Yes, and require all emission based machinery to transition to clean energy

"clean" needs to be defined to include the long lasting issues we face with "battery" disposal at somepoint in the future.

It is not practical because cars are already getting extremely technical because of all these emission regulations, which causes prices of cars to go up and maintenance costs of cars to increase. This all leads consumers to have to pay the price for the transition to clean energy. Also, electric vehicles shouldn't have to be mandated; they should be a choice for people.

Requiring all emission-based machinery to transition at once could create severe economic and logistical problems. Many industries, such as farming, construction, and trucking, depend on heavy machinery that lacks affordable or reliable clean-energy alternatives. A sudden mandate could raise production costs, disrupt supply chains, and hurt workers. A more gradual transition, paired with incentives for innovation, would reduce emissions while avoiding economic harm.

They still are using metals and they are bad for the environments, junk yard are still a thing and they will also get thrown there someday

i think no hybrids can work but going full electric and the mining for the metals that go into electric car battery's make up for the emissions that people think they're preventing

we couldnt survive we can barly make eltricity for house without bill being high and engines are better and are proven to last longer with proper maintnence

hell no we need them diesel electric cars are trash and just do as much pollution with them big battery's they carry

We should not be forced into emmissions compliant vehicles but companies should be inventivised, not be required, to create cleaner running vehicles.

I think big machinery should be changed into clean energy but the use of emission cars shouldn't be limited, we have used them so much.

I believe that there should not be a mandate on emissions-based machinery as it is vital for those who have it in their lives as they can't just have their stuff replaced, it would cost thousands and they don't have that money

I do not think electric vehicles are the way to fix the emission problem but its worth a try but it will not work.

I want to be able to drive a car I feel like would be me and I don't feel like that the few people that transition into an electric car are really saving the planet that much.

No, electric vehicles are more expensive and it is also unpractical to have to charge your vehicle for hours when you are driving long distances. Also they suck

People often don't have the money to afford E-Vehicles or hybrids, and the charging stations all come from fossil fuels anyways, and very little carbon emissions come from cars.

My counter argument is that they should stick with gas because when making the batteries for electric cars cause more emissions into our earth than moving driving cars. Because when those batteries don't work anymore, they are thrown in a big pit that create a lot of emissions and gas-powered cars don't do that. Once they don't work anymore, they are just scraped, and nothing comes out of them. Just an old stinky smell.

The oil and gas run equipment is a better system to run on. It doesn't require recharging and it brings more money into the economy.

vehicle emissions within the US are far from the top reason for climate change, shifting to "clean energy" would only mean a huge change in industry, loss of jobs, loss of vehicle efficiency, and would likely lead to the same, if not more pollution than current machinery

No, because then all these legendary Japanese engines like the K20, K24, RB26, 2JZ, or even this German engine. The 1.9 TDI will all go away, and I'll be very mad.

No, because normal cars are still in good use and there is no reason for hybrid cars to take over as long as they are working more than fine.

i think its a good thing for the earth much more peaceful driving but i stand on gas and disel thats just the American way.

I believe that electric cars are not efficient enough to make them better than emission-based machines to be mandated, electric cars are mainly powered by electricity made by emission-based machinery anyway.

Lithium mining for electric batteries is just as bad pollution-wise as extracting fossil fuels, as well as the fact that batteries are much more dangerous during failure and are harder to recycle.

This country is built on freedom so how are you going to take away a whole culture of people that build cars or take the jobs of people who are and went to school to be mechanics

that there is no way to make every car electric because we will always need fossil fuels. The power to weight in fuel ratio in gas and electric is crazy. Gas or diesel fuel weight pays for its power 10 fold because one of your fuel sources is in the air already so you only need one tank. For electricity you need to carry heavy, heavy batteries to power your vehicle or Hydrogen your carrying these pressurized tanks around while hypothetically are a good idea and are effective the people using them are going to find a way to break then and its going to cause a big issue. But overall with electrical so your wasting power on dragging those batteries around. So while these hydrogen and electrical ideas will work with smaller vehicles and the Government can enforce this they will never replace semi trucks and big heavy hauling equipment.

We should not be forced into emmissions compliant vehicles but companies should be inventivised, not be required, to create cleaner running vehicles.

because the battery's in an electric car has released more carbon emissions and has child slavery just to get the main materials to make a battery

They should never require all emission based machinery to transition to clean energy position because they are spending their own money.

electric cars aren't much better for the environment than gasoline cars, if we want a cleaner form of transportation we should fund more public transportation instead

My best counter to this argument is that electric vehicles actually pollute the just as much as gas vehicles can.

Electric cars don't provide the same power as bigger trucks, mechanics will be out of jobs, everything will be the same and it would be the start of a utopia

It reduces life on machines and bottle necks them. We will burn more fuel in getting parts for these emissions parts and new parts due to failures caused by emissions. The more emissions equipment we use the less time we get out of our machines

I believe that they can push it all they want, and even reward for it. However I don't think a mandate is what is really needed.

