Jeep will launch four all-electric SUVs in the US by 2025

First up are the all-new Jeep Recon and the Jeep Wagoneer S.

Read the whole story

 

[android_alpaca]

Well that would be one sure way to get this left-leaning, pro-vax, climate concerned citizen to join the “anti-government” movement. (Also, not a moron — my mom had me tested.)

Sorry. I use my SUV as an SUV. Regularly. I’d prefer it be all-electric, but if my hand is forced, I’ll keep the current gas burner as long as possible. And join the revolution if I must.

Ah yes the entitled 'I don't care about the future only me matters' that is so prevalent in American's.

We need to build more coal power stations and roll more coal the quicker humanity wipes itself out the sooner the Earth can start recovering and the sooner future life will have a chance.

Because I'm just done why bother sacrificing anything when a Jaberg will just buy a huge SUV and make all your conservation efforts over a year worthless in a weekend.

You presented a completely unworkable (and bad for the environment) plan of "make it illegal to own or operate any vehicle over 1500 lbs by 2035". There are a number of cars on the road today that will be affordable used vehicles in 12 years. If you make those cars illegal, the pool of available used cars shrinks, prices rise, the people who can afford it pay the premium for the cars that are available, and the poor get shafted.

Meanwhile, you are junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own.

If you want to advocate for banning manufacture of ICEVs or SUVs or whatever, go ahead, but making my current mode of transport illegal will mean I lose my job (which is a union job with great benefits that I intend to work at for the next 30+ years), I can't feed my kids, and I will hate you and everything you stand for.

1500kg it's right there in my post that's just over 3300lb's. It was also an example just change it too new sales and purchasing second hand out of state vehicles then.

But something has to be done.

I am just wondering where you pulled that 1500kg number from. In perspective a Tesla Model 3 (thanks google) weighs between 3,648 and 4,250 lbs (1654 - 1927kg). With that in mind what kind of BEV are you thinking of? What kind of carry capacity, range, survivability etc are you talking about?

How about a 1974 Ford Pinto? Google says that they weighed 2370 lbs (1075.014 kg) so that meets your criteria and hey, they were listed at 20mpg damm good for 1974!
You know, the '74 Chevy Vega was only 2217 lbs (1005.614 kg) and was listed at 21mpg...

Ok fine, how about a 1977 (last year made for sale in the US) VW Beetle? Google says: 1830 lbs ( 830.074 kg).

My point is that an arbitrary (so it seems) weight limit is not a good measure of what size vehicles should/should not be allowed.

On the other side of the Atlantic, there are lots of cars around 1500kg - some of them were (possibly still are, I'm not sure) sold in the US, including the Ford Fiesta. The Vauxhall Corsa EV I have on order is 1530kg, ever so slightly over Ushio's limit, but it wouldn't be hard to trim some fat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fiesta
https://ev-database.uk/car/1585/Vauxhall-Corsa-e

Would be difficult to get larger occupancy vehicles like minivans under 1500 kg without either making them extremely expensive (CF frame) turning them back into deathtraps like the VW Minibus. If you carve a cutout for minivans... then you end up with something similar to the light-duty truck mpg loophole that enabled large SUV/Pickup trucks today. At the end of the day... it's human condition that we are working around... and so any type of solution implemented by a democratic nation needs consider the human factor.

And if we are in the magical alternate dimension where socially/politically we can pass/enforce any law/regulation/restriction we want... why are we using weight as a proxy when again all that really matters is energy efficiency per passenger.

 

[ScifiGeek]

1500kg it's right there in my post that's just over 3300lb's. It was also an example just change it too new sales and purchasing second hand out of state vehicles then.

But something has to be done.

That's questionable and arbitrary.

What we should do is remove rules that actually encourage larger vehicles. Kill regulations that change fuel economy rules for trucks. Put all vehicles under the same rules and that would automatically put pressure on larger vehicles, unlike the current situation that encourages heavier vehicles and trucks in the USA.

Even the new EV tax credit has this:

New battery electric cars that cost more than $55,000 do not qualify for the EV tax credit. That price threshold rises to $80,000 for new battery electric SUVs, vans or pickup trucks.

That's more encouragement for bigger/heavier trucks/SUVs. The limit should be the same either way, not more subsidy, for more expensive, heavier, less efficient trucks.

Different fuel economy rules and penalties for car and "trucks", where they are more lax for the latter have contributed to make everything a bigger, heavier, less efficient "truck" in the USA.

 

[_GntlStone_]

Do you have any statistics to define "a lot"? To me it seems the same as many other segments that have seen a collapse of choice in the name of "consumer demand", there isn't a choice and marketing and salespeople push hard to sell what is available.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy — damn lies and statistics being bedfellows and all — but you might find some guidance regarding boat and camping trailer ownership in the following:

Boating Statistics in 2022 (incl. Covid & Millennials) | Quicknav

37+ Key RV Industry Statistics, Trends & Facts (2022 Data)

Both segments saw growth during the pandemic.

From the latter, I found two datapoints to be of particular interest…

​In the United States, 1 out of every 5 RVs (20%) is classified as a “conventional travel trailer.” About 14% of households own a Type A motorhome or a fifth-wheel. PMRVs come in third, representing 12% of RV ownership. (RVIA)

Over 94,000 wholesale shipments of fifth-wheel RVs occur each year, compared to just 62,000 wholesale shipments of motorhomes, which are traditionally viewed as the primary RV families own. Fifth-wheels are taking over as the primary RV in an American household! 

None of this should be interpreted as an endorsement of “bigger things” on my part. Ultimately I’m looking for a simple “camper van”, or possibly a camper insert on a pickup, (once I’m free to roam again myself) and hope by the time that’s a reality there are “affordable” electric options available.

Did you see the TFL YouTube video series on the F150 Lightning trip from Colorado to the top of Alaska?

They got a nice lightweight topper (and tour of the factory). They also addressed the trials and tribulations (totally workable) of charging.

Excellent and informative videos.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjXp ... zTY8PxiLCW

 

[ColdWetDog]

I bet EVs would make excellent 4x4 off-roaders...speaking to the fact their weight is likely distributed a lot better *and* the fact each wheel can operate truly independently in regard to traction control I mean.

