The "get rid of a working car" is particularly suspect, and reminds me of the "cash for clunkers" scheme which was basically a giant sop to the auto industry. Why not just have EVs replace ICE vehicles when they break down and aren't worth repairing?
> Why not just have EVs replace ICE vehicles when they break down and aren't worth repairing?
That’s exactly what the article you’re commenting on tries to answer. I recommend you read it
The TLDR is “Replace your combustion vehicle with an EV if you’re a high mileage driver; a low mileage driver can then buy the combustion vehicle for low mileage use.” An EV sold to someone who drives 1k miles a year is somewhat inefficient at this point of the adoption curve, versus someone who drives 5k-15k miles a year. You want to maximize EV miles traveled to minimize CO2 emissions.
25% of total annual global vehicle sales are already EVs. We’re just arguing timeline to get to 100%. Peak combustion vehicle sales was 2017.
https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/aug/09/chinese-ele...
https://www.evinfrastructurenews.com/ev-technology/evs-take-...
Dude, everything you post is borderline propaganda. There's probably a few people who'll keep their 2017 Mazda an little longer because of who the message is coming from.
>Peak combustion vehicle sales was 2017.
Peak oil was every year starting decades before I was born.
If you don’t like data and facts, I’m not for you. If you believe it’s propaganda, that’s firmly a you problem. My condolences. The data and facts stand regardless of your belief in them, like gravity. Comment as long as mods let you, doesn’t bother me in the sleightest. With all due respect, your thoughts and belief system are irrelevant to me. They are not data and facts, nor peer reviewed.
Facts: Climate change is real. Combustion vehicles contribute to climate change through their emissions. EV sales keep going up globally, combustion vehicle sales keep going down. This will continue. Comments here change nothing about these systems or trajectories, nor their rate of change.
Fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Methanol is likely to power global shipping in the coming decades, and there's zero reason it can't also run cars. The reality is that hybrid vehicles have all of the same advantages that BEVs have, but they can also be refueled quickly without heavy reliance on centralized infrastructure. Aside from being the reason that we're all driving ICEVs in the first place, it's a compelling enough advantage that such vehicles will continue to be with us for a long time.
Being partially (direction of trend vs magnitude) right doesn't make you not a flagrant propagandist. This sort of cherry picking links to support any position, no matter how obviously asinine (though this one doesn't really move the needle), has been your MO a loooooong time. It's a classic rhetorical trick of trolls. Gets people distracted arguing about sources (Louis Rossman has a good quote about this).
Thankfully AI renders it fairly obsolete. I'd be happy to come up with some competing facts if you'd like. Then I can look down my nose and say vaguely insulting things too.