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.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment,.
The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”
The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”
The older lady said that she was right our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on toexplain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then. We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.
Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.
Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us.
When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.
We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the “green thing.”
We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off… Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much.
Author unknown…
Perfect example of Orwellian double speak and double think
“That makes GMC’s device the heaviest device you can buy – assuming you can afford to pay $100,495 for one”
gM = dead man walking
Wonder if parking garages will need to put up ‘ maximum vehicle weight’ warning signs if these overweight devices continue to proliferate. Wouldn’t want to be parked on the first level with a bunch of EV’s over my head on the upper levels.
Four tons of green is like fourteen stone (196) of woman — a bit more than I want to handle.
When GM’s last factory closes, this idiotic vehicle should be put on a plinth in front, and labeled as the cause of death.
There was a peer reviewed study showing that CO2 has ZERO impact on climate change. And yet, we’re to believe that driving EVs that require far more mining than gas vehicles do just to get lithium for the batteries will somehow “Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave the planet”. It’s as moronic as thinking that eating bugs and lab grown/ plant based meat is healthier and better for the planet……
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/
80% of the all the EV’s are in China…80% of the electricity there is from coal…(in U.S. it was 40%)…
Most of the EV’s on the planet are powered by coal…lol
Manufacturing an EV and it’s battery is far more environmentally destructive then manufacturing an ice car…..
The greenest car?….get an old car and keep it running…extend it’s life….Cuba has the greenest cars….
Ah, but you’re forgetting that it can be charged with “green” energy like solar and wind. My solar setup has a dedicated car charging port that can be activated when my array is producing and stop when it isn’t. Of course this means I’m not putting power back into the grid for use credits at night (which defeats the whole purpose of getting solar to begin with, pre-paying my electric bills for the next 10+ years). And that assumes my array will produce enough power to provide any significant range. In the summer, when there’s 15+ hours of sunshine, probably. This time of year? Forget about it. And any cloud cover, snow cover, etc? That’s going to increase the charing time too.
So now we’re back to stuff that comes out of the ground. I guess one could make the argument that you’re running on natural gas turbines when there’s no wind or sunshine, so on net your carbon footprint might be slightly less. But then there’s still the weight issue and hauling all that around probably negates those gains too.
And what of “fast” charging at a commercial charging station? Maybe they offer a “green” option for purchasing “green” power, much like different grades of gasoline, I don’t know. But retail green power is a scam too, since if there’s no wind and no sun there’s no green production. Oh sure, “on net” your green energy supplier might eventually pump enough power into the grid (when it’s needed) that will offset the natural gas you used to charge up your behemoth, but as we’ve seen in Germany it will be decades until there’s enough installed capacity to have an “all green energy” day, and even then it will have to be a Goldilocks moment of just enough sun and just enough wind and just enough hydro.
Hi RK,
Sure, it could be charged using solar – but not at home, unless you have a mighty solar array. Which will probably cost more than the Sierra, itself. So you have to drive to the “fast” charger and wait 10 minutes – so fast! – to get 100 miles more range. This assumes you are not competing for electricity with other device owners in which case your wait will be much longer. But let’s say just 10 minutes 2-3 times a week. Compound that times 2-3 times per week and you must waste 30 minutes each week waiting – else wait at home for a day.
Great observation: “Evil is often absurd.”
It’s really not absurd so much as insane.
Evil is absurd, and the goal is to make you go along with the absurd. To make you speak and act opposite of what you know to be true.
The Sierra EV boasts a 10,500 lb. maximum towing capacity. ….while towing 10,500….the range is probably about 80 miles….
The Sierra EV is similar to the Hummer EV so should have similar performance……
NOTE: the Hummer weighs 9640 lb, it has 1000 hp, the battery weighs 3000 lb.
top speed 106 mph….lol
real 10.75 mpg
it takes 4 days to charge…..lol
The Ford F150 EV had a range of about 80 miles while towing maximum capacity….
The new Porsche Macan EV has a range of about 100 miles while towing maximum capacity of 4000 lb….
The new Porsche Macan EV review…….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vJOriNNGcc
The Sierra EV is similar to the Hummer EV so should have similar performance……haha
The video…..