A dozen years ago I remember seeing a lot of older military surplus 3/4 Chevy Trucks with 6.2L diesels (hardly rocket ship power plants I mean, lol) being fixed up because while it wasn't uber powerful, it still was a cheap diesel that made power lower than gas engines, speaking to things like rock crawling, etc.

Those trucks always fascinated me, they had been manufactured for the military in the 80s and they were practically indestructible because even though they were 3/4 ton pickups, the drivetrains were essentially full-ton heavy duty and considering the 6.2L diesels could only make like 250-300lbs of torque, it was virtually impossible to hurt them in normal operation.

And that's the point for a lot of people, the utility component. I'd like to be able to haul stuff around, head offroad and not get stuck in the first muddy pothole I encounter, park against a tree if I need to, and know that my drive train won't let me down. Even better if I can easily bypass sensors etc that could leave me stranded if and when they break, and I'll replace and reconnect them when I'm back home and safe.

I'd love an EV, but I'm stuck between replacing the heavy diesel that doesn't let me down costs a bit in fuel but nothing in finance, nd isn't environmentally friendly, vs getting a horrendously expensive EV with the same capabilities for 30%+ the cost of a house and land where I live.

It's not a hard sell to keep the old stuff around at that point.

And you don't need to get rid of old stuff. The carbon and other aspects of pollution and resource use have been accounted for. The only large environmental downside is your fuel use. Assuming that you use the vehicle for occasional recreation / projects it is likely only a couple of thousand miles per year.

Contrast this with buying a brand new EV. Lots of carbon, etc. goes into making one. Will take some time to amortize that.

Now, over time, fewer and fewer ICE vehicles will be available, more BEVs. If you were starting out all over again, your choices might well be different.

This is going to be a slow transition. We don't have the resources - economic and otherwise - to do anything else but. I plan on keeping my ICE 4Runner until it is time to junk it. Hopefully by then there will be a raft of BEV off road capable vehicles.

Or, I'll be in an old folks home and just zip around in my electric wheelchair.

 

[ColdWetDog]

1500kg it's right there in my post that's just over 3300lb's. It was also an example just change it too new sales and purchasing second hand out of state vehicles then.

But something has to be done.

That's questionable and arbitrary.

What we should do is remove rules that actually encourage larger vehicles. Kill regulations that change fuel economy rules for trucks. Put all vehicles under the same rules and that would automatically put pressure on larger vehicles, unlike the current situation that encourages heavier vehicles and trucks in the USA.

Even the new EV tax credit has this:

New battery electric cars that cost more than $55,000 do not qualify for the EV tax credit. That price threshold rises to $80,000 for new battery electric SUVs, vans or pickup trucks.

That's more encouragement for bigger/heavier trucks/SUVs. The limit should be the same either way, not more subsidy, for more expensive, heavier, less efficient trucks.

Different fuel economy rules and penalties for car and "trucks", where they are more lax for the latter have contributed to make everything a bigger, heavier, less efficient "truck" in the USA.

Getting rid of 'recreational vehicle' plates (deeply discounted in several states),'Farm Truck' and other discounted registrations will also help.

Colorado vehicle registration costs are pinned to vehicle value so new big monster toys get hammered. Unfortunately, they've tacked on a $300 battery electric vehicle fee so one step forward, one sideways.

 

[Adreaver]

1500kg it's right there in my post that's just over 3300lb's. It was also an example just change it too new sales and purchasing second hand out of state vehicles then.

But something has to be done.

That's questionable and arbitrary.

What we should do is remove rules that actually encourage larger vehicles. Kill regulations that change fuel economy rules for trucks. Put all vehicles under the same rules and that would automatically put pressure on larger vehicles, unlike the current situation that encourages heavier vehicles and trucks in the USA.

Even the new EV tax credit has this:

New battery electric cars that cost more than $55,000 do not qualify for the EV tax credit. That price threshold rises to $80,000 for new battery electric SUVs, vans or pickup trucks.

That's more encouragement for bigger/heavier trucks/SUVs. The limit should be the same either way, not more subsidy, for more expensive, heavier, less efficient trucks.

Different fuel economy rules and penalties for car and "trucks", where they are more lax for the latter have contributed to make everything a bigger, heavier, less efficient "truck" in the USA.

Getting rid of 'recreational vehicle' plates (deeply discounted in several states),'Farm Truck' and other discounted registrations will also help.

Colorado vehicle registration costs are pinned to vehicle value so new big monster toys get hammered. Unfortunately, they've tacked on a $300 battery electric vehicle fee so one step forward, one sideways.

A BEV fee at registration seems a reasonable means to recoup the gas tax that BEV drivers don't pay. Road upkeep and improvements need to be paid for somehow, taxing drivers is perfectly reasonable. It's regressive, so I'd waive the fee for anyone making under a certain income, but otherwise it's fine.

Of course, charging an excise tax on the 18 wheelers that are causing the vast majority of wear and tear on the roads would be better, but we can't do that because capitalism or something.

 

[android_alpaca]

You presented a completely unworkable (and bad for the environment) plan of "make it illegal to own or operate any vehicle over 1500 lbs by 2035". There are a number of cars on the road today that will be affordable used vehicles in 12 years. If you make those cars illegal, the pool of available used cars shrinks, prices rise, the people who can afford it pay the premium for the cars that are available, and the poor get shafted.

Meanwhile, you are junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own.

By what measure are you considering "environmentally sound?" Ars wrote an article titled "New EV vs. old beater: Which is better for the environment?". TLDR was that in basically every situation a new BEV surpasses a used ICEV within a few years.

Using 2021 US national energy mix, researchers at Argonne National Laboratories calculated Model 3 surpasses a 33mpg Toyota Corolla at 13,500 miles.. With 100% Hydro (e.g. carbon free), it's after 8,400 miles. With 100% Coal, it's 78,000 miles (that's a lot... but it's still within the operational lifetime of the vehicle).

That is for sedans... they also calculated it for midsized SUVs. Showing a Tesla Model surpasses a 30mpg Honda CR-V at 9,200/14,800/89,000 miles for hydro/US avg/coal electricity.

So as the US energy mix gets cleaner... the a BEV will be even more "environmentally" sound from the perspective of CO2 emission at the very least (there are some other environmentally oriented nuances, but most of them are red herrings).

