[synchronicityii]

Originally Posted by GoneIn4Secs

Amazon became widely used because the US govt SUBSIDIZED every shipment that went out

Same thing with Te$la which has not turned into a profitsble company ever, has been subsidized to the tune of billions by the US govt to keep it afloat

I'm going to assume that since I pointed out that Tesla would have made >$1.3 billion last quarter without regulatory credits, and did so with no access to Federal EV income tax credits since 2019, you're dropping your second point above. So let's turn to Amazon.

The article you linked to asserted that the USPS undercharged package customers "like Amazon" by $1.46 per package from at least 2017–2020.

First, note the words "like Amazon". Not just Amazon. So even that article—which itself notes the number is disputed—points out that other companies receive the same benefit.

Second, let's imagine that the number is right (could be), and that only Amazon gets that credit (no, but I'm being generous to make a point). This analysis from the same general time period as the piece to which you linked claims that in 2017, Amazon shipped 3.3 billion parcels, 33% of them via USPS. That's 1.1 billion parcels. 1.1 billion parcels times $1.46/parcel in savings equals $1.606 billion in savings. So how much profit did Amazon make in 2017? $3.0 billion. So even under the most favorable possible interpretation of your assertion, Amazon still would have made $1.4 billion in profit without the USPS discount—a discount which, as pointed out, was not exclusive to them.

Also, this analysis is at the most favorable point in time for your assertion. In 2020, Amazon made $21.3 billion in profit, so any savings from USPS would have been a small fraction of their net.

[tracer bullet]

Originally Posted by GoneIn4Secs

May I ask how old you are

PM'd

Also, just to get it out there in case it matters, I don't have any investment in the subject. I like EV's fine, but not a fanboi. Just trying to push a functioning human being to back up a somewhat brash statement. If it'd been that EV's were unicorns and rainbows with no downsides I'd be doing the same thing. Or any other subject.

[synchronicityii]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

PM'd

Also, just to get it out there in case it matters, I don't have any investment in the subject. I like EV's fine, but not a fanboi. Just trying to push a functioning human being to back up a somewhat brash statement. If it'd been that EV's were unicorns and rainbows with no downsides I'd be doing the same thing. Or any other subject.

To echo this... I own a Model Y that I'm trading in for an X5 45e M Sport because the Model Y just doesn't work for me in my new living situation, and won't for at least another year. I suspect I won't buy another Tesla, for reasons not worth going into here. I suspect that my next car will be either a PHEV or an EV, and the cars after that, EVs. But I consider myself a pragmatist. And I strongly believe in evidence-based discussion.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

Good questions. Good thing there are no surprises there. It's even discussed in the articles linked. Did you bother to look at them?



What a cop out. And combined with some conspiracy!

I think you underestimate your audience. From what I can gather you think you know some OMG facts no one else has considered, and when asked to share those facts you bail.

Let's have those facts! I think you'd find a lot of interest and get some good discussion. As of yet, not so much.

Listen brother I totally understand why you were comfortable in your belief system because all the usual suspects that you probably watch and listen to back you up. MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, CNN, FB, Google and the like. So since all of them worship at the altar of global warming you feel comfortable being in that church also. It probably comes as a massive surprise to you that there are plenty of other opinions on this including from many scientists and meteorologist. But since the usual suspects never talk about it you know nothing of it or find it foolish. This is why engaging you on the subject is pointless. Because anyone that disagrees with you or the usual suspects is a moron.

Deacon??? No

[synchronicityii]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Listen brother I totally understand why you were comfortable in your belief system because all the usual suspects that you probably watch and listen to back you up. MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, CNN, FB, Google and the like.

Speaking for myself, I don't have a Facebook account and don't watch broadcast news. I do read a variety of secondary sources, but in the end, my go-to for research is primary sources: peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, and systematic reviews / meta-analyses wherever possible.

Originally Posted by Patton250

It probably comes as a massive surprise to you that there are plenty of other opinions on this including from many scientists and meteorologist.

There are "plenty of other opinions" on everything. If you want to find people who believe the Earth is flat, astrology is real, chemtrails are a thing... you can find them on YouTube in seconds flat. But as far as researchers who subject their work to rigorous peer review? No, not so much:

We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications... In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

28 out of 3,000. That's it.

Originally Posted by Patton250

This is why engaging you on the subject is pointless. Because anyone that disagrees with you or the usual suspects is a moron.

I would never call anyone a name like that in a discussion like this. But I don't take you seriously in this particular matter, because you refuse to back up anything you assert. If the evidence exists, show us. If it's easy to find, point us to it. Looking at this page, in my opinion, you're committing—at a minimum—Appeal to Anonymous Authority, Argument by Laziness, Error of Fact, Failure to State, and Poisoning the Wells. So I think we're done here.

