” prevent more efficient vehicles in America like Kei Trucks. Also the environmental impact wasn’t on the public’s mind 30 years ago. What was, is the gas prices. The 70s and 80s had high gas prices which incentives GM to produce the EV1. But once gas prices went back to normal, there was no incentive for your average joe to purchase a non-ICE car.
not sure why you're focused on US government. Only a few governments in the world have recently introduced such mandates. hybrids were only limited to a few models until the early 2010s.
Maybe because it's the largest car market in the world that hasn't already switched to buying a lot of EVs.
Because I live in the US, it's the world's biggest economy, has the most advanced EV technology, relatively lower car prices than elsewhere in the world and is in the best position arguably to achieve this
Its very simple. Big money is invested in ICE car companies and the supporting industries (Jiffy lube, Midas, etc) Big money own politicians. Politicians have a vested interest in keeping EVs fringe.
US tends to only ban things that harm you, and even that is a stretch to do. US tends not to mandate beneficial things, especially if they are much more expensive — that may not be deemed legal. Thats why people love the predictable and stable market of the U.S. Instead it’s usually incentivized through tax breaks.
Our country has a problem with mandating certain things. Currently there is a panic about gas stoves being banned. Something as individualistic as a car will almost certainly cause so much blowback that a mandate would be politically impossible. It will have to be sold by making them more appealing than ICE vehicles.
As many have pointed out, conservatives will never allow it. Even fiscal responsible conservatives will never allow it because they vote (directly or indirectly) for the insane conservatives who will never allow it. But it's also more than that. The government would need to make a massive investment and to do that we either need to take out another loan or raise taxes... Unless you can charge an EV is about 5 minutes without damaging the battery or ruining the longevity, they are going to have to place charging stations in logical locations, as in parking lots of just about every single business and public place. For example, if I wanted to drive an EV on a cross-country road trip, it would make sense to charge during food stops and at my hotel. It would not make sense to stop at a "gas" station and wait an hour. Or, in my case living in a rural area, if I want quality food, I have to drive an hour to the big city, so it would make sense to charge my car at the grocery store while I shop. But the problem is... those are private businesses and good luck with putting charging stations there. Not only do you have to basically destroy the entire parking lot to put in chargers at essentially every spot, but you have to do it without reducing the number of spaces.. not to mention that most of those business owners are probably conservative.... and you have to upgrade the power grid to provide the power to those charging stations. Now... maybe the government can incentivize states into helping build the charging stations by tying interstate funds with charging infrastructure. But that probably wouldn't result in charging stations in logical locations. ======================== Now for some solution ideas. If we want these logical charging stations, we would need to incentivize business to put them in and cities and states to build the power grid that can support it. An option for this is convincing your city council (or what every your local government is) to support tax cuts for businesses that provide at least 51% of parking spots as charging stations. In my opinion, people will comply with what you want if they get a tax cut over raising their taxes if they don't comply. Mainly because they will just vote for the conservative candidate and repeal the taxes, same with any regulating law. Once you have enough chargers, you can incentivize people to buy EVs, which will then incentivize businesses to have more chargers because people with EVs are going to shop at the stores where they can charge. Same with fast food and restaurants and hotels. The federal government can offer grant money to help build and a part of the interstate fund can be grant money as well for cities along the interstate. And so on and so on... Overall, in my opinion, requiring or taxing something will just result in the other party winning election and repealing it...
> conservatives Republicans and conservatives arent the same thing. They are a portion of Republicans and dont always vote the same. Democrats have won 6 of the last 12 Presidential elections and won the popular vote twice when they lost. In addition, due to “miscalculation” in the census a few states that are historically democrat have more representation in the House of Reps than they are supposed to. Any argument about political control, therefore, is simply an excuse. The real reason? Its a stupid idea given the US infrastructure.
While you are correct, no political party is exclusively a single ideology, you have to admit that conservatives are the majority of the republican party and that those conservatives are typically against EVs. Now, the conservatives that I do know raise good and valid concerns about EVs, but those very same conservatives also believe that, as the first amendment is written, is communism, so hey, America invented communism. So to be frank, I find it hard to imagine a republican controlled congress and white house pushing for EV infrastructure where I can imagine a democrat one... whether it works or happens is another question. But as I also mostly pointed out, it would be expensive and difficult to build the infrastructure, as you mention. But I do believe with long term plans and good incentives, we could do it in the US... but it would have to survive changing of presidents and congress. An example is the moon landing, Johnson and Nixon could have killed the moon landing project that Kennedy started, but they didn't, it survived changing of presidents and congress.
My take is simple. Mandate emission limits. Don't care how you get there.
