Reposted from Government Accountability and Oversight
Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial “The Electric Vehicle Welfare State: Car makers back the Biden climate agenda in return for subsidies and higher consumer prices” notes, among other things:
Yep:
h/t Elvin Bishop, how long has this been going on? Courtesy of Energy Policy Advocates:
Nope. Longer. A little more about this from when it first got, well, rolling, did manage to slip through:
Vermont’s Attorney General misrepresented the secrecy pact between “certain automakers” and progressive (apologies, ‘certain’) AGs, as a judge in an open records case who reviewed the pact in camera recently made clear:
Which OAG sought to clean up, in a somewhat more illuminating fashion.
The working poor need workhorse vehicles. Trend setting California’s EV message to America – they’re not for working families!
The executive orders from California Governor Newsom and President Biden desire to have the masses change their lifestyles to live with EV’s, but the messages from the elite California users have been demonstrating that they are being used intermittently and are not the workhorse transportation vehicles for middle class families.
https://www.cfact.org/2021/08/12/the-working-poor-need-workhorse-vehicles/
You’re making an assumption that anyone important wants the middle class mobile. From what I can see, every step is being taken to make sure everyone not important stays more-or-less right where they are. Moving around the country is going to be strongly discouraged.
Yep, limited by your “range anxiety”.
Yep. The deplorables are to stay in their mass-produced apartment cubicles and do what they’re told.
Reminds me of the unfunded CCS give aways to oil producers….
What doesn’t?
Mr. Scissor: I can’t do any better than your comment. My compliments, your gentle response is the right way to handle unhinged OCD-types.
Just more what-about-ism from the guy, which the left always likes to (wrongly) accuse the right of engaging in while indulging themselves in it frequently.
Are you referring to carbon capture and storage? If so, that was a mere pittance, bigoilyboob, and it was funded. If that’s what you’re referring to, it was nothing compared with the direct subsidies and tax breaks given to the “renewable” scam.
“If so, that was a mere pittance”
Yah, “small” unfunded corporate welfares are just fine. Especially when they are used to send the faux message that the extractors have finally become clueful about AGW, and therefore don’t need carbon taxation. And I wonder how you feel about the 11-12 figures worth of hydrocarbon asset retirement obligations – responsibilities freely assumed by the hydrocarbon extraction food chain -that will ultimately be communized onto the rest of us. Actually, I already know.
“…and it was funded.”
How? Even Mr. M. doesn’t try and perpetuate that lie. But since this is your claim, and therefore your obligation to back it up, feel free to do so.
“it was nothing compared with the direct subsidies and tax breaks given to the “renewable…”
I agree. And those, in turn, are nothing compared to over a century’s worth of hydrocarbon extractor give aways and regulatory Ben Dovers. Do you have a point you’re trying to make?
And FMI, how is a forgiveness of part of an assumed obligation any different than a “direct subsidy”. I mean other than the fact that one is visible, and the other is conveniently murky…
And more feelings, no thoughts, so typical of boob.
“And more feelings, no thoughts, so typical of boob.”
Are these “feelings”?
https://www.arowatch.org/
Cleopatran Queens of Denial. You channel Ciffie Clavin’s hysterical blindness whenever he got close to a woman….
More feelings and zero facts, typical leftarded stupidity from you, boob. Toddle out some snopes feces next, that is always funny.
Blah blah blah with no substance
bigoilblob, you need to mop up your spills.
No, these are real. There is no need for CCS, so no unfunded liability. In fact, there are unpaid benefits to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, so oil companies and end users deserve tax credits from the U.N.
“There is no need for CCS, so no unfunded liability.”
While I’m 180 out on your fact free opinion that the earth will act on increased atmospheric [CO2] like a greenhouse, with no (greater) collateral damage, we share the opinion that CCS should not be corporate welfarized.
The only advocate is Mr. M, who is desperately trying to keep hydrocarbon extraction money coming his way. I’m guessing that, like most petroleum geoscientists, he over spent and is now crying real tears….
Yes, your tears are quite entertaining, almost as entertaining as your leftarded feelings. Too bad you have no thoughts, being a leftarded moron there is no room in your vacant skull for thoughts.