Yes, I read that article when it was written. It's also referencing 2010 EPA fuel economy numbers given the average age of a car on the road today is just over 12 years. The poster I was replying to was talking about making all large ICEVs illegal by 2035, so assuming the average age of vehicles remains about 12 years, that would mean the "old beater" is using 2023 EPA fuel economy numbers. The most recent we have are 2021 numbers, which is 8887 grams of CO2 per mile, or roughly 3512 kg (7744lbs) annually.

Using the same calculations as the earlier article, the EV produces 12000 lbs in manufacturing and 2866 lbs annually based on the average US grid mix (this is todays mix - the 2035 mix will be greener but we don't know by how much so can't use it in calculations).

As before, for a bit over the first 2 years of the car's lifetime, the new BEV is worse for the environment than the existing ICEV. Beyond that, the CO2 "debt" from manufacturing has broken even, and the BEV is more efficient.

So yes, a ton of people with existing cars that work fine but become illegal overnight all rushing out to get a new BEV would be worse for the environment than if those same people continued driving their existing ICEVs and replaced them via attrition, at least up through about 2037.

Don't get me wrong, I like BEVs and my next car will be a BEV Maverick (assuming Ford releases one, which really feels like a no brainer to me). I have no issue with laws pushing people into BEVs whether they like it or not, provided there are subsidies so the working poor don't get shafted. That said, making a huge swath of available cars on the road (and on the used market) illegal overnight is not a workable solution.

I completely agree that an "overnight" operational ban on ICEV, and/or vehicles over 1500kg is a bad idea - however, the fact that it is temporarily worse environment for a few years, but then guaranteed to be much better for the environment forever after seems like a pretty weak argument against it.

Imagine for a moment that all the much bigger issues were magically resolved in some rainbows-unicorns alternate dimension. That the entire population suddenly was very pro-BEV... and voted in politicians that were pro-BEV and create BEV-incentives make them affordable to all households, and automakers were some how able ramp up production of affordable BEV, and logistical enforcement of the ban was easy and had no legal challenges, non-compliance, etc... so the only issue is the short term rise in GHG emissions due to the higher energy require to build the batteries. That situation still is literally the "best case scenario" in terms of cumulative GHG from personal transportation 10 years later, 20 years later, 30 years later, forever after.

No, the best-case scenario is to have perfect predictive data about which cars will fail and when, and how many new cars will be needed, and produce exactly enough BEVs to meet that target, no more, no less.

We both agree that these scenarios would never happen... so feel free to ignore me if you aren't interesting belaboring this point further. However, I don't understand your train of thought on this point... we agree on many facts, but I think I'm failing to include some detail you are assuming. Since we are are talking about the theoretical ban on operation of ICEV, so those ICEV aren't being operated elsewhere. I don't see how waiting for the ICEV to fail before replacing it with a BEV better when only considering the reduction of cumulative CO2 emissions. I only see that as important in terms of economic/financial issue... which to be sure definitely is an issue and needs to be considered and addressed... but isn't the the part of your post I was questioning.

Like how about this thought experiment... say the world only have five ICEV... what replacement scheme would lead to the least amount of release CO2... replacing all five with BEV immediately, after 5 years... or as they "fail" (which I take to mean cost more to repair/maintain than the remaining value of the car... else you probably could always keep the car running like the "Ship of Theseus").

Below I've whipped up a quick spreadsheet of the cumulative CO2 emissions under various scenarios (roughly using numbers we both agree about - that is 8000 lbs of CO2 per year to operate a ICEV, 12000 lbs of CO2 to make a new BEV and 3000 lb s of CO2 per yearto operate a BEV). Comparing all the scenarios... I don't see how replacing the ICEV piece meal over the years leads to less cumulative CO2 (I put a hypothetical replace one every 4 years). What am I failing to take into account compared to your thinking?

That obviously isn't realistic, so if you want to meet demand, you need to overproduce BEVs (short term bad for the environment, long term net positive for the environment, excess supply creates downward pressure on BEV pricing). I don't think that's a bad thing, to be clear, just something to think about as you theorycraft legislation that impacts several hundred million people, most of whom can't afford a single unexpected $400 expense, let alone a new car at the drop of a hat.

Yes, I agree it is very important to consider that economic/financial/equity aspects of the final stages of BEV adoption... where a potential ban on ICEV operation might happen... but again, that's not the part I questioned... but you keep seeming to conflate that with environmental concerns and I don't see the connection from what you've said. Again... the specific claim I'm questioning is where you said "junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own."

 

[ScifiGeek]

connection from what you've said. Again... the specific claim I'm questioning is where you said "junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own."

Except, they don't show that.

Maybe if you are buying a car as a lawn ornament, that holds.

But actually driving them, a new EV, will quickly pay it's production GHG "debt" and pull ahead.

 

[Funusername]

MPGe is meaningless.

Compare the complete emissions:
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?yea ... action=bt3

TL;DR: With the current electrical grid mix, EVs produce 56% fewer emissions in the most populated zip codes. Nationwide, they emit 48% fewer emissions.

Here's the numbers:
Per the EPA, one (1) gallon of gasoline yields 8,887 grams of CO2.

For the gas-powered F150, that is: (8,887 grams / 1 gallon) / 23 MPG = 386.3913 grams per mile (this doesn't count electricity usage for refining, pumping, etc.).

Running the 50 most populated zip codes through that link, we find the F150 Lightning emissions are:
Mean (of the 50 most populated zip codes): 168g/mi. - 56% less
Mean from US grid mix: 200g/mi. - 48% less

These numbers will only improve as power generation switches to renewables.

