I just spent a week in California, and every time I visit, I understand why the people there fight so hard to preserve their environment. Few other states have been endowed with such beauty and so many natural resources. The entire country owes a debt of gratitude to California, as well, for pushing stricter emissions standards that have resulted in better outcomes for everyone. At the same time, state leaders are ignoring technology they’ve long popularized in exchange for a pipe dream.
Today’s Morning Dump is going to be all about dreams, both realistic and unrealistic. BMW and Mercedes have long pondered a tie-up, but it’s never quite happened. Now we’re one step closer to that coming to fruition, and it has a lot to do with gasoline engines. Volkswagen has long dreamt of supplanting Tesla with its electric cars, and that actually is happening (at least in Europe).
Mitsubishi hopes to regain some of the luster it had in the 1990s, when it was briefly the fastest-growing Japanese car company in America. First, it’s going to have to get over some persistent recalls, including one over sagging liftgates.
California’s Plan To Counter Feds Mentions Hydrogen Eight Times, Hybrids Zero Times
The modern electric car was born in California. The proliferation of catalytic converters, the creation of some of the earliest controls on emissions (thanks, Gov. Reagan!), and an aggressive framework to protect the environment from climate change all have roots in the Golden State.
You know what else California was instrumental in proliferating? Hybrids! The second-gen hybrid Toyota Prius became the unofficial mascot of the State of California around the turn of the century. Using a small battery and clever engineering, the Prius dramatically increased the fuel economy, and that’s a big deal!
You know what California is buying a lot of, right now? Hybrids. According to a report from the California New Dealers Association, hybrids are the cars driving the market in the first half of 2025:
Hybrid sales in California are up more than 50% year-over-year, and that’s in a place that already buys a lot of hybrids. Any time someone gets out of a regular gas-powered car and into a hybrid, it’s a victory for the environment. Is an electric car better? Absolutely. Should California do things to continue to incentivize electric car purchases and charging so that consumers, especially low-income ones, can afford to buy them? Also, yes.
I personally think that it’s a net bad thing that the Federal government is backtracking on the progress we made in electrification, and I understand why Californians are upset that the Trump Administration has pulled the waivers that allowed the state to set a higher standard for automakers. Even with all the work the state has done, approximately half of the most polluted cities in the United States are in California.
Electric cars are a great solution for many Californians, which is why the state still has the highest adoption rate of EVs anywhere in the country. EVs are also expensive, and will continue to require some level of subsidization for the near future, which is why the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is stating in its strategy letter that it might try to replace the expiring federal tax credits:
Federal clean vehicle tax credits will end after September 30, 2025. Subject to available resources and scaled to match our resources and policy goals, funding could provide point-of-sale rebates, vouchers, or other credits to keep new vehicle sales robust and expand the availability of used ZEVs on the secondary market. Incentives should support new and used vehicle purchases and leases and be available for individual vehicle purchases as well as bulk purchases by fleet operators.
These incentives should probably have an income component (how efficient is it to help millionaires buy Teslas?), and the catch here is that the state needs to be able to afford the subsidies. I also appreciate that California is suggesting that more work needs to be done to expand charging access, reduce charging cost, and utilize Vehicle-Grid Integration, which could be a huge win for a state with more-than-occasional grid issues.
At the same time, shifting more of the fleet (57.5% of sales so far this year have been traditional ICE-powered vehicles) towards PHEVs, hybrids, EREVs, and electric cars is likely the cheapest, easiest, and most direct path towards reducing air pollution in the short term.
Does California’s strategy document mention hybrids at all? It does not. It does talk a lot about hydrogen:
Leverage private investments to bring down the cost of hydrogen. Explore opportunities for state-connected projects to buy hydrogen fuel facilitated through ARCHES (for use cases in buses, trucks, rail, ports, power sector) with the goal of providing demand certainty for hydrogen producers and infrastructure providers and driving down fuel costs
There are, by my count, eight references to hydrogen. While there’s maybe a possibility that hydrogen can be used at some point in the future to power large trucks and buses, the technology has not seemed to mature or to gain any kind of traction. It’s energy-intensive to produce and difficult to transport. I am not implying that hydrogen has no place for certain applications, nor am I saying there should be zero investment in the technology, but the best-case scenario for the wide commercial adoption of hydrogen technology is decades away. Hybrid technology is here, right now, and it works.
In an ideal situation, most Californians would switch over to electric cars immediately. There would be abundant, affordable charging and a market full of cheap electric cars. That hasn’t happened yet. I think the day is coming, and it is logical for California’s government to continue to push for it, but there also needs to be a reality check. There aren’t enough affordable EVs being built today to make that possible, nor is the charging infrastructure able to support everyone owning an electric car.
