 Giovedì 24 luglio 2025

Che ne dici di questo?

Il sito più visitato al mondo sul riscaldamento globale e sui cambiamenti climatici

Casa / 2025 / Luglio / 23 / Strada più ripida per veicoli a zero emissioni

INQUINAMENTO ATMOSFERICO VEICOLI ELETTRICI

Strada più ripida per veicoli a zero emissioni

 1 giorno fa  Blogger ospite  59 commenti

Da Master Resource

Di Steve Goreham

"Un recente sondaggio dell'American Automobile Association (AAA) ha rilevato che solo il 16% dei
 potenziali acquirenti era "probabile" o "molto probabile" di acquistare un veicolo completamente
elettrico come prossima auto, ... in calo rispetto al 25% del 2022 e ha rappresentato il livello più
basso di interesse per i veicoli elettrici registrato dai sondaggi AAA dal 2019."

La strada verso l'adozione dei veicoli a zero emissioni (ZEV) si fa sempre più ripida. Per oltre due
decenni, gli stati hanno utilizzato incentivi e mandati per cercare di forzare la transizione dai
veicoli a benzina agli ZEV. Ma il calo della domanda di mercato, le mutevoli politiche federali e la
difficile situazione economica minacciano di arrestare la rivoluzione ZEV negli Stati Uniti.

I veicoli a zero emissioni sono auto e camion che non producono emissioni allo scarico. Si tratta
di veicoli elettrici (EV) o a idrogeno. La California è l'unico stato con un numero significativo di
auto a idrogeno, ma la sua popolazione di auto a idrogeno è in calo, quindi ZEV significa, in
pratica, EV.

L'inquinamento atmosferico raggiunse livelli pericolosi negli anni '50. La popolazione e il parco
auto in crescita a Los Angeles generavano ricorrenti episodi di smog, riducendo la visibilità,
causando nausea e bruciore agli occhi. Da bambino, ricordo che i finestrini della nostra auto si
ricoprivano di inquinanti provenienti dalle acciaierie di Gary, nell'Indiana, durante un passaggio in
auto, costringendoci a fermarci per pulire il parabrezza.

Per contrastare il peggioramento dell'inquinamento atmosferico, tutti gli stati emanarono leggi

entro il 1970. Il Congresso approvò il Clean Air Act nel 1963 e istituì l'Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) come parte del Clean Air Act del 1970.
Le prime normative sull'inquinamento dei veicoli hanno avuto un enorme successo nell'eliminare

le emissioni nocive dei veicoli. Benzina senza piombo, convertitori catalitici e filtri antiparticolato
hanno ridotto le emissioni di composti organici volatili per miglio del 98% dal 1970 al 2023.
Anidride carbonica (CO2) e vapore acqueo rimangono gli unici gas di scarico significativi dei
veicoli a benzina odierni.

Con le emissioni nocive praticamente eliminate, lo scopo principale delle normative ZEV è quello
di forzare la transizione ai veicoli elettrici per ridurre le emissioni di gas serra, principalmente di
CO2. La prima normativa sui veicoli a emissioni zero è stata adottata dalla California nel 1990.
Oggi, 22 stati hanno normative ZEV , molte delle quali richiedono che fino al 100% delle vendite di
auto nuove sia costituito da veicoli elettrici entro una data futura, come il 2050. Ma la transizione
agli ZEV negli Stati Uniti si è arenata a causa di tre fattori: indebolimento della domanda,
cambiamenti nelle politiche federali e cattiva situazione economica.

La quota di mercato statunitense dei veicoli elettrici a batteria (BEV) nel secondo trimestre del
2025 era pari solo al 7% delle vendite di auto, in calo rispetto a oltre l'8% registrato nei mesi di
novembre, dicembre e gennaio scorsi. La quota di BEV negli Stati Uniti è rimasta invariata dalla
primavera del 2023.

Un recente sondaggio dell'American Automobile Association (AAA) ha rilevato che solo il 16%
dei potenziali acquirenti era "probabile" o "molto probabile" di acquistare un veicolo

completamente elettrico come prossima auto, mentre il 63% era "improbabile/molto improbabile".
La categoria "probabile/molto probabile" è scesa dal 25% del 2022 e ha rappresentato il livello più
basso di interesse per i veicoli elettrici registrato dai sondaggi AAA dal 2019.
Sotto la presidenza di Joe Biden, il governo federale ha erogato un'ampia gamma di crediti

d'imposta, sussidi e prestiti per i veicoli elettrici. Il presidente Donald Trump ha poi modificato gli
sforzi politici per "eliminare l'obbligo di veicoli elettrici", tra cui la fine di sussidi e obblighi e
l'annullamento delle normative statali sui veicoli elettrici a zero emissioni.

