• May 19, 2011
Research conducted by Auto Trader suggests that money, not the environment, is the main driving force behind motorists' interest in eco-friendly vehicles, at least in Great Britain. The majority of UK motorists (73 percent) would consider "going green" to save money on fuel, compared to just 41 percent of drivers admitting that environmental concerns would motivate them to purchase a greener vehicle.

However, reducing emissions is important to most motorists, as 57 percent say that they consider the impact of their driving habits on the environment at least once a month. Only 23 percent claim that the environment never crosses their mind when out on the open road. Never, ever? That seems like a lot, doesn't it?

Auto Trader's research suggests that 49 percent of UK motorists would not even consider buying an electric vehicle in the near future. The major reason for this, with 45 percent of drivers in agreement, is confusion over where to recharge these types of vehicles. Of course, most battery-powered vehicles can be plugged into a conventional wall outlet, making it possible to recharge them – slowly, at least – almost anywhere.

[Source: Autotrader.co.uk | Image: stopnlook – C.C. License 2.0]
Show full PR text
Motorists go green to save money, not the environment

Research from AutoTrader.co.uk shows the state of the nation's attitude toward green motoring


• 73 are motivated by environmental concerns
• 49% of UK motorists would not buy an electric car in the near future
• 45% agree that the major barrier to adoption of electric cars is knowing where to fuel the car

May 11, 2011: Research released today by AutoTrader.co.uk has found that money, not the environment, is the main driver of interest in environmentally friendly cars. The majority of UK motorists (73 of drivers motivated by environmental concerns.

However, reducing emissions is still an important objective for motorists as 57 of these thinking about their carbon footprint every time they step into the car. Only 23% claim that the environment never crosses their mind when on the road.

Auto Trader also discovered that 49 of motorists in agreement, is confusion over where to fuel these types of vehicles. Most electric cars can be charged through a conventional power outlet, making it possible to charge either at the owner's home or office, but this would require approximately 8 – 10 hours charging for a full battery[i]. In addition, the network of higher power electric charging stations in the UK currently stands at approximately only 200 nationwide[ii].

Other factors that dissuade motorists from buying electric cars include the initial outlay costs (38). While manufacturers are in a position to help consumers with both of these issues, there is also an opportunity for the government to subsidise the price of electric cars to achieve its ambitious Green House Gas emissions targets, with 49% of motorists claiming that a government grant would be enough to tempt them into green motoring.

"With the continued rise of fuel prices it's not surprising that motorists are turning to new alternatives to reduce their maintenance costs. In this difficult financial environment consumers are simply being practical in their approach to motoring," said Matt Thompson, Group Marketing Director, Auto Trader. "It is encouraging to see that such a high percentage of motorists are concerned about the environment and it's clearly more of a question about getting the infrastructure in place to support green motoring, rather than consumer apathy on this important issue."

###

Notes to editors:

• Research conducted by Auto Trader in 2011 from a representative sample of 1,887 autotrader.co.uk users

About Auto Trader:

Visit the new website at www.autotrader.co.uk
AutoTrader.co.uk is the UK's no 1 motoring website, with over 10.8 million monthly unique users, who carry out over 135 million searches on new and used vehicles. The brand is the 7th most searched for online and is building a competitive position across all effective channels including online, mobile and magazine. Over 1 million people use Auto Trader Mobile, which is available through Autotrader.mobi and applications developed for iPhone, iPod Touch and Nokia devices.
AutoTrader.co.uk is owned by Trader Media Group, one of Europe's largest specialist multi-media groups and provider of market leading websites and their associated magazines, including Top Marques, Bike Trader, Truck & Plant Trader, Ad Trader, Motorhome and Caravan Trader, Farmers Trader – all with the largest reach in their sectors, through web visitors and magazine readership.

Trader Media Group operates in the UK, Ireland, Italy and South Africa. The Group is looking to expand on its winning formula: giving trade customers the opportunity to choose all effective channels to market; building the service and relationship with dealers and manufacturers; and strengthening its portfolio of automotive and specialist classified titles.

Trader Media Group is jointly owned by Guardian Media Group and Apax Partners.

