[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I have to agree with Arpad both in terms of admiring your tenacity and recognizing that this isn't a 'normal' debate or situation. The climate change activists don't want everyone to have EVs. Their stated goals are to drastically reduce car ownership. To reduce power consumption across the board, amount traveled, amount used on heating and cooling, amount used on raising food.

Their goals are right out in the open for everyone to see. Fewer people, lower standard of living, top down control over ever aspect of people's lives. The cars they drive, or don't, their water heaters, their stoves, their dryers, the food they eat, everything. Climate change alarmism is just the 'emergency' they are leveraging to assume that control.

Note the goal posted in my previous post. They want global ownership of cars to decrease to the point where 70% of the population doesn't own a car by 2050. How will they do that? Regulate them to the point that only the rich can afford them.

No doubt there are people that think that way. Thing is, they have zero power in the actual development and manufacture of automobiles. They’re the loud fringe. Just like the fringe who are saying that vehicles would be safer if they were all autonomous and personal driving was banned or heavily restricted. I can find “thought leadership” pieces from people with that mindset. But at the end of the day they’re tilting at windmills and nobody who’s spending money on product development is listening to them. Same for the people who are advocating 70% of population not own cars by 2050. Loud voices…empty pockets…zero traction.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The LGR plant is needed to make a certain high powered luxury CUV EV so Camaro has to leave the plant. The other two vehicles currently sharing the architecture and plant are about to go BEV, since Cadillac has committed to be EV only by 2030. So Camaro has to end. There’s no other plant that can accept the platform at anything resembling a cost effective level. Likewise, the engineers dedicated to the Camaro program can be (have been?) reallocated to developing other products with more volume and/or more profit potential. It’s an allocation of resources thing, not a product sufficiency thing.

Reuss said Caddy was getting it's last shot.
They made the gen 6 on an expensive platform (instead of with an SS follow up) to accommodate birthing Cadillac's health and transition?

You just described Tom Skerritt in Alien.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

No doubt there are people that think that way. Thing is, they have zero power in the actual development and manufacture of automobiles. They’re the loud fringe. Just like the fringe who are saying that vehicles would be safer if they were all autonomous and personal driving was banned or heavily restricted. I can find “thought leadership” pieces from people with that mindset. But at the end of the day they’re tilting at windmills and nobody who’s spending money on product development is listening to them. Same for the people who are advocating 70% of population not own cars by 2050. Loud voices…empty pockets…zero traction.

The people who think that way are sitting in positions of power right now. CARB, EPA, it’s a long list. MPG standards, emission standards, oil extraction and refining standards, all tools being used to eliminate ICE powered vehicles. I don’t believe for a second that major car manufacturers would have discontinued iconic brands that were profitable and selling well and introduced EVs that are losing thousands every time one sells absent current and expected government regulations. The hemi powered Challengers and Chargers were selling like hot cakes with nice safe profit margins. The Mustang as well. Camaro could have had it not been treated like a red headed step child. Don’t believe me? Try to buy a ZLE this year and see what the mark up is, if you can even find one. That’s with pretty much zero marketing support. Mary may be a brainless suit, but even she can read the writing on the wall.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

No doubt there are people that think that way. Thing is, they have zero power in the actual development and manufacture of automobiles. They’re the loud fringe. Just like the fringe who are saying that vehicles would be safer if they were all autonomous and personal driving was banned or heavily restricted. I can find “thought leadership” pieces from people with that mindset. But at the end of the day they’re tilting at windmills and nobody who’s spending money on product development is listening to them. Same for the people who are advocating 70% of population not own cars by 2050. Loud voices…empty pockets…zero traction.

Are you sure? Everyone is spending huge software development dollars on the self driving backbone. It's right in front of us. The newer the car, the more it can do without your input/involvement. Cameras, radar, lidar, V2V communication, etc. Zero, zero, zero. Zero crashes, zero congestion. It's GM's stated goal. You have to take the human element out to do that.

[Wyzz Kydd]

It's willful blindness to think that all the regulations being pushed aren't having an impact on the automanufacturers decisions. Concluding otherwise means you think that those regulations aren't doing anything. Are they being ignored? Are the auto manufacturers not complying with these regulations? Come on, that's clearly not the case. Pretending that they would have made those decisions even without the regulations implies we don't need those regulatory bodies. GM, Ford, Stellantis, would have made these decisions anyway? Why? Consumer demand? If that's the case, why the subsidies?

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

There is absolutely no point in time where the crowd with an unending itch to control every aspect of everyone else's lives will stop and think "okay, we have reached our initial goal, now we can live and let live"---this isn't even a matter of political affiliation, it's a corrupt and viral mindset that moves goalposts continually, trying to eradicate dissent altogether.

WEF, Counsel on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergs, etc are are only concerned with profits to the extent they can use capital to leverage power and control over the population. Wealth is a means to an end for them, not the end itself. The levels of wealth for someone like Soros the Rothchilds... is unimaginable to us. Look at how Blackrock has leveraged it's capital and position in large profit driven corporations to adopt woke policies and place agenda driven advocates on corporate boards that bring about boycotts and massive losses. The argument that profits and capitalism, market forces, will moderate insane regulatory policies and bring us affordable energy and transportation is proving false.



In the USA, personal transportation and mobility is freedom, and they hate it.