Il Congresso ha approvato il One Big Beautiful Bill Act e il Presidente Trump lo ha firmato questo
mese. La legge elimina i crediti d'imposta per l'acquisto di un veicolo elettrico nuovo (fino a
7.500 dollari) e di un veicolo elettrico usato (fino a 4.000 dollari), a partire dal 30 settembre di
quest'anno. La perdita dei crediti d'imposta aumenterà il costo dei veicoli elettrici, probabilmente
portando la quota di mercato statunitense dei veicoli elettrici al di sotto del 7% entro la fine
dell'anno.

Il Clean Air Act del 1970 ha assegnato la responsabilità dell'inquinamento atmosferico all'EPA,
ma ha consentito all'EPA di concedere deroghe agli stati per normative più severe dei limiti
federali. La California ha ricevuto più di 100 deroghe ai sensi del Clean Air Act. Altri stati sono
autorizzati ad adottare le normative californiane sull'inquinamento. Gli standard statali per i
veicoli a zero emissioni (ZEV) richiedono una deroga da parte dell'EPA.

A giugno, tuttavia, il Presidente Trump ha firmato tre risoluzioni che hanno revocato gli obblighi
della California in materia di ZEV. La risoluzione principale ha revocato la deroga al Clean Air Act
concessa alla California durante l'amministrazione Biden. Tale deroga aveva consentito l'entrata
in vigore della normativa statale Advanced Clean Cars II, che imponeva che tutti i veicoli leggeri
venduti in California entro il 2035 dovessero essere a zero emissioni. La deroga ha inoltre
consentito a Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Washington e altri stati di adottare la normativa californiana.

Un'altra risoluzione firmata dal Presidente Trump ha revocato la deroga dell'EPA che autorizzava
la normativa californiana Advanced Clean Fleets, entrata in vigore nel gennaio 2024. L'ACF
imponeva ai nuovi camion pesanti immatricolati in California di essere a zero emissioni. Prima
del ritiro di Trump, le aziende di autotrasporti si trovavano ad affrontare gravi problemi di costo,
peso e autonomia dei camion elettrici previsti dalla normativa.

La California ha immediatamente fatto causa al governo federale per ripristinare le esenzioni

dell'EPA e ripristinare gli obblighi sui veicoli a zero emissioni (ZEV). Ma senza una vittoria legale,
gli obblighi statali sui veicoli a zero emissioni (ZEV) sono morti negli Stati Uniti, almeno fino
all'elezione di una nuova amministrazione federale.

Senza agevolazioni fiscali federali e obblighi statali in materia di ZEV, gli acquirenti di veicoli si
trovano ad affrontare il peso maggiore degli svantaggi economici dei veicoli elettrici. I vantaggi
dei veicoli elettrici includono la possibilità di ricaricarli a casa e costi di gestione inferiori per brevi
distanze giornaliere. Tuttavia, gli svantaggi economici includono prezzi di acquisto più elevati, un
peso maggiore del veicolo, un'autonomia di guida inferiore, costi di manutenzione e riparazione
più elevati, costi assicurativi più elevati e tasse di immatricolazione più elevate.


Il prezzo medio di acquisto di un'auto elettrica negli Stati Uniti a maggio era di 57.734 dollari,
circa il 17% in più rispetto al prezzo medio di un'auto a benzina. L'abolizione del credito d'imposta
per l'acquisto di veicoli elettrici porterà questa differenza a oltre il 20%. Camion e autobus elettrici

costano da due a tre volte di più delle alternative diesel.

Per un'autonomia di guida che si avvicina a quella delle auto con motore a combustione interna
(ICE), sono necessarie batterie da mille libbre (circa 450 kg). Di conseguenza, i veicoli elettrici
tendono ad essere circa il 50% più pesanti delle auto a combustione interna. Il Chevrolet Silverado
EV del 2024 pesa oltre 3.600 kg (8.000 libbre), un pick-up da quattro tonnellate! Un peso
maggiore comporta un'usura più rapida degli pneumatici, con conseguente aumento dei costi di
manutenzione. Gli stati non ricevono tasse sulla benzina dai veicoli elettrici, quindi ora
impongono tasse di licenza per la manutenzione stradale. Le tasse stradali per i veicoli elettrici
dovrebbero essere più elevate a causa del loro peso.