Carbon capture? Its not “carbon” you ID10T. Its CO2 which is needed in the atmosphere. Stop using “carbon”. You are primarily CARBON unless you aren’t human
No, Colin. It’s carbon. Atomic number 6. I used to use pencils, until I found out that the graphite in them is pure carbon. No more pencils for me. And what about diamonds? If those are a girl’s best friend, then girls are no friends of mine.
If carbon has formed an alliance with oxygen, I’m a little leery about oxygen as well. You’re judged by the company you keep, and I’m just saying that oxygen had better watch its step.
“The only advocate is Mr. M,”
Your obsession with him is troubling.
“Your obsession with him is troubling.”
He is using this forum as part of his CV to desperately try and stay in the oil biz. Since you ony see his anti AGWism, you go hysterically blind while he leads you on. He is a self serving hypocrite, pushing unfunded hydrocarbon extraction give aways while holier than thouing w.r.t. his anti AGW street cred.
That, and as and explorationist, he claims oiliness while being in that part of the biz that is mostly shielded from it’s realities. He is much of what is bad about the business I happily, successfully, worked in most of my life. Which should explain my “obsession” with his hypocrisy. I remain “untroubled” by it.
“I remain “untroubled” by it.”
Most psychotics are untroubled by their psychosis, I suppose.
But maybe I should have said “unhealthy”.
Either way, there is something disturbing about it, looking on as an outside party.
Ahh, boob shares a feeling, it has no thoughts.
Anybody who talks about so-called “renewables” without mentioning latest gen nuclear…isn’t talking about de-carbonizing electrification. They are talking about something else. And it isn’t good.
The world has just been through a pandemic Lockdown , with very little leisure road use , a huge reduction in aircraft flights and traffic has been down by about 80% in a lot of places .
The end result is that it made absolutely no difference to the amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere , which continued its slow natural climb https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
This is because the amount of CO2 produced by people is so small as to be insignificant .
So the whole idea of EVs is just another insanity by the greens to take the maximum amount of money from the Western world to bring about their Global domination dream .https://thenewamerican.com/un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism/
Did you really expect a 3 to 5% drop in very noisy data to be noticeable after less than 2 years?
The idea that it would take years to show up is just propaganda to try to cover up the Green lies .
The Atmosphere moves around the world very quickly , [ try looking up the Jetstream ] .
And a dust storm in North Africa is often dumped on the UK the next day .
So it does not take years for emissions to mix & move around the world , just days .
Anything other than what you desperately need to believe, is just a lie.
CO2 levels jump by 2 to 3ppm yearly, it isn’t a smooth increase. Only an utter fool would expect a change on the order of less than 0.1ppm to show up conclusively in the data in just a few months. Additionally, after a few months, fossil fuel usage levels started returning to normal.
Is 2 to 3ppm yearly a jump?
Yes absolutly. Any main driver fluctuation would translate in an immédiate change in total ppm.
Looks like the hypothesis IS wrong.
The noise and randomness in the yearly data was at least an order of magnitude larger than the signal you wish to see. It simply isn’t possible to see it after less than one year of change.
Thanks for your reply, on which i can only disagree. I’m interested in knowing more about your view. Simply because i’m exactly the type of individual any side can win over with arguments. I do not possess academics grade education, but more than enough to think rationally.
Now please allow me to make an exemple. Let’s take a car. The main driver for acceleration is fuel. Because the more fuel i inject in my engine the more revolution i will gain and this translate in speed. No other metric can make such changes. Be it wind, down slope or anything else short of a tornado sending the car flying in the car will add more speed to my car than fuel.
You, me and anyone here can easily find hundreds if not thousands of quotes from people you probably deem serious saying the main driver of climate change is man-made emission of CO2.
You cannot then backpedal when Mauna Loa says you are wrong. No buts were ever made to that affirmation. It is plainly written all over reports that it is man-made emission who created the energy imbalance period.
How do you respond to that?
Edit : Looking at Mauna Loa graphs i see a steady and mostly stable increase in atmospheric CO2. Where are the randomness you are speaking off?
I have looked, if you think that is a smooth monotonic increase, then there is nothing I can do to help you.
It has pronounced seasonality. If you were a statistician, you would know that there are various techniques to seasonally adjust the series and produce an underlying trend. Some of them are less suited to estimating the trend at the end of a series, but others are reasonably robust to that. The seasonally adjusted trend is not showing the kind of kink you might expect.
Yes you can’t help me, not even yourself. Instead of putting words in my mouth or ask for clarification on a divergence of opinion, you jump on it like misery on pour people to deflect and avoid answering my question.
