From what I recall, they tried to do it and Republicans blocked it. I don't really count that as a misfire.

A misfire in that sense would be more like the Lib Dems in the UK promising to do it, but forming a coalition with The Bloody Tories to get into power, in which they were the minority. They couldn't do it, the Tories and the Tory press blamed them, and they fell so far back out of power that we are essentially back to a two-party system. On top of that, they gave Cameron power, which is the domino that led the UK to its current shitbiscuit status.

Which the youth vote in the USA may want to take a few lessons from...

If Biden and Dems want the youth vote in '24, making federal legalisation an election promise is a good way IMO. He can already show progress on taxation, climate, infrastructure, etc. (Yes, before you start, I know none of those things are done or perfect, but progress is always the point and they represent large steps.)

Which city?

The 20+ people who upvoted this idiotic comment also didn't even attempt to read the article.

> Unless the bulk of that energy comes from renewables, they are doing nothing to fight climate change.

The exact same refrain we hear from naysayers for any new technology. The electricity grids are already rapidly changing, why would we wait for them to be fully changed before trying to replace our other technologies?

You're also incorrect, because this isn't to replace regular wood - it's to replace concrete, which is CO2-intensive to produce.

Yes, but it's not strong enough for the types of buildings they're trying to construct.

Why does everyone read about new developments online and just presume that people who've researched this stuff for years haven't heard of x or y super basic thing?

The ICE bans in place are for 2035, and even then only for new sales. I think we've got plenty of time to figure out alternatives for the edge cases where ICE stuff is still used.

> Even now, what is, 100 companies(?) produce 70% of the world's emissions?

This stat gets quoted a lot but it misrepresents the issue somewhat. The largest emission producing companies are - surprise surprise - fossil fuel producers, and IIRC the methodology included the transportation and consumption of that fuel. If we want to reduce their emissions, we have to have replacements for their demand.

Yes, legislate the shit out of them, but 20-25% of all worldwide emissions are from the transportation sector (including within those businesses). We need to replace that, as we are also doing in electricity generation.

Honestly I wish there was more focus on agriculture. It's by many metrics the most destructive sector - in terms of emissions, land usage, water usage, biodiversity loss, topsoil loss, etc.

> Mass adoption is definitely inevitable, and the growth rates of the EV market are huge, but buying an electric vehicle today is still not a straightforward decision - especially in single car households.

Sure, but the article is partly about that right?

> The range and charging infrastructure doesn’t yet provide a credible alternative to that of internal combustion engines.

Can't agree with all of this. I can buy a mainstream EV today with the same range as my ICE car, and the cities/highways around here have plenty of charging infrastructure. I would agree that it's something of a postcode lottery, and rural areas are naturally far less well served, but people in rural areas are also going to be set up far better for home charging.

> As ranges and charging speeds improve, it’ll become as easy (if not easier) to charge your car than fill the fuel tank.

I often say that it needs a change in thinking. I don't think the "gas station" setup is going to survive as it currently does. You'll charge your EV when doing something else - park and plug. A lot of have previously focused on charging times for EVs, but if you're spending a few hours watching a movie while it charges it suddenly matters a whole lot less. Of course, for long-distance it still matters a lot but the percentage of daily journeys that are beyond the range of an EV battery is tiny.

> At the moment an EV often represents a more expensive initial outlay versus a traditional power train.

Very true, but again that's kinda the point of the article ;-)

But the naysayers on here have been swearing to me for years now that EVs are exclusive playthings for only the richest people. Weird how they keep increasing 50% every year.

When you say "tipping point", do you mean majority share, or the tipping point for mass adoption? I've read several articles stating that we're beyond the point in the S-curve where mass adoption becomes rapid and inevitable.

I would hope that as more and more territories ban ICE car sales from 2035 or even 2030, and interim sales quotas are mandated, that no manufacturer is stupid enough to sit back on this one.

The Japanese manufacturers have in general been dragging their feet on EVs, unfortunately.

Not even close.

Citation: Anus

I think maybe you misread the headline?

Honestly thought they'd already done this.

Is a defensive treaty and doesn't apply to invasions, lol

USGS estimates of total lithium deposits in the USA are above 6 million tonnes. So....yeah, they do.

Because lithium is an incredibly abundant resource that we just haven't bothered mining at the scale we need?

> Also, population =/= strength. Vietnam had a large number advantage, yet still lost 10 soldiers for every American killed (not even including civilian casualties).

And remind me, who won that war?

> It would be bloody, but not for the US.

I didn't specify US deaths, I said they'd lose. I have this nasty habit of caring about innocent deaths no matter where they're from. You, on the other hand, appear to be starting from the position of mass-bombing civilians.

You know.....war crimes....

....Because the world needs more lithium, and India's currently engaged in large infrastructure changes, and the benefits of this resource should be pretty obvious?

Seems like most of the comments are this - do people think the US doesn't have lithium?

I mean I know you're joking but there's no way in a million years. Aside from the US already having a lithium mine in Nevada, India has more than a billion people, and China and Russia would *definitely* come to its aid in that case. It would be bloody and awful, and then America would lose really really hard.

Ten bucks says I know which party's in control of the Minnesota House without clicking through.

They already tried that shit. Went as well as Trump's.