Hertz Rental ha acquistato 60.000 veicoli elettrici, ma ha scoperto che i costi di manutenzione,
riparazione e assicurazione erano più alti rispetto al noleggio di veicoli a combustione interna,
quindi ha venduto gran parte della sua flotta. Una batteria di un veicolo elettrico danneggiata in
un incidente deve essere sostituita, con un costo compreso tra 5.000 e 20.000 dollari. Le tariffe
assicurative statunitensi per i veicoli elettrici potrebbero essere superiori del 70%.

La scarsa domanda del mercato, il blocco dei crediti d'imposta federali per i veicoli elettrici,
l'annullamento delle normative statali sui veicoli elettrici e i maggiori costi economici minacciano
di arrestare la rivoluzione dei veicoli elettrici.

——————

Steve Goreham è un relatore specializzato in energia, ambiente e politiche pubbliche, nonché

autore del bestseller " Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure" . I suoi
precedenti post su MasterResource sono disponibili qui .

5
Valutazione dell'artic
olo

Scopri di più su Watts Up With That?

Iscriviti per ricevere gli ultimi post via email.

CONTENUTO PROMOSSO


 

Formelan TaneralPro Stellare

Nessun Viagra necessario. Con un trucco, chiunque Transazione avvenuta con
Il sesso dura 3 ore. Clicca può fermare il mal di successo. Il tuo conto:
sulla foto schiena +1450 €

Demaliss Criptovalute Prodotti Dimagranti

Le rughe scompaiono in Il modo più veloce per fare Il cucchiaio a digiuno
poche notti! (metodo soldi sorprende i rumeni! riduce il peso come un
domestico) mattone

Etichette: Inquinamento atmosferico,Veicoli elettrici a batteria,Veicoli a zero emissioni

 Iscriviti  Registro  Login

Effettua il login per commentare

59 COMMENTI  

Riparazione dello spaventapasseri

 July 23, 2025 10:05 pm

What this slowing interest in EVs really shows is the folly of wise and benevolent
politicians pushing ideology before it is ready and before people want it. Markets
handle things so much better! Let the manufacturers with skin in the game gamble
their own money on innovations; they will dip their toes in and gauge the interest, and
only ramp up as interest grows.

But that’s not how politicians work. By definition almost, they think they know better

than everybody else what everybody else should want, and they are almost always
wrong.

30

Sean2828

 Reply to Scarecrow Repair  July 24, 2025 3:29 am

The eco-puritans always seem to have outsized influence on policy and lawmakers.
They’ve wrapped policy around a single molecule then think that writing aggressive
timelines into law will force the infrastructure to magically change to accommodate
their whims. It’s kind of funny that the AI revolution’s near term demand for vast
increases in electrical power forced a hard reality check on the electrify everything
movement. Suddenly nuclear is a solution. Natural gas is a bridge fuel again. And those
old coal plants may need to be maintained for back up power when demand is very high.
When there are fortunes to be made, all of the above energy solutions have come back
into vogue.
That said, with global demand for energy showing no signs of slowing down, it is
imperative the every unit of energy is used wisely and efficiently.

Dave Fair

 Reply to Sean2828  July 24, 2025 9:27 am

And governments will determine what is ‘wise and efficient?’

AGW is Not Science

 Reply to Scarecrow Repair  July 24, 2025 3:38 am

What this slowing interest in EVs really shows is the folly of wise and benevolent
politicians pushing ideology before it is ready and before people want it.

No, What this slowing interest in EVs really shows is the folly of idiotic and malevolent
politicians pushing ideology and attempting to shove it down everyone’s throats.

Let’s not improperly credit their intelligence or intentions.


Scarecrow Repair

 Reply to AGW is Not Science  July 24, 2025 8:27 am

 Pro tip: “wise and benevolent” is almost always sarcasm, especially when used in
relation to politicians and bureaucrats.

John XB

 Reply to Scarecrow Repair  July 24, 2025 4:53 am

There never was any interest, otherwise auto-makers would have switched ages ago.

