Driving an electric car every day

[Macro]

Let's bet that with a (possible) generalization of electric motors, petrol pumps will become scarce in the opposite proportions (well before a real and terminal end of oil)...

It's been planned for a long time and it's on its way

[Obamot]

The 'plan' which has been in preparation for a long time is above all to reduce the mobility of populations as much as possible, to 'sedentarize' them with various advantages in view, the main one being the reduction of pollution (and alternatively that they may not constitute a massive 'threat' of uprising)

for years now, citizens have been gradually forced to move in this direction — having become more and more captive to a new 'urban eco-system of availability of means of mobility' now not centered on cars alone — to bring them over time to use public transport (after numerous coercive measures in parallel, to dissuade drivers from using private vehicles). This is quite visible in some cities, with the so-called 'traffic calming' measures...

This plan is not necessarily a 'calculation of the deliberate exercise of constraints on the populations', it is rather an 'urbanistico-ecological' trend which has emerged during the successive doctrines of land use planning: what we call 'soft mobility' (or something)...

It's part of the NWO's 'global social credit package' for conspiracies but are they wrong to believe it? (Huh-huh-huh...)

[Ahmed]

With a view to less availability of fossil fuels, it is not absurd to tend to significantly reduce the extraordinary waste to which its former abundance had given rise... And when this is combined with a normative obsolescence of equipment ( and therefore a revival of growth), it is almost the holy grail!

[sicetaitsimple]

You also have to know what you want too!
We can not:
- on the one hand reproach the community organizations for not taking decisions, thus leaving all the power to "market forces".
- and on the other hand reproach them, as well as government bodies, for making a decision of a structural nature when it happens....

In my opinion, don't panic, there is already a review clause in the project in 2026, water will pass under the bridges by 2035.... and multiple amendments, derogations, exemptions,... such that it happens without too much damage.
But not giving a clear signal on the direction to take to European manufacturers as of today would, from my point of view, certainly be the greatest disservice to render them.

[Ahmed]

There is indeed a desire to anticipate a situation that the market could not regulate urgently, but it must be added that this is good because the public authorities know that certain operating conditions of an industrial society will probably failing that they try a new substitute strategy, supposed to circumvent these limitations (but nevertheless relying entirely on these still abundant resources). Basically, there is no desire to change course.

As He-who-rises-from-nothingness is absent, I authorize myself to replace him at short notice: "if there is no desire to change trajectory, it is because it is the best, because it complies with the well-understood interest of the comfort of the greatest number".

[sicetaitsimple]

Basically, there is no desire to change course.

I did not read the text, only articles, but it is quite possible, because it is not its object. Other texts govern more or less long-term objectives in terms of reducing consumption, emissions, etc.
With an identical "trajectory" (Europeans do not travel or transit more or less), this one proposes a transition from "all thermal" to "mostly electric". Me it suits me well, it will always be about 2 /3
of oil or gas devoted to this saved use (not consumed due to the efficiency of electricity) and the remaining third normally produced in France or in Europe mainly by renewable and nuclear energy. The 2/3 1/3 with a ladle.
The "change of trajectory" is another subject.

[Ahmed]

The change of trajectory is not another subject, insofar as the change envisaged is strictly strategic and aims precisely to preserve the current trajectory.

[sicetaitsimple]

insofar as the change envisaged is strictly strategic and aims precisely to preserve the current trajectory.

??
Yes. I think that's what I wrote? "The 'change of trajectory' is another subject."
We can very well go from "all oil" to "all electric" in individual transport without changing "trajectory", if you understand it as I understand it in terms of "lifestyle" (individual transport without major change) . But maybe I misunderstood?

[Forhorse]

That's exactly it, at least that's how I see it, the transition to the electric car aims to change everything and above all change nothing...
In itself it is therefore not a solution.
But on the pretext that it is not the solution, then should it be rejected? (perfect solution fallacy)

[Ahmed]

Sorry, I didn't understand your answer that way...
Forhorse, this is not the perfect solution fallacy, but a false solution that (as usual) only shifts the problem.