As society builds towards that future, the idea of incentivizing and encouraging hybrid purchases is not giving up. It’s not forsaking the future. It’s not a failure to meet people where they are today as you prepare for tomorrow. It’s just common sense.
[Ed Note: As a California resident, I still think the infrastructure isn’t good enough, to the point where I wouldn’t recommend an EV if you can’t charge at home or at work. Offering a hybrid means folks who aren’t ready to deal with the costs/inconveniences of an EV don’t have to keep driving a guzzler. Hybrids are a huge deal, and will be for some time. The “they’re a stopgap solution” argument against them makes literally no sense; that they’re the best solution given our current circumstances shouldn’t be considered a bad thing. -DT].
BMW And Mercedes Might Tie Up On Engine Technology
After years of battling one another for market share, Mercedes and BMW are reportedly looking at the state of the world and deciding that perhaps it’s better to work together to survive than to perish separately.
According to Manager Magazin, a potential partnership is centered around the one thing Mercedes boss Ola Källenius didn’t think he would need anymore: Gas engines.
Källenius’s offensive was initially surprising. He intended to build almost no combustion engines after 2030. Instead of investing too heavily in his own drivetrains, he ordered four-cylinder engines from the Chinese Geely Group. Owner Li Shufu (62) is also a major shareholder in Mercedes.
But the situation has now reversed. Källenius suddenly appears to be as open to new technologies as his BMW colleague Zipse; moreover, he needs significantly more engines than he thought for plug-in hybrids, the combined electric and gasoline powertrains. The conclusion is: If Mercedes wants to build the best cars, Källenius also needs state-of-the-art combustion engines. As fuel-efficient and powerful as possible.
The engines from China, currently being installed in the first models, are apparently not enough. Moreover, they could pose a political problem in markets like the US .
BMW CEO Oliver Zipse, on the other hand, has never given up on the combustion engine. He apparently has the capacity for the required engines; in 2024, almost 1.2 million three-, four-, six-, and even a few eight-cylinder models were produced in Steyr.
BMW makes money and keeps its plants open, both companies can reduce development spend, and Mercedes can keep its gas-powered cars running a little bit longer.
Volkswagen Is Finally Finding Some EV Success In Europe
Post-Dieselgate, the German automaker we mostly refer to as Volkswagen tried an aggressive shift into electrification and software. It was a very VW approach that involved spending a metric crap ton of euros on engineers, with extremely mixed results.
A new round of vehicles with revised software and some annoyances smoothed out is starting to get more traction in Europe, with more on the way, according to Bloomberg:
In September, Volkswagen plans to unveil the first of its next-generation EVs, the compact VW ID.2all, a €25,000 hatchback meant to kick-start an era of fresh growth. Blume speaks of what he calls a “model offensive,” with 30 new cars in 2024 and the same number expected this year. “The current environment is extremely challenging,” Blume says. “And we’re holding our own.”
The group’s vehicle sales increased in the second quarter, driven by a 38% gain in global EV deliveries from the previous year. VW’s updated ID models—a hatchback, an SUV crossover and a full-size sedan—have garnered praise for fresh interiors and revamped software. In Europe its latest battery-powered cars have outsold Tesla’s in recent months, benefiting in no small part from Elon Musk’s political antics, but also from improved quality. The group is on track to be Europe’s top EV maker for 2025, ahead of Tesla, Stellantis and Renault. And in China the first models tailored to local tastes, developed with a Chinese partner, are due to hit showrooms next year.
CEO Oliver Blume and the company he leads still have a long way to go, of course, but Tesla’s fall from grace might provide a nice lift for the automaker.
If You Have An Outlander, You Might Want To Watch The Liftgate
I have hit my head on any number of liftgates and hatches over the years, both because I tend to buy five-door vehicles and because I rarely know where my body is in space. The numerous blows to my noggin are probably no surprise to anyone who regularly reads TMD.
Perhaps it’s a good thing I don’t own a Mitsubishi Outlander built between 2014 and 2022, because according to NHTSA, the 92,000+ vehicles sold have tailgates that might fail and fall on your head:
The cylinder of the tailgate gas spring, which contains high pressure gas, could corrode due to salt water penetration. The high salinity of water promotes corrosion. If significant corrosion occurs over time, the wall thickness of the cylinder could be reduced, causing the gas spring to rapidly lose pressure.