Trying to Play Nice

 Reply to Scarecrow Repair  July 24, 2025 5:50 am

I don’t think they are pushing EV technology before it is ready and before people want it.
Unless someone comes up with a significantly better battery EV technology will never be
there and people won’t want it. Small, incremental battery improvements will not
surpass ICE improvements.

Sparta Nova 4

 Reply to Trying to Play Nice  July 24, 2025 8:06 am

They are pushing it and it is not ready.

The wording of your post is contradictory when read.

Trying to Play Nice

 Reply to Sparta Nova 4  July 24, 2025 11:04 am

It may not be clear to some but I said that it is not before the technology
is ready, but that it will never be ready.

whsmith@wustl.edu

 Reply to Scarecrow Repair  July 24, 2025 10:31 am

Almost? Scratch the surface, and every politician thinks he/she knows best.

0 

Redge

 July 23, 2025 10:23 pm

  Tip
Story

UN says countries can sue for climate change

The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences.
4

AGW is Not Science

 Reply to Redge  July 24, 2025 3:57 am

When can I sue somebody for the Sun coming up and going down?

DavsS

 Reply to Redge  July 24, 2025 4:51 am

The UN can get stuffed. It’s no longer fit for purpose.

John XB

 Reply to Redge  July 24, 2025 4:55 am

It only has wide ranging consequences if the treasonous idiots in charge of Government,
like UK, worship “International law” and put it above national sovereignty.

MarkW

 Reply to Redge  July 24, 2025 7:15 am

As long as there is no enforcement mechanism, there are no consequences.

sturmudgeon

 Reply to MarkW  July 24, 2025 5:31 pm

Well, the costs and legal delays that will be prompted by this “august body”‘s
ruling, are a signifigant ‘consequence’. 

0
 sturmudgeon

 Reply to MarkW  July 24, 2025 5:31 pm

Well, the costs and legal delays that will be prompted by this “august body”‘s
ruling, are a signifigant ‘consequence’.

Dave Fair

 Reply to Redge  July 24, 2025 9:42 am

The World Weather Attribution (WWA) computer scam was, by their own admission, a
‘hide-the-pea’ scheme to support climate lawsuits. The 2021 UN IPCC AR6 finding that
there has been no increase in adverse weather events, nor any expected in the near
future globally should have put this WWA travesty of science in its grave.

Zig Zag Wanderer

 July 23, 2025 10:24 pm

Zero Emissions Vehicles are cars and trucks that produce no tailpipe emissions.
No tailpipe emissions. But plenty of emissions where they’re built, and plenty of
emissions from the electricity (possibly at subsidised rates, as usual subsidising rich
people at the expense of poor people.) or hydrogen they consume.

So no immediately visible emissions. Still plenty of actual emissions.

30

pigs_in_space

 Reply to Zig Zag Wanderer  July 24, 2025 12:10 am

other visible emissions – brake dust and tyre debris.

Finely divided particles of course but not invisible.

Over here in this part of Europe most of these cars are nuclear powered.

Much more visible – the eco disaster being caused worldwide by mining for Lithium
salts, copper for cables + cobalt and RE metals for high power magnets.

AGW is Not Science

 Reply to Zig Zag Wanderer 

 July 24, 2025 4:00 am

Yes and all of those emissions conveniently remote from the “gated communities”
where likely self-important EV buyers live.
 “Emissions” are for the little people.

Of course, today’s “tailpipe emissions” are so clean that they are a complete non-issue
anyway.

MarkW

 Reply to AGW is Not Science  July 24, 2025 7:18 am

In some of our larger cities, the air coming out the tailpipe is actually cleaner
than the air that was sucked in

MarkW

 Reply to Zig Zag Wanderer  July 24, 2025 7:16 am

I’ve always called them Zero Emissions Here, vehicles.

And that’s good enough for your average socialist.

B Zipperer

 Reply to Zig Zag Wanderer  July 24, 2025 3:37 pm

From someone on WUWT: ZEVs are more appropriately called

“Displaced emission vehicles” [ DEV ] since it’s from where you get your
electricity is key.

varg

 July 23, 2025 11:14 pm

The main problem of an EV is its battery, it has been unresolved for the past 100 years
and it won’t be resolved in the next 100 years.

