Donald Trump has been denouncing the mandates forcing electric vehicles onto the “market” – in air fingers quotes to make a point of the absurdity of using that word to describe forcing people to buy things. In part buy forcing things people want to buy off the market.
He’s right to denounce the EV mandates – this forcing off the market of vehicles people can afford and are willing to buy using their own money so as to force them into having no other choice but to buy an electric vehicle they don’t want and probably can’t afford anyhow (the average transaction price of an EV – one that isn’t a subcompact such as the Chevy Bolt – is nearly $50,000) using other people’s money to help pay for it.
It’s wrong in principle – and it’s disastrous in effect.
Like the ethanol mandates that Trump defended in the same mouthful.
“Biden’s insane electric vehicle mandates will totally decimate gas-powered cars and if it happens, Iowa ethanol is dead. You know, it’s sad. You’re not going to be needing ethanol. You’re not going to be needing gasoline and you’re never going to take a trip that’s more than twelve minutes from your house.”
And they ask me why I drink, said the Greaseman all those years ago.
How do you oppose mandates by endorsing them? Trump – like most Republicans – does not oppose mandates. In principle. He (and they) oppose mandates they do not approve of.
The distinction is important because it explains why there has been no effective opposition to mandates – in principle.
If you support forcing people to buy ethanol – almost all of the “gas” sold in this country is actually adulterated gas that contains at least 10 percent ethanol alcohol, courtesy of federal mandates requiring it – then how do you take a stand against forcing people to buy EVs by mandating that most of the vehicles available for sale are EVs?
Trump says he opposes forcing people to buy EVs by leaving them no alternative – very much as people have no alternative but to buy “gas” that’s been watered down with ethanol alcohol, which not only increases the cost of this “gas” (if ethanol were cheaper, it would not have to be mandated) but also renders the “gas” less energy dense (ethanol has a lower BTU content than gasoline) the result of which is reduced fuel economy, a double whammy.
A triple whammy, actually – because ethanol is water-attractant, which accelerates the rusting of metal gas tanks and fuel lines not designed to handle alcohol-laced “gas.” It is the bane of outdoor power equipment and marine engines as well as of the fuel delivery systems of older vehicles made when gas was still gas; i.e., before the federal government began forcing Americans to buy (and pay for, in other ways) ethanol-laced “gas.”
But Trump also says the ethanol “industry” – in air-fingers quote marks to make a point of the absurdity of using that word to describe a make-work project that uses the government to force people to buy (and pay for, in myriad other ways) a product that few if them would freely choose to buy, if they were free to choose not to buy it – is good because that is what his audience wanted to hear.
Just the same as Biden’s audiences want to hear about EVs.