My Hummer EV is a Disaster. NEVER Buy an Electric Vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1RoJCT7v-Q
The Sierra EV is similar to the Hummer EV so should have similar performance….
Man Plugs $80k+ hummer Electric Truck Into His House, Finds Out It Will Take Over 4 Days to Charge
with standard 120V charging — or Level 1 charging, it takes 4 days to charge the hummer.
with standard 240V charging — or Level 2 charging, it takes 24 hours to charge the hummer.
Car and Driver went to an Electrify America charging station, where it cost over $100 to “fill up” the Hummer at 43 cents per kilowatt hour.
This is roughly consistent with how much it would cost to fill up a gas-powered Hummer made in the final production year
https://www.westernjournal.com/man-plugs-80k-electric-truck-house-finds-will-take-4-days-charge/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=conservativetribune&utm_content=2022-10-01&utm_campaign=manualpost&fbclid=IwAR2uOVa7XaRuIdY4Z29muh9dmc7jI_LTt_DwWMp9roBPKkKQePyKOqzjGiY
I’m going out on a limb here but, I think if you asked most “environmentalists” if they believe in God and that He created the heavens and earth they would spit in your face. They would probably rant about “evolution” and how humans are fouling that all up.
That said, I would remind these acolytes of Darwin that ol’ Chuck married his first cousin.
Reason and logic is not their raison d’etre.
Exactly. And I think this gets to the heart of a lot of issues. They have replaced God with man. They absurdly worship fallible “experts”, and in so doing, view truth as malleable. Just pick the expert you agree with.
If environmentalism restricted itself to truly caring for our natural resources, I would have no problem with it. However, with the secret science and questionable funding that these environmental groups possess taints the whole barrel. It turns out that many claims that environmentalists make have no basis in fact and are not based on good, honest, scientific investigation. This is why environmental scientists have to hide their data, as it does not fit their agenda. A good example of this is the so-called global warming crap, now renamed climate change. For one, the climate is always changing. The East Anglia emails in which data was purposely falsified by climate scientists comes to mind. Not only that, the climate scientists purposely installed temperature monitoring sensors in cities, contrary to manufacturers recommendations and good scientific practices, in asphalt-covered parking lots, and other heat sink areas in order to prove their (faulty) hypothesis. This is scientific dishonesty at its worst.
It turns out that the solar system is in a cooling cycle due to decreased solar activity. There are two long-term solar cycles that reinforce themselves when in phase and cancel themselves out when out-of-phase. Look up the Maunder minimum. There are no SUVs on Mars or other planets, yet they are also experiencing the same solar variability.
Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society, especially in the USA.
Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these anointed types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population by any means necessary.
Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced land use controls on private property owners without compensation, clearly an unconstitutional taking of private property. If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves, not by government force. Today the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is shoot, shovel, and shut up.
If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation. The use of automobiles and access to pristine wilderness (rural) areas would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these anointed environmentalists.
The endangered species act is another abuse of environmentalism. Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments-survival if the fittest. In fact, the hoopla over the spotted owl (that placed much northwest timber land off-limits to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.
More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to plant lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas off-limits for logging or development. Fortunately, these scientists were caught, however, no punishment was imposed.
In order to promote the false religion of “global warming” aka “climate change”, NASA “scientists” purposely installed temperature sensors in city parking lots and roads contrary to good scientific principles and practices in order to “skew” the “global warming” results.
In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism like watermelon-green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside.
It is interesting to note that communist and third-world countries have the WORST environmental conditions on the planet. Instead of the USA and other developed countries spending billions to get rid of that last half-percent of pollution, it would behoove the communist countries to improve their conditions first. Here is a question for you environmentalists: Why is there a push for restrictive environmental regulations, but only on the developed first-world countries, and not the gross polluters such as India and China?
The funny thing is due to the big green machine weighing close to 9,000 pounds empty and even with an oversized 205 kWh fire starter bolted on underneath it will still be incapable of towing anything any significant distance unless you like stopping every couple of hours to charge it.
How do I know this? Simple, after watching multiple videos of people towing with EV pickups on YouTube and seeing what they go through. Apparently the designers of this behemoth never heard the saying “Just because you can does not mean you should”.