Here's the full dataset:
60629 240g/mi. - 38% less
79936 210g/mi. - 46% less
90011 130g/mi. - 66% less
11385 160g/mi. - 59% less
90650 130g/mi. - 66% less
77494 190g/mi. - 51% less
91331 130g/mi. - 66% less
90201 130g/mi. - 66% less
10467 160g/mi. - 59% less
11226 160g/mi. - 59% less
11211 160g/mi. - 59% less
11236 160g/mi. - 59% less
11220 160g/mi. - 59% less
92335 130g/mi. - 66% less
08701 170g/mi. - 56% less
11208 160g/mi. - 59% less
11234 160g/mi. - 59% less
90250 130g/mi. - 66% less
11373 160g/mi. - 59% less
91342 130g/mi. - 66% less
90805 130g/mi. - 66% less
75034 210g/mi. - 46% less
37013 210g/mi. - 46% less
90280 130g/mi. - 66% less
60618 240g/mi. - 38% less
90044 130g/mi. - 66% less
10456 160g/mi. - 59% less
92503 130g/mi. - 66% less
10025 160g/mi. - 59% less
92336 130g/mi. - 66% less
11214 160g/mi. - 59% less
75052 210g/mi. - 46% less
11219 160g/mi. - 59% less
94565 130g/mi. - 66% less
75070 210g/mi. - 46% less
78521 210g/mi. - 46% less
11207 160g/mi. - 59% less
92683 130g/mi. - 66% less
60632 240g/mi. - 38% less
60639 240g/mi. - 38% less
92704 130g/mi. - 66% less
11230 160g/mi. - 59% less
10314 160g/mi. - 59% less
11377 160g/mi. - 59% less
30044 220g/mi. - 32% less
91710 130g/mi. - 66% less
77479 210g/mi. - 46% less
30043 220g/mi. - 32% less
60623 240g/mi. - 38% less
92804 130g/mi. - 66% less

 

[ScifiGeek]

MPGe is meaningless.

Compare the complete emissions:
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?yea ... action=bt3

TL;DR: With the current electrical grid mix, EVs produce 56% fewer emissions in the most populated zip codes. Nationwide, they emit 48% fewer emissions.

I would think the overall average is the one that matters.

But either way the point was, the difference isn't as extreme as MPGe indicates. MPGe is just a pointless measure, that serves no purpose.

 

[android_alpaca]

connection from what you've said. Again... the specific claim I'm questioning is where you said "junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own."

Except, they don't show that.

Maybe if you are buying a car as a lawn ornament, that holds.

But actually driving them, a new EV, will quickly pay it's production GHG "debt" and pull ahead.

I know... if you re-read my entire post more carefully.. you would release that sentence is a quote from AdReaver that I'm questioning... since he also said "for a bit over the first 2 years of the car's lifetime, the new BEV is worse for the environment than the existing ICEV. Beyond that, the CO2 "debt" from manufacturing has broken even, and the BEV is more efficient." and I don't understand how he can say both statements are true since they seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

Well that would be one sure way to get this left-leaning, pro-vax, climate concerned citizen to join the “anti-government” movement. (Also, not a moron — my mom had me tested.)

Sorry. I use my SUV as an SUV. Regularly. I’d prefer it be all-electric, but if my hand is forced, I’ll keep the current gas burner as long as possible. And join the revolution if I must.

Ah yes the entitled 'I don't care about the future only me matters' that is so prevalent in American's.

We need to build more coal power stations and roll more coal the quicker humanity wipes itself out the sooner the Earth can start recovering and the sooner future life will have a chance.

Because I'm just done why bother sacrificing anything when a Jaberg will just buy a huge SUV and make all your conservation efforts over a year worthless in a weekend.

You presented a completely unworkable (and bad for the environment) plan of "make it illegal to own or operate any vehicle over 1500 lbs by 2035". There are a number of cars on the road today that will be affordable used vehicles in 12 years. If you make those cars illegal, the pool of available used cars shrinks, prices rise, the people who can afford it pay the premium for the cars that are available, and the poor get shafted.

Meanwhile, you are junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own.

If you want to advocate for banning manufacture of ICEVs or SUVs or whatever, go ahead, but making my current mode of transport illegal will mean I lose my job (which is a union job with great benefits that I intend to work at for the next 30+ years), I can't feed my kids, and I will hate you and everything you stand for.

1500kg it's right there in my post that's just over 3300lb's. It was also an example just change it too new sales and purchasing second hand out of state vehicles then.

But something has to be done.

I am just wondering where you pulled that 1500kg number from. In perspective a Tesla Model 3 (thanks google) weighs between 3,648 and 4,250 lbs (1654 - 1927kg). With that in mind what kind of BEV are you thinking of? What kind of carry capacity, range, survivability etc are you talking about?

How about a 1974 Ford Pinto? Google says that they weighed 2370 lbs (1075.014 kg) so that meets your criteria and hey, they were listed at 20mpg damm good for 1974!
You know, the '74 Chevy Vega was only 2217 lbs (1005.614 kg) and was listed at 21mpg...

Ok fine, how about a 1977 (last year made for sale in the US) VW Beetle? Google says: 1830 lbs ( 830.074 kg).

My point is that an arbitrary (so it seems) weight limit is not a good measure of what size vehicles should/should not be allowed.

On the other side of the Atlantic, there are lots of cars around 1500kg - some of them were (possibly still are, I'm not sure) sold in the US, including the Ford Fiesta. The Vauxhall Corsa EV I have on order is 1530kg, ever so slightly over Ushio's limit, but it wouldn't be hard to trim some fat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fiesta
https://ev-database.uk/car/1585/Vauxhall-Corsa-e

Not only is the Fiesta dead here, so is the Focus. Hell, the Fusion (Mondeo) is dead. The only "car" Ford sells over here anymore is the Mustang. The smallest crossover is probably the Escape? Unless they're still making the god forsaken Eco Sport.

 

[Rbrian]

On the other side of the Atlantic, there are lots of cars around 1500kg - some of them were (possibly still are, I'm not sure) sold in the US, including the Ford Fiesta. The Vauxhall Corsa EV I have on order is 1530kg, ever so slightly over Ushio's limit, but it wouldn't be hard to trim some fat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fiesta
https://ev-database.uk/car/1585/Vauxhall-Corsa-e

Not only is the Fiesta dead here, so is the Focus. Hell, the Fusion (Mondeo) is dead. The only "car" Ford sells over here anymore is the Mustang. The smallest crossover is probably the Escape? Unless they're still making the god forsaken Eco Sport.[/quote]

When I visited California, Nevada, and Arizona way back in 1995, I saw some small cars - lots of Geo Metros in San Francisco (sold as Suzuki Swift in the UK). Don't you have those any more? Toyota Yaris? Honda Fit (Jazz over here). Japan is a great source of interesting small cars, due to the Kei taxation class, and all of these I've mentioned are bigger.