You made it clear speaking with you is a waste of my time.
Really? But the climate enthusiasts state with absolute conviction (and several decimal places) any increases in CO2. So why can they be exact about increases yet extremely vague about possible decreases? Either it works both ways (in which case they can release an exact figure for the decrease) or there simply aren’t any decreases to find (in which case we’ll all accept that CO2 is not coupled to human activity) – which is it?
Boy, people really do get upset when their fantasy bubbles get burst.
Well actually the drop is reputed to be as much as 8% in a year, an amount equal to about 0.35ppm. And yes, I’d expect that to show up as a kink in the curve – it’s about 17% of the trend rate of increase. Given that CO2 levels are quoted to +/-0.1ppm, it’s more than the quote margin of error. The fact that it hasn’t shown up points to the idea that the balance of fluxes (all large numbers) is influenced by other factors – what is not emitted by burning fuels results in less sequestration in the oceans for instance.
This is just more politics and less science. The manufacturers’ goal is to make money, not save the planet. Wait for the “we don’t have enough raw materials to keep up with the EV demand” along with “consumers can’t afford EVS” and see what happens. It will be automobile manufacturers vs. the eco warriors and those aligned with them. If you think there’s a lot of money behind the green machine just wait for the automobile industry to flex.
Ah yes, but it won’t happen until the ICE vehicles have been banned, then we’ll have car manufacturers in a dominant position over the greens. So, we USED to have a free market economy and now we don’t?
Goobermint green-machine money is much greater than the auto industries. The goobermints (at least the US) can print all the money they need.
American law is complex.
Can we just stick the solving the Navier-Stokes equations for the atmosphere and ocean?
Fellow Mr. C: No, we can’t, here in America we only go after a problem after we created it.
Soon, America will look like Cuba. 50 to 70 year old cars kept going by people that know now automobiles work. It is incredibly hard to beat the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels. I have a truck with a 600+ mile range and it takes 10 minutes to refuel and go another 600 miles. Hard to top that with a battery or gaseous fuel (H2, NG,). Propane is not so bad as it compresses to a liquid, but still not the energy density of gasoline. Diesel is even better.
This is also why airplanes will be the most difficult to convert to alternative fuels. As you have to lift the mass of the power source, low energy density hurts you most in aircraft.
Cuba’s cars use spark plugs, condensers, mechanical distributors, and carburetors. Modern cars have computerized everything for fuel injection, once the electronics die the car is scrap without a replacement.
Doesn’t matter how good you are at scrounging parts and installing them – when there is no gasoline to be had.
Nope. You must think in a broader pattern. The options here are:
If you aren’t already there, move next to an abandoned coal mine. It will take some work to find one still safe to enter.
If you aren’t already there, move next to a forest that the government hasn’t managed to burn down yet. Start toughening up your hands now, axe blisters are no fun at all. Also practice your marksmanship for when the Green Rangers figure out where you are harvesting.
Learn to build and operate a still. Good place to put one would be in a Mary Jane grow house, they won’t bother those. Better start that right now, too; copper will be in short supply as the Climate Scientologists demand more and more of it to build monuments to their gods.
We definitely need more of these:
Yes, but only for those trying to shove them down everyone else’s throats. Let Pelosi and the Eco-Nazis of the “squad” drive that shit.
Big companies love working with government in order to shape regulations in a way that gives them an advantage over their competitors.
Indeed, as demonstrated by Volkswagen in this situation. The very company caught falsifying its vehicles’ exhaust analyses to beat the regulations. No wonder they supported the suggestion that those regulations should be tightened!
They’re also faced with the Climate Nazis in the EU and UK trying to “ban” ICE vehicles, so they don’t want to have to have two separate product lines, better to shove the same garbage that essentially nobody wants down everyone’s throats.
A lot of this foolishness is coming from city dwellers who don’t even own a car and have no concept of how vital the automobile is to the life of the average person not city-bound. If you never drive yourself and take public transport or taxis everywhere you can’t grasp the need for range and efficiency. To these folks, the idea of an EV, quiet and emissions free, seems dandy.
Imagine the cost of a taxi ride should the number of autos on the roads contract (get rid of the fossil-fueled ones), and cab companies have to buy EVs.
You reap what you sew.
Oops, wrong thread.
I see what you did there.