Well, that’s not good. [Ed Note: “Wall thickness of the cylinder to be reduced” is a weird way of saying the cylinder is going to rot out and the hole is going to release the gas pressure. -DT].
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the video for “Bad Dream” by Cannons, but I love the song. It’s super weird and ’80s in a way that perfectly fits the Italodisco synth sound.
The Big Question
Do you own a hybrid? Would you consider buying a hybrid? If so, which one?
Top photo: Depositphotos.com
Would love to have a hybrid. Some day they’ll come out with hybrid versions of the vehicles we use (wagon, small pickup, HD pickup) and 10-20 years after that we’ll buy used ones.
I still have a dream of taking a Prius drive unit (minus differential) and mounting it longitudinally in an old Toyota pickup.
There’s more than just your car to fill with Hydrogen.
If California can displace heavy fuel oil with hydrogen, that would be a huge win for everyone.
I drive a current-gen CRV hybrid. I really enjoy the linear, train-like torque that’s delivered in near silence. At low speed you can hear fuel slosh in the tank.
I do NOT like driving through the mountains or up any lengthy grade. As soon as the battery depletes, the engine goes to 4-5k and parks there until you level out. Not at all a pleasant sound or experience. My wife thought it was broken the first time it happened.
I have a few mid to late 2000s Toyota hybrids in my fleet. Still rock solid with very little done to them and a great driving experience for their size. I also have an first gen escape hybrid that’s also held up ok mechanicly but is fairly rough otherwise. I always liked the last gen of Ford fusions hybrids there seems to be dedicated owners keeping them on the road and parts availability seems decent. I looked at a Maverick hybrid but Ford is still playing stupid games with the price always going up. Right now if I had to buy a brand new car it would probably be an outlander phev or Corolla cross the rav4 is nice but harder to find and Toyota dealers still being stupid with them. I’ve seens some deals on some escape hybrids that might be something worth looking at too. Maybe a Maverick for the right price they have a lot of the Ecoboosts from previous years but most dealers can’t seem to keep a hybrid for long. The new Prius always catches my eye when I see it but I don’t see many. The new Toyota trucklet hybrid might be a winner too.
CA is an absolutely beautiful place, and an absolutely horrible place for 40M+ humans to be living, for various and sundry environmental reasons.
I would absolutely buy a hybrid, in fact for a daily driver I would prefer one at this point for my one car that needs to be an autotragic. Nobody makes one I find desirable, and most I can’t stand. As I have said on here before, the Volvo V60 Recharge is the closest, but Volvo only sells it in the most idiotic and expensive possible configuration, for an asinine price. A basic PHEV version at the same upcharge over standard as the PHEV V60XC and I would probably own one already – but not $72K+ for the exotic dancer version. And I don’t believe they actually sell it in the US anymore. Second place is the Maverick, but it’s just not quite useful enough for what I would want it for at the price point (and I really would prefer a PHEV). Two fewer doors and 2ft more bed and we can talk about it. Not holding my breath.
No, yes. If Honda had the new Pilot in a hybrid, I likely would have gone with it. If I get a truck, it will likely be a Tundra hybrid.
Hybrids are “only” good for CO2 emission, otherwise not better than a simple ICE:
Ssangyong Korrando:
27.5 mpg (during the test cycle; 8.6 l/100km)
HC: 8 mg/km
CO: 314 mg/km
NOx: 5 mg/km
Particulate matter: 0.2 mg/km
Particle number: 0.05042 10¹¹/km
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/ecotest/details/4734/ssangyong-korando-1-5-gdi-t-sapphire-2wd-automatik/
Corolla Cross 2.0 Hybrid:
43.8 mpg (during the test cycle; 5.4 l/100km)
HC: 7 mg/km
CO: 374 mg/km
NOx: 2 mg/km
Particulate matter: 0.3 mg/km
Particle number: 2.49473 10¹¹/km
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/ecotest/details/4690/toyota-corolla-cross-2-0-hybrid-team-deutschland/
VW Group has been selling more BEVs in Europe than Tesla for years now, that’s nothing new.
I’m on my second PHEV and should have just gone full EV. I go on few enough road trips that my overall experience would be pretty good. I just don’t like HVAC, seat heating/cooling, or drive mode controls to be on a screen.
Currently own a RAV4 Prime; I would consider EREVs, hybrids, and EVs the next time I buy.
If I could, I’d have an AWD Corolla hybrid right now. Almost the perfect vehicle for me, unless Honda does an AWD Prelude, and I’d fill my car up about 3 times less, I think.