 

[Rbrian]

I am just wondering where you pulled that 1500kg number from. In perspective a Tesla Model 3 (thanks google) weighs between 3,648 and 4,250 lbs (1654 - 1927kg). With that in mind what kind of BEV are you thinking of? What kind of carry capacity, range, survivability etc are you talking about?

How about a 1974 Ford Pinto? Google says that they weighed 2370 lbs (1075.014 kg) so that meets your criteria and hey, they were listed at 20mpg damm good for 1974!
You know, the '74 Chevy Vega was only 2217 lbs (1005.614 kg) and was listed at 21mpg...

Ok fine, how about a 1977 (last year made for sale in the US) VW Beetle? Google says: 1830 lbs ( 830.074 kg).

My point is that an arbitrary (so it seems) weight limit is not a good measure of what size vehicles should/should not be allowed.

On the other side of the Atlantic, there are lots of cars around 1500kg - some of them were (possibly still are, I'm not sure) sold in the US, including the Ford Fiesta. The Vauxhall Corsa EV I have on order is 1530kg, ever so slightly over Ushio's limit, but it wouldn't be hard to trim some fat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fiesta
https://ev-database.uk/car/1585/Vauxhall-Corsa-e

Not only is the Fiesta dead here, so is the Focus. Hell, the Fusion (Mondeo) is dead. The only "car" Ford sells over here anymore is the Mustang. The smallest crossover is probably the Escape? Unless they're still making the god forsaken Eco Sport.[/quote]

When I visited California, Nevada, and Arizona way back in 1995, I saw some small cars - lots of Geo Metros in San Francisco (sold as Suzuki Swift in the UK). Don't you have those any more? Toyota Yaris? Honda Fit (Jazz over here). Japan is a great source of interesting small cars, due to the Kei taxation class, and all of these I've mentioned are bigger.

Edit - Wow, sorting out the quote tags to get over the 6 quote limit is frustrating on mobile while in a car (not driving, I'm a passenger). Even a handheld touchscreen is awkward.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

Not only is the Fiesta dead here, so is the Focus. Hell, the Fusion (Mondeo) is dead. The only "car" Ford sells over here anymore is the Mustang. The smallest crossover is probably the Escape? Unless they're still making the god forsaken Eco Sport.

When I visited California, Nevada, and Arizona way back in 1995, I saw some small cars - lots of Geo Metros in San Francisco (sold as Suzuki Swift in the UK). Don't you have those any more? Toyota Yaris? Honda Fit (Jazz over here). Japan is a great source of interesting small cars, due to the Kei taxation class, and all of these I've mentioned are bigger.

Nope, not anymore. Those are all dead over here.

E: Ford is bringing back both the Focus and the Fusion, but they're both going to be crossovers instead of a small hatchback and midsize sedan. They're going to offer nearly a dozen or so crossovers and no sedans or traditional hatchbacks. It's insane.

 

[Akzo]

maybe this will fix Jeeps reputation as lemon cars

 

[Adreaver]

You presented a completely unworkable (and bad for the environment) plan of "make it illegal to own or operate any vehicle over 1500 lbs by 2035". There are a number of cars on the road today that will be affordable used vehicles in 12 years. If you make those cars illegal, the pool of available used cars shrinks, prices rise, the people who can afford it pay the premium for the cars that are available, and the poor get shafted.

Meanwhile, you are junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own.

By what measure are you considering "environmentally sound?" Ars wrote an article titled "New EV vs. old beater: Which is better for the environment?". TLDR was that in basically every situation a new BEV surpasses a used ICEV within a few years.

Using 2021 US national energy mix, researchers at Argonne National Laboratories calculated Model 3 surpasses a 33mpg Toyota Corolla at 13,500 miles.. With 100% Hydro (e.g. carbon free), it's after 8,400 miles. With 100% Coal, it's 78,000 miles (that's a lot... but it's still within the operational lifetime of the vehicle).

That is for sedans... they also calculated it for midsized SUVs. Showing a Tesla Model surpasses a 30mpg Honda CR-V at 9,200/14,800/89,000 miles for hydro/US avg/coal electricity.

So as the US energy mix gets cleaner... the a BEV will be even more "environmentally" sound from the perspective of CO2 emission at the very least (there are some other environmentally oriented nuances, but most of them are red herrings).

Yes, I read that article when it was written. It's also referencing 2010 EPA fuel economy numbers given the average age of a car on the road today is just over 12 years. The poster I was replying to was talking about making all large ICEVs illegal by 2035, so assuming the average age of vehicles remains about 12 years, that would mean the "old beater" is using 2023 EPA fuel economy numbers. The most recent we have are 2021 numbers, which is 8887 grams of CO2 per mile, or roughly 3512 kg (7744lbs) annually.

Using the same calculations as the earlier article, the EV produces 12000 lbs in manufacturing and 2866 lbs annually based on the average US grid mix (this is todays mix - the 2035 mix will be greener but we don't know by how much so can't use it in calculations).

As before, for a bit over the first 2 years of the car's lifetime, the new BEV is worse for the environment than the existing ICEV. Beyond that, the CO2 "debt" from manufacturing has broken even, and the BEV is more efficient.

So yes, a ton of people with existing cars that work fine but become illegal overnight all rushing out to get a new BEV would be worse for the environment than if those same people continued driving their existing ICEVs and replaced them via attrition, at least up through about 2037.

Don't get me wrong, I like BEVs and my next car will be a BEV Maverick (assuming Ford releases one, which really feels like a no brainer to me). I have no issue with laws pushing people into BEVs whether they like it or not, provided there are subsidies so the working poor don't get shafted. That said, making a huge swath of available cars on the road (and on the used market) illegal overnight is not a workable solution.

I completely agree that an "overnight" operational ban on ICEV, and/or vehicles over 1500kg is a bad idea - however, the fact that it is temporarily worse environment for a few years, but then guaranteed to be much better for the environment forever after seems like a pretty weak argument against it.

