climate boogey man? Afraid of it? Nope.
Just accept the fact that it is a real issue rather than be too afraid/stupid of dealing with issues.

LOL.
Again, another far right winger that refuses to accept science. Not only does science show that man-made CO2 is far more than 100x nature, but ppl ARE falling over due to the pollution. As to CO2 killing them, it continues to get thinned out so that it does not kill them directly. However, elevated CO2 causes faster heart beat and breathing, which will make ppl living in CHina (or close to any coal plants), breath in many more pollutants.

You know, I am convinced that it is extremists on both sides, like you on the right, and others on the left, that are killing America, if not the world. Neither of you accept science. How many on the left refuse to accept that nuke plants are safe? None. How many accept that the numbers prove that AE can not be done in time to stop CO2 (therefor we NEED nukes)? None.
There there are fools like you that refuse to accept the science about AGW. Hell, the fact that you think that nature spits out more CO2 than does mankind makes you even more foolish than the far left. It is PURE FACT that we are putting out more Co2 than does nature. I mean this is directly measured.

So, you have not been reading real research and just get your news from faux and kook brothers?

N2 does not effect anything. It is neutral
Where is O2 pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces? If it did, then yes, it WOULD be a pollutant.

Nice BSing for yourself.

The CO2 monitoring is useful for finding major sources of LOCAL pollution, but, it really can not deal well with large 'Whiffs' of it.
OTOH, OCO2 is already showing where the REAL CO2 comes from, and is making a mockery of the numbers that the far left comes up with. Keep in mind that CO2 numbers are predicated on various items:
1) the first is via monitoring. That works well if you have monitors all over the nation. This is used heavily for doing calcs in the western nations. However, when monitors are NOT all over the nations, then you have an issue.
2) calculations based on gov. supplied numbers. This is what is used in most of the world, in particular, for China. THis fails since nearly ALL govs. CHEAT on these numbers.
3) Space based monitoring. OCO2 is now showing that numbers are wrong.

So, while I would not fully trust the numbers from Google, they will give an idea of where bad emissions are from. OTOH, Sats will give a better idea of which area CO2 is coming from, as well as being sucked up.

Thankfully, OCO3 is now being worked on, and will give a much better idea of where CO2 emissions are coming from within locations.

BS.
Monitoring, and standardizing, has been done for the last 30 years on these instruments.
By having them on trucks and measuring the local areas, it gives a better idea of WHERE the various pollution occurs from.

It is no more political reason then it would be political to measure the amount of rain that is falling.

I agree about CO2. Far better is the use of satellites to study CO2. And in fact, OCO2 is making a mockery, as well as shocking, of the numbers that are being displayed.

However, the vehicle is measuring many other items. As such, they will find out GENERALLY, what is going on.

Google should only be using electric cars for this mapping efforts. They have the money, and can buy large amounts of them from Nissan, or even Tesla. And if Google would invest into Tesla, I would bet that they could get Tesla to produce a small electric truck for them. In fact, it should be on a sub-compact frame and could be sold to utilities and google.

No, trucks are not that sensitive. Bulk of loss is from aerodynamics , not rolling. That is why semis have cabins.

That is because series hybrids are done wrong. They can be far more efficient than a mechanical system by using multiple small engine/gens.

All of the hybrids are done wrong. Parallel hybrid is just plain foolish. You inherit everything bad of each system, and it does not give a way out.
Likewise, the current series approach is equally wrong. You take a large regular engine , hook up a generator, and then run a motor with it. Way too much lose.

The right way is for a company to develop a SMALL 30 hp engine that hooks directly to a matching generator. Together, these will be around 100 lbs. Then put 2+ into a vehicle. For a f150 size commercial truck, do 2. For a semi, do 4 or 5. The only place where real loads occur is during acceleration. For cruising at say 70 mph, a semi will only use 50 kw assuming better aerodynamics. As such 3 engines would run to provide the electricity for the motors AND running the cabin.
This is cheaper to make, and cheaper to maintain.

Many of the cars today actually put speakers outside to make more noise.

in fact, car makers would be smart to allow adf-ons for such things.

I get so tired of fucking MBA types that BS without understanding what they are talking about. Numerous studies have shown that the grid and generators in america do just fine with 100% of vehicles moved over, as long as less than 25% charge in the daytime. In addition, if less than 15% charge in the daytime, there is a MAJOR savings to utilities. And as to the rest of your tripe, others have already addressed the fact that not a thing was true.

Most ICE vehicles in 25-50k range are fairly slow. They will run 0-60 in 5-10 seconds. Model 3 will no doubt start in the 5s and go to 3s based on options. In addition, the vehicle will be considered superior to all other ICE vehicles in that range. My guess is that is when customers will insist that car makers quit focusing on masdive profits and focus on great vehicles.