Jeep ceo…. Wants zero emission freedom brand

[TwelveGaugeSage]

It's difficult to say who you can actually trust, as most everyone has their individual thoughts and beliefs. The problem I see is that when you have scientists proclaiming this and that and then a few years later we find out their findings were completely false, what good was it to trust those scientists?

That is the beauty of science, not its downfall. Science can be wrong. Science operates on the best current data that we have. When new data comes up that shows we were wrong science moves on and doesn't look back. One problem with things like religion and conspiracy theories is that when their beliefs are proven wrong their believers find ways to explain it away instead of moving on. Still no JFK jr., right? I'm sure we were just off on the date. Again.

Wasn't there some scare article back in the 70's that said scientist discovered the earth was in a cooling phase and we would be entering another ice age?
What good would come from making policies based on false information?

Not really. Most of the "global cooling" came from the media. The prevailing belief in the 70s among scientists was global warming. Wikipedia has a solid article on it if you are interested: Global cooling - Wikipedia

I do believe the earth is warming...I just don't think man has had as much impact as some would like us to believe.
I feel some of the scientists making these claims are certainly "save the earth" nuts that would like to do whatever possible in attempts to revert what they believe man has caused.

While I have no doubt there are some nut jobs in the field, I would imagine that most of these scientists, when viewing the VERY sobering data, feel like they are in a field that is trying to "save the earth", as we know it anyway. It will be here after us, but it would be nice to keep it habitable for my future grand children.

With various areas of science, once something has been discovered, peer reviewed, further research and fact finding, there becomes a consensus across the scientific world about certain facts.
My problem with believing these scientists on man produced global warming is that there is no consensus across the scientific world.

There are a lot of conspiracy sites claiming this. This is just one where you are going to have to decide to believe conspiracy websites or legit sources like Cornell University: More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

You may say, well 99.9% isn't 100%. Okay, that's fair. But if I am in the hospital and am offered a drug with a 0.01% chance of saving my life or a drug with a 99.9% chance of saving my life, I know which one I am putting my faith in.

The real issue is we have a set of scientists telling us how we are destroying mother earth and we need to make necessary changes in order to slow/stop/revert the effects.
These controls are put in place by uneducated policy makers which results in restricting the people's abilities, lifestyle and freedoms.

I dunno if I would call them "uneducated" policy makers, but they are generally lay persons in the fields they are making policy for. In order to make policy that works you generally have to listen to experts in the fields pertaining to that policy. Again, this comes down to, "Who else would you have them listen to if not the scientists in this field?" Which brings us to...

As far as who the policy makers should listen to...preferably to non partisan establishments. When an organization makes it part of their mission statement to inform policy makers, they are nothing more than another lobbyist group pushing an agenda.

While I don't agree with you that having a mission to "inform policy makers" makes them partisan, it is a fair belief on your part. I would say that, being scientists, they would inform policy makers on WHATEVER the data shows. Scientists caught skewing information to fit their beliefs tend to not be scientists for long. But ultimately in this case, there are either no orgs that fit your requirement, or all the ones that do support anthropogenic global warming(AGW). There are no legitimate science organizations do NOT support AGW. That includes gas and oil orgs such as the one that most of the regs pertaining to my job fall under(American Petroleum Institute).

Notes: If you don't like any of my sources or would like further information on something, I am happy to provide it. I am NOT a scientist. I started out as a chemistry major, but had to get my degree online and learning higher math over the internet I felt like I wasn't retaining anything so ended up with a BS in Business Admin/Logistics. I am just a guy who is on the autism spectrum using way too much of my brain's processing power to overcome the autism enough to live a semi-normal life, but as a byproduct I find all facets of science to be fascinating and am a complete information junkie.

Sponsored

 

[WILDHOBO]

There is now. But no, I'm not at all saying evs are bad. I'd buy one, but I'd also need a gas car for our regular long trips. I think a plug-in hybrid would fit our usage case.
It was just a reminder that some areas are left out of the conversation. I live in a small town nestled in rural Pennsylvania. It's not city enough for modern infrastructure/charging, not suburban enough for everyone to have garages. Though the area is rural, town itself isn't rural enough for there to be room to add much new, so most houses don't have garages. We need to overcome the small town USA problems before evs truly take off. Also, there's the issue that the commute distance is quite far for many here, and over the small mountains to the DC/Baltimore MD area for a lot of people. So coupled with nowhere to charge, range anxiety is a real thing here. It will all be overcome, but it will take time, planning, and cheaper better batteries.