Imagine for a moment that all the much bigger issues were magically resolved in some rainbows-unicorns alternate dimension. That the entire population suddenly was very pro-BEV... and voted in politicians that were pro-BEV and create BEV-incentives make them affordable to all households, and automakers were some how able ramp up production of affordable BEV, and logistical enforcement of the ban was easy and had no legal challenges, non-compliance, etc... so the only issue is the short term rise in GHG emissions due to the higher energy require to build the batteries. That situation still is literally the "best case scenario" in terms of cumulative GHG from personal transportation 10 years later, 20 years later, 30 years later, forever after.

No, the best-case scenario is to have perfect predictive data about which cars will fail and when, and how many new cars will be needed, and produce exactly enough BEVs to meet that target, no more, no less.

We both agree that these scenarios would never happen... so feel free to ignore me if you aren't interesting belaboring this point further. However, I don't understand your train of thought on this point... we agree on many facts, but I think I'm failing to include some detail you are assuming. Since we are are talking about the theoretical ban on operation of ICEV, so those ICEV aren't being operated elsewhere. I don't see how waiting for the ICEV to fail before replacing it with a BEV better when only considering the reduction of cumulative CO2 emissions. I only see that as important in terms of economic/financial issue... which to be sure definitely is an issue and needs to be considered and addressed... but isn't the the part of your post I was questioning.

Like how about this thought experiment... say the world only have five ICEV... what replacement scheme would lead to the least amount of release CO2... replacing all five with BEV immediately, after 5 years... or as they "fail" (which I take to mean cost more to repair/maintain than the remaining value of the car... else you probably could always keep the car running like the "Ship of Theseus").

Below I've whipped up a quick spreadsheet of the cumulative CO2 emissions under various scenarios (roughly using numbers we both agree about - that is 8000 lbs of CO2 per year to operate a ICEV, 12000 lbs of CO2 to make a new BEV and 3000 lb s of CO2 per yearto operate a BEV). Comparing all the scenarios... I don't see how replacing the ICEV piece meal over the years leads to less cumulative CO2 (I put a hypothetical replace one every 4 years). What am I failing to take into account compared to your thinking?

That obviously isn't realistic, so if you want to meet demand, you need to overproduce BEVs (short term bad for the environment, long term net positive for the environment, excess supply creates downward pressure on BEV pricing). I don't think that's a bad thing, to be clear, just something to think about as you theorycraft legislation that impacts several hundred million people, most of whom can't afford a single unexpected $400 expense, let alone a new car at the drop of a hat.

Yes, I agree it is very important to consider that economic/financial/equity aspects of the final stages of BEV adoption... where a potential ban on ICEV operation might happen... but again, that's not the part I questioned... but you keep seeming to conflate that with environmental concerns and I don't see the connection from what you've said. Again... the specific claim I'm questioning is where you said "junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own."

Over the long term, you generate the smallest amount of CO2 by firing all the ICEVs into the sun and replacing them with BEVs this morning.

Over the short term (≤ 2 years), that would be a net gain in CO2 production.

Thus if I were setting policy, I would ban ICEV production and introduce BEV purchase incentives in 2023, ban sales of new ICEVs in 2024 (giving the 2023 models time to sell through) and further increase BEV incentives, then gradually reduce the BEV incentives and add excise operational taxes/fees to ICEVs over the next 5-10 years (e.g. I'll pay you $100 to buy a BEV today, but next year I'll pay you $50 to buy a BEV or charge you $50 to reregister your ICEV, thus the net incentive remains constant throughout the transition period).

The people who want and can afford a BEV would be able to get one quickly. The people who want but can't afford one would be able to get one in the near-ish term, due to solely BEV production driving prices down combined with the incentives. The ICEV die hards would switch to a BEV when the hit to their wallet becomes too much. The people who have a legitimate need for ICEVs (emergency services primarily, things like the National Forest Service for example) would be reliant on an exception for that specific use-case.

It isn't possible to have the lowest possible CO2 production without completely upending the economy and utterly screwing anyone who isn't a homeowner with the right utility setup and enough cash to buy a BEV today. Thus I advocate for the next best thing.

connection from what you've said. Again... the specific claim I'm questioning is where you said "junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own."

Except, they don't show that.

Maybe if you are buying a car as a lawn ornament, that holds.

But actually driving them, a new EV, will quickly pay it's production GHG "debt" and pull ahead.

Payback time is ~2 years assuming you have a 12 year old vehicle with average fuel economy, and you drive about as much as the national average. If your existing vehicle is more efficient than the average 12 year old car, or if you drive less, payback time is longer. If your vehicle is less efficient than the average 12 year old vehicle, or you drive a lot of miles, payback time is shorter.

Everybody in the US ditching ICEVs today and rushing out to get BEVs means all the CO2 that transportation was going to dump into the atmosphere in the next 2 years happens at once. I don't know how bad something like that would be in terms of climate change.

 

[ScifiGeek]

Everybody in the US ditching ICEVs today and rushing out to get BEVs means all the CO2 that transportation was going to dump into the atmosphere in the next 2 years happens at once. I don't know how bad something like that would be in terms of climate change.

That is utterly impossible, but would still likely be beneficial in the long run if it could happen.

 

[Adreaver]

Everybody in the US ditching ICEVs today and rushing out to get BEVs means all the CO2 that transportation was going to dump into the atmosphere in the next 2 years happens at once. I don't know how bad something like that would be in terms of climate change.

That is utterly impossible, but would still likely be beneficial in the long run if it could happen.

As I said - yes, this would still be the best scenario over the long term.

Short term I don't know whether or not the massive influx of CO2 all at once (again this is speaking hypothetically - as we've all acknowledged, actually switching 100% of ICEVs to BEVs overnight is not possible) would have a negative impact on climate over and above "normal" CO2 production.

 

[android_alpaca]

By what measure are you considering "environmentally sound?" Ars wrote an article titled "New EV vs. old beater: Which is better for the environment?". TLDR was that in basically every situation a new BEV surpasses a used ICEV within a few years.

Using 2021 US national energy mix, researchers at Argonne National Laboratories calculated Model 3 surpasses a 33mpg Toyota Corolla at 13,500 miles.. With 100% Hydro (e.g. carbon free), it's after 8,400 miles. With 100% Coal, it's 78,000 miles (that's a lot... but it's still within the operational lifetime of the vehicle).

That is for sedans... they also calculated it for midsized SUVs. Showing a Tesla Model surpasses a 30mpg Honda CR-V at 9,200/14,800/89,000 miles for hydro/US avg/coal electricity.

