Together in Electric Dreams

[Linas.P]

I am not comparing anything, if you are the one dying the last thing you care about is whenever it is because of terrorist attack or accident on the train platform. Possibility of latter is higher so if you thinking logically (I know big ask) - you should be more afraid public transport then terrorists. Yet still higher then both if you car driver or occupant, still (all 3) much lower then cancer... but the last time I checked goverment spent billions preventing terrorism and pennies preventing cancer. 

I think we figured out already that EV questions is not just simple matter of supply/demand and infrastructure 😄

[Guest]

In the USA land of the free.........you are something like 10x more likely to be killed by a policeman than a terrorist. 

Statistically Linas is correct. It has nowt to do with EV though. 

But, if preventing (or more accurately, delaying) death of citizens is the prime motivator, then one would focus their financial muscle on diet, healthcare, education, environment.

[st4]

Of course but not every country has the capacity to invade a foreign power to ensure its future fuel supply. 
 

It’s got plenty of it’s own and hasn’t invaded anywhere in the sense you allude to.

I wish it had though and passed on some of this mythical free fuel to us. Cheaper fuel for us is not a bad thing


Sent from my Iphone using Tapatalk

[st4]

and what exactly is the 'daily pressing issue with life' that comes before mass murder of innocent men, women and children  Linas .. your need to get you and your old shed from A to B as quickly as possible per chance ?

 

 

I don’t see mass murder here in Europe - well every now and then when a jihadist chooses to strike

 

 

Sent from my Iphone using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

5 hours ago, Comedian said:

But, if preventing (or more accurately, delaying) death of citizens is the prime motivator, then one would focus their financial muscle on diet, healthcare, education, environment.

Thanks... exactly..

sorry to bring terrorism again, but as I said there are more pressing issues which are not financed at all, exactly what you said - "diet, healthcare, education, environment" and kills thousands of people every week and something remote and rare like terrorism which barely anyone (in EU anyway) and we spend a lot of money for it (and not little - they say ~15.1 billion).  In mean time education is pretty poor, universities expensive and leaves people with lifetime debts, healthcare is not that much underfunded as it is inefficient and environment only gets rare and useless contributions (useless in the way that money is spent, but nothing inherently changes). Going back to cancer - there isn't even any government body or research or even goverment funded institution which does anything about it! Nothing... and that is the issue which kills 38% of all people in UK. The biggest group which does anything about it is Cancer Research charity... bloody charity and they budget is only £80 millions and to be honest it isn't even very clear what they have achieved so far except of advising us what not to do (which is pretty much everything), but in terms of treatment... pretty much nothing. Now putting that in perspective, their budget is only 5% of that of mystical terrorism nonsense and comes from good will donors, not even reliable source. 

Obviously, this this all seems to be irrelevant for EVs, but I feel it is exactly same case here - government is pushing for EVs in their misguided attempt to tackle something which isn't even an issue instead of educating people of what the real issues are (too afraid not to be re-elected - populism politics)... And obviously car manufacturers are more then happy to plug-in... after all that is their chance to force upgrades. Like all the scrapping schemes - that is present for manufacturers, they can scrap still perfectly usable cars and sell new ones. Same here - goverment going to spend billions of our tax money, to build unnecessary infrastructure (generating billion tons of Co2 in process), going to force us to scrap perfectly usable cars (wasting a lot of material which is already made and therefore has 0 Co2 impact), replace everything with spanking new EVs (making which we will generate billion tons of Co2) and all that for ~1-2% of pollution. But they not going to do anything with real issues like over consumtion of food, 75% of which ends-up in landfills (don't forget farming is like 16% of pollution) or fast fashion, cheap toys, electron devices, whit goods etc. which doesn't last what they should and we throw them away after barely 10% of expected use (manufacturing of all that is the biggest single source of pollution 40%<).

In short, even sustainable environment supporters have concluded that unless you have total "gas guzzler" or the car which is clearly polluting due to wear an tear, the most environmentally friendly way is to continue driving same car as long as possible. Good solution would be as @CallTheBall suggested - only replacing the engine when it wears out for something less polluting, but replacing entire car is more damaging then continue driving it.

When it comes to cars (the 2% of the pollution problem), it would be logical to tax them only at the time of purchase as such reducing the demand for new cars, and then not taxing them at all - increasing demand for used ones. Forcing very long warranties on manufacturers e.g. 10 years, 200k miles unconditional warranty, that would result in manufacturers using higher quality components and new car prices further increasing, but equally increasing reliability, thus reducing the waste.