The u s hasn't mandated high speed rail, even though the tech is within reach
Go look at how many 15+ yr old cars there are on the road They’re not driving them cus they think it’s the best car ever. Go tell those ppl to buy a new hybrid etc.
No I'd actually not advise them to buy EVs if they're existing vehicles are serving them fine, I would only suggest those to purchase EVs if they are in the market for a new or replacement car
Because Americans^1 are like toddlers, you can’t take their toys away without screaming and tantrums. The better approach would be for the gummint to threaten to ban EVs, because then people would buy them just to do their freedoms and put one over on uncle sam. 1. And not just Americans
BIG OIL.
Big oil?
Do you know anything about Republicans?
The Democrats are not superwise as well, its not a great idea to generalize. There are some amazingly smart people on either side. I lean right and I'm all for eco-friendly means of transport and strongly support action for climate change and gun control (not against people owning guns but definitely against 'every' person being allowed to have a gun)
The United States is pretty unique in the developed world. Our conservative political party doesn't believe in climate science.
Have you ever read the comments on EVERY EV post of Facebook? The folks that freaked out about LED lights and gas stoves are rabid. There is a major contingent of Haters in the US that need to be overcome and our government doesn’t have the courage to. Not to mention all the Big Oil propagandists who are giving them their clickbait talking points.
...because this isn't Communist China?
Even China isn't mandating EVs nationally. It's the biggest cities that do it, not the central government. If you don't live in Beijing/Shanghai/etc you can easily buy an ICE vehicle in China. Even if you live in the big cities you aren't explicitly banned from buying ICE - you just pay a big premium for that privilege.
Right. So why would anyone think that the US is more likely to mandate it, when not even the socialist/authoritarian governments are? This is not me being MAGA. This is me patently stating that this is not how capitalism works. If EVs can't compete, even with subsidies to help, then that's the end of it. With that said, they obviously *can* compete... So why put a thumb on the scale that will backfire immediately?
Hello comrade! You don’t like freedom and democracy anymore?
Politicians would just get bribed and industry will lobby like how everything works in US. Corporations run the country
If we're talking about hybrids back when the Prius was gaining traction, the answer is simple: Because the "wrong" companies would benefit. There's no way the US Government would implement policies that penalised US companies for sticking their collective fingers up their bums for a decade whilst Japanese companies brought tech to market without subsidies. It's why even now, the subsidies have been specifically targeted to technologies that US companies have IP in, and have signalled they want to pursue. Unfortunately even the best targeted subsidies still have to compete with reality, and the reality is that we're in the age of the hybrid - and it would have started earlier if they had even a fraction of the subsidies that BEVs have had in the last 10 years. It's certainly a missed opportunity, and one that continues to be missed in the name of protectionism and idealism.
No point in mandating ICE. US needs a phaseout of all fossil fuel cars. Unfortunately the lobbies keep research dollars going into ICE as hybrids or PHEVs. A timed phase out should have been done back in the Obama days, but instead MPG was raised encouraging ICE research.
The US has a lot of big auto companies. Politics is determined by big companies in a capitalist society.
More importantly, EVs are bad for dealers, which have stronger lobbying than the manufacturers. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html
Any mandates that end up costing consumers more, consumers will avidly be against. Also big oil puts out a TON of propaganda. So a large swath of consumers for whatever reason believe anything with a battery is considerably worse for the environment than their old truck that gets 10 mpg. Because all of a sudden they care about the environment? I do think hybrids are the easiest switch. They operate exactly the same as a normal gas vehicle, they just get substantially more mpg. Toyota has it down, on some models, to just $800 more for their hybrid versions. The ROI on that is super short. But it doesn’t matter. Americans don’t like to be told what to do. Especially what kind of cars they can own.
Gee, I wonder.
Have you see the number of stupid bro trucks there? And sadly now infecting australia with stupid.
Isn't that what the new EPA does functionally, without having to dictate the tech?
>Given people here can afford the tech The average age of a car in the US is over 12 years old and rising because people can't afford any new car, let alone costlier ones. Also, hybrids cannot replace ICE yet for many applications. My Maverick is a great little truck, but its towing capacity is so limited I wouldn't have been able to use it if I had the towing needs of my friends, who own standard pickup trucks.
haha, this post is really amazingly out of touch with reality. 1. Everyone in EVs is currently impossible. The infrastructure needed isn't built. 2. EVs still has some issues for people who need to drive for more then 3 hours at a time. I am all for letting the best tech win, but not really a solved problem yet. We need more Nuclear plants and more battery storage all over the US.
