No. My choice of gas vehicle doesn't affect you.

That's just not true though. Using fossil fuels affects everyone around you.

You can make it broader and start getting rid of anyone who is emitting too much CO2:

- Got cancer, which needs expensive treatment? Yep, that's a lot of CO2, go bite dust from below.

- Are you handicapped and need others to take care of you? Well time for traditions of ancient Sparta to return.

- Elderly people doing nothing, but emitting CO2. The moment people leave productive age, they should be facing wall.

I'm pretty sure replacing an heavily polluting ICE car with an EV in the span of 17 years(!!) isn't comparable to letting people die from disease, no?

It is 12 years and most people does not have resources to do it.

Good news, the current US administration is aware, and has committed many billions of dollars to make resources available, and presumably will continue to do so.

Well, but this whole debate is about EU.

Are you not willing to live your life without your ICE car? Or why did you just make the jump from "let's ban technologies which produce too much CO2" to "let's kill unproductives"?

Slippery slope. Today it is cars, tomorrow it is meat, next month it is unproductives.

You act as if ICE vehicles bring no problems. If we keep relying on ICE vehicles, we literally kill people. We do not do that by switching to EVs. How does your slippery slope make sense when looking at the actual harm done?

The worst part is: you're literally admitting that you're not arguing against the idea itself, you're arguing against what you think they want to do next. It's impossible to make progress if the ideas themselves cannot be discussed.

No we don't. With this logic even breathing is killing people.

And we're back to: would a ban on new ICE cars make you unable to breathe? Do you just need those fumes, without them your body is not able to process the oxygen?

And we're back to: would a ban on parfumes make you unable to breathe? Do you just need those fumes, without them your body is not able to process the oxygen?

Come again without a strawman.

Let me attempt to summarize your position, just so I don't misrepresent you in my replies:

- there is a direct connection between the ideas of "let's ban new ICE cars and replace them with EVs to reduce CO2 emissions" and "let's kill unproductives to reduce CO2 emissions"

- this is not because you believe ICEs to be necessary to let "unproductives" live, it's literally because there is no way to engage in dicussions or conversations on an ICE ban without this leading to "let's kill unproductives"

- even though you are admitting that you're employing the slippery slope fallacy, and although we can look at the real statistical effects of ICE vehicles on harm done to people, the inevitable slippery slope of "let's kill unproductives" means that a switch from ICE to EV will result in many more deaths than continuing with ICEs

Is this an accurate representation of your thinking? Your replies so far have not expressed actual ideas beyond logical fallacies (or even "no u"), and I'd be interested in whether this is really the extent of your thought or whether there is more that you know would put you into an even worse light.

Banning ICE and replacing them with EV won't reduce emissions at a first place. It will just move them around. Case and point: Germany.

Banning meat won't reduce emissions, it will just move them around into making fake meat.

Killing unproductives won't reduce emissions, because their bodies decompose and captured carbon will return back to atmosphere.

All this thread, including GP is pointless, because there is currently no solution for excess CO2 in atmosphere and every attempt to reduce it will only increase it (see carbon capture devices). Therefore there is no reason to restrict quality of life of average citizen.

Why are you suddenly switching to a different topic? You made pretty strong claims about bans on new ICEs will lead to "killing of unproductives". Are you admitting that you were deliberately hyperbolic and attempting to derail the conversation? Or do you seriously believe in your previous points?

Wow I really admire how cool minded and topic focused you've remained in the whole thread. I wish I can do that one day.

Oh man, thank you so much! I was never good at it myself, so this means a lot :)

I've learned that the best way to engage these discussions is to take your partner as seriously as they say they want to. You cannot counter these things with facts, as facts aren't their own basis. Instead you engage seriously and let themselves display the problems in their logic.

A big influence for me has been the streamer Vaush.

I did not switched a topic, I showed you how pointless this thread is, because it does not matter what you do you can't reduce CO2. Everything is on point.

Am I understanding you correctly that your new point is "humanity can't influence the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere"? It's very different from the previous points, so I'd like your confirmation before engaging.

This is a ridiculous and unproductive line of reasoning and argumentation. Be serious.