* Experian Hitwise's most searched for brand of 2010 data (22 March 2011)


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 58 Comments
      Noz
      • 3 Years Ago
      Humanity hasn't evolved enough to do what's right for the sake of doing it. Until money is removed from being the central motivator of all things, society will forever be held at a low point and people will never realize the enormity of being altruist in nature and the incredible satisfaction of being a truly "good" person...something that no amount of money will ever be able to buy.
        Noz
        • 6 Days Ago
        @Noz
        POLO...perhaps if you took your head out of the bible and looked up once in a while, you'd have a clue what's going on....until then you're now evolving into a bible-thumping, oil company promoting, warmongering hypocrite who thinks reciting verses will save your a$$.... Good luck with that brotha!
        Car Guy
        • 6 Days Ago
        @Noz
        What color is the sky in your government controlled socialist utopia?
          Noz
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Car Guy
          Ironic isn't it that you say that while your country is falling apart and taken apart piece by piece....good riddance I say.
        Marcopolo
        • 6 Days Ago
        @Noz
        Noz, you could start by stopping preaching, sermonising and condemning others, Start practising, take positive action in your own life, remember Matthew 7:3 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".
      Nick
      • 3 Years Ago
      Oil money still heavily influences the government. I wonder what the result would have been had they not received and political contributions.
        Ford Future
        • 6 Days Ago
        @Nick
        We would have been WORLD LEADERS in Solar and Wind Turbines. But, thanks to Reagan, Oil money has dragged this country down to middle of the world status. Only is the US Military Number One in the World. Plus, look at the global warming costs. Texas is getting a bill of $3 Billion through lost crops and ranching losses. What does a 300 mile long * 1 mile wide hurricane cost.
          Noz
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Ford Future
          Yeah just ask all the US companies involved in nation building and oil company propping all over the world..... Damn those OPEC evil-doers...forcing us to build cars, consumer 25% of the world's resources, and waste more than any other nation in the world...DAMN them! They are forcing us to go to war, forcing us to invade and kill and murder so we can create regime change and manipulate governments to our bidding...DAMN them! And of course, the OPEC guys only operate by themselves...we never have meetings with them, we never collude with them...hell we don't care about money and oil and power and control!!! We're the USA...the one and only do-gooders of this world where we care about everyone and to hell with the huge profits and scamming of Wall Street....they're all OPEC guys in disguise! Carney....shut the hell up.
          carney373
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Ford Future
          "Damn those OPEC evil-doers...forcing us to build cars" Building cars isn't the problem. Building cars that can only use OPEC controlled fuel is the problem. And OPEC doesn't force us to do the latter but it corrupts public officials and the public debate with OUR money to prevent and delay alternatives, with myths like food vs fuel. "consumer 25% of the world's resources" We have the world's most dynamic, advanced economy, married to one of the world's biggest populations. Naturally we're going to be energy-thirsty, including fuel thirsty. That's not immoral. What's immoral is OPEC harming the world economy and holding back growth that hinders the world poor from reaching our standard of living. "and waste more than any other nation in the world" Define "waste". We produce more wealth and resources than any one else. Our workforce is the most productive, meaning most output per man hour, dollar, or energy unit. That makes our factories and farms more efficient than just about anyone's. Our creative minds add value to resources. "They are forcing us to go to war, forcing us to invade and kill and murder so we can create regime change and manipulate governments to our bidding...DAMN them!" OPEC funded maniacs committed 9/11. Another OPEC funded maniac, who actually WAS a murderer, refused for 12 long years to honor the peace agreement forced on him after a prior unprovoked war of aggression. "And of course, the OPEC guys only operate by themselves...we never have meetings with them, we never collude with them...hell we don't care about money and oil and power and control!!!" We actually are a basically good country of decent people doing the best we can in a dark, dangerous, violent world. The Mideast in particular is a nest of vipers. They happen to control a resource that at the moment is geostrategically crucial. Of course we meet and trade with them. We worked with Stalin to beat Hitler. We worked with Mao and Islamists to counter the Soviets. That's the kind of messy ugly work that needs to be done. You can indulge your moral vanity, hold yourself above and apart, harping on the unsavory compromises that are necessary to engage in a game of blaming and tarrng us rather than the actual villains of this world, all while smugly enjoying and taking for granted enjoying the freedom and prosperity that is a direct result of those choices you screech about. Nothing's a given, you know. A normal Roman citizen in AD 100 might have thought it would go on forever. "Wall Street" is a piker next to OPEC. Your priorities and focus are wildly askew.