Sowing with the wrong thread! LOL!
Ooh, stop needling people. You’ll be bobbin up with different yarns all day until people cotton on.
If this agreemant is so beneficial, then why does it need to be shrouded in secrecy ?
I read the whole thing and never got an idea why?
Cram something they don’t want down your customers throats – doesn’t seem like a very good business model.
This isn’t some big secret, it is GM’s clearly and publicly stated business model. They told everyone last year they plan to only make EVs and plan on the government providing a $1250 subsidy per car.
$1250/car won’t make a difference most people
Exactly Thomas, why is anybody surprised by this story?
It’s the story of cronies – anyone can be one and who wouldn’t when Government is not only giving you Free Money to build whatever junk it is you build, then, forcing the Average Joe to buy your Gov mandated/designed fleets of lemons.
What is not to like? It’s a dream come true for manufacturers, salespeople, installers, repairmen etc etc
Everybody except Average Joe – who can do completely nothing in the face of Well Intentioned, Unelected, Unaccountable, Spendthrift and Faceless bureaucrats
If those folks ever do ‘step out of line’, they’ll have a golden parachute into the arms of the cronies they created.
It’s all just So Perfect and entirely the story of every UK Government intervention into anything these last 3 decades at least
And why almost everything you can buy here in the UK, including 50%+ of the food, is made somewhere other than the UK
Apparently Tesla cars suffer from ‘selaphobia’, fear of flashing light. When a Tesla on autopilot system encounters emergency vehicle with flashing light (police, ambulance, fire engine, etc) its electronic system has a fit loosing control of its senses .
If you are driving an emergency vehicle keep away as far as possible from these cars with the unstable emotional personality disorder.
If you are in one of the AP system Teslas when you see an emergency vehicle approaching, get out of it before its batteries go up in flames.
The US NHTSA is investigating dozen or so Tesla crushes that occurred as in the above described circumstances.
Vuk, can you point me to some references about that? I can’t find any. I would like to share the info with my fire dept.
The big demrat pols like Nanci Piglosi don’t even own a car…the government drives ’em around in large SUVs. The Post Office runs a deficit every year and will be required to go EV…….more deficit ahead.
Did she use a government vehicle to get to a closed hair salon?
I wonder how EVs will work on rural routes?
If anyone wants to know why their health care cost, cost of education and most everything else the government touches just go up and up and up, look at how this electric vehicle nonsense is being decided behind closed door.
Green New Dealers and crony automakers are looking to make everything more expensive (and less functional) while hiding the true cost behind taxpayer subsidies.
Would Jesse James ride a horse that could not go the distance? The EV is that plug horse Jesse James would not ride during a robbery. If the plug horse is not good enough for Jesse James it’s not good enough for me. Nor is the EV.
You mean certain unions with block voting
Kudos to the car manufacturers for figuring it out!
Pharma and Big Medicine got their trillions with the pandemic, now Big Auto can get their trillions with subsidized cars for which there is nowhere near enough electricity to power.
I mean, if the Government is handing out trillions, might as well line up and get yours!
So the “Big guy” is getting another 10% from another source, other than China, Ukraine, Georgia and Hunter’s dealers.
I old enough to remember when fascism was supposed to be bad.
John,
They’ve redefined the word so it’s not this anymore.
“…partners in government…” Um, that’s fascism.
Wharfplank, not anymore. The definition has been changed.
A big reason business goes along with the leftist agenda has nothing to do with getting subsidies. They know the left can and will tax and regulate them out of business if they don’t play along. So they do their best to stay in business even when they know a day of reckoning will be coming. The right leaves them alone so business pays them no attention.
Jim – I get what you’re saying; it’s clever. It would explain one of the most puzzling aspects of this mad story, which is: why don’t affected industries (auto, oil, petrochemicals, cement, etc etc) howl down the scientific nonsense-babble that comes out of the politico-scientific swamp? They surely have the knowledge and understanding; they have the means and the expertise; they have the resources. Why don’t they use them? If Jim is right (and I think he is), then what they are paying is Danegeld, and we know how that went. In the end. It took a couple of hundred years to play out, however.
Jerry Brown, dodo of the 20th and 21st Century.
I highly recommend this book
The moral case for fossil fuels
It beautifully explains how fossil fuels will not be replaced for a very long time, maybe not for several hundred years as it is cheap, plentiful and reliable.