[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

It is written in the constitution. That’s the whole point of the preamble. To ground us in the core purpose of why we established a union of states.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

Since the 1970s the US has had increasingly stringent fuel economy standards. More efficient engines reduce the demand for oil and extend the life of our existing oil supplies.

We’ve secured oil at a very high societal cost that should make every American feel uncomfortable. We’ve secured oil supplies with the lives of our service men and woman. We’ve also had to continually contort ourselves to accommodate regimes likes the Saudi’s and others. Oil is our biggest vulnerability and the oil shocks of the 70s are a grim reminder of how vulnerable we can be.

Renewable energy and even EVs offer a way to eliminate that vulnerability…

Lastly, even if the CA ban were to be made national, which it currently isn’t, and ICE new car sales were banned starting in 2035. We’re still looking at at least 12 years of new ICE cars on the road and a serviceable life of at least 50 years beyond that. The transition away from ICE via bans is a “problem” for the younger population. A population who already largely don’t want ICE vehicles!



I think the timeline will constantly shift. As oil prices rise it become economically feasible to find new creative ways to extract it. Engines and other oil consumers will continue to get more efficient as well shifting the demand side needs. With the rapid adoption of EVs I can see it extending past 2100.

You are absolutely right about the ugly contortions oil has forced us into.

It confuses me why so many would prefer us to keep bending in those directions. While also throwing away American manufacturing leading the biggest shift in automotive technology in our lifetimes. You’d think American Made would be enough to get them on board too.

But, sadly, it appears Conservatives are just against anything that isn’t like their childhood. Period.

Even though the constitution protects their existing cars into perpetuity. They can continue to drive any ICE car they grew up with and up until 2035 (in CA) until the end of time…

I simply stated from the position of an automotive enthusiast I think the market should decide on the adoption of EV rather than the Government. Not that I want turn this Thread into a debate on the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has consistently held the Preamble is not any source of substantive power conferred on the federal government (you can research that on your own). So, you really didn't make any argument for your position.

But we're getting off track so, I'll bow out. I dislike arguing on the internet with non-conservatives (keeping it clean to not trigger a political ban), because it just turns into dismissive stereotype inferences (as you and chris719 have already started on them). EV's and renewable energy extracting technologies just bring a new suite of conflict minerals to fight over. Thinking there will be no more war over minerals be they crude oil, lithium, cobalt, etc. is an unrealistic view of the situation.