You still worship the EV as some kind of God, an an end in itself. In reality, the need is for non-polluting vehicles. Inadvertantly, CARB is forcing that very thing.

The automakers discovered that their cleanup technology for the ICE was so good, that they could extend it a bit, at only marginal cost increases. They could offer vehicles that produced no more genuine toxic emissions than an EV. But without the obvious and grievous limitations of current technology EVs. Those limitations are primitive batteries, limited range, affordability, and resale depreciation based on battery replacement cost fear.

They offered this technology in trade for some reasonableness in schedule and fuel economy.

As usual CARB double crossed them; and demanded the technology, stiffened its unreasonable schedules, and tightened regulations adding limitations on CO2 output.

In this instance, I fully support the CARB regulations. But only the tightened toxic emissions regs ,which the Federal EPA is following too.

But it thoroughly undercuts the EV in its present primitive under-developed state. If an ICE is as emissions free as an EV, at half the cost, and without the range limitations, or cratered resale values, who will choose these primitive offerings, except zealots, who have lost sight of the true objective.

The entire purpose of the EPA and CARB are over.

EPA Air compliance has been met in all but a half dozen or so of the some 2500 counties in America. It will improve further with the tightened toxic emissions regs. Even now we could simply declare Victory for Clean Air and Water. Mission Accomplished.

The need to prepare for "Peak Oil", has receded into a concern a Millenia in the future if then. Vast new Oil finds virtually throughout the World has completely undermined that concern, as well as the political concern of Oil Blackmail by Mid-East potentates whose beliefs are inimical to America.

The CAGW concern is desolving into a farce. Instead of possible 6 degree warming from a doubling of trace gas CO2, it is turning out to be a trivial and harmless quarter to a third of a single degree, of possible warming, if that.

In any case scientific research has discovered that North America has been found to be a CO2 sink, bio-sequestering every gram of human and non-human i.e. "natural" CO2 emissions. We even bio-sequester all that we receive on the prevailing winds from Eurasia.

The Eurasians may have a problem, but our Job is more than finished. Our Bio-sequester is Greening America; and the the rising CO2 trace gas levels is Greening the World, a genuine improvement. Meanwhile the increased output of our farmlands and forests are feeding the world.

The USA is the World's largest hydrocarbon producer again, a position lost in the late '60s, which precipitated the OPEC power grab and pricing extortion. America controlled and stabilized prices then, and is doing so again.

What Oil we import comes from NAFTA, almost exclusively. So the Mid-East Oil Blackmail threat has evaporated.

Why did we mandate improved Fuel Economy?
We wanted to extend, but not prevent, the Day before the Peakist fearful pronouncement, that the Oil has run out. But that Fear is as long gone as the latest "Peakist" fear-mongering pronouncements.

But the new regulations will soon require no difference in toxic emissions between EVs and ICEs vehicles. So we are no longer poisoning the atmosphere either way, and ICEs are more affordable right now.

With a generational improvement in batteries in both range and cost, THAT will likely be the true dawn of the EV.

Bureaucratic dweebs, enforcing objectives from 45 years ago, that don't apply anymore, do not make a sustainable market, nor create true progress.

Most of the sweetners that the bureaucrats dreamed up, are about gone. Subsidies are expiring, and access to special road lanes are about played out.

There is only the threat of the whip. But the will or political backing to use it is also expiring. CARB has backed down every time it threatened to do so in the past, and it gets easier to challenge every day.

Even the false prophets of 18th century "Mass Transit" are coming to an end. It makes little sense to travel many miles out of the way in heavy multi-ton vehicles, which achieve abominal fuel economy, merely to get from close to where you are, to [hopefully] close to where you are going.

It sort of made sense for hub & spoke where that was the destination,most of the time. Increasingly, both start and endpoint are crosstown, far from hubs, and not the way Mass Transit routes have been built or is arranged.

1-c-i.c is 100% correct with this one.

The new BYD Lancaster articulated 120 passenger, 180 miles, city e-bus will operate for up to 27 years (10,000 days) with only one full charge every night (and one driver instead of two).

Regarless of what D is saying, that is progress over the noisy-smoky diesel units.

The same think will soon be done with over old fashion ICEVs. BEVs are around the corner.

Due to our cold weather we will need improved batteries or range extenders. However, EVs with our low cost 100% RE is an ideal solution.

D:

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You. You have hit the nail on the head the way only someone who actually is in the auto-industry can. The only place I disagree is that the levels of harmful emissions allowances are needlessly low, especially in the case of diesel engines (NOx regs). This requires a ton of unnecessary hardware/software that is unreliable, temperamental, and expensive.

Scott:
Thanks for the snarky, needless comment. Obviously you've never been part of any vehicle development team or any other industry that deals with the nonsense of CARB.

c-i-c,

The bleating by Euro car manufacturers is just that, Pure hokum Bleating, for which I share no sympathy. Meanwhile they daily produce cars for export to North America, that exceed the coming EU VI emission specs, by virtual light years.

America hasn't allowed as lax toxic emissions regulation, as Europe's soon to be adopted EU VI, since the 1980s, 35 years ago, and has tightened even twice more, since then. Further North America, has adopted tightened, with even pure, pristene, air emissions requirements, following in a few more years, in the Level III / Tier 3 regs.

The ONLY area where the EU emission regulation, is really tighter is CO2 "regulation". Where we are discovering it is entirely farcical. Dr. Ravelle's concerns about CAGW, expressed in his writings in the 1950's, were retracted by him as an error, in several later papers.

Those early writings are the entire basis of a theoretical Danger of CAGW. That erroneous thesis has not only been proven false, but rather confirmed by recent Science, to be de minimus. Moreover it has been shown to be even harmful, as plant life has evolved in richer CO2 environments then now, and are actually starving for more CO2.

The World is Greening before our eyes, as the satellites affirm; and the politicos, tax raisers and ignorant zealots the only remaining advocates for massive CO2 reductions.

EU's CO2 regulations are more a tax raising gimmick, than a Clean Air issue. As for carbon soot emissions, EU is miles behind the rest of the developed world, as all the soot removing, sandblasting, scaffolding around your monuments attest. Imagine what that soot does to EU citizen's lungs, while EU governments continually support more such soot producing Diesels, without mandating Diesel cleanup as North America did with their ICEs.

It would not be entirely amiss to assert that Diesels are now as clean as they are, which is not very, merely due to emission compliance access to North American markets.

I welcome the EU's junior, entry-level, steps to genuine toxic emissions regulation. Someday the EU regulations will enter the 21st century, even. Maybe with hypothetical EU IX and EU X, regulations perhaps by 2050, or so.

But in America the distinction between EV and ICE emissions end in 2017 Air Quality regulations.

Then wide spread EV adoption will have to wait for equivalent technology for range and price, to be developed. I even agree with your somwhat wishful schedule to which I would add a half decade or more.

DaveD,

Is it really necessary to completely undermine the argument that you think you put forward by framing it within the language of a five year old?

If your points are strong they can be discussed as adults. As things stand, it's hard to take you seriously.

Below $80/barrel oil may hurt Russia the most (because it relies a lot on oïl trade) and certainly benefit EU, Japan, China, India and other Oil importing nations.

In our region, regulor gasoline price has dropped from $1.50/L to $1.23/L (in CDN $) and could drop a bit more.