          carney373
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Ford Future
          Solar and wind have nothing to do with getting off oil. Oil dominates transportation fuel, not electricity generation. 50% of our electric power comes from coal, 20% each from natural gas and nuclear, 5% from hydro-electric dams, 2% from all "green" power (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, etc.) combined. Oil is only 3%, way down from nearly 20% in the 70s. For practical purposes, and speaking nationwide, we are basically already oil-free in electricity generation. Solar and wind are not really alternatives to oil; they are alternatives to coal, nuclear, and natural gas, none of which has anything to do with oil. Where oil has a stranglehold is transportation motive power. Even ships and trains, which once ran on coal, now use oil. That's where we need to focus on with hair on fire urgency. Yes, coal and natural gas are greenhouse gas and conventional pollution emitters. But only oil bankrupts our economy and funds terrorism.
      The Libertarian
      • 6 Days Ago
      >>> Only 23 percent claim that the environment never crosses their mind when out on the open road. Never, ever? That seems like a lot, doesn't it? This is why nobody believes environmentalists. You can't allow the facts to simply be the facts. When they don't fit what you want them to be, there's an urge to editorialize, as you demonstrate when you question the veracity of the poll number you don't like. Nine out of ten environmentalists with a political agenda would simply report the 23% statistic as 13%, since "it's so unbelievable it can't be true; it must be a mistake". That's why the IPCC quoted some study as saying all the glaciers would melt in 35 years instead of the 350 years that was actually predicted. Because when the left doesn't like the facts it has to work with, it just invents new facts; believing that they're so "right about everything" that is justified. And hence, nobody believes them. And rightly so.
        skierpage
        • 6 Days Ago
        @The Libertarian
        You draw the wrong conclusion. An IPCC section quoted a WWF report that got Himalayan glacier melting wrong, and has acknowledged the mistake. 1 paragraph out of 938 pages of one working group's report. Meanwhile the right-wing unscientific craposphere rehashes debunked and out-of-date papers from the 70s and 80s, pretends that controversies like this one undermine the basis for AGW, can't even begin to offer a coherent alternate theory, and refuses to accept a consensus based on a mountain of hard scientific evidence because it conflicts with its ideology. It's true that many environmentalists and left-wingers would have a problem if the science didn't fit their preconceptions, but the science is what it is. From the Wikipedia IPCC article: This projection was not included in the final summary for policymakers. The IPCC has since acknowledged that the date is incorrect, while reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary was robust. They expressed regret for "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance". The date of 2035 has been correctly quoted by the IPCC from the WWF report.
      • 6 Days Ago
      Remember the "population explosion" that was supposed to turn the Earth into a living hell? There are more people today, but the predicated disaster never happened. Part of the reason for that was the development of better agricultural methods and better logistics. These advances did not occur under the supervision of government population experts (or environmentalists, for that matter). They were put in place by people who wanted to make more money by producing more food on less land and getting it to market more efficiently. I think the same thing applies to green technology. Saving the environment is nice, but convince a company that it can save money by, say, heating and cooling its buildings more efficiently, and you're really onto something. Today, "alternative energy" connotes "not as cheap or as efficient as the energy we use now, but we have to make the sacrifice for our planet." What it needs to mean is "better than what we use now and with the potential to make us a ton of cash."
      carney373
      • 3 Years Ago