EV probably still makes more sense, but I’ll take what’d be the better option if I could.
Actively looking for a hybrid. Preferably an used one prior to the mandated screens and back up cameras. I drive 100 miles round trip every day for work and close to 800 during a week. A jeep grand Cherokee that gets less than 15/gl just ain’t cutting it anymore.
People who say “PHEV’s are better because the EV charging infrastructure isn’t there” have obviously never had to deal with corporate CapEx committees.
For-profit companies generally don’t spend billions on infrastructure improvements unless the business case already exists. Therefore, they won’t install thousands upon thousands more chargers unless the existing charger network is insufficient to meet demand. And while government subsidies or other incentive programs can tip the scales, the fact is that the way to expand charging infrastructure is to massively increase demand.
We can’t set policy for what is best “right now”, because policy does not take effect immediately. Policy needs to aim for where we need to be in 10 years.
and yet, gas stations spread without government policy support.
I have never owned a Hybrid. I have considered some like the new 4runner or land cruiser to replace my FJ but cannot justify the price of those. Also after owning an EV now I think I would prefer an EV over a Hybrid for a daily driver as I wouldn’t have to worry about a lot of maintenance that comes with owning them over an EV. My next vehicle I am planning on maybe getting the R3X or the Scout (once they are slightly used and that EV depreciate hits them).
I’m pretty sure the “natural” gas lobbies are the ones pushing hard for hydrogen. While you can make hydrogen from electricity, the much cheaper option is to extract it from gas. Honda even made a concept/prototype device that connects to your home gas line to extract hydrogen for your car. Both using large amounts of electricity to produce hydrogen (most power plants run on natural gas these days from what I understand, though renewables are gaining, you’ll have to check me on that) or extracting it from gas is a win for gas producers.
California still has a lot of oil and gas deposits that can be accessed by fracking… I think, you’ll have to check me on that.
I believe what you mean is that you can generate it from water, but it is cheaper to use natural gas. This is because the hydrogens in water are more strongly bound to oxygen than the hydrogens in natural gas are bound to carbon. This means it takes less energy to separate H2 from CH4 than H2O.
And yes, Honda debuted a prototype home hydrogen generator that used a home’s existing natural gas line.
Now, you are correct in that the expansion of hydrogen electrolysis of natural gas would be a way for natural gas producers to maintain demand as California winds down the use of natural gas for electricity production.
I performed the electrolysis experiment at least twice while in college, once in a chemistry class, the other in a physical science class. It’s highly energy intensive, isn’t it, for what you get out of it.
Chemically, using electrolysis to strip hydrogen from water is just “de-combustion”. The energy you put in is exactly as much as you would get out – INCLUDING the losses to heat and light. It’s a very expensive, inefficient, and inconvenient energy storage medium, but for long haul trucking it’s the only option if CO2 regulations with teeth go into effect.
Thank you for the correction and clarification.
I’d love to trade up from my Fit to something different but I can’t find something as practical and fun while getting an appreciably better MPG.
Even if I were to forgo the manual to get into a hybrid, what options do I have for a cheap runabout?
I was looking at the CR-Z because I don’t need power to have fun, but it gets the same or worse MPG and it can’t fit as much stuff.
I think I’ll end up with a Civic Si or something in that realm. So not a hybrid but a step up in comfort and road-trip-ability.
I’ve had my 2012 Chevy Volt since 2016. It’s really been the best car I’ve ever owned. Maybe not my favorite, but definitely the best. Only in the last year has it actually needed any non-scheduled maintenance. The rear brake pads had to changed due to disuse . The right side wheel bearing and axle also needed to be changed out. Other than that I’ve also changed the spark plugs and brought it to the dealer once for having the three different cooling-system loops flushed as recommended by GM.
While the extra $350 a year for plates sucked, the roughly $25,000 in gas-savings (compared to a ’93 Sedan deVille) has been awesome.
Unfortunately its days are numbered – while I haven’t yet had any issues with the battery, there’s a part called the contact assembly that has apparently went bad recently which doesn’t let me plug the car into an EVSE anymore. GM doesn’t make this part anymore, but I did find one on ebay for $250, but no guarantees if it works. I’d probably take the gamble and purchase it, but it requires dropping the HV-battery to install it. Too much squeeze for that juice. Instead, it’s now street parked, gets driven in “Mountain (Hold) Mode”, and will end up parted out once it wont move under its own power anymore.
I have squeezed 3,000 more miles out of it this way, so there’s some hope that I could get another year or more out it. If my roof is paid off by then, and used Lyriqs are in the $20K range, I think I know what’s going to replace it.
