No what I'm stating is you love your toy it wouldn't matter if you were wrong about climate change. Some people put pictures of themselves, children, grandchildren, even comical figures. You obviously have posted a picture of you first love and if polluting the air is a result well that life.

I might spend the next few days trying to ascertain the meaning of this post. I know I have seen you name, but don't recall your previous posts. So, I am not sure which part of this you are poking fun at, or maybe everyone in the thread?

I kind of get what you are tying to say, but still think I disagree with your premise.
1. If someone posts a picture of their Grandchild, does that mean that is their first love or they love them more than their wife or their children? Lots of reasons to post that as a pic rather than something else without it being "obviously his first love". So, I still assert that point isn't logical.
2. I think you nailed it without even knowing you did, while making an invalid assumption. The invalid assumption was that IF you were wrong about climate change and it was proven, you wouldn't care or change. I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion from the info you have (a charger as a profile pic). The point that you nailed was IF HE WAS WRONG ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. That's just it. No one really knows (please do not quote the invalid 99% of scientists thing). Lots of people want to create hardships for others (higher taxes, prohibiting this or that, 45 minute charges every x miles rather than 5 minute fill up, etc) without proof of the actual effects of the things they are blaming on the climate or what the results of the proposed changes will be. Ask any expert what the impact of the U.S. completely eliminating internal combustion engines would be, and they cannot give you an answer. Many of us like to deal in facts. We have heard these dire warnings for 40 or more years, and none of them have actually occurred. So, pardon us if we don't want to radically change things based purely on supposition.

I wonder how much this propagandistic charade cost us taxpayers? How many gas guzzling SUVs were escorting the EV? How many salaried personnel were involved? Were other EVs making the trip as well? How did they all get back to where they came from? Drive? Fly? How much were the hotel and restaurant bills?

I am really curious. Do all of you who are posting about climate change caused by fossil fuels drive electric golf carts? If not, why not?

Of course not. The goal is to get other people to comply, without actually doing so yourself.

In my first post I stated my main concern, even over climate change was pollution. Now ICE does add pollutant into the air and even with catalytic converters they still pump out fume. I'm sure if you stayed in a lock garage with the motor running you would agree. Now at the moment EVs are not totally pollutant free but they are better than ICEs and companies are investing lots of money into it. Now my point is this and I'm not going to bring up 99 percent of the scientist. If only 20% said that climate change was brought on by man, I still would take their side.
The deciding factor for me is money or life and to me preserving life is more important.

EVs will never work & kinda dumb when they profess it’s for the environment. Child slave labor is used to mine all the minerals that go into the batteries. A new battery could be $20,000! And how do you dispose of them?
The cost for the government to install all these charging stations would be beyond belief! And do you really want a vehicle that you can only drive a couple hundred miles and then have to take a couple hours to charge it? How is that vehicle going to work when you’re stuck in a traffic jam in the snow up north? Let’s not mention that fire hazard. The average city block does not have the infrastructure for more than two or three homes to be able to put in a charging station. And how is the electricity generated to charge them? Fossil fuels, of course.
But it feels good������������*♂️

I believe you know the answer, it's distance. Once the auto makers either with solid state batteries or whatever can defeat this problem, you know that golf carts will chine in. Then I be more than happy to switch to an electric golf cart. Beats going to a gas station.

EVs are going to happen, and it has little to do with Climate Change. Auto makers see a new market and EV's are less expensive to produce. When I say less expensive, I'm not only talking less parts but also less manpower. Why do you think the UAW is so against this. What fuels this country is money and all these companies see a gold mine in the horizon.

Which must mean you are driving an EV since that was the topic of the thread. It is great to see someone with solid principles.

I recall when I was writing all the Attorney Generals of each state about the Florida Victim Services Directory and a link to their state's version of it in various libraries' websites in their states that Ms. Jennifer Granholm responded with a letter that she would look into it for the State of Michigan. Or something like that. This would have been around 2002.

Only a few AGs responded.

1. I agree with you about the motor running in a locked garage. I also wouldn't clean my bathroom with bleach without some ventilation. Do we need to get rid of bleach?
2. If 20% said climate change was brought on by man but 80% said otherwise, you would still take the side of the 20%? Would the 20% need any proof, or just have to say it?
3. Please tell me that 100% of the money you have in excess of your basic needs you donate to combat cancer and other diseases, world hunger, abortion, and violent crime, that you don't fly, and that you don't own an ICE car or gas golf cart. Otherwise, your preserving life over money is merely virtue signalling.

