Jump to content

Biden Admin Considering Delaying EV Mandates


Footballfan

Recommended Posts

  • ice-capades changed the title to Biden Admin Considering Delaying EV Mandates

I'm not surprised - this was always a huge liability for him for two reasons:

 

1. Americans love to shop, and Americans love to shop specifically for the things that they themselves choose. This mandate strikes at the heart of American consumerism.

 

2. The EV mandates make many rank-and-file union members really nervous (as they should be). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2024 at 7:34 PM, Dequindre said:

I'm not surprised - this was always a huge liability for him for two reasons:

 

1. Americans love to shop, and Americans love to shop specifically for the things that they themselves choose. This mandate strikes at the heart of American consumerism.

 

2. The EV mandates make many rank-and-file union members really nervous (as they should be). 

 

The only metric on EV adoption is on the capitalist system...mandates never work

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tbone said:


It will likely be dependent on who wins the next election whether this temporary or longer term. 


That my determine what type of regulations are passed but I think the public will determine how fast EVs are adopted with or without mandates.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

How is that? CARB is forcing the issue in several states-its like removing leaded gas or adding catalytic converters. 

Not really a valid comparison. There is a huge difference between being forced to buy an EV vs a conventional ICE that is modified to run on unleaded gas and uses a catalytic converter.  The EV experience/transition is radically different.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Not really a valid comparison. There is a huge difference between being forced to buy an EV vs a conventional ICE that is modified to run on unleaded gas and uses a catalytic converter.  The EV experience/transition is radically different.

 

I wouldn't say that, the 1970s was known as the malaise era in automotive history, primarily because of those two things and downsizing of vehicles. Vehicle performance took a huge hit vs what it was seeing up till 1973 or so. EVs are arguably a better driving experience wise. Yes Range/charging times can be an issue, but it is also a lifestyle adjustment to a point-and people hate change. Its sort of like going from a landline to a cell phone-the vast majority of older people barely use their cell phones, but younger generations are basically attached to them. There are going to be people who do the same thing with ICE powered cars. 

 

Things didn't really get better till the mid 1980s. 

 

Only difference now is that you have people being able to share their thoughts on the internet and social media and well....
 

1 hour ago, twintornados said:

 

CARB has always been "forcing" the issue, but at the end of the day, market forces rule.

 

If that was the case, Auto makers wouldn't have caved on catalytic converters and other things that CARB has required over the years. California is the largest new car selling market and the other CARB states make up large percentage of the top 10. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

.....If that was the case, Auto makers wouldn't have caved on catalytic converters and other things that CARB has required over the years. California is the largest new car selling market and the other CARB states make up large percentage of the top 10. 

 

In the case of catalytic converters...EPA required them, not CARB (but not to be undone, CARB did up the ante which now gives us CARB compliant cat-cons) and when they were introduced, it was the same doom and gloom about the future of the automobile industry as it is now. Either way...we are all breathing a big clean sigh of relief.

Edited by twintornados
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that Germany is removing Electric vehicle subsidies at a time when sales of BEVs appear to be collapsing.

So if people were already losing interest in BEVs then this is just another nail in the coffin.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The regulatory regime has gone from being a way to implement bipartisan policy goals to a means to implement the political agenda of the bureaucracy.  The EPA didn't dictate catalytic converters back in the '70s.  They dictated limits on pollutants and allowed the manufacturers to figure out how to make that happen.  They did such a good job that those pollutants became a non-issue anywhere outside of congested areas with atmospheric challenges.

 

But the bureaucracy changed in the intervening years and they were determined to get what they really wanted, which was the end of the ICE.  So they declared CO2 a pollutant and decreed that the ICE must die.  That has little to do with solving any actual problem.  Even if you believe that global warming is as big a problem as some claim then the quickest path to a solution would be plugin hybrids.  That solves 90% of the problem with no adaptation from the public required.

 

But that will not do. This is a religious war against the ICE and the affordable personal mobility that it provides.

 

The number one thing that consumers are buying in a vehicle is convenience.  BEVs are great if you can park in a garage with a 240V charger and you never travel beyond their range in a day or have to tow or haul anything.  But outside of those parameters they are not as convenient as ICE vehicles.  People are discovering that as BEVs start to expand beyond their original niche.

 

My boss is a perfect example.  He bought a Mach E.  His wife loves it. It's great for running around town. He just has to make sure it gets plugged in at night.  So when they were planning a cross-country vacation I asked if they were taking the Mach E.  No, he looked at it but wasn't willing to deal with the charging hassle.  He took their F150 with over 100k on it instead.  There is no way an average consumer wants to spend 40 minutes at a charger on a trip.  Period.   And that's before all the tales of range loss and charger failures in extreme cold this winter.

 

These are city cars for the well-to-do.  That's the only market for them outside of BEV enthusiasts.  It's no wonder that they are not selling.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...