$25,000 a year in gas?? How much are u driving?? I had a 1995 Fleetwood, it did 18 mpg in mixed driving. At $2.60 a gallon that means Id need to drive 173,000 miles a year to burn $25k worth of gas in my old Cadillac
I guess that wasn’t too clear – the $25,000 was total over nine years. I should’ve said $3150 for the extra plate cost.
Also, excellent choice on the ’95 Fleetwood! I have a ’94 myself, great car.
I’ve only ever driven one Hybrid, a 7th generation Civic Hybrid, fortunately it had a manual transmission, because it was DOG slow without running that poor engine up to redline. Given how slow my non-hybrid 7th gen civic is, I’m certain this is a point in time issue for Civics not hybrids in general. Would I buy one? Yeah if I could get one for like 15K with a decent warranty on the battery, doesn’t have to be new.
California’s business is developimg and commercializing technologies that don’t work yet. Detroit, Munich, and Toyota City can build hybrids just fine. EVs are part of the mainstream now.
So, there are advancements in EVs and development of hydrogen sources and infrastructure to work on. That’s what CARB is good at.
Yeah, I don’t find it surprising at all that the CA government isn’t strategizing to increase adoption of a powertrain that … everyone is already buying.
Headline could just be: “California Seems Stupidly Short-Sighted”.
I’m rooting for their various internal grassroots campaigns to break the state up into several smaller states.
Why? So a small group of angry racist rednecks can create their own fiefdoms and unknowingly ruin their lives and the lives of those around them?
Not at all, but great job leaping to the wrong conclusion without any evidence or context.
California is too large and too populated to effectively, fairly, and responsibly represent and govern its citizens. Same for New York, Texas, Illinois, and Florida, all of which I’d also be in favor of sectioning off into smaller parcels that better suit their respective citizen residents. Possibly some others, too, but those are the most obvious.
That way the hyper-urban/suburban areas like LA, NYC, and Chicago are able to make state-wide policies (for their new smaller states) that better suit themselves, and the more rural areas with working farms, wineries, oil fields, etc., can also be more properly represented with their new smaller states.
You should probably dial the knee-jerk reaction back about 80% or so. The folks you so willfully disparage are fellow citizens who generally work hard and do jobs few would want to, and deserve our respect and appreciation. Maybe they’d be less “angry” if they felt properly represented by their elected officials and governments, and also not blindly lumped into stereotypes by folks such as yourself.
There is absolutely zero “grassroots” movement to split California up into smaller states.
The entire concept was a vulture capitalist-proposed idea meant to create four new Republican seats in the US Senate.
There’s been various movements over the decades. Some as you say are definitely from one part of the political spectrum (there’s also been half-hearted attempts or claims at attempts from the opposite side of the spectrum in recent decades); others have been less politically-charged and closer to grassroots, which are closer to the ones I support ideologically as they come from the resident peoples themselves. According to one source, there have been over 220 (!) proposals to split up California since 1850.
Those huge urban cities are definitely in need of separating from sparsely-populated ones for their differing needs. City-states kind of thing. I can’t help but feel the economics between them will suffer unless done properly, mostly the more rural ones.
The problem with separating the urban areas from the rural areas is that the urban areas subsidize the rural ones. If you separate the rural areas, they aren’t going to be able to afford to maintain their infrastructure or provide services to the (already limited) extent they do now.
I grew up in Washington, where there was absolutely the occasional talk of splitting the east side from the west side, but there was no real path to making it happen without massive tax increases on rural folks.
Yup, beat me to it.
I understand that and appreciate your candor.
I believe it goes on a case-by-case basis. Not all urban areas should be their own states, and even those same urban areas should have some rural areas as part of the state if only for city residents to have a non-city place to visit without leaving the state. There needs to be a balance, which is why it’s so critical for the states’ citizen residents to be the ones who participate in drawing the lines (or submitting a proposal for it and an independent review board approve or reject it with notes).
Oh, bottle rocket would absolutely gerrymander just enough of an urban area into the sticks to make sure the libs paid the taxes but don’t get any voting % high enough to matter.
Those large urban centers support the rest of the rural parts of the state. Good luck having local hospitals or schools. There’s already evidence of this in the states that don’t have an anchor city, i.e. West Virginia, Kentucky et al. Why would you advocate creating more hobble states that need more federal handouts to prop them up?
It greatly depends on where the border lines are drawn. Numerous rural-heavy states survive just fine without major cities and without federal assistance for most things. The state’s economy just needs to be properly tailored to match the realities.
