It's banning new sales. Not pre-existing cars. Besides, used BEV prices are coming down too with 6 year old cars just coming down below 10k€. That's kinda important, as 2020 saw a big uptick in number of available models and cars sold.

So given that, why aren't you asking for a beat* up ICE-car today for anyone that can't afford one but needs one today?

And if you really need a car, you probably drive quite a bit and if so, you really should look at EVs anyways since the running costs are a good deal lower.

In a strictly economics/geopolitical view: It's a loan program, so long term it is net positive on interest alone. If the money is used to procure eu-made equipment, as is implied, it will bring manufacturing to EU and finance European R&D as well (where not säl of it will be used in only military applications) Short term it might affect the speed of rearmament which would be bad in an armed conflict. On the other hand, a bigger market will allow bigger investments, which might add production capacity sooner, so it might not add as much time as feared.

In short, it seems to achieve what the tariffs what touted to accomplish without all the drama and negatives associated with tariffs.

Morally it depends on your opinion of a states right to defend itself.

Fail the 2035 and see German autoindustry fail.

Hit the target and it still might.

For the 1% that are actually able to drive non-stop for more than 5 hours, its a downside. Anyone that normally travel with someone with less than perfect bladder control will find that extra stops for charging will not be necessary.

Interesting! I didn't know there are cars in the market able to handle V2G in accordance with the standard. What brand is that? For any large organisation with lots of cars, like a community, flexibility services for a hundred cars or so would add up quickly.

You are reading too far. The example OP is pointing to is "Microsoft has the power to disrupt the government of a sovereign country. There needs to be an alternative" anything after that is an example of something like that happening. Whether you, as the reader, agree with that action in that particular circumstance depends highly on what side of which border it happened and on what side of which border the reader lives.

Perhaps that not a single reference to the article is about measuring the benefits of forests. Therefore I am lead to believe that the benefits of current land use is not adequately valued, neither in dollar value, not carbon value.

Besides, the option should be putting solar in rooftops and above parking lots and above roads etc. Not taking pristine land for such a endeavour. That way we get the benefit of BOTH the solar farm and the forest, so almost 100% better.

I agree that we first need to reduce and reuse, but claiming that mining for lithium in and of itself upsets the benefits isn't fair either. It's not like oil extraction and transportation is somehow without environmental consequences, for animals and for humans. Those should not be ignored either!

Yes, we need strong protection for vital habitats, but that mean we need to use the last intrusive first, not that we shouldn't. Because continuing using diesel in our cities will poison everyone that lives there as well as the rest of the planet!

At the end of the day the environment which was saved due to not going for the lithium might die anyway because of the extra heat in the slightly longer perspective...

"shouldn't exist"? More like, "we don't know how they are formed (yet)".

I guess the issue would be that there shouldn't have been enough time to form two black holes that large and have them meet by collisions. So either black holes are more common than thought, or there are other ways for them to form.

Absolutely! You are quite right. However, my interpretation of this message is not necessarily "we might reconsider our stance on troop mines". Rather it is: "we will go to any lengths, even those we find barbaric and cruel, to defend our nation". Although on the face of it, it is the wording of the agreement that sets the formalities.

Oh, it wasn't the UN that was the intended recipient of that particular message. That's why it was sent publicly...

I'd say it is an obvious way to try to confuse BEV with LEV... To sell more ICE-cars...