That’s why leftleaning ecotards use foul play to force this crap on us: government
regulation.

Markets solve problems in general way better, faster and cheaper than any burocrat
with his “smart” pencil…it’s just that people are stupid enough to believe the contrary.

14 

hiskorr
  Reply to varg  July 24, 2025 6:12 am

“The main problem of an EV is its battery, it has been unresolved for the past 100 years
and it won’t be resolved in the next 100 years.”

We’ll see about that. I’m waiting to see some actual, reliable info on the AL-ion battery,
not just Tesla’s PR puff-pieces. Maybe the “battery-problem” solution is closer than the
“fusion-energy” solution??

-3

Sparta Nova 4

 Reply to hiskorr  July 24, 2025 8:09 am

It is not merely the electrochemical composition. It is also charging.

I would not want to be within 10 blocks of a 5 minute charger unless, of course,
the copper thieves got there ahead of me.

varg

 Reply to Sparta Nova 4  July 24, 2025 12:43 pm

truly a good one your last line and as accurate as the first.

John Hultquist

 July 24, 2025 12:58 am

“the ability to charge at home“

What percentage of possible buyers have this ability?
If the person/family has a home, what percent will want a charging EV in the garage or
next to the house? Are more or fewer folks buying homes or renting apartments?
How many EVs can go 400+ miles without refueling? Can any get up to their maximum
range in under 10 minutes. Do EVs pay a fair-share of road enhancement fees (taxes)?
Do EVs depreciate faster than gasoline vehicles? Are they more costly to repair?

The author wrote: “… recurring episodes of smog, reducing visibility, causing nausea,
and burning eyes.” I remember days like that. Anyone under age 40 likely never
experienced such things. A brown haze dome in the distance meant you were
approaching a city.

14


AGW is Not Science

 Reply to John Hultquist  July 24, 2025 5:27 am

 Yes and that “ability to charge from home” is touted as an “advantage.”

LMAO – Outweighed x100 by the MASSIVE DISADVANTAGE of having to sit at charging

stations ( if you can find one, if it’s working) for close to an hour (if you’re first in line) to
use your stupid EV for anything further than the extremely limited radius equal to half
the too short and generally overstated “range” from your “home charging.”

Sparta Nova 4

 Reply to John Hultquist  July 24, 2025 8:10 am

I wonder how the occupant of the third floor apartment charge from home?
/sarc

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

 Reply to John Hultquist  July 24, 2025 3:09 pm

What percentage of possible buyers have this ability [to charge at home]?
Good question. I tried to research this several years ago and came up with a very rough
estimate of 50%, but it varies greatly by location and age of housing.

Technically, anyone who can run an extension cord to their car can charge at home, but
at a very low rate. This would be a “level 1” charger: 120VAC and 12-16 amps (1-1.4KW).
This level of charge yields between 3 and 5 miles of range per hour of charge. So if you
get home at 6PM and charge the car until 8 AM the next morning (14 hours), that would
be good for between 42 and 70 miles of range, depending on gobs of factors.

A level 2 charger (240 VAC; 32-48 amps) provides between 20 and 40 miles of range per
hour, which makes daily commuting in an EV reasonably practical. A level 2 charger
requires a dedicated 50-amp circuit, which means you need a spare 240V slot in your
breaker panel and 200-amp service. Most US homes built since 1980 have 200 amp
service; most US homes built before 1950 have 60-amp service (unless upgraded in the
meantime). Between 1950 and 1980 there would be a mixture of 50, 100, and 200 amp
service in new construction. Any house built with or upgraded to central AC would have
200 amp service.

Approximately 37-40% of the age 18 and older US population lives in multifamily

housing (apartments, condos), where they have little or no ability to install a level 2
charger. Additionally many older neighborhoods of single-family detached homes have
only on-street parking. So it’s reasonably safe to say that 40% or more of the car-driving
US population either (a) don’t have the incoming electrical service to install a level 2 
charger or (b) don’t have the legal ability to install one where they currently live, or (c)
don’t have off-street parking close enough to their house to access a level 2 charger.
 1

michel

 July 24, 2025 1:06 am

The real mystery is why people ever thought (if they ever really did) that moving the
world to EVs was going to have some effect on the global climate. Even more
mysterious, why some people seem to have thought, or at least implied, that moving
the UK to EVs was going to have some effect on UK weather.