[tracer bullet]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Listen brother I totally understand why you were comfortable in your belief system because all the usual suspects that you probably watch and listen to back you up. MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, CNN, FB, Google and the like. So since all of them worship at the altar of global warming you feel comfortable being in that church also. It probably comes as a massive surprise to you that there are plenty of other opinions on this including from many scientists and meteorologist. But since the usual suspects never talk about it you know nothing of it or find it foolish. This is why engaging you on the subject is pointless. Because anyone that disagrees with you or the usual suspects is a moron.

Deacon??? No

Meh, you know nothing about me. But yet again fail to provide any information regarding what you claim. Just more straw men, red herrings, and etc.. You may be a moron, but not because we agree or disagree on anything, only because you have no clue how to make a point and when asked repeatedly for some information you go on the offensive instead. I'd ask again if you have any information at all about what you claim, but - after several failed attempts I think we already know that answer. It's clear you can't answer a simple question or provide anything for people to look at to even try a discussion. So, yeah, it's pointless, but for a reason different than what you think.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

Meh, you know nothing about me. But yet again fail to provide any information regarding what you claim. Just more straw men, red herrings, and etc.. You may be a moron, but not because we agree or disagree on anything, only because you have no clue how to make a point and when asked repeatedly for some information you go on the offensive instead. I'd ask again if you have any information at all about what you claim, but - after several failed attempts I think we already know that answer. It's clear you can't answer a simple question or provide anything for people to look at to even try a discussion. So, yeah, it's pointless, but for a reason different than what you think.

I stopped at your first sentence. Everyone that disagrees with you has a red herring. I am well aware of that. This is very typical of all the people that take your side of things. Either that or the people that disagree with you are filled with hatred and anger and other nasty names probably not allowed to be used on this forum. However at the end of the day if you have even the slightest bit of intelligence you know darn right well there’s plenty of opposition to the church of global warming. I’ll leave it at that.

PS-are you going to try to cancel me now? That’s usually next.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by synchronicityii

Speaking for myself, I don't have a Facebook account and don't watch broadcast news. I do read a variety of secondary sources, but in the end, my go-to for research is primary sources: peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, and systematic reviews / meta-analyses wherever possible.



There are "plenty of other opinions" on everything. If you want to find people who believe the Earth is flat, astrology is real, chemtrails are a thing... you can find them on YouTube in seconds flat. But as far as researchers who subject their work to rigorous peer review? No, not so much:



28 out of 3,000. That's it.



I would never call anyone a name like that in a discussion like this. But I don't take you seriously in this particular matter, because you refuse to back up anything you assert. If the evidence exists, show us. If it's easy to find, point us to it. Looking at this page, in my opinion, you're committing—at a minimum—Appeal to Anonymous Authority, Argument by Laziness, Error of Fact, Failure to State, and Poisoning the Wells. So I think we're done here.

And this is where I know to not even begin to take you seriously. Always go towards massive condescension. After all anyone that has a different opinion than your side of the fence is obviously a moron.

[GoneIn4Secs]

Originally Posted by synchronicityii

Speaking for myself, I don't have a Facebook account and don't watch broadcast news. I do read a variety of secondary sources, but in the end, my go-to for research is primary sources: peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, and systematic reviews / meta-analyses wherever possible.



There are "plenty of other opinions" on everything. If you want to find people who believe the Earth is flat, astrology is real, chemtrails are a thing... you can find them on YouTube in seconds flat. But as far as researchers who subject their work to rigorous peer review? No, not so much:



28 out of 3,000. That's it.



I would never call anyone a name like that in a discussion like this. But I don't take you seriously in this particular matter, because you refuse to back up anything you assert. If the evidence exists, show us. If it's easy to find, point us to it. Looking at this page, in my opinion, you're committing—at a minimum—Appeal to Anonymous Authority, Argument by Laziness, Error of Fact, Failure to State, and Poisoning the Wells. So I think we're done here.

All your peer reviewed scientists and mathematicians still have not proven the 'Theory' of gravity as of 2021

Neither has nasa provided actual photos of earth from space. Photos that have not been edited or CGI graphics.

Go ahead, try to disprove anything i said. I DARE YOU

[tracer bullet]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I stopped at your first sentence. Everyone that disagrees with you has a red herring. I am well aware of that. This is very typical of all the people that take your side of things. Either that or the people that disagree with you are filled with hatred and anger and other nasty names probably not allowed to be used on this forum. However at the end of the day if you have even the slightest bit of intelligence you know darn right well there’s plenty of opposition to the church of global warming. I’ll leave it at that.

