4 ms·

> Meanwhile, established car makers are twiddling their thumbs and paying their lobbyists to delay the phase out of internal combustion engines for as long as p

by anjc 8y ago

> Meanwhile, established car makers are twiddling their thumbs and paying their lobbyists to delay the phase out of internal combustion engines for as long as possible. Why wouldn't they? Why should a government have the power to end a legitimate industry, which contributes massively to GDP and society's well-being, without a long changeover process?

adrianN 8y ago
Because the climate is fucked, the air quality in cities is bad and the companies literally cheat on emission tests. The changeover process should have started in the eighties. It's much too late now for a slow change. And btw, the car industry could have taken the lead in the development of alternative engines instead of optimizing for next-quarter profits.
- dexen 8y ago
  >the air quality in cities is bad I'm all for reducing emissions. Having said that, let's be frank about air quality having improved immensely over recent decades. Back before the (ICE and electric) cars became a thing, the inner city air and rivers were much more heavily polluted, by coal & wood heating, and outflow of untreated sewage. It's only thanks to significant surplus, provided by high efficiency, in turn provided by modern technology & science - including transportation - that we can invest heavily into actively (scrubbers) and passively (more involved, but cleaner processes) reducing pollution. So yes, we want to reduce emissions, eventually doing away with most, or all, ICE and other oil consumers. But the technology necessary, and the required economic surplus, is pretty much provided and accelerated by the cheap and portable energy generators in cars and others, fueled & lubricated by petrol and other fossil fuels. Ditto smaller, lighter products made of plastics and other materials we currently manufacture partly off of crude oil. Path dependence, let's consider the whole picture.
bildung 8y ago
Germany started this changeover process decades ago, those companies just use corruption to have the cake and eat it, too.
- anjc 8y ago
  I believe there's a provisional date for a ban by 2030. My opinion is that if EV is great then this ban shouldn't be needed, but nevertheless, it seems like a reasonably fair (if tight) deadline.
  - bildung 8y ago
    The deadline isn't tight at all, the direction was clear since the early nineties. The essentially had 50 years for the migration, but chose to more or less sleep for 35 years. Quite ironic as most German car manufacturers already had electric models in the 19th century.
    - anjc 8y ago
      > The deadline isn't tight at all, the direction was clear since the early nineties. Hybrid electrics were well into development by the 90s. The Prius was launched in 97. There was a hybrid race car in Le Mans just a year later. Less than 10 years later and the German manufacturers were leading the field for hybrid technology in racing. Technological development doesn't happen by magic, it takes time.
ajuc 8y ago
> Why should a government have the power to end a legitimate industry, which contributes massively to GDP and society's well-being, without a long changeover process? Because of external costs. When it turned out radioactive toothpaste kills people it was banned. When it turned out CFCs destroy ozone layer they were banned. The only reason petrol is treated differently is - our economy depends on it. This will eventually change, we can work to make it happen faster or not. If we don't - all the external costs that could be avoided are our fault.
- anjc 8y ago
  These external costs are less-bad in the short/medium term than the societal costs incurred from an artificially terminated industry.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Careful about loaded words like "artificial". Arguably, in an hypothetical free-market, I would be able to sue every ICE car owner for the crap they push into my body and property. Let's see how popular they would be without that artificial legal protection. That aside, why are the costs less-bad? It's not like they'll stop making cars, it's just a different drivetrain. I'm sure there will be costs to the transition, but how do you figure they are worse than the external costs?
  - ajuc 8y ago
    Banning non-electric cars (except for public transport, police, ambulances, etc) in biggest cities is hardly going to have societal costs. You can argue personal cars should be banned there altogether. There are many cities where private transport is already restricted in city centers. Public transport is cheaper, more ecological, saves time for everybody in traffic jams. What's the cost? That you have to drive to work or school with other people in same vehicle? You will get used to it. I have to die earlier because of all the shit that's in the air and car industry doesn't care. And that's just the first step, then you can tax internal combustion engines increasingly. As for the car industry - who cares? It's not like we cared about horse industry when cars appeared. Let them adapt or die. Government should protect citizens, not corporations.