Let’s take Illinois as an example. Lots of money and influence in and around Chicago, but most of the state is farmland. If the greater Chicago area (so pretty much we’re made into it’s own state, or – to make an easier split line – everything south of I-80 and State Route 30 remained Illinois while everything north of the same became a new state, there’d be enough mix of cities and rural area for Illinois to survive on its own, and the new state would also have a mix of hyper-urban Chicago, plus the surrounding metropolitan areas, and some rural areas in the western portion towards Iowa. So Illinois loses roughly a quarter of its land area, but gains independence from the very heavy Chicago influences.
“Numerous rural-heavy states survive just fine without major cities and without federal assistance for most things.”
No I don’t think this is true. There’s data freely available listing states that receive more federal money than they contribute in taxes. The majority of those are rural states.
Taxes aren’t the only measure of financial and economic function and performance. The residents may not pay as much in taxes, but they may still contribute a great deal, especially for something like farming where margins are hellaciously tight and subsidies can keep the lights on.
There are also far too many tax loopholes, but that’s another issue.
Where does racism fit into the urban-rural divide where rural folk are stuck paying state income taxes while they can barely get by, and said tax dollars are overwhelmingly spent outside of where they live in the urban areas?
What about the urban-rural divide where they live where the cops are half an hour or more away if they show up at all, and there are large predatory animals out and about, yet it’s a PITA to get guns, that are artificially restricted based upon cosmetic features (“Assault Weapon” furniture laws), nonexistent technology that even in laboratory conditions is iffy at best (microstamping), etc.
I’ve spent a significant portion of my life living in the woods near Mount Shasta. IF you had an emergency requiring the Sheriffs and or EMS IF they knew EXACTLY where they were going like the back of their hand, they would be 1.5 to 2 hours away. Since the cell reception is nonexistent on a lot of parts of the journey you can’t use GPS to guide you, and it’s fairly easy to take a wrong turn down a logging road without knowing.
In these places the Sheriffs and EMS are there to keep the towns safe and alive, if you’re outside of them you’re on your own.
What would you do if people armed with rifles trespassed on your land to do illegal shit and the cops are not coming? That’s something we’ve had to deal with and the Sheriff’s advice was ‘Kill them and don’t let anyone find the bodies’. Even as someone with rural preferences that’s a bit much, but it’s the truth.
Per capita, the rural folks are getting more money spent in their areas than the urban folks.
That isn’t solved by separating the rural areas from urban tax bases. And, in my experience growing up rural, the rural folks aren’t exactly clamoring for more law enforcement. I don’t know if that has changed since I left, but I do know my parents will both complain that cops are so far away and simultaneously resist the idea of increasing county spending to fix that. It’s also a county concern more than a state one, unless the California Highway Patrol operates a lot differently from the Washington State Patrol or Idaho State Patrol.
The civil war all over again? That’s one stupid fucking idea you have there.
You should probably see a proctologist about having your head adjusted back to its proper place. Your perspective is certainly extremely limited where it’s currently at, and your unnecessary language is expectedly as filthy as your head’s apparent location.
I didn’t say anything about war or fighting, nor would I want such a thing (I’m pacifistic by nature). There are avenues to break up states without wars. West Virginia is the sole example of one born in war, as, yes, it came about as part of the American Civil War. However it wasn’t set up as a territorial battle.
Kentucky (separated from Virginia in 1792) and Maine (separated from Massachusetts in 1820) are examples of new states that have been amicably formed from other pre-existing states.
One could also use the Enabling Act of 1889 as sort of a basic ideological precedent, as it provided for Montana and Washington to become states, and – key to my point – the splitting of the Dakota Territory into North Dakota and South Dakota. So a large land area that beneficially becomes several smaller states to better represent the resident citizens.
I’m sorry to call out your fucking stupid idea as fucking stupid. (No I’m not) Look at which states receive the most federal aid vs taxes paid and tell me again that your idea is not completely stupid.
Just because you use vulgar language doesn’t make your indignation and incorrectness any less invalid.
I’m well aware of your tired and flawed argument that’s been multiply disproven by economists much more in tune with various economies and the workings thereof. Taxes and federal aid aren’t the sole markers of a functional state or economy. Tax laws are greatly flawed, especially in places where there is great income disparity between the highest and lowest earners. Aid isn’t always the most effective and doesn’t always get to where it’s needed most.
If anything having a smaller state geared towards these lower-income constituents may better serve them, as their internal microeconomy would be of their own making, and may yield a more accurate and effective economy for them.