So as the US energy mix gets cleaner... the a BEV will be even more "environmentally" sound from the perspective of CO2 emission at the very least (there are some other environmentally oriented nuances, but most of them are red herrings).

Yes, I read that article when it was written. It's also referencing 2010 EPA fuel economy numbers given the average age of a car on the road today is just over 12 years. The poster I was replying to was talking about making all large ICEVs illegal by 2035, so assuming the average age of vehicles remains about 12 years, that would mean the "old beater" is using 2023 EPA fuel economy numbers. The most recent we have are 2021 numbers, which is 8887 grams of CO2 per mile, or roughly 3512 kg (7744lbs) annually.

Using the same calculations as the earlier article, the EV produces 12000 lbs in manufacturing and 2866 lbs annually based on the average US grid mix (this is todays mix - the 2035 mix will be greener but we don't know by how much so can't use it in calculations).

As before, for a bit over the first 2 years of the car's lifetime, the new BEV is worse for the environment than the existing ICEV. Beyond that, the CO2 "debt" from manufacturing has broken even, and the BEV is more efficient.

So yes, a ton of people with existing cars that work fine but become illegal overnight all rushing out to get a new BEV would be worse for the environment than if those same people continued driving their existing ICEVs and replaced them via attrition, at least up through about 2037.

Don't get me wrong, I like BEVs and my next car will be a BEV Maverick (assuming Ford releases one, which really feels like a no brainer to me). I have no issue with laws pushing people into BEVs whether they like it or not, provided there are subsidies so the working poor don't get shafted. That said, making a huge swath of available cars on the road (and on the used market) illegal overnight is not a workable solution.

I completely agree that an "overnight" operational ban on ICEV, and/or vehicles over 1500kg is a bad idea - however, the fact that it is temporarily worse environment for a few years, but then guaranteed to be much better for the environment forever after seems like a pretty weak argument against it.

Imagine for a moment that all the much bigger issues were magically resolved in some rainbows-unicorns alternate dimension. That the entire population suddenly was very pro-BEV... and voted in politicians that were pro-BEV and create BEV-incentives make them affordable to all households, and automakers were some how able ramp up production of affordable BEV, and logistical enforcement of the ban was easy and had no legal challenges, non-compliance, etc... so the only issue is the short term rise in GHG emissions due to the higher energy require to build the batteries. That situation still is literally the "best case scenario" in terms of cumulative GHG from personal transportation 10 years later, 20 years later, 30 years later, forever after.

No, the best-case scenario is to have perfect predictive data about which cars will fail and when, and how many new cars will be needed, and produce exactly enough BEVs to meet that target, no more, no less.

We both agree that these scenarios would never happen... so feel free to ignore me if you aren't interesting belaboring this point further. However, I don't understand your train of thought on this point... we agree on many facts, but I think I'm failing to include some detail you are assuming. Since we are are talking about the theoretical ban on operation of ICEV, so those ICEV aren't being operated elsewhere. I don't see how waiting for the ICEV to fail before replacing it with a BEV better when only considering the reduction of cumulative CO2 emissions. I only see that as important in terms of economic/financial issue... which to be sure definitely is an issue and needs to be considered and addressed... but isn't the the part of your post I was questioning.

Like how about this thought experiment... say the world only have five ICEV... what replacement scheme would lead to the least amount of release CO2... replacing all five with BEV immediately, after 5 years... or as they "fail" (which I take to mean cost more to repair/maintain than the remaining value of the car... else you probably could always keep the car running like the "Ship of Theseus").

Below I've whipped up a quick spreadsheet of the cumulative CO2 emissions under various scenarios (roughly using numbers we both agree about - that is 8000 lbs of CO2 per year to operate a ICEV, 12000 lbs of CO2 to make a new BEV and 3000 lb s of CO2 per yearto operate a BEV). Comparing all the scenarios... I don't see how replacing the ICEV piece meal over the years leads to less cumulative CO2 (I put a hypothetical replace one every 4 years). What am I failing to take into account compared to your thinking?

That obviously isn't realistic, so if you want to meet demand, you need to overproduce BEVs (short term bad for the environment, long term net positive for the environment, excess supply creates downward pressure on BEV pricing). I don't think that's a bad thing, to be clear, just something to think about as you theorycraft legislation that impacts several hundred million people, most of whom can't afford a single unexpected $400 expense, let alone a new car at the drop of a hat.

Yes, I agree it is very important to consider that economic/financial/equity aspects of the final stages of BEV adoption... where a potential ban on ICEV operation might happen... but again, that's not the part I questioned... but you keep seeming to conflate that with environmental concerns and I don't see the connection from what you've said. Again... the specific claim I'm questioning is where you said "junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own."

Over the long term, you generate the smallest amount of CO2 by replacing them with BEVs this morning.

Over the short term (≤ 2 years), that would be a net gain in CO2 production.

Ok... so you admit that your previous statement that "most environmentally sound car is the one you already own." was misleading if not outright wrong. Again... yes "that would be a net gain in CO2" during that first 1-2 years (or more) and it something to note but the more important fact is that without a doubt after 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 years CO2 emission would be less.

It isn't possible to have the lowest possible CO2 production without completely upending the economy and utterly screwing anyone who isn't a homeowner with the right utility setup and enough cash to buy a BEV today. Thus I advocate for the next best thing.

That is a completely fine point to make... but that wasn't the only thing you said in the original post that I replied to. Again, I agree with your overall reasoning... especially the economic/financial impact... but I think on the specific point of used ICEV vs BEV was misleading and found your following attempt to change the subject without admitting you misstatement to be disingenuous. You are free to ignore my post, not reply and move on. But I'm going to challenge you again if you try to dodge or gaslight that point about "used ICEV vs new BEVs."

connection from what you've said. Again... the specific claim I'm questioning is where you said "junking all the existing ICEVs and producing smaller BEVs to replace them, when studies show the most environmentally sound car is the one you already own."

Except, they don't show that.

Maybe if you are buying a car as a lawn ornament, that holds.

But actually driving them, a new EV, will quickly pay it's production GHG "debt" and pull ahead.