      There's another motivation to avoid oil. Oil funds terrorism. OPEC controls 78% of world oil reserves, and permanently and unfixably controls the world oil market and prices. OPEC keeps supply artificially low to make prices artificially high in a brutally regressive tax on the whole world. A large slice of this looted revenue goes to fund pro terrorist extremism, and terrorism directly. We can't fix OPEC's control of oil. But we can fix whether our cars need to use oil to move.
        Noz
        • 6 Days Ago
        @carney373
        Here goes Carney again with his utter bullsh^t about OPEC.....dude...you're so full of sh&t I don't know whether to get pissed off or laugh my a$$ off. You are so delusional about the involvement of the US oil firms in all this that I don't even know where to begin. Lay off the koolaid.
          carney373
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Noz
          Typical Noz name calling and anti business, anti American ravings in response to numbers, facts, and logic. I never said US oil companies are angels. They have a certain confluence of interests with OPEC since 8% of a higher oil price is more than 8% of a lower price. But at this point they're essentially middlemen and technical advisers to the real masters of the oil world - OPEC. And the FACT is that in the 1945-1970 era when the "Seven Sisters" rather than OPEC controlled the world oil market, average oil prices were lower than since 1970 even adjusted for inflation, and economic growth was higher than since 1970 as well. Also FACT: the Seven Sisters steadily increased oil production to match world population and economic growth, keeping oil prices steady. And since the 1970s non OPEC oil production has doubled to match the world economy and population doubling. By contrast OPEC production in 2007 was JUST AS LOW as it was in the late 70s, again despite the world population and economy doubling, and despite OPEC having all the cheapest, easiest to get, most desirable stuff. Forget Noam Chomsky style crackpottery. Face reality. The problem is OPEC.
          Noz
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Noz
          Yeah it's OPEC....LOL.... You're delusional. You don't even have the balls to admit you're responsible....that's how pathetic you are. Always blame everyone else but yourself...I don't see any OPEC nations invading, destroying, pilfering, creating coos, forcing regime change, telling others what to do, and creating wars. But the US does...over and over and over and over and over again. Funny...for a country as strong as the US, you seem to believe you're at the mercy of OPEC? Haha....wake up for crying out loud and have the courage to admit you're warmongering fool....at least you can say that much.
        Chad Schwitters
        • 6 Days Ago
        @carney373
        Marcopolo, what's your source? I have never seen a number that low. Carney's number is right in the mix. OPEC says they have just under 80% of oil reserves: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm. The US Energy Information Administration (cited in JOLT!) says they have about 75%. It is true that the US gets most oil from Canada. But oil is a global commodity. If we were to switch tomorrow and buy all of our oil from Saudi Arabia, after about a week for things to adjust, NOTHING would be different. Not the price of oil, nor how much we spend, nor which country gets how much money. The price is set on a world market, and if more money goes in one place, others will adjust their buying. It's as if all buyers pump in to one bucket, and all sellers siphon it out. OPEC will get over 3/4 of all money spent on oil in the future. I don't have a source for which countries sponsor terrorism, but I know US officials have at least followed some (not all, of course!) Saudi Arabian oil money to terrorism.
        Marcopolo
        • 6 Days Ago
        @carney373
        @Carney. Where on earth do you get this crap! Opec, does not control 78% of oil reserves, the highest estimate is about 42%. Opec is only 13 of 122 oil producing nations. the main reason OPEC is a major oil exporter is that OPEC nations by and large export oil, rather than use it internally. OPEC is not rich in Coal, (the world number one fuel, or natural gas) . Which OPEC nation funds terrorism? The USA imports oil from no hostile nation. The largest US oil supplier is Canada. Which Canadian is a member of a terrorist organisation? Over the years the IRA has been a very active bunch of terrorists, how much oil is in Ireland? What about the Baader Mienhof gang, lot of oil in Germany? What about Tim McVeigh, oil rich? Get your facts right.
          carney373
