100%, er no, wait a minute, 99.99%... "BECAUSE" I can actually see some "problems" … Lets say a sunspot that destroys ALL communication for a month or more... or we run out of oil eventually... and are not "ready" for the "switch over". WOW collapse, a global COLLAPSE... and with everything controlled/optimized to the minimum of reserve, getting over such "collapse" for even a month, could mean a TOTAL collapse for society… JMO, as to how bad things can get... :innocent: and I mean real quick, unlike lets say 100 years ago people had reserves/preserves, today, most people could not even get their next meal without killing/robbing their neighbour after a month of no incoming supplies to their supermarkets... ;) JMO as I see things working out, "if and when things go wrong.".. :popcorn

I happened to have lived in countries where "**** happened" to people, thus I am just trying to edumacate people that the status quo just maybe, not the way to go, (government or even economic propaganda) ... and to try and postpone such catastrophe in the future for everyone.. ;)

I believe I agreed with you that somewhere between 100% and 99.99% of people will continue to keep going with the status quo... Which un-fortunately is more concerned about $$$ than sustainability. :rolleyes:

You don't understand the difference between pre-industrial living and industrialism evolving into a sustainable form. We have science and technologies that aren't going to go away because we start understanding climate and other aspects of science well enough to understand there's no free lunch where planet-management is concerned. Most pre-industrial people weren't wise enough to foresee the problems of industrialism because they were only focused on narrow self-interest. Modern science has made it more tangible for more people to understand complex ecological and geological/climatological systems, but the complexity has also made it possible for smart people to manipulate and (self)deceive in increasingly complex ways.

No, I read an article today that said it was once thought that a successful GM = a successful US. From that POV, GM set the stage for what would become the global vision of prosperity in the mid 20th century; and that vision turns out to be unsustainable on many levels for many different reasons. So GM actually helping to move transportation economics beyond the problems of the 20th century would be a huge step toward sustainability, both environmental and economic; but as long as there is no faith in being able to live a prosperous life within the margins of sustainability and affordability, then neither GM nor anyone else will be able to convince all the investors and everyone else that needs to be on board for it to work.

But the Volt their Hybrid, is one on the chopping block..
maybe people bought Prius' instead,
So, the market share Volt was gaining was too small ,
and they lost money on every one they did make...

Exactly, here in Canada too... Trucks have taken over, they now pretty well all have 4 doors and I am talking 3/4 or 1 ton 4X4s, and are used to carry people, not cargo, in fact most of them don't even have a sufficient cargo box to actually allow for it to be used as a "real" truck... IMO, Such fail, such flaunting of wealth, such misuse of recourses.. . Such not caring for future generations & sustainability... :rolleyes: Using something that gets 14MPG to do something that you can do, and get 62MPG perfectly well with a Prius for instance. ;)

EDIT; A pet peeve, I have acquired in the last 10 years is manufacturer's have now changed the description of what a truck box IS. It used to be a standard box was 8' ( for over a 100 years) and a short box was 6' (for about 40 years)... NOW a short box is 4 ', a standard box is 6', and an 8' box is now a long box... Why would they do that you might ask...??? I would say because a 4' box is a useless box and they would not sell well being called a useless box, so they "shifted the standards". :50:

So give the market what it wants and make trucks, SUVs and crossovers electric. I've driven a Ford Ranger for years. They don't make them any longer and when I bought my current one almost a decade ago, I was pretty sure there would be a small electric truck on the market by now. I was overly optimistic as to how quickly EVs would develop to meet market demand.

Or, it was done to trim weight in order to meet fleet gas mileage requirements as was Ford's use of aluminum.

I saw a video of that Tesla Semi at 55 mph and it was bookin' just dandy.

There's no economic food chain. We need business sharks to rake in the money so it doesn't cause more harm than it does; but at the end of the day the sharks just end up hungry anyway.

So do you see yourself buying a bike or scooter from GM when they start making them?

I, see myself buying a vehicle that actually does what I want and... 90% of the time the "engine" doesn't even start up... Meaning a plug in hybrid that can travel, lets say, 100Kms per charge, on battery alone, and if I needed to go farther the engine starts up. ;) WOW, how revolutionary IS that in todays world...???

I can see GM bridging the gap between ebikes/escooters and larger vehicles. They are saying they have an eye to the future and autonomous vehicles, so I can see autonomous SUVs taking over the functions of buses by drafting each other in close succession and achieving fuel-efficiency that way.

Escooters and ebikes are great when it's pleasant weather, but most people will want something more protected from the elements in bad weather, so maybe GM will come up with some covered single-occupant e-scooter/bike type vehicles that will take up less pavement than the traditional compact lines they're scrapping and thus be better for the environment and sprawl, but still give people the option of going motorized and weather-free.

Idk if those little covered ebikes/scooters will qualify as LCF vehicles or not, but at least they will be smaller and less threatening and damaging to cyclists and pedestrians than swarms of human-driven compact cars and sedans that weigh over a ton each.

I don't think they've ever really worked at maximizing rationality and efficiency in ways like that because irrationality and inefficiency makes more money all around. They also want to set up hierarchies of functionality so if you want the really logical rational functioning product, you have to pay more than for all the semi-disabled models that have a lower sticker price.

I think they actually do have a car that I would consider buying... a Chevrolet BOLT, 380KMs/240miles on a charge, the downsides is that going farther is still "iffy" tho there are more and more charging stations everywhere, there's 3 in my town already. :thumb: 20 minutes and you are good for 80% of the full charge. ;) The car is even "affordable", my friend has one and they just love it, they also have a roof solar panel system on their house, every month they get moneys from the electric company instead of paying the electric company and gasoline company... :love:

EDIT; If I, had that set up I would not need to pay about $1,100. a year for electricity, and about $2,200. a year for gas/diesel a year... $3,300. a year, X10 years = $33,000, WOW No wonder my friend did that. :thumb: I wonder how much he gets paid from the electric company every year... Next time we meet :beer: I will ask him. ;)