One thing leads to another. It’s the point of the thing you see.
The thing – or rather, the tactic – has been called (among other things) Fabian Socialism – after a Roman general by the name of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus who used incrementalism to grind away toward his ultimate goal. Also known as one thing-leads-to-another thing.
Axiom: Once you get your target to accept the first thing, it is easier to get them to accept the next thing.
This was accomplished by getting them to accept that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
Everything that has happened since has followed from that. Electric cars didn’t just appear. They were summoned into existence. Not by the market; the suggestion is absurd. Products that cost more and don’t work as well as other products that cost less tend not to remain on the market. Electric vehicles aren’t market-driven vehicles. They are government-mandated vehicles. Summoned into existence to meet government regulations regarding “pollution.”
Take away the regulations and there wouldn’t be any EVs. There weren’t any – before they became the answer to the government’s demands for less-“polluting” vehicles.
It is a gas – and the distinction matters. Pollutants are sometimes gasses, too. But until the definition of “pollution” changed during the Obama years (kind of like the way the definition of “pandemic” changed during the Trump years, from a mass-death event to a mass-positive-test event) inert gasses that don’t foul the air were not considered pollutants.
They were just gasses.
Like oxygen and nitrogen. If carbon dioxide is a “pollutant,” then so are they. Or rather, why aren’t they?
Give it time.
Anyhow, they – the ones pushing electric vehicles as vehicles for their agenda – succeeded in getting people to use the word “pollution” when talking about a gas that does not cause pollution. This was how they succeeded in getting people to accept the regulation of a gas that isn’t a pollutant, because who could possibly oppose regulating a pollutant? Especially as people had already accepted the necessity of doing so as regards actual pollutants – which the government had been regulating since the late 1960s.
Of course, the terms of the debate had been changed – without debate.
It just morphed.
People thought they were talking about the same thing but had been maneuvered into agreeing with an entirely different thing. (Just the same as the debate about vaccines morphed into a debate about drugs without any open debate about the change from one to the other.)
Anyhow, having accepted that electric vehicles are necessary to reduce carbon dioxide “pollution,” the next thing that will happen after pretty much everyone has been forced into an EV – who can afford an EV – will be that pretty much everyone will be forced out of EVs.
That being the purpose of EVs.
If you’ve not clued into that – if you think EVs are simply the replacement (one for one) for the vehicles we have – then you haven’t been listening. The people pushing electric vehicles are very clear they want fewer vehicles on their roads – as they regard them. Fewer vehicles in our hands. They want to maneuver us off their roads and into urban hives. They have been quite open about this lately.
They have already done it.
If it is accepted that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and for that reason, it is necessary reduce the quantity of this dread inert gas (never mind there is so little C02 freely circulating – about 0.04 percent of all the gasses circulating – that worrying about plus or minus a fraction of that percent is like worrying about plus-or-minus another grain of sand at the beach) then it has already been accepted that EVs will have have to regulated off their roads.
Because EVs generate carbon dioxide.
It takes a great deal of energy to obtain the raw materials that go into making an EV – especially its battery. And it takes a great deal of energy to power an EV. Generating all of this power results in the generation of a lot of carbon dioxide. More carbon dioxide, in the aggregate, than a gas-burning economy car. Much more, when you take into account that EVs don’t last as long as other vehicles. Or rather, their batteries don’t. This necessitates replacing the EV sooner – because of the cost of replacing its batteries. One new EV every eight years – as opposed to one new car every 12-15 years.
These aggregate emissions – as they may be styled – will be found a terrible and imminent threat to the “climate” . . . shortly after electric vehicles have replaced the alternatives to electric vehicles.
And that is how EVs will serve as the vehicles to get most of us off their roads, out of privately owned cars and into government-controlled transportation – which we’ll be allowed to use to get from one end of our new homes in “15 Minute” Freedom Cities – to the extent we comply with government orders.
That’s how incrementalism works. You don’t see it happening. But before you know it, it already has.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Keeeeeeeeev! t shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!