As a country and as a taxpaying citizen I’m happy to subsidize farmers and oil workers and such that work on razor-thin margins in unpredictable and oftentimes rough conditions and situations if it keeps the greater economy running, keeps foodstuffs and infrastructure operational and safe, and allows the civilization to continue. It’s part of being in such a large and “first world” country. It’s the same reason I’m OK paying taxes that pay for schools and education even though I don’t have kids in school, and pays for shuttle services for seniors even though my elder relatives don’t need such services, and pays for many roads to be reconfigured for bicyclists to have their own lane, even though I don’t ride my bike anywhere but trails, parks, and my own neighborhood.
I think the Greater Idaho plan part 2 is more realistic. All but like 3 very small counties in east Oregon voted to join Idaho, and if they pulled that off (which there is recent precedent for redrawing state borders, just not making brand new states) then a lot of Northern California would be able to vote on it, and likely would join.
I’ve spent a good amount of time in the woods near Redding as a kid and a bit less as an adult, all the people I knew there were pretty rural, and the high Taxes and overly restrictive gun laws brought to them by the politicians from SF and LA are meant for the very dense urban centers of LA and SF, not places where you wake up and you have large predators roaming, and where the income isn’t high enough and the infrastructure provided isn’t good enough to justify the very high taxes.
it would be one very odd looking state, but the Greater Idaho movement would better represent the people it plans to include than their current states do, as shown by 14 of the 17 proposed Oregon counties voting in favor of joining Idaho, and all but one borders each other (the one not bordering is Sherman county and it’s 1.11 miles away from Wheeler county that did vote to join, so including a road that connects the two would be a fairly easy thing redrawing county lines wise).
You mean they would lose the low taxes they pay by sharing a budget with dense urban areas. The reason those movements always fail is that low population rural areas can’t support themselves financially – the same way urban areas can’t grow their own food. Idaho the state has zero interest having a bunch more poor rural areas to take care off.
Idaho has lower taxes than California.
Polling in Idaho shows the public supports it, and the current Governor has gone on TV and publicly supported it.
The problem is that supporting a much larger rural area like that would likely necessitate significant tax increases. There are significant logistical/economic hurdles that go well beyond people supporting the idea without a definite plan for how it would be implemented.
As I said in my reply to your reply to me
If we never let this theory play out, we’ll never know, and this shit will continue forever.
Polling supports it now, but I would be curious as to how much support it would have with an actual proposal that includes funding and other changes necessary to implement the plan. But I don’t think we’re likely to get that, much less see this actually put into action in my lifetime. I could be wrong. Maybe people would support it even with all the details laid out. And maybe it will happen. But there are a lot of hurdles beyond simple public support.
I’ve read numerous studies and reports on this, and folks always jump on the “taxes will increase” pearl-clutching bandwagon without proper justification. Taxes will change, yes, but they won’t necessarily increase. Plus in a reconfigured state more of the taxes that are being paid could/would actually go towards the critical infrastructure that keeps society moving and be more effective to the taxpaying constituency.
I’d gladly pay – for instance – a few more cents per gallon of fuel if it meant the roads around me were going to be pothole-free and cleared of ice and snow in a reasonable time frame. I’m also relatively happy with my tax dollars going to help a farmer whose entire harvest got wiped out by hail, or to rebuild a neighborhood hit by a tornado (all recent actual examples near me). But if it instead goes to ultra-minority special-interest groups, politicians’ hyper-focused pet projects, and other spurious campaigns, it’s harder to feel justified with what I’m being taxed on.
I currently live in Idaho. Idaho would have huge logistical and economic struggles growing like that. I highly doubt anyone in current Idaho or within the extended borders would find the result as beneficial as the proponents believe it would be. Chances are, everyone involved would see higher taxes and worse infrastructure for the foreseeable future.
Polling in your state supports it, and so does the Governor.
If it goes tits up there’s nothing stopping shit from going back to the way it was besides a vote.
Great example. Thank you.
There’s similar movements all over the place, but they don’t generally get the publicity they deserve. Borders can and should change. Continents move, plates shift, rivers change course, populations move.
Being in a democratic republic (for us U.S. citizen residents) we’re obligated to be properly represented and make appropriate changes when we aren’t.
Agreed.
I have never owned a hybrid vehicle. I do have a deposit on the Scout Terra with the range extender, but I am waiting to see how it turns out in final execution. Of the current hybrids out there, only the Civic hatchback appeals to me.
Is an electric car better?
Absolutely. It depends.FIFY. There are few, if any, absolutes in very complex systems.