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Saudi Arabia, which controls OPEC, has played a double game for a very long time. Ideologically, Saudi Arabia disagrees with al Qaeda on little other than who should be in charge. Its version of Islam is so extreme that it was once on the fringes of the Muslim world. In fact the Saudi king and the Wahhabi chief cleric were once executed by the caliph of Islam for heresy (specifically the belief that all non-Wahhabis are "polytheists" deserving only death), denied an Islamic burial, and their deaths mandatorily celebrated throughout the Ottoman Empire. The end of that empire and of the position of caliph, and the discovery of Arabia's gigantic oil reserves changed everything. It's as if a tiny kook movement such as the Neo-Nazi Christian Identity suddenly supplanted the Vatican in wealth, reach, and influence. Endless rivers of Saudi money have bought up or corrupted the most respected universities, mosques, etc. in the Muslim world. Thousands of Saudi funded-madrassas, especially in Pakistan, take in poor village boys with the promise of free educations plus room and board, teach only rote memorization of the Koran and vicious intolerance, and radicalize simple pious rural folk into raving zealots who support mass murder. Saudi-funded charities, mosques, schools, pressure groups, think tanks, newspapers, TV operations, etc. etc constantly spread their violently intolerant form of Islam further and further every day. With so many Saudi officials being stupendously wealthy "princes", and with so much oil wealth sloshing around other OPEC regimes (such as the Gulf States) as well, the lines between state and non-state funding of pro-terrorist and terrorist affiliated groups become fuzzy, but parsing all that is ultimately irrelevant. Add Libya, Venezuela, Saddam's Iraq, and other enemy nations, and OPEC is a global rogue's gallery. While beset by ethnic, religious, regional, and ideological rivalries, OPEC cooperates under Saudi leadership on the one issue they all agree on: the desire to loot as much of the wealth of the rest of the world as possible.
          carney373
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Marcopolo, you're confusing OPEC's share of world oil RESERVES (which is indeed over 78%) with OPEC's share of world oil PRODUCTION (which is, as you say, a tick above 40%). Reserves (what you have) and production (what you drill and make available for sale on the world market) are not the same thing. In fact that gap is of major geo-strategic importance since it means that OPEC is under-producing relative to how much of the world's oil it has, while everyone else is over-producing relative to how much they have. That in turn means that each year, OPEC's proportion of what oil is left goes up, while everyone else's share of what oil is left goes down. That 78% is going to go up, and up. OPEC is the great greedy miser hoarding its huge stash, while everyone else is racing through what little we have. You're correct that OPEC consists of a tiny minority of the world's countries, but that tiny minority of countries just so happens to be not only where the vast majority of the world's oil happens to be, but also nearly all of the world's cheapest, easiest-to-extract, and most desirable oil (light sweet crude). You're also quite correct that OPEC does not control the market for natural gas, and has very little coal. That is PRECISELY why we must make methanol compatibility a standard feature in new gasoline cars from now on, because methanol can be made from coal and natural gas, the latter very cheaply. Methanol is cheaper and higher octane than gasoline, and the per car cost of adding this capability is only $130 for automakers. We cannot break OPEC's control of oil, but we can break oil's monopoly on transportation motive power - a monopoly enabling OPEC to charge monopoly prices to a helpless captive market. It doesn't matter where we import oil from directly. All oil purchases directly or indirectly enrich OPEC regimes, which in turn support pro terrorist extremism, and even terrorism directly. Hezbollah gets $100 million a year from Iran alone. Iran wouldn't be able to do that, plus fund other terrorist groups, ballistic missile programs, nuclear weapons programs, etc. from selling carpets, saffron, and pistachioes.
      • 6 Days Ago
      I love being lectured at by those in the environmentalist religion.
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 6 Days Ago
      Whatever people need to cut down on oil usage is fine by me. The problem is that gas is expensive and alternative energy is often even more expensive.
        carney373
        • 6 Days Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        Methanol is cheaper, unsubsidized, even after accounting for its lower mileage. And while ethanol and other alternatives to cost more at least up front, the price of gas isn't just measured at the pump, but also in jobs lost and opportunities deferred from oil-induced crashes, and from lives lost from pollution, terrorism and war. Don't be penny wise, pound foolish.
      adrive7
      • 3 Years Ago
      In other news, the Sky is Blue and grass is green.
      harlanx6
      • 3 Years Ago
      Fortunately economy and ecology go hand in hand. That is not to say that a person trying to decide between several different cars might end up using social responsibility to help with the final choice. Most drivers don't have the economic freedom that would allow them to pay 40K for an EV equivalent to a 20K oil burner. I understand that many of you contributors do, and therefore can look condescendingly down on those less fortunate who are still striving to achieve financial independence. The point is the auto trader survey tells it like it is at least in this case.
