No. Robotics with cheap electricity. MUCH cheaper, and safer.

Yeah, and the fact that Nestle, a European company, is also carping about it, means nothing.

Seriously, these companies should be working on the cacao plant to get it to grow in other environments. Right now, it is grown in many locations that are ran by drug lords, gangs, etc.
However, it is pricy enough that it could be grown in greenhouses further north.

You miss the point.
Costs for building anything, depends on numbers that you create. For example, F9 uses 9 engines of the same type. As such, they actually make it up in volume by moving from small production levels, up to high levels.
With creating a series hybrid, that uses multiple engine/gen, it allows for the use of 2+ when accelerating, but once you get up to cruising speed of say 45 mph, then 1 engine can cut it. OTOH, if you jump up to say 75 MPH, then the second engine/gen kicks in every so often to charge the batteries, while also providing the extra electricity. This also has a major advantage of allowing for pulling an engine/gen out quickly, and replacing it with a working unit. And yes, the idea really only works on large vehicles. Large SUVs/trucks, and commercial vehicles are the IDEAL way to go with this. Likewise, it should be used by the military to make it quick and easy to change out units. But, it also gives them extra electricity when needed.

You have to be kidding. The I8 is pure junk. Low MPG. A price tag that is much higher than a Model S. Unable to hold 5 passengers with cargo, let alone 7. And the price tag is much higher than the Model S.

The good news is, that within 3 years, when Model 3 hits the market, it will force all of the major car companies to make serious changes.

Yes, but not much. In the end, it is very light cargo that is carried. And hyperloop can do that, esp. at nighttime.

Look, these high-speeds are not used for cargo, but for ppl. Worse, the real issue is not the rail, but the aerodynamic drag.
As such, the real answer is hyperloop.

There is a MUCH easier way to solve taxes on electric cars that does not involve having the feds spy on everybody.
First off, you need to realize that electric and hybrids are less than 1% of 1% of all cars. IOW, they do not amount to a hill of beans at this time.
Secondly, if an electric car charges at nighttime ONLY, this will actually lower our electric rates. The reason is that it increases demand on electricity during the nighttime and helps even out the loads. As such, it enables electric companies to move away from expensive peaking plants and increase base plants instead.
Third, hybrids and small electric cars, regularly plug-in during the daytime mostly at businesses. That increases the daytime load on electricity usage. That is the WORST time to do so.

With the above knowledge, the smart thing to do is to put a .01 per KWH tax on businesses that provide charging from the hours of 7 am until say 9 pm. This approach helps lower your electricity costs, while at the same time, paying MORE than what gas/diesel does for the hybrids.
Where it does not solve this, is the cars like Tesla which has enough nighttime charge so as to avoid this. Down the road, these cars can simply notify the owner and base of how much is owed.

Issue solved.

Seriously, where we went wrong on this, is that the hummer is the ideal vehicle to convert into a series hybrid. With electric motors, it would have great torque similar to what Tesla has.
BUT, the smart thing to do, is to not have one large engine/gen, but 2 or more smaller units in the hummer. By making these smaller units, they can use them in a number of other vehicles. In addition, it simplifies maintenance. Just pull it out and replace it with another one that was fixed.

Sadly, GM is STILL ran by MBA's and not engineers.

Seriously, the ideal way is to raise diesel and gas by .1/gal each year for the next 5-10 years. At that point, index it to inflation. Note, that this will then encourage Americans to buy high mileage vehicles only as initial posting says and which Europe has already done.
BUT, the question becomes, where should the money go? The diesel tax should go exclusively to DOT who then uses it only federal highways, dams, etc. It must be infrastructure use ONLY.
The gas money should likewise, go to the state in which it was collected. Keep in mind that in general cars are generally local vehicles. This must also be infrastructure only.

So sad that ppl no longer grasp economics, or how things work. It used to be that ppl had enough sense to at least study a bit prior to piping up.

Look, this is already an almost done deal. Assume that it is not. Then what changes? Well, instead, nations like China will continue to get their oil from other locations. Basically, oil demand will NOT go down just because you stop a pipeline. In fact, tar sands will continue until the price hits about 50/bl, which none of the producers will allow directly.

OTOH, If America allows keystone, BUT IN RETURN, insists on limited time subsidies for new commercial vehicles using nat gas, then within 3 years, limiting it to serial hybrids using nat gas, this will drop America's demand for oil. That will spread to other nations as nat. gas vehicles come down in price. And with the serial hybrid commercial trucks, that can not only increase semi vehicles to 50+ MPG from the current 5 mpg, BUT, it will drop oil demand, and its prices.

Look, back in the early 80's, I used to protest against the manufacturing of nuke triggers in Colorado. And it was in fact, shut down AND cleaned up (thank god; it was bad). However, we are now creating a new site in which to make newer better triggers. Nothing really stopped. Now, these are not about economics, but about politics. BUT, oil/nat gas/coal/etc combined with climate change is not really about politics, but economics, combined with some politics.
Here. Read this.

The ONLY one baffled is you. You continue to speak of regulations, when I never mentioned any. Instead, I am focused on how to get our CO2 emissions WAY DOWN by using economics. Instead, you seem to like the heavy hand of regulations, and seem to want the US to make all fo the changes while continuing to allow China and others to pollute at massive levels.

Just out of curiosity, are you Chinese?

First off, I think that we are on the same side. I am against kyoto.
Secondly, what is needed is to have ALL nations dropping their emissions. What cracks me up is that even if America was to stop 100% of their emissions tomorrow, we would still be in serious trouble because China emits so much and is growing so fast.
In fact, the ONLY way to compensate for China's massive emissions, would be to have America, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan AND INDIA to stop 100% of their emissions TODAY.

That is why I believe that we must tax goods based on where the assembly/parts come from. In addition, it needs to be normalized with CO2 / $GDP, and not CO2 / capita (worst idea going ). Likewise, need to keep it honest, by using space based measurements. OCO2 is a good start on this. In several more months, the world is about to be shocked by China and several other nations.

First, you have not given any links or anything to back up your points. You just ranted like an idiot.
Secondly, there was a good article on /. for you. It was called Confident Idiots.

No, you are the one that is amiss. Nations will work to get others to do the heavy lifting. That is what china is doing now. In fact, if we do not bring tar sands to america, then Canada will sell direct to china who will pollute far worse.
With a deal cut that will lower America's demand for oil each year, then oil prices will continue downwards to the point where tar sands are NOT economical.