If we had to apply one solution for everyone, hybrids are the most likely best answer due to the combination of impact and ease of adoption they are capable of realizing. BEVs have higher initial environmental costs that pay off over a certain number of miles. The number of miles is highly dependent on the source of electricity and the size of the battery in the EV. The bigger the battery, the more miles you need to drive.
I don’t own a hybrid, but I would love to. The van would be a perfect application, so if I were to replace it with another van someday, ideally it would be a hybrid. My wife’s Forester is also pretty mediocre when it comes to efficiency, a hybrid would be a great improvement (unfortunately, the Forester Hybrid is pretty damn expensive though).
I recently had a new Camry Hybrid as a rental and I really liked it. I almost bought a new Accord Hybrid earlier this year, but opted for a used 2.0T instead. The Grand Cherokee 4XE I traded in on it was great when it worked, but may have scared me away from owning another hybrid at the moment. That being said getting as many people into hybrids as possible should be part of the strategy.
The Cherokee 4XE should scare you away from Stellantis, not hybrids.
Agreed. Toyota and Honda have them figured out, and a non PHEV is at least a simpler machine.
For sure. When I have done the math, PHEVs are worth it from a financial perspective only when your use case fits within a fairly narrow set of parameters. Specifically, gas vs electrical rates, daily driving that tends to use all of the PHEV’s battery-only range, price difference in initial costs, etc.
From an overall environmental footprint, PHEVs can be more compelling since the battery can be sized to handle 95% of your miles rather than requiring a massive battery that is rarely needed in a BEV.
When I first leased it I had a daily commute that could be done 100% electric, and the overnight charging at home got it back to 100% on 110v, so it was no investment to cut my gas cost down significantly. Loved the idea, then I had a job change and the quality issues started popping up, and now it made no sense.
Which is another reason hybrids are great options. They are far less dependent on specific use cases and use changes can change pretty frequently.
I only wish the battery in my hybrid (ct200h) were about twice as large, as I often top it off with a simple 1000ft drop in elevation. I wish the battery were used more often as well.
How many other cars does BMW sell drivetrains for now? Ineos, Toyota Supra, possibly Mercedes, Land Rover, Morgan, Rolls-Royce, anyone else?
BMW owns Rolls-Royce.
Mercedes does their own engines.
Except they don’t, as stated in the article, they started outsourcing to China, and now are looking for a new partner in BMW to replace their Chinese supplier.
Ah indeed, I missed that section.
I know BMW owns Rolls, but it’s still its own brand.
Did you read the article? I know Mercedes makes their own engines, but it sounds like they’re out of capacity and may leverage BMW’s manufacturing capacity. What I didn’t get is if that meant BMW would just be manufacturing Mercedes’ engine designs for them, or if Mercedes would be using actual BMW engines.
I went back and realized I missed that section (or I read it and it didn’t register in my uncaffienated brain).
“the technology has not seemed to mature or to gain any kind of traction. It’s energy-intensive to produce and difficult to transport”
You should check out CircularityFuels. Their Ouro reactor is already electrically reforming biogas at a California dairy. Putting the hydrogen into a car would be much easier than reacting it into a liquid.
I’d love to see a mild hybrid paired to a manual transmission and a happy engine. The flywheel-mounted electric motor could make up the gaps of modern gas engines, especially rev hang, by going to full regen when the driver lifts off with the clutch depressed, making rev-matching as quick and intuitive as it used to be with cable-operated throttles. With Honda having only paired IMA with their smallest SOHC engine, there isn’t really a good example of that right now, though I think pretty much every modern manual car could benefit from being a mild hybrid.
As a tangent to your comment, our Mazda CX-90 PHEV has its electric motor in basically a flywheel configuration like you described, though the electric motor has about the same power output as the gas engine, and the electric motor is able to decouple itself from the ICE output shaft and drive the car fully electrically.
The interesting part is because the electric motor is in front of the 8-speed automatic, the automatic actually shifts through several gears, even in full EV mode. It’s a weird sensation at first and the transmission is definitely skipping a bunch of gears, but it does up and downshift in EV mode. Even more interestingly, the car has paddle shifters, so you could theoretically manually shift in full EV mode, though annoyingly, the gas engine kicks on automatically when you use the paddles. I’d love to see what gears it skips through in EV mode though.
I think the Jeep 4XE drivetrain works similarly.
That’s really neat and makes a lot of sense, now I just need a clutch slapped onto the back of that.
There are plenty of hybrids with an electric motor between the engine and transmission. Just not manuals.