We agree with you on all counts. That’s our current setup. 1 plug-in hybrid AWD suv with enough electric range for 6 out of 7 days, but without range anxiety. Still capable enough for terrible winter storms and forest roads, but not a 4L pickup truck. And one gladiator, for winning at everything, except fuel economy.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

You're reply is patently false. The $7500 tax credit is what is says a tax credit. You don't get a check in the mail & you don't get $7500 off the price of your car. If you don't owe taxes you don't get a $7500 refund. If your federal tax liability is $ 1500 you get a $1500 tax credit. Some states offer tax refunds on your state taxes. I just went through this buying my wife's electric car. The only way in Colorado for example, to get $10K off the price of the car is to lease it, not buy it. Or have a $7,500 federal liability plus the state credit.

That is exactly how one of the sites such as intuit states it.

This is a quote from a tax prep site - (I DID look it up - the TAX people online and this - KBB - )

You Don’t Get the Tax Credit Right Away
First, the bad news: You have to front the money to the government as part of your purchase deal.

The tax credit is just that — a tax credit. Manufacturers often advertise it as a discount on the car’s price, but it isn’t. Instead, it’s a government policy that allows you to claim up to $7,500 in credit against the federal income taxes you owe in the year in which you buy the car. In other words, it reduces your tax liability. If you’re eligible for a refund, you’ll get whatever the amount of your credit on top of that. (I suspect this is the case because like a farmer who has a loss bigger than their tax bill, they can reach back and receive larger refunds from past years to compensate for the loss. The feds are simply reaching back and saying they owe you and giving back money you paid in the past. Farmers and fishermen know how this works, as do some business owners)

Buyers must still pay the price they negotiate for the car (whether paying it in cash or folding it into the loan amount). They can then claim the credit the next time they file their taxes. That credit lowers your tax liability. If your tax bill is lower than the credit, you’ll receive the balance as a refund.
Buyers must still pay the price they negotiate for the car (whether paying it in cash or folding it into the loan amount). They can then claim the credit the next time they file their taxes. That credit lowers your tax liability. If your tax bill is lower than the credit, you’ll receive the balance as a refund.

More info
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/409

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/plug-in-electric-vehicle-credit-irc-30-and-irc-30d

 

[WILDHOBO]

That is exactly how one of the sites such as intuit states it.

This is a quote from a tax prep site - (I DID look it up - the TAX people online and this - KBB - )

You Don’t Get the Tax Credit Right Away
First, the bad news: You have to front the money to the government as part of your purchase deal.

The tax credit is just that — a tax credit. Manufacturers often advertise it as a discount on the car’s price, but it isn’t. Instead, it’s a government policy that allows you to claim up to $7,500 in credit against the federal income taxes you owe in the year in which you buy the car. In other words, it reduces your tax liability. If you’re eligible for a refund, you’ll get whatever the amount of your credit on top of that. (I suspect this is the case because like a farmer who has a loss bigger than their tax bill, they can reach back and receive larger refunds from past years to compensate for the loss. The feds are simply reaching back and saying they owe you and giving back money you paid in the past. Farmers and fishermen know how this works, as do some business owners)

Buyers must still pay the price they negotiate for the car (whether paying it in cash or folding it into the loan amount). They can then claim the credit the next time they file their taxes. That credit lowers your tax liability. If your tax bill is lower than the credit, you’ll receive the balance as a refund.
Buyers must still pay the price they negotiate for the car (whether paying it in cash or folding it into the loan amount). They can then claim the credit the next time they file their taxes. That credit lowers your tax liability. If your tax bill is lower than the credit, you’ll receive the balance as a refund.

More info
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/409

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/plug-in-electric-vehicle-credit-irc-30-and-irc-30d

Exactly what I’ve been saying. You still buy the car up front for what it costs, negotiated price. You get the Credit back after filing your taxes. That’s why we put the credit amount as a down payment, knowing that it goes back into our account after taxes.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

There are credits and there are refundable credits. Credits work as you believe and only reduce liability. If the credit exceeds liability, your liability is now $0 and that is the end of it. Things like the EV credit, many education credits, etc. are tagged as refundable which means you either reduce liability or, if your tax liability is lower than the credit, you receive the balance back from the IRS as a refund.

One could liken it to a farm loss. Say you had an actual loss. You get back some of the taxes you paid in past years so you have funds to start the new season.
This is similar, as a refundable credit, it's like reaching back and giving you back money you paid in the past. I think certain child credits work that way (but at 64 I don't worry about that one)
I posted exactly what KBB said about it..........



Manufacturers often advertise it as a discount on the car’s price, but it isn’t. Instead, it’s a government policy that allows you to claim up to $7,500 in credit against the federal income taxes you owe in the year in which you buy the car. In other words, it reduces your tax liability. If you’re eligible for a refund, you’ll get whatever the amount of your credit on top of that.

