Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blazelet t1_j1b67zj wrote

Reply to comment by Connect-Speaker in Canada moves to mandate electric vehicle sales starting in 2026 by rentalfloss

National Post has a long standing conservative bias, a headline like this is meant to rile people up who don't read the article.

62

RonyTheTiger t1_j1b9qdg wrote

It’s NP, If you read the articles, they’re usually written to also rile you up. Postmedia is a rag organization.

14

[deleted] t1_j1bjdom wrote

[deleted]

3

blazelet t1_j1bsb7g wrote

By riling up I mean the predictable rage that it’s meant to elicit : “convert 100% of new cars to EV in 4 years when we don’t have the infrastructure and EV still costs significantly more than ICE” … see the top comments. If we can’t do it in totality perfectly why are we doing it.

By saying convert a portion of sales or face fines it’s giving manufacturers a financial incentive to start lowering production costs and built an EV infrastructure, which if we can do for a reasonable percentage of new sales in 4 years sets us in a good path in 8 and 12 years

5

Gustomucho t1_j1bz9xi wrote

Problem is manufacturers, they cannot produce electric car fast enough, that's why they are still at premium. I can easily imagine in 50 years ICE car owners having to drive 30-40+ KM to find gas.

2

brebas t1_j1cszfo wrote

We can brush away all the humanitarian issues in Africa because it's better for our environment /s

0

[deleted] t1_j1ctgrd wrote

[deleted]

5

brebas t1_j1ctkzg wrote

Manufacturers can control when and how far you can drive with EVs. What don't you get about that? Try to wrap your pea sized brain around that.

*edit - I guess you are okay with slave labour then? "Slaves are okay if the planet is being fixed" EVS will not be the saviours of the planet you ape

−5

[deleted] t1_j1ctx9z wrote

[deleted]

6

[deleted] t1_j1ioes4 wrote

Ah yes the fan boi of batteries charged by coal plants

0

[deleted] t1_j1kcpgs wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_j1kda1i wrote

So you didn’t even read that article then? Yes they are correct, problem is the the countries who don’t use majority coal or other fossil fuel plants for electricity production are also the smallest percentage of the worlds producers of energy. Let me ask you this, what would need to happen to have India, China, Russia, and the USA to replace their energy consumption with majority renewable? What would be the direct cost? How about the indirect cost? What would you consider a reasonable timeline. Would your timeline be feasible without destroying their, and by extension the worlds, GDP?

0

[deleted] t1_j1kdnr1 wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_j1keboa wrote

Well gee I guess by saying it’s less without giving a figure is super accurate. You are just wrong and I’m sorry that you hate it but if the majority of the world continues to use fossil fuels for electricity generation than it’s the same. I’ve actually studied this in graduate school and know way more than you. So be a Pinko all you want but it won’t make you right.

0

[deleted] t1_j1keu77 wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_j1kex7x wrote

Yea twisted facts that aren’t applicable on the world scale.

0

[deleted] t1_j1kfmli wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_j1kfuot wrote

No I refuted your sources and explained why, you refused to accept the obvious

0

[deleted] t1_j1kg1fu wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_j1kg50o wrote

I didn’t say it wasn’t right. I said the study doesn’t represent what you want it to and I explained why

1

[deleted] t1_j1io7al wrote

This is stupid. I like electric vehicles though, for their performance and maintenance schedule. Mandating any of them over gas powered in an “effort” to counter some sort of environmental factor is stupid. It will lead to less innovation in the electric vehicle market and probably hurt the industry over the long run

0

WhichWitchIsWhitch t1_j1cpu1z wrote

Their reporting is so bad that I wouldn't use one of their articles to pick up dog shit

2