So money or life, you choose life.
Convenience or life, you choose convenience.

Did I misunderstand?

Did she respond or was this the usual form letter most elected representatives send back that they are looking into it while tossing your letter in circular file?

Not at all. And these people usually could figure out that I was someone with 4 degrees and connections. I do have a JD from the U of MN and a Masters in Librarianship from the U of Denver. I would often send copies of responses I received from other people to show that I was onto something that could help people.

And I was posting stuff a lot on Findlaw's message boards as well. But did find myself the target of an incredibly gifted troll on there.

I get you want what you want, but EVs are going to replace ICE if you like it or not. Companies are investing billions do you really think they are just doing this for the climate. Sothern Electric just started up one of their nuclear units last month and another one will probably go online by the first quarter of 2024 at a cost of nearly $30 billion. Do you think they did this because of the climate. What come first in this country is profits and if climate benefits it a bonus. No matter what argument you put up, profits will trump it.

It sounds like you are offering up capitalism as your basis for saying that EVs will REPLACE ICEs. If that were truly the case, the government wouldn't need to be spending billions in subsidies for EVs, solar, etc. BTW, I have zero objection to EVs. In fact, I own an electric golf cart, do you? (and I had to spend $1500 to replace the batteries after 5 years.) I just don't want to have to pay for you to have one (via tax dollars) because YOU choose life over money. Which means you were the one asserting climate/polution was the reason for Evs.

I thought, could be badly mistaken, was that the thread was actually about the hypocrisy of a government official having a gas vehicle block the charging station (preventing others from using it) so that she could have immediate access to it when she got there on a traveling boondoggle (oops, roadshow) showing at awesome EVs are and how easy it is to travel with them.

If we are making predictions, I predict EVs will not outnumber ICE cars for more than 20 years. Unless the government continues down the path of making me pay for something that you claim is for the profit of the corporations.

First of course I'm using capitalism and as far as taxpayer dollars being used in to promote this is not something knew. A few years back there was a number of states that used taxpayer's dollars to build a tank that the army did not want because it was good for their constituents.

I've lived in The Village for 12 year and am not a golfer, so when I was told I needed a golf cart I went with whatever was suggested. A matter of fact it was sitting in my garage so long without use, I just paid out over $200 bucks to have the battery replaced, just to move in from one side of my garage to the other. I agree with you the hypocrisy of a government official using ICE is a problem, but there will come a point when they'll have to change. You predict EVs will not outnumber ICE cars for more than 20 years. I would not be surprised if arguments like this were probably made when horse supporters saw the first automobiles. It took longer than 20 years, but we have the blueprints and today we move much faster. With the improvements to EVs and dropping prices I would not be shocked to see a major change with in 10.

I think you are right about a major change but wrong with what it will be. I do believe someone will figure out a way for some new technology, perhaps hydrogen, to power motor vehicles.

In other words do as I say not as I do.

Lithium ion electric golf carts with an 80 mile range are now available; I priced one out at the Villages Golf Car. How often do you drive your golf cart more than 80 miles in a day?

If the answer is rarely if ever (it is), then you have no excuse for not driving one of these based on your previous comments. Easy full recharge overnight.

Exactly. Or as the phrase was coined during the pandemic, "rules for thee, but not for me"

Hydrogen is better for the environment, but with the investments made by all these companies and the cost to manufacture a hydrogen vehicle plus the inconvenience of people still having to go to a fueling station is a problem. Maybe solar I don't know but I can't believe it would be hydrogen powered. As I allude earlier it all has to do with the all mighty dollar.

Billiant Post!!

Our economic system is capitalism. If a company made a breakthrough and it was economically feasible, believe we would have a different system down the road than ev. Lithium mining is not exactly green is it?