Payback time is ~2 years assuming you have a 12 year old vehicle with average fuel economy, and you drive about as much as the national average. If your existing vehicle is more efficient than the average 12 year old car, or if you drive less, payback time is longer. If your vehicle is less efficient than the average 12 year old vehicle, or you drive a lot of miles, payback time is shorter.

You memory of the of the previous Ars article is not completely correct. Yes, it assumed a 12 year old vehicle average 22... but it also assumed 10,000 miles, not the US national average of 14,000 miles.. Here is the relevant passage below.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in 2021, the average age of a car on the road was 12.1 years. So let's go back in time 12 years to 2010. Per EPA data reported by The New York Times, the average miles per gallon for 2010 was roughly 22.5 miles per gallon.

According to the EPA, an average vehicle that gets 22 miles per gallon emits 404 grams of CO2 per mile. Let’s say the vehicle travels 10,000 miles per year. That’s 4,040,000 grams (or 8,907 pounds) of CO2 making its way into the world each year.

Also... as I already mentioned... that article links to a Reuter article compared a Tesla Model 3 to a 33 mpg Toyota Corolla and found the breakeven point happens quickly even for a relatively recent vehicle (2022 Toyota Corolla still averages 33 mpg combined)

So it feels like you are trying to nudge the breakeven point just a little to cover the holes in your previous statements by waving the details a little bit in your favor.

Everybody in the US ditching ICEVs today and rushing out to get BEVs means all the CO2 that transportation was going to dump into the atmosphere in the next 2 years happens at once. I don't know how bad something like that would be in terms of climate change.

Not to completely dismiss this concern... but did you think of this when you made your original claim... or only after people called you out on it?

 

[Adreaver]

So it feels like you are trying to nudge the breakeven point just a little to cover the holes in your previous statements by waving the details a little bit in your favor.

I'm not trying to nudge anything. My napkin math is coming out about the same as your napkin math. We agree on the science (BEVs are better for the environment, unquestionably, after a relatively short payoff period of ~2 years). We agree on the policy (BEVs ASAP, for as many people as they are workable for, with subsidies so the poor don't get shafted). I had a minor error in that I was considering average miles driven of 14k rather than the 10k used in the article, which goes further in favor of BEVs, and I will readily admit that.

I feel like we are talking past each other and you are accusing me of bad faith posting, when in reality I was originally replying to a guy with the crazy idea to "make all vehicles over 1500kg (this is anything larger than a small CUV like Escape/Rav4/CRV/etc) illegal to own and operate overnight, sorry not sorry, get fucked Trumpers".

My reply to him was "That isn't workable for XYZ economic reasons, and even if it were, that would be worse for the environment initially as studies show the most environmentally sound vehicle is the one you already own".

If I misspoke, or misunderstood something somewhere, please let me know (I'd rather be wrong in an argument and well-informed than vice versa), but I'm genuinely not trying to pull one over on anybody here.

Not to completely dismiss this concern... but did you think of this when you made your original claim... or only after people called you out on it?

This is what I was thinking of when I initially said "the most environmentally sound vehicle is the one you already own", yes. Producing BEVs produces a bunch of CO2 in manufacturing, which takes time to pay off.

Why is their no room for nuance in this discussion?

 

[android_alpaca]

So it feels like you are trying to nudge the breakeven point just a little to cover the holes in your previous statements by waving the details a little bit in your favor.

I'm not trying to nudge anything. My napkin math is coming out about the same as your napkin math. We agree on the science (BEVs are better for the environment, unquestionably, after a relatively short payoff period of ~2 years). We agree on the policy (BEVs ASAP, for as many people as they are workable for, with subsidies so the poor don't get shafted). I had a minor error in that I was considering average miles driven of 14k rather than the 10k used in the article, which goes further in favor of BEVs, and I will readily admit that.

I feel like we are talking past each other and you are accusing me of bad faith posting

Yes... I think we are talking past each other. I only start to think you were posting in bad faith after the last 1-2 back and forth... but I might have been overly hasty in my accusation due to my frustrations at being to able come to an understand after we both agree on some many basic details.

When in reality I was originally replying to a guy with the crazy idea to "make all vehicles over 1500kg (this is anything larger than a small CUV like Escape/Rav4/CRV/etc) illegal to own and operate overnight, sorry not sorry, get fucked Trumpers".

My reply to him was "That isn't workable for XYZ economic reasons, and even if it were, that would be worse for the environment initially as studies show the most environmentally sound vehicle is the one you already own".

I understand your original goal and agree with it... my point is that you didn't need the environmental angle for to win that argument. Just because a criminal actually is guilty doesn't mean the prosector can fabricate evidence to get them convicted... only to for them to be set on a technicality - especially when all the other evidence is already enough for a conviction.

If I misspoke, or misunderstood something somewhere, please let me know (I'd rather be wrong in an argument and well-informed than vice versa), but I'm genuinely not trying to pull one over on anybody here.

I apologize overanalyzing your responses as having disingenuous intent.

Not to completely dismiss this concern... but did you think of this when you made your original claim... or only after people called you out on it?

This is what I was thinking of when I initially said "the most environmentally sound vehicle is the one you already own", yes. Producing BEVs produces a bunch of CO2 in manufacturing, which takes time to pay off.
Why is their no room for nuance in this discussion?

Maybe it's just me... but I personally don't interpret "the most environmentally sound vehicle is the one you already own" as being nuanced statement. I mean there was no attempt to even mention let alone explain any type of nuance from what I can see.

Back to issue about the upfront CO2 emissions in the BEV manufacturing... I agree if suddenly 270M BEV were manufacturers in a very short time span... that could lead to particularly high spike in CO2 emissions that would potentially cause additional short term damaging to the environment or worse.... but I believe that that problem could be mitigated by the 2035

CATL's Sichuan battery factory was certified as zero-carbon as it pulls all of it's electricity from nearby hydro generators... and uses electric forklift and vehicles on site. Someone mentioned that there is still some carbon cost upstream by the production of the anode materials... I haven't seen anything that says that the carbon footprint of that part of the supply chain can't be reduced as well in a similar manner (I could be wrong) by 2035.

Anyways... as we both agree... this is all never going to happen hypothetical... as I agree with main of your point of what will/shoud happen in reality. I just wanted to understand the reasoning because that I thought was a pretty unequivocal bold statement that match my understanding of the issue.