Four Tons of Green

Evil is often absurd.

One recent example being the sight of people wearing multiple “masks” to “stop the spread” during that absurdly evil event styled “the pandemic.”

Another example of evil absurdity is the 2025 GMC Sierra Denali Device – i.e., the battery-powered thing that looks like a GMC Sierra pick-up. It weighs just shy of 9,000 pounds – that’s not a typo – before anyone gets behind the wheel.

That makes GMC’s device the heaviest device you can buy – assuming you can afford to pay $100,495 for one – that isn’t a Kenworth or something comparable. Even Elon’s absurd Cybertruck weighs “only” 6,800 lbs. – which is already about a ton more than the heaviest V8-powered, full-frame American land yachts of the ’70s that the “environmentalists” of the time excoriated for their wastefulness of fuel and natural resources weighed. An early ’70s Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham limousine – which was pretty much the biggest, heaviest and most consumptive of steel, glass and gas of the bunch – weighed “only” 5,102 pounds.

Believe it or not – as Jack Palance used to say.

Today’ “environmentalists” are silent about the surreal consumptiveness of devices such as the Cybertruck and others of even greater weight – and so, consumptiveness of raw  materials as well as energy – such as the Rivian device (7,000 pounds) and the Ford Lightning device – which is the “lightweight”of the bunch at just over 6,000 pounds or a mere three tons.

But the new Sierra device takes the heavyweight belt – by a knockout.

It does so in order to be able to tout that it can get to 60 MPH in about 4 seconds – which is impressive, in the same way that seeing the Titanic bolt from the pier to 40 knots in the same timeframe courtesy of a dozen or so Saturn V F1 rockets strapped to its flanks would be impressive. But it is gratuitously wasteful – of raw materials and energy. It takes one of the largest and heaviest battery packs (205 kWh) yet installed in a device that isn’t a Kenworth to store the electricity necessary to get the Sierra to 60 that quickly. And to allow this device to tout a range of 460 miles in between charges.

Just as it took an eight liter V8 to move an early ’70s Caddy – but Cadillac (at the time) would never have had the audacity to claim its dreadnought was “green.” Everyone understood that dreadnoughts such as those were supposed to be consumptive. Meant to be outrageous. It was the whole point of owning something such as an early ’70s Fleetwood Brougham.

And it was honest.

People bought consumptive dreadnoughts because they wanted something big and powerful and cushy and ostentatious for the sake of those attributes, which they wanted because they could afford to indulge and maybe also because they wanted to let everyone else see that they could afford to indulge. But it would never have occurred to those people to pretend they were buying a 5,000 pound V8 powered dreadnought because they were “concerned” about “the environment.”

They’d have been laughed out of the room.

Why is no one laughing now?

More to the point, why is the “media” – and most particularly the car media – not excoriating the evil absurdity of devices that make an early ’70s Cadillac seem almost Pinto-like in terms of comparative restraint of gratuitous wastefulness of raw materials and natural resources?

We are told by “environmentalists” that we need to swap our vehicles for devices because of an existential threat to “the environment” they vaguely style “climate change.” This is interesting all by itself.  How can there be a real – or certain – existential threat if all we know about it is that the “climate” is “changing”?

Meaning, we do not know. And neither do they.

How is it “changing,” exactly? No answer is forthcoming. How soon will it be “changing,” precisely? They do not say. Only that at some vague, indeterminate point in the future – which is always being pushed farther into the future as necessary – the “climate” will “change” in some existentially apocalyptic way.

It is interesting to note the similarities between the assertions made about the “climate changing” and the ‘Rona spreading. Also the absurd and evil measures pushed as palliatives.

Is it more – or less – absurd to insist that people wear “masks” (two of them, even) over their faces when they are not sick – and the sickness presents no meaningful threat – or to insist that a battery powered device that is heavier and more consumptive of raw materials and energy than the most obnoxiously consumptive dreadnougths of the ’70s ever were is “green.”

The good news – if you are one of those people who believes the “climate” is “changing” and that the only way to prevent it is for us to replace our vehicles with battery powered devices – is that you can calm down.

About the “climate changing,” that is.

Because clearly, it isn’t. If it were – if the people pushing us into devices really believed it were – that an actual existential crisis loomed – there is no way they would be pushing these gratuitously consumptive devices. For the same reason the captain of the Titanic would not advise his passengers to go back inside their warm cabins and have a good night’s sleep.

Unless, of course, Captain Smith was a fool. Or a psychopath.

Draw your own conclusions about the people pushing for these devices, which is more absurd – and evil – precisely because they are being pushed.

Back in the ’70s, the government didn’t push dreadnoughts such as the Fleetwood Brougham onto the market – and it did not push affordable, lightweight and so much-less-consumptive of raw materials and energy vehicles off the market, either.

But that was before the government turned red – and presented itself as “green.”

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.