When discussing Electric Vehicle (EV) mandates and a complete transition of all emission-based machinery to clean energy, some counterarguments center on the feasibility, economic implications, and unintended consequences of such a rapid and sweeping change.

Creating too high of standards just results in a lack of respect for any standard. This just incentivizes people to modify vehicles or lie about meeting standards.

No electricity for the cars, all taken up by giant technology capitalist corporations for military artificial intelligence needs. $8 a kilowatt?

It would require a complete change from gas vehicles, which would be extremely expensive and difficult to manage.

Making clean energy vehicles will harm the environment more than them driving. There is no way around making transportation clean.

Electric vehicles cause more environmental damage and promote global warming more than gas powered vehicles.

The resources that are used to make and run electric vehicle cause more pollution and effects to the environment and most of the energy that is used is produced by fossil fuels to run the cars.

electric vehicals create just as much ormore emissions and other harmful things to make them and produce the energy that's needed for them to be charged.

Switching all machines to clean energy too fast can be very expensive and hard and many people will lose their jobs.

While reducing emissions is critical, requiring all new cars to be electric or hybrid could have seriously harm low income or rural populations.

Even though they would give us cleaner air, we can't go to as many places without having to charge and stop for a while, and it would just use up lots of electricity.

We should not have all vehicle electric, the process of creating electric vehicles is just as bad as gas powered vehicles. People can't afford them either.

The world will never fully reduce fossil fuel use in machinery because it is truly the most reliable source as of now, while there will be alternatives in the future such as electric fossil fuels are what drive the country, because it has since the start. Not to mention the fact that lithium mines cause massive amounts of negativity to the atmosphere and the land/ environment for wildlife.

clean energy is clean while you use it but its is not clean to make it just as many emissions to make it as to use traditional energy.

There is simply not enough power in the united states to handle such things, along with the fact that there is not enough technology to create such things.

Our economy and lifestyle will be at risk if most of the people who claim their stance on this, as reducing emission,s might not be able to survive in the wild without their fancy technology

We live in a free country and no one should be mandated to drive a certain car especially if they cant afford it.

No, the US is not the major contributor to climate change, and fuel powered cars are not even close to be the main source of pollution and harm to the environment. Electric vehicles are not ready for a normal use everywhere yet for the average citizen. Green energy and alternative should be encouraged but never imposed.

While transitioning to clean energy is a valuable long-term goal, mandating that all emission-based machinery convert to electric or clean energy may be unrealistic and economically harmful in the short term. Many industries, like agriculture, construction, and long-haul trucking, rely on heavy-duty equipment that currently lacks efficient and affordable clean-energy alternatives. Forcing an immediate or total transition could raise costs, hurt small businesses, and disrupt supply chains. A more balanced approach would involve gradual phase-ins, investment in R&D, and incentives rather than strict mandates.

I think it seems wrong to force people to move to a different kind of car that they don't want. Also, the "clean energy" cars still use mining to create the chips which is terrible for the environment.

no, as much as I hate it america runs on diesel. While I would love to see cleaner energy being used in the automotive industry there are more pressing matters to deal with first

Just cause we need "clean energy" doesn't mean we need electric vehicles and battery malfunctions are just as equally dangerous or more with all the chemicals

Gasoline cars are a part of everyday life, provide jobs, and give easy access to vehicles, like mopeds and scooters, to people who otherwise would not have a vehicle.

The U.S. has not yet mastered the production and use of electrical vehicles and working towards more electric vehicles is a good cause but the demands of transitioning emission based machinery would be devastating to the current U.S. market and would put more financial burden on vehicle and machinery production businesses. Also, how would the farming industry prosper, engineering an electric semi truck? Good luck with that.

Yes, electric vehicle mandates could be good in moderation, but you still have to think where that energy is coming from and whether that is cleaner than gasoline.

The U.S. has not yet mastered the production and use of electrical vehicles and working towards more electric vehicles is a good cause but the demands of transitioning emission based machinery would be devastating to the current U.S. market and would put more financial burden on vehicle and machinery production businesses.

It would drive up costs as it creates more demand and electric machinery us not up to par yet with its fossil fuel powered counterparts.

That would affect a lot of families, since they will all have to buy an electric Vehicle, which some families cannot afford and also their car that they currently own would go to waste and no one would buy it. I don't support this since it would also prevent the reselling of the car too.

No, requiring the use of clean energy for vehicles should not be required. This is based on the idea that while it helps present time, the making of for example a Tesla needs lithium based batteries which longevity causes more harm and if the battery does fail it doesn't turn into a fix and resolve situation but a whole new battery must be created. Unlike with motor based vehicles such as a day to day gasoline or diesel fuel vehicle the equipment is redly made day to day and can be reused or maintained constantly.

that most companies would have to alter all of their machinery and technology to be able to fit these standard costing them a lot of money and most companies cannot afford this

They kill the ability for affordable vehicles and it is near impossible to make everything clean energy. It’s also just too expensive

Electric vehicles aren't cleaner than more fuel efficient gas vehicles and if we were to use better methods of making gas (such as what is currently being done in Formula 1) we could have net zero emissions without changing the vehicles used.