        Ford Future
        • 6 Days Ago
        @harlanx6
        What I here, is your condescension. Do some math, if driven mostly in the 35 mile EV range, the Volt pays for itself in 200,000 miles. Plus, you give your neighborhood cleaner air. Buyers, don't need you to characterize them. The right wing always go for the smear after they've lost the argument.
          carney373
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Ford Future
          It's not about right v. left. Human nature is what it is, and plenty of people you agree with on the issues behave abominably in debates.
        Chad Schwitters
        • 6 Days Ago
        @harlanx6
        Why compare the upfront cost of a $40k EV to a $20k gas car? Most people that can't afford a $40k car but can afford a $20k car are making payments or doing a lease. Lease payments on a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt are $350/month. Subtract your monthly fuel savings by buying electricity instead of gas (assume US averages of 15k miles per year, $4 gas, 11.5cent electricity), and you're only paying a comparable net of $229/month. That's very affordable (at least to anybody looking to buy a new car, which is who you were discussing).
        JP
        • 6 Days Ago
        @harlanx6
        The average purchase price of a car for 2010 was $29.5K, the $34K LEAF is not that much of a stretch even without rebates, and it saves you money the day you drive it off the lot. Sure many people can't afford EV's yet, it's basically a brand new technology for all intents and purposes, produced in limited quantities.
        Marcopolo
        • 6 Days Ago
        @harlanx6
        Thats not really true. $40,000 is not that expensive for a car, and millions of US citizens can easily afford to purchase a Volt. i don't think many of those people look condescendingly down on anyone. It might seem that way to someone whose struggling, but it could be they are just over-sensitive. But if no one cared about the environment as a factor o car purchase, Prius would not have sold 2,140,000 units.
      Steven W. Diffy
      • 3 Years Ago
      mY TRUCK COST ME 21 CENTS A MILE for fuel. Bought a car for 7 grand that gets me a mile for 11 cents. Driving 40,000 miles a year The car pays for itself in less than two years. Let go of your ego. A car is simply an appliance. Find the best one at the lowest price that will cost you less in the long haul. Be wise. Sam Walton drove an old pick up truck.
        • 6 Days Ago
        @Steven W. Diffy
        > Driving 40,000 miles a year The car pays for itself in less than two years. Yup, but the average is closer to 10k miles/year, which makes it an 6-8 year payback. If your current vehicle gets 20mpg or more, the payback period is fairly long for most people. For example, if you go from 20 to 50mpg, you only save $1500 over 10k miles with $5/gallon gasoline. 10k miles for various mpg given $5/gallon gasoline 1 mpg = 10k gallons = $50k 5 mpg = 2k gallons = $10k 10 mpg = 1k gallons = $5k 15 mpg = 666 gallons = $3333 20 mpg = 500 gallons = $2500 25 mpg = 400 gallons = $2000 30 mpg = 333 gallons = $1666 40 mpg = 250 gallons = $1250 45 mpg = 222 gallons = $1100 50 mpg = 200 gallons = $1000 10k miles is 10kgallons at 1mpg. 1kgallons
      Chad Schwitters
      • 3 Years Ago
      They didn't even ask if people were switching to help their country's economy and strategic dependence on OPEC countries? Or who's doing it to get a better ownership experience--smoother, quieter ride, less maintenance, refuel at home? Money and environment aren't the only reasons to switch...
      Arun Murali
      • 3 Years Ago
      45% of people in UK are confused about where to charge their car. What .... Does that include 5 year old infants? I think i came to a new conclusion, as long as people are told public transports are greener, they will never buy a electric car. Not that they will take the public transport everyday(its not as easy as it sounds). But hey its greener. In case you are wondering how I came to this conclusion, 57% consider changing their driving habits. Unfortunately consider is not good enough. It means they will forget all about it 20 minutes after they filled the survey form.
        Marcopolo
        • 6 Days Ago
        @Arun Murali
        Yep, I think most of these 'surveys' are made up by bored Journalists sitting 'round a bar, with a dealine approaching.
          Marcopolo
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Do you ever tire of this repeating such meaningless clichés. Do you ever think that if you cot of your ass and built, or bought an EV you might just be doing something positive instead of always blaming others for your own inadequacies.
          Ford Future
          • 6 Days Ago
          @Marcopolo
          If it justifies a right wing position, and is crazy, you'll usually find a PR Firm PAID to propagate the horse manure.
    • Load More Comments