That shows a clear misunderstanding of the situation. Many of the merits of EVs are not for the driver. Things like, CO2 emissions, particulate emissions, noise pollution, reliance on fossil fuels, the list goes on and on. It's a good example of an area where forms of government intervention makes sense.
I actually understand that perfectly. The reason why EV has been decided as the way forward is for environmental reasons. Many of these reasons are valid and justified. However there is an acceptance that EV's are simply not as flexible, usable, simple or accessible as ICE engines amongst policymakers. This is something the early adaptors seem to be blind too - all they see is cheap zero tax fuel, subsidised list prices and the halo effect of being first with the latest new toy. All of which are valid reasons for wanting something - but not necessarily reasons that make it fair to say EV > ICE.
Other than a few obvious advantages, overall batteries are inferior to the end user to using an internal combustion engine. Which is why governments have decided only legislation, not technical progress, will force the change they want. So why must we keep pretending EV > ICE? It isn't. If it was the consumer would *want* to make the switch and the ICE engine would vanish due to lack of demand. But it won't, because no matter how many hoops you jump through, pulling up to a start of the art amazing charging station and having a Costa for 25 minutes simply isn't as convenient as gaining 500 miles of range in a matter of a few minutes. It will never be this convenient and left to it's own devices EV would never be anything more than a fringe on the market popular with urban drivers.
So governments feel they have no choice - they must ban the ICE because EV cannot stand alone without either legislation forcing no alternative or, currently, enormous tax breaks.
An ICE car effectively charges itself using a highly portable, easily stored and convenient liquid. No electric car will come close to this. We didn't need to ban steam for cars because the alternative was clearly so much better that nobody wanted it anymore. I cannot see how we can say the same about EV.
My personal view is that the pursuit of a 100% EV future is a fallacy - its good policy for people who don't ever have to implement it because it sounds awesome but I bet the date gets pushed back as there will be a sizeable portion of the planet for whom EV will never work. We should instead have pursued a more mixed approach - encouraging the use of low CO2, super efficient ICE in areas where the air pollution issue is less of a problem and on the other hand virtually mandating the use of electric or zero emissions power in urban areas. Is that as good for the environment as pure EV? No, it is not. But is it far more achievable? Yes, it is.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
]