I am sure that in 2050 the EVs will be far superior to what we have today. But then again, so will AI etc and most of these discussions may be moot.

I don’t understand what people expect to gain by antagonizing people that cannot drive an EV. It trains them to ignore or oppose the same people on useful climate mitigations that have nothing to do with EVs.

it's because the people who do this are actually expecting those who cannot drive EVs to sacrifice, in order to drive an agenda (which might be climate change for example).

Calling climate change an agenda is like calling gravity a political position. If you don’t believe in climate change, there is no value in a discussion. If you’re driving a studio apartment on wheels around town, some sacrifice might be required. The future is unlikely to look like the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208016669/heres-how-american...

it's not the belief that's in question. It's the actions required.

I, and many others (whether they admit it or not), do not wish to make personal sacrifices to fix climate change, if others are not willing to make the same level of sacrifices (such that relative positioning within society does not change).

This is why i think we need global policy changes and regulation to achieve the commonly beneficial goals.

While I agree we aren't the nicest species of primate (that title goes to our cousins, the Bonobos), I also believe a lot of our nastiness can be attributed to nurture rather than nature.

My feeling is that any individual is OK with sacrifice as long as they are not unfairly disadvantaged relavitely to their society/neighbours.

For example: i would not be willing to pay more income tax unless this applied for everyone; even if i wanted higher income taxes.

The world is changing fast and the Earth does not wait for its population to be ready.

There's plenty of good reasons to drive an EV even if you don't care about climate change or the environment. Lower running costs, less maintenance, better reliability, better performance, quieter smoother driving experience, etc.

Besides that, there are significant wider economic benefits from domestically-sourced fuel: money spent on electricity returns to the local economy rather than enriching (often foreign) oil giants, and electricity is much more resilient against fuel price fluctuations caused by wars and oil shocks etc.

We're already well into the EV adoption S-curve, globally. I think it's worth considering.

Also, I assume by year-round navigability you're referring to snow. I'd point out that Norway has 80% EV adoption, and is covered in snow 6 months out of the year.

[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4dwzC2WEAAvpxd?format=jpg&name=...

The convenience of being able to heat up the car before stepping out has been priceless though. I know some ICE cars have it but it’s pretty rare.

Every major automaker except Stellantis has made an agreement to obtain access to the North American Supercharger network, and there are few coverage gaps evidenced by the map provided above. On highway routes, you’re never more than 30-50 miles to the next Supercharger. Tesla’s standard has been developed by SAE (SAE J3400). Gaps will be filled and density will increase as the EV transition accelerates. Electricity is mostly ubiquitous in the developed world, anywhere with electrical service is a potential charging point (albeit at slower charge rates than 150kw-350kw).

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/01/sae-develops-nacs-j3400...

Wyoming refused the terms for federal funds for fast DC charging stations. You cannot help those who won’t accept help, getting left behind is a choice.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/why-wyoming-wont-build-biden...

Sure, there are a lot of superchargers on many parts of the coast. They have always been available where I live and I have a Tesla charger in my home. But the US is a continent sized country. Pretending the inconvenient parts don’t exist doesn’t make them go away.

I am always astonished at how dismissive some people are at the practical concerns of Americans that don’t solely live in an insular coastal metro. It isn’t a good look and needlessly invites resentment.

As long as Tesla can sell every vehicle they build and continue to drag legacy automakers to an EV future, individual opinions of the network are of low value. It was of enough value for major automakers to know they couldn’t succeed without it.

Most people in Manhattan would not need a car at all.

Most people in LA would should be much better off driving an EV.

And those who live in places where an EV is not sensible or even feasible do their thing.

Why do you need to fight against adoption?

Europe is large. And.

If you don't want to drive an EV, fine. You want a drive an Audi 700 miles a day. You do you. 99% of America doesn't do that.

It’s a bit like antivaxxer parents: it’s their decision, but it puts all other kids at school at risk, especially those who can’t take vaccines for valid medical reasons.

It’s their decision, but the whole planet bears the consequences.

There was one occasion when the ring road was closed because of extreme wind in one spot.

The only way of getting to our destination 50km away would have been the full round of about 2000km.

In the population centers at the coast tho the temperature does not go much below freezing during the year but also rarely rises much above +15C.

An interesting place to visit.

Like I said, it is smaller than almost all US States. Iceland isn’t that large.

https://electrek.co/2023/10/20/cratering-motor-fuel-sales-in...

While a BEV may not be on the cards for them, a PHEV running on biodiesel can be a perfect way to both cut emissions and fulfil their daily requirements. Even just plain biodiesel can be enormously helpful in farming and remote locations.

It is because people say weird things like...

> As long as significant parts of the US are not readily navigable by EVs 12 months out of the year, and that looks to remain the case for quite some time

Words like "significant" and "quite some time" are undefined here, but there are really quite few places that aren't navigable now. And even in the remaining ones, there's no reason that it has to stay that way more than a few years.

Regular Amtrak trains don't count, they are too slow and too unreliable to count on - I'd take a train from LA to San Francisco if high speed rail existed and it it took less than 3 hours, comparable to flying. But not when it takes 11 hours on Amtrak (assuming it's on schedule, and you don't get delayed waiting on a freight train). Even a bus is faster than a train.

I've said in numerous other comments that we should provide generous subsidies to ease any transition burdens, but there might be gaps unfortunately.

"Freeloading on the rest of us", "some sacrifice might be required". What a depressing, dictatorial view.

Sacrificing people doesn't seem especially kind. Be kind, eh. When it suits you, I guess.

If you have no resources, as I've said elsewhere, we should absolutely provide you the means to make choices that both improve your quality of life and are good for the climate. Tax me more, provide the subsidies. More EVs, more heat pumps, more solar panels. If you are of means and make choices dumping externalities on others, clearly you can understand my position that those folks get wrecked. I have attempted to align my actions with my position on the topic out of integrity. I agree contributions towards a solution as well as sacrifice should be proportional.

Could you explain why asking people to pay their fully loaded costs is being a dictator? Don't their rights end where our shared rights being? Is enforcing rights and their boundaries tyranny? Or is it just fair and just? Not rhetorical questions. I am attempting to do my part, and besides that, voting, and perhaps running for office, that's all I can do.