15

AGW is Not Science

 Reply to michel  July 24, 2025 8:34 am

Another real mystery: Why people ever thought that all the additional mining and
smelting and energy expenditure required to build worse-than-useless wind farms, solar
farms, EVs and battery storage was going to have any positive effect on the
“environment” or the “planet.”

Dave Andrews

 Reply to michel  July 24, 2025 8:46 am

Well the UK’s National Energy System Operator (NESO) has just published its ‘Future
Energy Scenarios:Pathways to Net Zero’

They are putting a lot of faith in EVs and hydrogen and Carbon Capture and Storage

“Rapid roll out of smart energy solutions such as using EVs to support the grid”

“EV sales assumed to reach 100% of new car sales in 2030”

“Annual electricity demand to grow from 28.7TWh today to 335-346TWh by 2030, 564-
617TWh by 2040 and 705-797TTWh by 2050”

They assume a widespread access to a national hydrogen network with “hydrogen

production to rise from zero today to 98-325TWh by 2050”

but also admit that “the number of registered hydrogen buses and coaches on the road
is declining as access and cost of hydrogen remains a challenge for transport”

“Industrial emissions to decline rapidly in 2030s by the switch to low carbon fuels and
Carbon Capture and Storage”

It is full of lots of other wishful thinking in which reality gets left far behind.

1
 
billbedford

 July 24, 2025 3:25 am

The answer is simple; let BYD build factory in the US.

-1

Trying to Play Nice

 Reply to billbedford  July 24, 2025 5:54 am

They can build a factory in the US any time they want. Their vehicles still won’t meet US
safety standards so they will all have to be exported. A good win for Trump.

ToldYouSo

 Reply to billbedford  July 24, 2025 7:44 am

. . . sure, and cheap BYD EVs will still predominately use grid-supplied electricity for
recharging, the major percentage of which comes from burning fossil fuels.

“Answers” are simple only if one doesn’t care to examine things below their surface
appearance.

AGW is Not Science

 Reply to billbedford  July 24, 2025 8:35 am

Answer to what?! How to mass produce shit nobody wants?!

AGW is Not Science

 July 24, 2025 3:33 am

Revolution?!

I saw that used twice in this article.

Let’s get this straight – there was never any EV “revolution.” Just some self-
aggrandizing virtue signaling at taxpayer expense.

And exchanging ‘tailpipe emissions” for power plant, chemical plant and factory
emissions is a losing game anyway. Especially for the people not rich enough to live far
from where power plants, chemical plants, and factories are or will be.
Batteries, hydrogen, and electricity are not “zero emissions” and never will be.

9
Bruce Cobb

 July 24, 2025 4:09 am

If they come to a fork in the road, they should take it.

atticman

 Reply to Bruce Cobb  July 24, 2025 4:13 am

You mean they should fork themselves, Bruce?

More Soylent Green!

 July 24, 2025 4:21 am

Seems to me the EPA solved the problems it was created to fix years ago. Dismantle it.

MarkW

 Reply to More Soylent Green!  July 24, 2025 7:21 am

Decades ago. Dismantle it. Blow up anything remaining and salt the ground so it can’t
return.

John XB

 July 24, 2025 4:44 am

After much head-scratching as to why their new dog-food failed to sell despite it
“ticking all the boxes” and agressive promotion and free samples, a market research
company was commissioned to find out why.

The answer: the dogs don’t like it.

7 

sturmudgeon
  Reply to John XB  July 24, 2025 5:41 pm

Simple, but then the KISS method of thinking/acting, has been abandoned in many
Countries.

abolition man

 July 24, 2025 5:12 am

I recently purchased a 2004 F250 4×4 king cab pickup. With only 200,000 miles on it, I
figure that it should be good for another 100,000-300,000 miles; depending on how
well I maintain it. Even if I get unlucky and have to install a new turbo diesel motor, the
total cost should be less than $10,000; far less than battery replacement on many EVs.
It has the towing capacity and rugged terrain capabilities that no EV in the near future
is likely to possess, so I can continue to help folks living off the grid with various
projects; including PV systems installs, the only ones that make sense!
I’ll eventually buy a medium sized travel trailer so I can travel around the Pacific
Northwest and Rocky Mountain states; hopefully witnessing the demolition of the giant
bird choppers that the fanatical zealots of the Climate Cult have foisted on a largely
unsuspecting public! I have a dream!!

