It actually sounds like nonsense. Years ago Honda stated publicly that it was going slow on EV production because they had not yet squeezed all the efficiency out of the ICE. This is true for Toyota as well. They are not owned by, or in collusion with oil companies. That said, opposition to the oil companies is older than Senator Sanders, which is to say, Ida Tarbell, on the left and has been a longstanding bogeyman because they made money for investors rather than the average worker. This opposition has extended over the years to the earlier, simpler, ecological movements (because of the mess that oil production can make when accidents occur); to the more recent contempt for pipeline construction (ecology intersects indigenous sovereignty); to fracking (mess above, mess below, earthquakes, sink holes, tainted water); and of course, not to be left behind CO2 (greenhousing the planet). And yet, as we are about to show what great and horrible rape of the landscape will occur when mining for rare earths to make batteries, Would it not be a sounder strategy to enlist the oil companies in the future, not least, in the production of "dirty" hydrogen for the time being so that electric vehicles can be powered by the lighter fuel cell? After all, I do not see a future where the manufacture of plastics will quickly become plant based, at least not soon enough to live Bernie and Ida's dream of finally beating John D Rockefeller into submission.
While you are right that opposition to oil companies is as old as time, you are wrong if you are suggesting that oil companies do not have a vested interest in stopping the development of EVs. Look at any major O&G company's financial statements and their most profitable division is the "downstream" division, which is where the refined products are located. The most important refined products are "transportation fuels" which includes gasoline.
Also, major O&G companies, through the API, are the biggest funders of climate change skepticism, anti-EV campaigns, and supporters of methane recapture, carbon taxes and higher gas taxes. Why would O&G companies support methane recapture and higher taxes? Simple, gas and carbon taxes are consumption taxes paid by the customer, not them, so they don't give a shit. Methane recapture is literally paying Exxon to put back into the ground what they emitted for free!! When I was an Econ major in college, my very conservative econ professor would call the releasing of methane a "negative externality" that Oil companies should pay for through taxes. Only in America would we allow a company to charge us for the right to fix the problems they caused.
I don't disagree that EV production is not a clean process, but it is still cleaner than O&G development. Now, I would take this more seriously if the Auto and especially the O&G industries, were investing in developing ICEs that worked on natural gas, or hydrogen fuel cells. Problem is, the amount of R&D spent on this is miniscule, mainly because they are not commercially viable. EVs are, because battery tech has leapfrogged them in the last 5 years.
Finally, why can't Exxon, Chevron, Shell or BP invest in battery technologies? They definitely got the money. If they don't its because they are too busy paying out dividends to trust fund brats (no its not widows and orphans, and if it is a widow, its a Rockefeller).
I haven’t actually watched that documentary, but just heard about it.
I think we need a Manhattan Project to improve battery technology. That seems like the weakest link to a greener future. I live 100% off grid, and I don’t have enough battery storage for any function involving heat, beyond a couple minutes of the hair dryer on short hair.
I don't know about you, but I am driving a Model Y. What so many failed to realize is that there were, and are, really good opportunities for building sustainable technologies -- at a solid profit to the investors.
Sounds like the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car.
It actually sounds like nonsense. Years ago Honda stated publicly that it was going slow on EV production because they had not yet squeezed all the efficiency out of the ICE. This is true for Toyota as well. They are not owned by, or in collusion with oil companies. That said, opposition to the oil companies is older than Senator Sanders, which is to say, Ida Tarbell, on the left and has been a longstanding bogeyman because they made money for investors rather than the average worker. This opposition has extended over the years to the earlier, simpler, ecological movements (because of the mess that oil production can make when accidents occur); to the more recent contempt for pipeline construction (ecology intersects indigenous sovereignty); to fracking (mess above, mess below, earthquakes, sink holes, tainted water); and of course, not to be left behind CO2 (greenhousing the planet). And yet, as we are about to show what great and horrible rape of the landscape will occur when mining for rare earths to make batteries, Would it not be a sounder strategy to enlist the oil companies in the future, not least, in the production of "dirty" hydrogen for the time being so that electric vehicles can be powered by the lighter fuel cell? After all, I do not see a future where the manufacture of plastics will quickly become plant based, at least not soon enough to live Bernie and Ida's dream of finally beating John D Rockefeller into submission.
While you are right that opposition to oil companies is as old as time, you are wrong if you are suggesting that oil companies do not have a vested interest in stopping the development of EVs. Look at any major O&G company's financial statements and their most profitable division is the "downstream" division, which is where the refined products are located. The most important refined products are "transportation fuels" which includes gasoline.
Also, major O&G companies, through the API, are the biggest funders of climate change skepticism, anti-EV campaigns, and supporters of methane recapture, carbon taxes and higher gas taxes. Why would O&G companies support methane recapture and higher taxes? Simple, gas and carbon taxes are consumption taxes paid by the customer, not them, so they don't give a shit. Methane recapture is literally paying Exxon to put back into the ground what they emitted for free!! When I was an Econ major in college, my very conservative econ professor would call the releasing of methane a "negative externality" that Oil companies should pay for through taxes. Only in America would we allow a company to charge us for the right to fix the problems they caused.
I don't disagree that EV production is not a clean process, but it is still cleaner than O&G development. Now, I would take this more seriously if the Auto and especially the O&G industries, were investing in developing ICEs that worked on natural gas, or hydrogen fuel cells. Problem is, the amount of R&D spent on this is miniscule, mainly because they are not commercially viable. EVs are, because battery tech has leapfrogged them in the last 5 years.
Finally, why can't Exxon, Chevron, Shell or BP invest in battery technologies? They definitely got the money. If they don't its because they are too busy paying out dividends to trust fund brats (no its not widows and orphans, and if it is a widow, its a Rockefeller).
I haven’t actually watched that documentary, but just heard about it.
I think we need a Manhattan Project to improve battery technology. That seems like the weakest link to a greener future. I live 100% off grid, and I don’t have enough battery storage for any function involving heat, beyond a couple minutes of the hair dryer on short hair.
Most of his adoring fans are too stupid to realize this.
The electric car batteries were in its infancy then. Advances in technology has made electric cars a solid option now.
I don't know about you, but I am driving a Model Y. What so many failed to realize is that there were, and are, really good opportunities for building sustainable technologies -- at a solid profit to the investors.