Buyers must still pay the price they negotiate for the car (whether paying it in cash or folding it into the loan amount). They can then claim the credit the next time they file their taxes. That credit lowers your tax liability. If your tax bill is lower than the credit, you’ll receive the balance as a refund. However, you can’t roll that credit or any remaining balance into the next tax year.

 

[WILDHOBO]

One could liken it to a farm loss. Say you had an actual loss. You get back some of the taxes you paid in past years so you have funds to start the new season.
This is similar, as a refundable credit, it's like reaching back and giving you back money you paid in the past. I think certain child credits work that way (but at 64 I don't worry about that one)
I posted exactly what KBB said about it..........



Manufacturers often advertise it as a discount on the car’s price, but it isn’t. Instead, it’s a government policy that allows you to claim up to $7,500 in credit against the federal income taxes you owe in the year in which you buy the car. In other words, it reduces your tax liability. If you’re eligible for a refund, you’ll get whatever the amount of your credit on top of that.

Buyers must still pay the price they negotiate for the car (whether paying it in cash or folding it into the loan amount). They can then claim the credit the next time they file their taxes. That credit lowers your tax liability. If your tax bill is lower than the credit, you’ll receive the balance as a refund. However, you can’t roll that credit or any remaining balance into the next tax year.

Correct. I thought I’d said that to others that claim I’m lying for some reason.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

There are also all of those areas where HOA's restrict leaving vehicles out on their driveways overnight. It will be interesting how this adopts.

I had to store my car hauler and camper off-property and keep vehicles inside when I lived in one town. I will never ever live in a city again and will never live where there are any HOAs or other socialist rules telling me my house has to look like mud or clay in color and I can't change my own oil in my driveway. It's bad enough up the road from us where because of some "covenant" they have to have their house within so many feet of the road, can't have this or that or the other thing - and it's a rural area! But it's zoned residential and when the property was broken up by the prior owner for development some really stupid rules were made. If I want to build my house 150 feet back from the road, you aren't going to tell me no.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

There are a lot of conspiracy sites claiming this. This is just one where you are going to have to decide to believe conspiracy websites or legit sources like Cornell University: More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

Interesting - when I Alaska I spoke with - what are they called again, naturalists? Those who study nature, the environment, how things impact them, and so on? What a great place to talk of such things and these women were excited to talk a real talk about it without any defenses or hackles raised or politics involved.
Their take? Climate change is happening even without humans. BUT - humans are accelerating it.
Their take - with no humans it would still happen, some species would still disappear but it would be at such a pace that "nature would adapt" for the most part. There would be time for most species to change and adapt.
They were saying climate change is not human - humans are just accelerating it at a rate so fast "nature can't adapt" and more species than normal would die.
These were women scientists - and they were at that site to educate the public.
Humans didn't "cause" it. That's bunk. Humans accelerated it to the point we'll lose more than we would have otherwise, it's too fast for too many species.
It's like a rusty bucket leaking water - we've come along and poked holes in the bucket.
The shows I've seen on PBS (generally honest programming) tend to agree with what those women in Alaska said. We didn't cause it, but we did make it worse.
Again, I've not watched this but the description sounds intriguing so I recorded it to watch later this week.
Look at that description - "Natural warming looks affect climate change and pose a threat to life on Earth".
We didn't start the fire, but we are adding fuel............ slow it and nature will adapt like it always has. Losses are normal - just not at the magnitude we're likely to see.

 

[Trickster]

Wind farms kill birds , the gears require vast amounts of oil to service and they dont produce that much current. Very low density. Plus , they look horrible.

Tell that to the Europeans that have them producing vast amounts of electricity. There are a shit Toni the oceans and seas there.

 

[MyRight]

I had to store my car hauler and camper off-property and keep vehicles inside when I lived in one town. I will never ever live in a city again and will never live where there are any HOAs or other socialist rules telling me my house has to look like mud or clay in color and I can't change my own oil in my driveway. It's bad enough up the road from us where because of some "covenant" they have to have their house within so many feet of the road, can't have this or that or the other thing - and it's a rural area! But it's zoned residential and when the property was broken up by the prior owner for development some really stupid rules were made. If I want to build my house 150 feet back from the road, you aren't going to tell me no.

Ditto. My first house built was in a vinyl village. Their HOA covenants and restrictions create unnecessary Karens reporting your every infraction.
I was so glad to move away from that ridiculousness. I'm now country until the day I die.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Tell that to the Europeans that have them producing vast amounts of electricity. There are a shit Toni the oceans and seas there.