My soon to be 25-year-old Sierra has a curb weight of 4820 lbs. It’s advertised payload is 2,040 lbs and towing 11,300 lbs. Between us, I promise I’ve exceeded both ratings many times over the years hauling & towing both locally and out of state. The mighty V-8 Vortec used more gas, sure, but I made it from my neck of Dixie to the destination without issue many times.
To Landru’s point, the 2025’s advertised towing capacity is 10,500 lbs with an extended range battery and 10,000 lbs with the max range package. Looks like it’s payload capacity is 1,400 lbs regardless of trim.
So in summary, I paid the equivalent of $75,000 less inflated bidenbucks for a truck that can tow 1,000 lbs more and haul 600 lbs more. Restated the 2025 is 3x more expensive and can do less work. Progress…
It is scientific illiteracy that is responsible for the (limited) “success” of EVs today–until these same scientific illiterates find out about extended charging times and limited range. Basic scientific principles are not taught in schools, being replaced by “touchy-feely” environmentalism and how humans are destroying the planet (yeah, right).
It is my humble opinion that us boomers are of the last generation who took science and technology seriously, with a hunger to know how and why things work. Us boomers had electrical and mechanical systems that we could work on and improve on ourselves. Basic scientific principles were taught in school and reinforced with hands-on experimentation.
In today’s climate (and the climate of two previous generations) experimentation on the level of the 1950s and 1960s is seen as “too dangerous”. I can remember the chemistry sets of the day being sold with toxic compounds which could be used for nefarious (and fun) purposes. Such sets are banned today.
Today’s prime example of the public’s scientific stupidity being pushed by political considerations is that of electric vehicles, most people (even supposedly “educated” types) enthusiastically jumping on the bandwagon despite the major deficiencies and problems these vehicles have.
Let’s look at the technical side of electric vehicles vs. ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. Range is a large factor in the desirability of ICE vehicles vs. today’s electric vehicles. One can fuel up an ICE vehicle in approximately five minutes and be on his way.
Not so for electric vehicles. Quite often electric vehicle charging stations are few and far between, which contributes to “range anxiety”. For short hops and city driving, electric vehicles can be an ideal solution, but for extended “road trips” forget it.
Electric vehicle batteries lose power even when the vehicle is not in use. (This is akin to a gasoline vehicle with a leaky gas tank). Add to that, cold weather and the use of accessories (air conditioning, heat, lights, etc) will reduce range considerably. Electric vehicles may be somewhat suitable for a California climate, but will fail in sub-zero Michigan winter snow and ice.
Batteries can be charged only to 80% of full capacity as overcharging will reduce battery life considerably. “Fast charging” is also detrimental to battery life. It’s all about time and convenience vs. battery life.
Gasoline and diesel fuel has an large energy content (density) in a small package, something that, in their present stages of development, electrical vehicles cannot achieve.
Let’s make a comparison…gasoline contains approximately 33.7 kwh per gallon. A gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6.1 lbs. The typical ICE vehicle can hold about 15 gallons of gasoline with a weight of approximately 90 lbs. total, with a total energy content of approximately 500 kwh.
High-end electric vehicles have an energy capacity of approximately 120 kwh. This is equal to less than four gallons of gasoline. The typical electric vehicle has a 75 kwh battery pack, equivalent to approximately 2 ½ gallons of gasoline.
Keep in mind that the battery pack weight is well over 2000 lbs (1 ton) and still has a limited energy capacity compared to gasoline. The typical electric vehicles weighs approximately 2 ½ tons (5000 lbs.), having to haul around a heavy battery pack. This also contributes to “wear and tear” on other automotive systems such as brakes and tires. (Yes, I am aware that regenerative braking exists and is a part of electric vehicle technology).
From an environmental standpoint, lithium is nasty stuff, reacts with water violently and is much more volatile than gasoline. Electric vehicle accidents are much more hazardous than those of ICE vehicles. Water cannot be used to put out a lithium battery pack fire.
Yes, gasoline is dangerous, but we have learned to control it and live with it successfully for over 100 years.
Most of today’s generation do not understand basic scientific principles; hence the enthusiasm for electric vehicles which are “not yet ready for prime-time”. The inability of today’s generation to understand basic scientific and engineering principles is responsible for their gullibility and ignorance.