If you actually care about the environment, there are plenty of other things we need to change first.

no because you release more fossil fuel making the battery and when you have to get ride of the battery it just sits in a land fill.

Mandating a full transition to electric vehicles could cause economic disruption, strain infrastructure, limit technological innovation, and potentially have limited environmental benefits if energy sources aren't fully renewable.

That it would make everything more expensive at first, some people can't afford to buy a new vehicle.

The process to acquire the materials to produce these batteries/items, along with the waste once they become obsolete, is just as bad if not worse than emissions currently.

The infrastructure needed to support the power requirements that would be associated with a full EV mandate is lost in this conversation, as our infrastructure is no where near well equipped enough to handle the power output requirements. This would take decades and billions of dollars to implement.

The US and its companies don’t follow the rules outside of the country. We essentially pollute just as much but hide it behind the wall of a foreign nation.

no because sometimes it cost more to replace something that run on green energy and some things don't need to be changed

I think gas powered cars should still be around but cutting down on fuel usage on other things can help as well.

Electric vehicles still cannot accomplish what most gas and diesel vehicles can, and if they can it isn't very for long.

Creating the batteries for electric vehicles releases more carbon emissions than the electric vehicles actually save.

Creating the batteries for electric vehicles releases more carbon emissions than the electric vehicles actually save.

This cancels out many people's main mode of transportation and costs way too much money to implement. This also just isn't practical, if I want to drive a truck how is it going to be the same as a good diesel or normal truck that can go further and is more reliable?

Mandating all machines to switch to clean energy is costly and impractical. Many industries lack good alternatives, power grids may struggle, and battery production has its own environmental issues. A better approach is to support multiple clean technologies and let the market adapt over time.

electric vehicles are not clean energy me ruin the ground just to get it and use more hase to take the lithium out of the ground.

There are situations where electric vehicles are not able to perform the necessary requirements needed for a given job. One example of this is pulling power an electric vehicle has not yet reached the level of development that it can offer the same power when towing/pulling as diesel engines. Long distance driving is another example the amount of time it takes to charge versus fill a tank with gas cannot compare.

A large portion of the US industry is made from oil and gas. Also most car industries are still gas and oil.

America was built on the V8. So many companies were founded on good old gas-powered cars. Also, electric cars are gay as **** .

The cost of transition would put a financial burden on manufactures and consumers, and it would also be inflationary.

Transitioning to electric vehicles often requires a significant upfront investment,which can be prohibitive for many individuals and families.

Absolutely not. So many companies were founded on making good old gas-powered cars, and they continue that legacy today. America was built on the V8. (Also, electric cars are gay as **** .)

There is no reason to keep to the same awful fuels that we have used in the past. It's time for a cleaner change.

The infostructure of this country is not equipped to handle mass adoption of EV's not to mention the environmental impact of Lithium mining and battery waste

Electrical vehicles are important for the transition to cleaner energy but I don't believe you should take the right to gas vehicles away from consumers, and electric vehicles are more expensive than gas.

Electric vehicles aren't as capable as most gasoline/diesel operated vehicles. And I don't believe the infrastructure is ready for an electric vehicle mandate, ex(not enough charging stations). Mandating a certain type of vehicle would also take away the choice of what you would like to drive. And producing a battery for an electric car is not much cleaner than gasoline vehicles.

A bigger issue than emissions is the inhumane mining and labor practices used by electric vehicle companies. Also from an industrial standpoint, hauling, towing, and transporting is much easier with gas powered vehicles. Due to the lack of range of modern electric vehicles.

No, our biggest issues aren't in vehicles but rather the amount of vegetation in the U.S and how many systems we have to clean the air. They're removing vital habitats to renew the air and replacing them with factories.

i think only having electric cars would be horrible cause they are all very not good looking and there are many cars that i would like to own that are not electric

They've already added multiple different things to gas and diesel-powered vehicles to make them safer for the environment why would we switch to electric... they still produce pollution.

Lithium mining is very hazardous to the environment, and electric car chargers are still mostly powered by fossil fuels.

Many cars, and subsequently their manufacturers, succeed because of their heritage laid within the marvelous engineering of their internal combustion engines and racing heritage. It would damage the industry and allow certain countries to gain near monopolies if we enforced this.

I think it's stupid compared to other issues that involve emissions, especially big companies that use coal or other pollutants that make significantly more emissions that someones car a year. It's America you can buy whatever car you want without worrying about what the government says.

No, electric vehicles are more expensive and it is also unpractical to have to charge your vehicle for hours when you are driving long distances.

you have to have enough chargers for electric vehicles in all cities before forcing people to own electric vehicles. You can not find chargers everywhere but you can find gas pumps.

Electric energy stills relies on fossil fuels to generate electricity and pollutes the air, the batteries in the electric cars themselves are also bad for the environment. Electric vehicles are also much more dangerous in collisions, especially if they light on fire.