by anjc 8y ago

adrianN 8y ago

Because the climate is fucked, the air quality in cities is bad and the companies literally cheat on emission tests. The changeover process should have started in the eighties. It's much too late now for a slow change. And btw, the car industry could have taken the lead in the development of alternative engines instead of optimizing for next-quarter profits.

dexen 8y ago
>the air quality in cities is bad I'm all for reducing emissions. Having said that, let's be frank about air quality having improved immensely over recent decades. Back before the (ICE and electric) cars became a thing, the inner city air and rivers were much more heavily polluted, by coal & wood heating, and outflow of untreated sewage. It's only thanks to significant surplus, provided by high efficiency, in turn provided by modern technology & science - including transportation - that we can invest heavily into actively (scrubbers) and passively (more involved, but cleaner processes) reducing pollution. So yes, we want to reduce emissions, eventually doing away with most, or all, ICE and other oil consumers. But the technology necessary, and the required economic surplus, is pretty much provided and accelerated by the cheap and portable energy generators in cars and others, fueled & lubricated by petrol and other fossil fuels. Ditto smaller, lighter products made of plastics and other materials we currently manufacture partly off of crude oil. Path dependence, let's consider the whole picture.

bildung 8y ago

Germany started this changeover process decades ago, those companies just use corruption to have the cake and eat it, too.

anjc 8y ago
I believe there's a provisional date for a ban by 2030. My opinion is that if EV is great then this ban shouldn't be needed, but nevertheless, it seems like a reasonably fair (if tight) deadline.
- bildung 8y ago
  The deadline isn't tight at all, the direction was clear since the early nineties. The essentially had 50 years for the migration, but chose to more or less sleep for 35 years. Quite ironic as most German car manufacturers already had electric models in the 19th century.
  - anjc 8y ago
    > The deadline isn't tight at all, the direction was clear since the early nineties. Hybrid electrics were well into development by the 90s. The Prius was launched in 97. There was a hybrid race car in Le Mans just a year later. Less than 10 years later and the German manufacturers were leading the field for hybrid technology in racing. Technological development doesn't happen by magic, it takes time.

ajuc 8y ago

> Why should a government have the power to end a legitimate industry, which contributes massively to GDP and society's well-being, without a long changeover process? Because of external costs. When it turned out radioactive toothpaste kills people it was banned. When it turned out CFCs destroy ozone layer they were banned. The only reason petrol is treated differently is - our economy depends on it. This will eventually change, we can work to make it happen faster or not. If we don't - all the external costs that could be avoided are our fault.

anjc 8y ago
These external costs are less-bad in the short/medium term than the societal costs incurred from an artificially terminated industry.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Careful about loaded words like "artificial". Arguably, in an hypothetical free-market, I would be able to sue every ICE car owner for the crap they push into my body and property. Let's see how popular they would be without that artificial legal protection. That aside, why are the costs less-bad? It's not like they'll stop making cars, it's just a different drivetrain. I'm sure there will be costs to the transition, but how do you figure they are worse than the external costs?
- ajuc 8y ago
  Banning non-electric cars (except for public transport, police, ambulances, etc) in biggest cities is hardly going to have societal costs. You can argue personal cars should be banned there altogether. There are many cities where private transport is already restricted in city centers. Public transport is cheaper, more ecological, saves time for everybody in traffic jams. What's the cost? That you have to drive to work or school with other people in same vehicle? You will get used to it. I have to die earlier because of all the shit that's in the air and car industry doesn't care. And that's just the first step, then you can tax internal combustion engines increasingly. As for the car industry - who cares? It's not like we cared about horse industry when cars appeared. Let them adapt or die. Government should protect citizens, not corporations.