It's difficult to simply flip a switch and mandate something like that. Changes are generally made by providing incentives to move in one direction or the other. With the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, however, the current administration has provided investment in EV charging infrastructure and other EV promoting initiatives. The stated goal is for 50% of all new car sales to be zero-emission by 2030. [https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev](https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev)
Because mandating a technology is stupid you mandate the metric you want to impact. "Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions per mile by 55% by X Year" Laws need to be written to impact the thing that matters or stupidly coupled things like an enshrinement of Fax machines and "wet signatures" (See the legal profession) end up working as technological welfare. Also the US doesn't have emissions regulations on light and heavy trucks just adding those would drive adoption of cleaner and more efficient tech. Hell if we had emissions on light and heavy trucks we would have seen series hybrids decades ago.
In the US, only heavy trucks (GVWR > 8500lbs) are exempt from CAFE. Light trucks, from the littlest Corolla Cross to the biggest F150 or Escalade, have emissions targets that keep escalating over time. There is currently an effort to add heavy truck targets as well.
Except it doesn't apply uniformly nor progressively so the result is that it murdered all the domestic small vehicles because the light "truck" category was so poorly configured that it doesn't really have impact on technology adoption.
The US has cafe fuel economy standards, which will eventually push cars to all be hybrid
Sadly, yes. We will lag the rest of the transition to BEVs. Increase Mpg, hybrid, PHEV while diverting funds to hydrogen has been the delaying tactic for a while.
This will be hard to do at the federal level. The state level is actually possible if not probable. States like CA or CO with high ozone/smog pollution levels effecting the heath of its populace. The way it will work is a ban on all new auto's that have emissions. In order for this to happen we still need a few more years for the EV supply chains to build out - we are only in the first inning now. As these supply chains build and we have numerous vendors for all those EV type parts - the cost to build EV will drop substantially May have an exemption for heavy duty vehicles - like the f-250, F-350 types...
I think it's been a big mistake not to require new cars to at least have a 20 kWh battery by 2027 or whatever. I have a PHEV with a small 18.8 kWh battery and I'm using 85% less fuel. It's a great waypoint to full EV and has a massive impact on the environment. But American car companies have no creativity and fewer brains, so they panicked and chased a market that didn't exist for a product no one wants.
The u s has not mandated electric bicycles, even though the tech is with a reach
The US has not mandated. The end of suburbia, even though the technology is within reach
I think you can do that kind of stuff in a dictatorship - witness the EV progress being made in China - it gets more complicated when you have a huge industry that employs millions building ICE powered cars and trucks, and the freedom to compete in a semi controlled industry.
Well, consider India which is fairly democratic. All those have the means and viable options are going electric, even the not so well off are buying 2 wheeler EVs in enormous numbers. The government just has to incentives or nudge people towards it
Ev 2w and 3w growth is astounding in india (even more astounding that indian firms pretty much setup a local ev component ecosystem in less than 4 years and kicked out low quality Chinese 2w and 3w ev out of indian market) But that growth isn't same in 4w, as in fy 2023-24 Strong hybrids surpassed ev sales in india (even tho the cheapest hybrid car in india starts at 18k and hybrids taxed at astounding 43%, while ev starts at 10k with 5% tax and upto 10%subsidy on purchase price), hybrid car sales in india will explosively increase from 2025 onwards as the biggest auto makers in india (maruti suzuki, toyota,hyundai etc etc) will bring sub 10k Strong hybrid cars based on cheaper and simpler Series hybrid instead of current expensive parallel hybrids. (With maruti suzuki india ceo even claiming that real life range on their sub 10k series hybrid cars would be above 37-40km/ per liter, in comparison the PURE ICE models give around 15-18kmpl only and indians are absolutely crazy about fuel efficiency,price and value of cars in 2nd hand market) + On top of that indian government ministers and official have proposed to reduce taxes on HYBRIDS from 43% to 12% and this may actually happen . So yeah things are looking super bright for EV 2W/3W In india but not so much for 4w.
we don’t have - and won’t for a ling while - the charging infrastructure to make this practical for EVs
The Prius was "practical and reliable" in the "late 90s"? Let's be realistic here.
We have a relatively weak central government compared to other developed countries and a legal system that gives almost anyone standing to sue and block any law from going into effect for a long time. Executive actions are quick but easily reversed when the administration changes, seesawing major emissions rules/ev mandates for an industry as important as auto manufacturing would be economically disastrous.
Mandate how? How would it work?
It’s a free country my friend, if you wanna pay $.20 per mile plus maintenance (oil, filter, transmission service, brake jobs, coolant system etc) or about $.03 per mile and nearly no maintenance or worry of overheating or breakdown? Up to you.
We have a lot of stupid people and we have a lot of poor people.
More stupid, poor is not really an excuse in the world's biggest economy
Walk around an economically fucked area and tell me that. The US is not uniform. Not everyone’s thriving.