PS-are you going to try to cancel me now? That’s usually next.

I have no side. It's hilarious you have me all figured out but know nothing. I'm willing to bet we agree on far more than you think possible. I just want one thing from you - to provide any sort of information on what you are trying to say. So far you can't be bothered and we're all in a cult and won't believe it anyhow. I'm not sure any longer that you're even serious, you might be just effectively trolling. It's the equivalent of "I can't believe I accidentally the whole thing". If you have something of substance, please share it. That's all there is to this and all I'm shooting for. But it's not working. Kinda crazy actually. That and my continued effort towards it.

Anyhow. Back to BMW and EZV's perhaps?

[dynamic]

Originally Posted by Roch M4

This is good news....we may still be able to enjoy ICE cars for the next 20 years!

https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/bm...gines-just-yet

This is great news.

[KoenG]

ICE ban will come VERY fast. In the Belgian news today, no joke:

1. All political parties are in favour of an ASAP ban on ICE cars. The scenario now is to prohibit new ICE as from 2027. For company cars, 2026. This includes the ban for PHEV. The norm has to be 0 emission!

2. 2nd hand cars can no longer be sold or change owner as from 2029 when they are not zero emission! So they become economical scrap within 8 years (including your new M5 CS or still to be delivered Ferrari 296gtb).

3. As from 2023, new houses are no longer to be equipped with gas heating or oil heating. Everything has to be heat pump electrical.

4. When you buy an old house, you commit to refurbish it to "very low consumption" standards. which is "almost not relying on external energy feed".

So I don't believe the fairy tale of ICE has still a bright and long future. It won't, it has just become obsolete.

[tracer bullet]

Originally Posted by KoenG

In the Belgian news today, no joke:

Good grief. I'm all for progress, and can understand giving it a little pat on the rear, but - that's a bit absurd.

Any links to the details? I found a Brussel's Times but their main story was about a porn video filmed in a church

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

Good grief. I'm all for progress, and can understand giving it a little pat on the rear, but - that's a bit absurd.

Any links to the details? I found a Brussel's Times but their main story was about a porn video filmed in a church

That's true! This demonstrates that those fundamental items are not even considered as being "breaking". Although I have to admit that I see a lot of citizens fulminate their frustrations in the fora. Here the political parties try to beat each other by pushing the most aggressive transition plan (and the liberal parties are the most aggressive ones!!).

https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20211103_93753445

[DenverSteve]

Originally Posted by Roch M4

BMW is not ready to let go of internal-combustion engines...

Back on track. None of us are. EVs are going to be great but not until the charge time and mileage between charges equals, or bests, ICE vehicles. Once that happens it's a non issue. What has to happen is a world-wide charging system that equals the current gas station capability. Otherwise over half of the world's roadways will have to be equipped with a charging grid so we don't have to stop and we get charged for the miles we drive/charge.

[Roch M4]

Originally Posted by DenverSteve

Back on track. None of us are. EVs are going to be great but not until the charge time and mileage between charges equals, or bests, ICE vehicles. Once that happens it's a non issue. What has to happen is a world-wide charging system that equals the current gas station capability. Otherwise over half of the world's roadways will have to be equipped with a charging grid so we don't have to stop and we get charged for the miles we drive/charge.

it's not just about range, rapid charging capabilities and a efficient charging network...it's about sound exhaust, gear box and all the vroum vroum effect...engine roar and shifting is an important part of driving a car, feeling the road etc...I will never be able to drive an electric car even if it's goes from 0 to 60 in 1 s....

[DenverSteve]

Originally Posted by Roch M4

it's not just about range, rapid charging capabilities and a efficient charging network...it's about sound exhaust, gear box and all the vroum vroum effect...engine roar and shifting is an important part of driving a car, feeling the road etc...I will never be able to drive an electric car even if it's goes from 0 to 60 in 1 s....

It might not be to you - but it is to the rest of the world. The goal - the only goal - is to reach zero carbon emission as soon as practicable. No amount of "vroum vroum" will effect this. You may think you will never drive an electric car, but unless you're 12, at some point, gas engined vehicles will be completely replaced and banned from operation - and ALL those driving will be driving EVs. All gas-powered vehicles, including gas lawn mowers and every other gas-powered, emission emitting product. Do I disagree with you? Not really. However, the writing is on the legislation and it WILL happen whether you , I, or anyone else is ready.

The only question is - when? When, for me, is what I described above.

