Pardon the snark, but the way this article rationalizes or tries to defend Biden’s upcoming tailpipe rules by denying they’re really a ban on gas-powered vehicles is really ridiculous.

The Biden administration’s new regulation limiting tailpipe emissions from cars and light trucks would transform the American automobile market, charting a course away from the internal combustion engine and toward a future of electric cars and hybrids.

Transform as in meaning destroy.

In terms of lowering the emissions that are heating the planet, this regulation does more than any other climate rule issued by the federal government and more than any measure planned in the remainder of Mr. Biden’s first term.

That’s partly because transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gases generated by the United States. It’s also because the rule is objectively ambitious. The rule is projected to eliminate more than seven billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the next 30 years, more than all the greenhouse gases produced by the entire United States economy in one year. And, because the United States is a huge auto market, analysts project that companies making cleaner cars in the United States will start to sell them on the global market as other governments enact or move toward similar standards.

This goes to show The New York Times either doesn’t know much about the rules or their effects to begin with or is being intentionally deceitful since, even The Gray Lady has previously reported, no one wants electric cars. It is reasonable to conclude that deception is at hand since an article The Gray Lady published two days ago says that Biden’s tailpipe rules will push car makers to sell more electric vehicles.

The rules will amplify market forces pushing the industry toward battery power, giving automakers a strong incentive to sell a broader, more affordable variety of electric cars — not just the expensive sport utility vehicles that have dominated sales so far.

Furthermore, a review of the EPA tailpipe regulations by the Institute for Energy Research reveals that, while making fuel economy credits available, automakers would be required to have electric vehicles command about 67 percent of their new car sales in 2032, up from less than 8 percent today. The IER also points out the rules are a de facto ban on gas-powered vehicles.

It would be interesting to know if anyone on staff with The New York Times (especially the author of the article) and other Biden administration officials own and drive electric vehicles. In light of what Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently experienced, it is unlikely. Perhaps Mayor Pete could give his fellow cabinet members lessons on how to ride a bike?

The rule does not mandate sales of electric vehicles, and consumers can still buy and drive gas-powered cars. Rather, it requires car makers to meet tough new average emissions limits across their entire product lines; it’s up to manufacturers to decide how to meet those limits.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency can limit the pollution generated by the total number of cars each year. E.P.A. officials said that, as long as automakers comply with the emissions rules, they can sell a mix of gasoline-burning cars, hybrids, E.V.s or other types of vehicles, such as cars powered by hydrogen.

The rule does not apply to sales of used vehicles.

As pointed out earlier, the intention of the EPA’s rules is abundantly clear in an article The Times published two days ago including the IER’s review of them. The Gray Lady conveniently leaves out that auto manufacturers will have no alternative but to scrap most of their fossil-fuel powered vehicle production (including for hybrids) in order to make and even sell electric vehicles. Consequently, consumers will be forced to buy electric cars and those who can’t afford to purchase them will have no alternative but to take public transportation. The tailpipe rules result in a gas car ban by default.

Starting in model year 2027, when the rule takes effect, car companies will report to the E.P.A. the average emissions associated with all the passenger vehicles they sell. The emissions limits will start modestly and ramp up slowly in the early years of the program, rising sharply after 2030. Companies that don’t meet the emissions limits would have to pay fines that could reach into the billions of dollars.

As a result, car manufacturers will pass the cost on to consumers that will, in turn, make vehicles even more expensive eventually running them out of business. Joe Biden, on the other hand, will undoubtedly still be transported in fossil fuel-powered planes and vehicles while keeping his gas-powered car collection including occasionally ending up on TV shows driving his Corvette just to rub it in people’s faces.

Whether American roadways fill with nonpolluting vehicles hinges on a central question: Will motorists buy them? Early adopters flocked to E.V.s, but sales have cooled and carmakers are concerned they need more time to develop the market. That’s one reason the E.P.A. pushed back the most stringent emissions requirements for auto sales until after 2030, so that manufacturers could improve designs and develop more affordable models, and for charging infrastructure to be built.

Consequently, despite consumers not wanting electric vehicles, people will have no alternative but to buy them and people’s ability to have their own means of transportation will be indirectly outlawed by the state. The Times doesn’t say it, but that is the end result. Whether or not the rule was pushed back or if any changes or concessions were made at the request of the car makers doesn’t detract from the EPA’s intent: destroy the American automobile industry.

The Gray Lady tries to make its pitch for Biden’s tailpipe rule similar to how opponents of guns attempt to make their case for gun laws. Anti-gunners often say no one is trying to take away your guns. But the laws they support resort in doing so by default, including disarming victims since gun laws make it harder (at times impossible) for innocent people to buy them.

In this case, no one is trying to ban your internal combustion engine vehicle up until the time you need a new one. Such gaps in logic or facts if not outright deception also gives the impression that The Times is desperate. They somehow must know that they’re already losing the ability to control the narrative or making a lame attempt to defend Biden’s tailpipe rule knowing it will not work out.

The article closes by lazily implying that Donald Trump can somehow reverse the EPA rule or the courts might strike the regulations down tantamount to saying the buck can be passed on. All Biden’s tailpipe emissions rules will do is penalize the consumer driving up the costs of automobiles making them prohibitively expensive down the line. But actions speak louder than words, and it is what The New York Times article doesn’t say that is loud and clear.

On second thought, don’t pardon the snark.