Coach Springer

 July 24, 2025 6:19 am

Who are the people both able to use a $7500 tax credit and vain enough to virtue
signal? Eliminating tax credits for the wealthy should please the progressives. (/s)

MarkW

 July 24, 2025 7:01 am

The problem with limiting volatile organic emissions was that cars were never a major
source of those.
By far the largest emitters was trees and shrubs.
The next largest was industrial processes. Everything from painting to baking.
Cars came next, just ahead of household activities such as cooking and cleaning.

1
 
MarkW

 July 24, 2025 7:09 am

Dropping of subsidies doesn’t qualify as “forcing”, rather I would call it allowing, as in it

allowing the sales rates to return to something closer to its natural level

ToldYouSo

 July 24, 2025 7:27 am

As for “zero emissions vehicles” (ZEVs), please get back to me when there is
technology that allows all those electrons coming off the grid and used to recharge EV
batteries to be separated into those created by fossil fuels and those created solely by
“zero emission” sources, such as nuclear fission, hydropower, wind and solar.

ROTFL!

Gunga Din

 Reply to ToldYouSo  July 24, 2025 8:01 am

Horse and buggy would be ZEV if they could breed a horse that doesn’t breath.

ToldYouSo

 Reply to Gunga Din  July 24, 2025 8:10 am

. . . or emit methane out the other end.

Sparta Nova 4

 July 24, 2025 8:04 am

2H2 + O2 = 2 H2O

No “greenhouse gasses.” Got it. I also made this point many years ago wrt hydrogen
fuel cells.

1
 ToldYouSo

 Reply to Sparta Nova 4  July 24, 2025 8:16 am

Uhhh . . . not sure if your comment was meant to be sarcastic or not, but water vapor is
the STRONGEST, MOST PREDOMINATE greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.

However, Earth’s present hydrological cycle pretty firmly establishes an upper limit for
water vapor (TPW) in the atmosphere, so mankind can effectively do nothing to increase
a long-term concentration above this maximum.

Tom Halla

 July 24, 2025 10:09 am

I think it is a case of the Green Blob being technological illiterates. Zero emissions are
more of Zero Sin than Zero Harm, as they have an animist view of Nature.

Retired_Engineer_Jim

 July 24, 2025 12:40 pm

But has the Administration rescinded the Model-Year-2026 CAFE standards as well?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

 July 24, 2025 2:26 pm

On July 14 Matson announced they would no longer accept battery EVs and plug-in
hybrids for transport on any of their ships, citing safety concerns:

Due to increasing concern for the safety of transporting vehicles powered by large lithium-ion
batteries, Matson is suspending acceptance of used or new electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in
hybrid vehicles for transport aboard its vessels.

Effective immediately, we have ceased accepting new bookings for these shipments to/from all
trades.

Matson accounts for the majority of mainland/Hawaii and inter-island commercial

shipping. At least one other company (Pasha) continues to accept electric vehicles at
this time.

When I first looked into this issue several years ago, the Matson guide to preparing
vehicles for shipment required gasoline/diesel vehicles to have the fuel tank between
1/8 and 1/4 full and EVs to be fully charged. When news of the Morning Midas fire

broke I checked again and the requirement for EVs had changed to 40% charged. In the
slightly more than one month since, this has become a total ban.

This will not stop delivery of new EVs direct from foreign manufacturers aboard
dedicated car carriers, but a lot of used vehicles are shipped between Hawaii and the
mainland by private parties and due to restrictions of the Jones Act, this trade is
controlled by a very few carriers. If the others follow Matson’s lead all current EVs in
Hawaii will be stranded wherever they currently are, and any new imports will be
stranded on the island where they land.

Matson’s announcement does imply this restriction is temporary:

Matson continues to support industry efforts to develop comprehensive standards and

procedures to address fire risk posed by lithium-ion batteries at sea and plans to resume
acceptance of them when appropriate safety solutions that meet our requirements can be
implemented.

but how long it will take for “appropriate safety solutions that meet our requirements”
to be available is anyone’s guess.

0
Bob

 July 24, 2025 5:33 pm

Get rid of all wind, solar and EV mandates, subsidies and tax preferences and all of
these problems disappear. Wind, solar and EVs can not compete with fossil fuel and
nuclear. It is that simple.