[Roch M4]

Originally Posted by DenverSteve

It might not be to you - but it is to the rest of the world. The goal - the only goal - is to reach zero carbon emission as soon as practicable. No amount of "vroum vroum" will effect this. You may think you will never drive an electric car, but unless you're 12, at some point, gas engined vehicles will be completely replaced and banned from operation - and ALL those driving will be driving EVs. All gas-powered vehicles, including gas lawn mowers and every other gas-powered, emission emitting product. Do I disagree with you? Not really. However, the writing is on the legislation and it WILL happen whether you , I, or anyone else is ready.

The only question is - when? When, for me, is what I described above.

But the carbon emissions reduction is totally impossible. They are just removing the exhaust from the car to put it at the plant where they produce the electricity from gas, oil or coal...only few countries in the world have "clean" electricity considering that hydro electricity request to build big dams, flooding large natural spaces ect, even wind turbine are using blades they need to replace and they are not recyclable (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...p-in-landfills) ... and the current electricity supply is barely sufficient for our day to day use

[jp1984]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

Good questions. Good thing there are no surprises there. It's even discussed in the articles linked. Did you bother to look at them?



What a cop out. And combined with some conspiracy!

I think you underestimate your audience. From what I can gather you think you know some OMG facts no one else has considered, and when asked to share those facts you bail.

Let's have those facts! I think you'd find a lot of interest and get some good discussion. As of yet, not so much.

It is usually something like

"...and where do you think that electricity comes from to power your car? COAL!"

and

"...dont you know how harmful lithium mining can be?"

As I look at about 20 lithium ion tools behind them...

I am an ICE guy. I will always be an ICE guy until I die or they don't sell gas anymore, at which point I will STILL sit in my E92 and pretend and go "Vroom Vroom"

but fighting some form of electrification is fighting against the times. The good news is that there are still a ton of ICE only cars that are a little older to enjoy! and the right ones may gain value someday.

[tracer bullet]

I guess people have seen this in the past but -

https://www.bmwblog.com/2021/11/04/b...l-november-29/

New SUV M Hybrid. Not sure what the heck they'll actually call it.

IMO I like the hybrids most. Battery only to go 3 miles to the grocery store, efficiency of recapturing braking energy and putting it back into acceleration on more normal days, and oh yea, the extra acceleration. Couple an electric motor with an I6 and I'm in.

Originally Posted by jp1984

I am an ICE guy. I will always be an ICE guy until I die or they don't sell gas anymore, at which point I will STILL sit in my E92 and pretend and go "Vroom Vroom".

Agreed. If you'd have told me a decade ago when I bought my 135i that I might hang onto it the rest of my life I'd have said you're crazy. Now - it doesn't seem like such a silly thing any more.

[SteveinArizona]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

I guess people have seen this in the past but -

https://www.bmwblog.com/2021/11/04/b...l-november-29/

New SUV M Hybrid. Not sure what the heck they'll actually call it.

IMO I like the hybrids most. Battery only to go 3 miles to the grocery store, efficiency of recapturing braking energy and putting it back into acceleration on more normal days, and oh yea, the extra acceleration. Couple an electric motor with an I6 and I'm in.



Agreed. If you'd have told me a decade ago when I bought my 135i that I might hang onto it the rest of my life I'd have said you're crazy. Now - it doesn't seem like such a silly thing any more.

BMW has coupled an I6 with the electric motor. It is called the 545e...but the #$^%$^#@$ won't sell it in the US!!!

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by Roch M4

But the carbon emissions reduction is totally impossible. They are just removing the exhaust from the car to put it at the plant where they produce the electricity from gas, oil or coal...only few countries in the world have "clean" electricity considering that hydro electricity request to build big dams, flooding large natural spaces ect, even wind turbine are using blades they need to replace and they are not recyclable (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...p-in-landfills) ... and the current electricity supply is barely sufficient for our day to day use

Yeah, I was in touch with the university lab working on this conundrum here in Belgium. Inspite of what you claim, their conclusion was that the cradle to grave emission of BEV was clearly lower, which I didn't expect either. Besides, in Glasgow there are also agreements to stop electricity production with coal (although only 2040 when I'am not mistaken) and boost "green" electricity production.

The stress and pressure in the region were I live is coming from the fact that the last 20yrs, we only reduced our CO² footprint with 5% and our minister representing us in Glasgow was only willing to go when she would be able to rejoin the best in class shortlist. Banning ICE is such a simple and fast measure which was the first thing all political parties agreed upon immediately! Although yesterday they said they would ban ICE 2027, it has become 2029 today.

Already earlier, govenment agreed that for lease cars, you would only be able to profit from tax deductability when you lease a BEV as from 2026! So you're still allowed to lease ICE until 2029, but the tax advantage has totally perished between 26 and 29. Conclusion: all lease cars will become BEV as from 2026 in Belgium.