Once again I have to inform people that as far as E-vehicles go, we are in about the same early development and ACCEPTANCE period as the Internal Combustion Engine was in about 1900. The ICE vehicle back then was REPLACING the horse and buggy just as E-vehicles are replacing gas engine vehicles today. In 1900 there would NOT have been enough gas filling stations just like today enough Electric vehicle charging stations are just starting to be built. The point is that ICE vehicles have had over 120 years of engineering product development by now. E-vehicles are in their INFANCY. They are electrical and mechanical BABIES. They have some minor early "teething" problems to overcome (like enough charging stations).
.......E-vehicles are about 8% of new vehicle sales in the US. In Europe, E-vehicles are about 20% of new vehicle sales. E-vehicles have OVERWHELMING advantages over Infernal Combustion Engine vehicles. !st and foremost, they reduce the world's # 1 problem.......Global Warming. It is better to put emission control devices on ONE large electrical power generation station than to put 100 catalytic converters on each individual IC car and truck. A 2nd advantage of E-vehicles over IC vehicles is their Center of Gravity is lower due to the low placement of their batteries. Lower CG of E-vehicles gives better acceleration, better braking, and better cornering / handling than gas engine vehicles with high CG due to upright pistons. Another advantage is the high instantaneous torque associated with electric DC motors. Another advantage is the circular motion of an electrical motor vs the up-and-down motion of a piston motor that needs a crankshaft and a flywheel to convert to circular motion. And the IC engine needs several gears in a transmission in order to provide enough torque.
......So, basically, gas and diesel vehicles are rapidly becoming OUTDATED technology!

The only letter (December 10, 2001) from Jennifer Granholm that I can find at present is one about her sending me MI laws information for a website I had been thinking about creating which would have links to various victim service directories. I had been using the Florida Victim Services Directory as a model.

Never really got that off the ground.

But still I do applaud her using vehicles that help the environment even if some of her travel details met speed bumps.

It tells ME that we are in a period of rapid development just like about 1900 when the world was going from horse and buggies to InFernal Combustion Engine vehicles.

Planet warming due to gas vehicle CO2 production IS the world's # 1 problem.

Electrical motors in E- vehicles have about 1/10 the number of parts as Infernal combustion engine vehicles so when early problems are ironed out and E-vehicles are mass-produced - they will cost less.

Originally Posted by Blackbird45 View Post

"I've lived in The Village for 12 year and am not a golfer, so when I was told I needed a golf cart I went with whatever was suggested. A matter of fact it was sitting in my garage so long without use, I just paid out over $200 bucks to have the battery replaced, just to move in from one side of my garage to the other."

That is scary in several ways.

Another question would be IF we lived in a community that valued HEALTHY clean air for older residents and stopping the record temperatures recorded here and worldwide this summer and preventing the rising costs of gasoline and the dependence on Saudi Arabian oil - would NOT the powers-that-be have REQUIRED ELECTRIC golf carts 5 years ago.

Actually, global warming or climate change is ACTUALLY the same as pollution - CO2 pollution, which ends up in the upper atmosphere and is reflecting HEAT AND making this summer DEADLY hot worldwide. Then you throw in the rapidly increasing world population and we and the earth have serious problems.

A good post. I will REMEMBER that!

8% of new US automobiles are Electrical. About 20% of new European autos are electrical. And China is making many new E-vehicles and selling within China and to Australia, New Zealand, and others. So it looks like the US will have to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the NEW automobile world.

AOL kicked me off a few times for sending too many e-mails. These were usually CC to many people and organizations and also BCC (blind copies which only I and the receiver of these could see).

I do think we need to do more about global warming and the like but I still love my gas car and gas powered golf cart. I do not golf so there is that. The electric cars and the like are out of my budget.

Nobody ever had beg the gooberment for gas stations in the horse-and-buggy days. If anybody actually wanted to pay more to wait 45 minutes to charge their lithium bomb for another 250 mile drive, there would be new Rockefellor creating a "Standard Electricity Company", to make sure you could give him your money.

Since water vapor (which makes up 2% of the atmosphere) is the source of Earth's greenhouse, not CO2 (0.04%), Lord help us if we ever start intentionally burning hydrogen instead of hydrocarbons.

In fact, burning gasoline produces 5 times as much water vapor as CO2 for the simple reason that their is five times as many hydrogen atoms in a molecule of gasoline as carbon.

If burning hydrocarbons is the source of our recent warm weather, it's because of the "hydro", not the "carbon"!

My former governor. An embarrassment then, an embarrassment now. One of the many reasons I moved out of Michigan, a failing state.