Iowa has the most wind turbines per capita in the USA.

And tell the Koreans that their wind turbines aren't producing much power - they may argue the point.
They have a very interesting complex to visit talking about wind and solar and generation of power using ocean currents, etc.

 

[TwelveGaugeSage]

Interesting - when I Alaska I spoke with - what are they called again, naturalists? Those who study nature, the environment, how things impact them, and so on? What a great place to talk of such things and these women were excited to talk a real talk about it without any defenses or hackles raised or politics involved.
Their take? Climate change is happening even without humans. BUT - humans are accelerating it.
Their take - with no humans it would still happen, some species would still disappear but it would be at such a pace that "nature would adapt" for the most part. There would be time for most species to change and adapt.
They were saying climate change is not human - humans are just accelerating it at a rate so fast "nature can't adapt" and more species than normal would die.
These were women scientists - and they were at that site to educate the public.
Humans didn't "cause" it. That's bunk. Humans accelerated it to the point we'll lose more than we would have otherwise, it's too fast for too many species.
It's like a rusty bucket leaking water - we've come along and poked holes in the bucket.
The shows I've seen on PBS (generally honest programming) tend to agree with what those women in Alaska said. We didn't cause it, but we did make it worse.
Again, I've not watched this but the description sounds intriguing so I recorded it to watch later this week.
Look at that description - "Natural warming looks affect climate change and pose a threat to life on Earth".
We didn't start the fire, but we are adding fuel............ slow it and nature will adapt like it always has. Losses are normal - just not at the magnitude we're likely to see.

This is all pretty spot on. I know the link says "Human caused climate change" but really what the article and most(all?) the studies it is referring to state that we really are accelerating it. I think the most accurate way to describe it is: The natural cycle has been greatly accelerated by humans and likely permanently damaged".

The problem is that we should be very slowly cooling into the next ice age, but global temperatures are instead rising at an alarming rate.

 

[BAT]

We agree with you on all counts. That’s our current setup. 1 plug-in hybrid AWD suv with enough electric range for 6 out of 7 days, but without range anxiety. Still capable enough for terrible winter storms and forest roads, but not a 4L pickup truck. And one gladiator, for winning at everything, except fuel economy.

That's kind of setup am shooting for hopefully if I can swing the boss lady to move on from the big Toyota SUV. My JT is gas and would like to move her into a hybrid that might get some decent mileage at least maybe 50 miles to charge (More would be better since commute is 100 miles twice a week). Most of the local driving is like 10-20 miles a day if that. Wanted her to look at a Tesla maybe but she won't consider it. She could get a lot for a trade in or sale of that Toyota Highlander Platinum package she has

 

[Trickster]

It's difficult to say who you can actually trust, as most everyone has their individual thoughts and beliefs.
I do believe the earth is warming...I just don't think man has had as much impact as some would like us to believe.
I feel some of the scientists making these claims are certainly "save the earth" nuts that would like to do whatever possible in attempts to revert what they believe man has caused.

I would rather trust science facts rather than forum opinions.
I would rather believe “save the earth nuts” as opposed to “destroy the earth nuts”.

This thread has certainly enlightened me to the huge differences of ‘opinions’ of not just EVs but man’s effect on the environment.

And that’s not a bad thing, as each is entitled to their own ideas and opinions.

As well, currently we have choices on how we power our rides, but I do believe the evolution of alternative fuels will one day make fossil fuels
obsolete. How many years, decades it takes depends not just on technology, but consumer acceptance, obviously.

 

[Trickster]

There is now. But no, I'm not at all saying evs are bad. I'd buy one, but I'd also need a gas car for our regular long trips. I think a plug-in hybrid would fit our usage case.
It was just a reminder that some areas are left out of the conversation. I live in a small town nestled in rural Pennsylvania. It's not city enough for modern infrastructure/charging, not suburban enough for everyone to have garages. Though the area is rural, town itself isn't rural enough for there to be room to add much new, so most houses don't have garages. We need to overcome the small town USA problems before evs truly take off. Also, there's the issue that the commute distance is quite far for many here, and over the small mountains to the DC/Baltimore MD area for a lot of people. So coupled with nowhere to charge, range anxiety is a real thing here. It will all be overcome, but it will take time, planning, and cheaper better batteries.

Seems people are equating charging to the need for a garage at their residence.
Here in the “Great White North” most apartments, condos without garages have parking stalls with plug ins for the block heaters.
With some mods, they could be EV charging capable.
The biggest issue for that is the current electrical infrastructure could not handle the demand.

This would help.?

Sponsored