Solution is to restore the 91% top-tier tax brackets we had during the most prosperous decade of the 20th century. A tax bracket that everyone will go out of their way to avoid.

When you’re $10,000 over the bracket, you can keep $900 of that money for your stock portfolio and give the rest to the IRS, or you can spend $10,000 and pretend it is a “business expense”. That money you spend turns into someone’s paycheck; that $900 does not.

When you’re a billion dollars over the line, you can keep $10 million of income and send $990 million to Uncle Sam. Or you can divest, and keep a lot more.

Ok, Ok. I have been properly shamed into sweeping the floor. Fuck you very much.

Remember: I’m not eliminating cars over 5000 pounds, because there is plenty of actual need for large vehicles.

When I talk about a 100 mile range, you need to be thinking about the battery pack needed for a 15-passenger van, or a 1-ton pickup. Manufacturers don’t currently produce EVs in those classes. If they want to keep producing large gasoline and diesel vehicles like these, they need to add a 100-mile EV version at the same price point.

The dictionary doesn’t define words. Words are defined by authors and audiences. Your audience has rejected this particular definition of the word. Continue to use it at your peril.

Because batteries are bulky and extraordinarily heavy, and the general public rarely drives even 100 miles a day. I can plug in my EV every night, or at most of my destinations; I don’t need an EV that can go 2 weeks between charges.

You ignored where I laid out that plan, and focused on an unimportant point.

To promote EV adoption and suppress ICE, I would mandate that car manufacturers produce an EV equivalent of every ICE model they produce, at the same price point as the base model ICE vehicle. That EV would need to have a minimum of 100 mile range to qualify as an “equivalent”.

The main problem I’m trying to to solve is the manufacturers jacking up the prices of EVs as soon as the government offers direct incentives for buying them.

This method of addressing this problem basically requires manufacturers to either increase the prices on their ICE models, or drop those ICE models entirely.

Diogenes and his chicken man take great offense at your definition of “poison”.

I never said we can’t live without fossil-fuel powered vehicles. We certainly can go full electric, and we can broadly adopt solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy sources. We can use the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants from biomass and leaking methane deposits instead of crude oil or coal. (Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2; we currently try to “flare” methane sources to produce CO2 rather than allow them to vent naturally. It makes far more sense to use these sources productively than to simply burn them off.)

I’m gonna drag you, (apparently kicking and screaming), back to the approach I suggested: mandating manufacturers produce same-price 100-mile EV equivalents for every ICE vehicle they want to produce. If they want to build a gasoline sedan, they need to make an electric sedan with the same seating, same trunk space, etc. F-350 super duty diesel crewcab pickup? There’s a 100-mile electric version of that as well, at the same or lower price point, or that truck doesn’t get made.

If you go that route, I’ll setup shop in a car dealership, helping people file the paperwork needed to register an LLC and justify their car purchase.

Vehicle size and weight is a red herring. It’s a distraction from EV adoption, which is far more important to reducing emissions. Any political capital we might spend on limiting vehicle sizes would achieve greater results on promoting EV adoption. I’d rather see the industry produce a giant EV truck called “The Compensator 9000” than to put arbitrary restrictions on size and weight.

How about a 15-passenger van? Can you make a 15-passenger van under 5000lbs?

That van will be around 7200lbs minimum, but will have higher passenger-mile economy than anything under 5000lbs. Why are we banning the more efficient vehicle?

Again, I reject the arbitrary restrictions on vehicle size and weight.

Instead, we push EV infrastructure.

We can mandate manufacturers produce an EV equivalent (with minimum 100 mile range) for every gasoline vehicle they offer. We can mandate the 100-mile EV variant has the same (or lower) price as the lowest-priced ICE equivalent. If they want to jack up the price of EVs, they have to either increase the range, or drop the ICE equivalent.

We can require gas stations to install and maintain one EV charging point for every gasoline or diesel pump on site.

We can restore and expand government rebates for EV purchases, charging point installation, renewable energy generation and storage, etc.

I would not support weight limits or size limits, simply because per-passenger mileage increases as vehicle occupancy increases. Per-ton mileage increases in cargo vehicles as load increases.

I would not support the idea that only a transit authority can have a bus.

That being said, I do support reducing emissions by transitioning to EV infrastructure, and suppressing fossil fuels in the ground transportation industry.

I support this. Let’s just fuck instead.

That is a reasonable explanation of people who announce their refusal to participate in a fad.

What of the people who just ignore the fad, without publicly declaring their refusal?

I am saying that the logic of your question does not accurately describe the actual problems with CO2, which are their effect on solar heating.

So your saying there’s enough plants to offest cars in the world?

An anti-environmentalist would say that the number of plants on the planet is not fixed, and that a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere would increase global plant mass. They would say “Higher CO2 levels make the planet greener”, and point to 4th grade biology to support their point.

I say, again, that the problems with CO2 are not the biological effects. The problems with CO2 are the effects on solar insolation. If CO2 did not affect solar insolation, we would be looking to increase CO2 levels, to benefit vegetation.

To directly answer the question you asked in the title:

ICE vehicles and animals consume oxygen and produce CO2. Plants produce oxygen and consume CO2. Your car’s exhaust is poisonous to the animals in your garage, not to the plants. The plants love your car.

The problems with atmospheric CO2 have nothing to do with biological effects. The problem with atmospheric CO2 is its effect on solar insolation.

I wouldn’t use this analogy in an argument with someone who does not understand anthropogenic climate change.

Take an ice cube out of the freezer. Drop it in a glass of water. Take the temperature of the water immediately after you drop the ice in. Take it again after 5 minutes. Which measurement is going to be colder?

Drop a red-hot nickel ball into a glass of water. Measure the temperature of the water immediately, and then again after 5 minutes. Which measurement is going to be hotter?

Basically, the surface of the earth holds heat, which causes the atmospheric temperature to lag behind the heat input from solar insolation. The cold surface is still warming long after the summer solstice; the hot surface is still cooling long after the winter solstice. The atmospheric temperature extremes are closer to the equinoxes than the solstices.

This is the real Person of the Year. Don’t listen to that fanfic bullshit that named Elon’s girlfriend.

No, it would depend on someone else locally having a similar rig and there are far more people with CB radios than HAM radios.

That’s actually false. The supporting arguments you have provided are reasonable, but they ignore the fact that CBs have declined far faster than amateur radio.

FFS, dude, stop trying to save face.