Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

This is all about government control.

...of the rate at which the inevitable thing will happen.

So really, you'd be bitching about the pace of progress.  Not exactly big gub'mint.

Taxpayer subsidized early adoption.

If the taxpayers are cool with it, then it's no problem.

Taxpayer subsidized early adoption.

If the taxpayers are cool with it, then it's no problem.

Often the voters that push for more spending are the people who pay little taxes, while the voters who oppose more spending are the people who pay lots of taxes. 

But hey, when did a voter ever dislike paying for something with OPM?

EVs make more sense, I think, in Europe, where most cars are small and Diesel now, and distances tend to be shorter*.  They burn dirty Diesel also.  Then they have these 50 cc scooters that pollute like crazy.

Their air pollution often is really bad.

*They use a funny kind of mile that isn't a mile at all, only about 60% of a mile....

Well, I do think that the way most Europeans live is a lot more localized and with smaller distances to be traveled on a daily basis. 

But at the same time, most American life is pretty damn localized and there aren't long distances to be traveled on a daily basis. 80% of the US population live in urban areas (which I assume includes suburban and possibly even exurban). 

But usually the issue is that a car is a very major purchase, and we tend to make those purchases partially on "what do I do 95% of the time?" but also "what do I need to be CAPABLE of doing the other 5% of the time?"

I think for most potential EV purchasers, they are scared an EV won't work for that 10%. Whether that's a road trip, or whether that's towing, or whether that's range anxiety in the coldest 2 weeks of winter. 

It's why a lot of multi-car EV families have one BEV and one ICEV. The BEV is great for around-town stuff, and maybe could even be the majority of the family's miles driven. But they like to keep the ICEV (whether it's a truck, or used for road trips, etc) for the times when the BEV might be inconvenient. 

In our family, EVs hadn't been mature enough yet when my wife got her RX350, but with our current lifestyle, a BEV makes perfect sense for her. She does the majority of her driving to/from work and running errands and would basically never have any problem with range. With home charging she'd never have to visit a gas station again. And then with me having the Ford Flex (and the Jeep), we'd have an ICEV with plenty of seating that could handle any time we need to take the kids somewhere, or any time we need to road trip. Since I primarily WFH with limited days in the office, our total familial gas consumption would DRASTICALLY drop if she was driving a BEV. When it comes time to replace her RX, it might be with an RZ. Granted that's probably 5+ years from now. 

Often the voters that push for more spending are the people who pay little taxes, while the voters who oppose more spending are the people who pay lots of taxes.

But hey, when did a voter ever dislike paying for something with OPM?

Someone once said, "eventually you run out of other people's money."

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is proposing strict new automobile pollution limits that would require as many as two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032, a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.

The proposed regulation, announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set tailpipe emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years that are the strictest ever imposed — and call for far more new EV sales than the auto industry agreed to less than two years ago.

If finalized next year as expected, the plan would represent the strongest push yet toward a once almost unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to battery-powered vehicles.

A look at what the EPA is proposing, how the plan serves President Joe Biden’s ambitious goal to cut America’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, and whether the auto industry can meet the new EV targets:

Q. What is the EPA proposing?

A, The proposed tailpipe pollution limits don’t require a specific number of electric vehicles to be sold every year, but instead they mandate limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Depending on how automakers comply, the EPA projects that at least 60% of new passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. would be electric by 2030 and up to 67% by 2032.

What will be used to generate the power all of these EV's need?

My guess was gonna be fairy dust.

This is just stupid.