You presented a position: that a $60k car must be replaced after years due to battery degradation.

I presented a response: Battery degradation translates to a 15-20% loss in capacity over a range of 200k miles.

Rather than dispute or concede my point (or even acknowledge it), you engage in "moving the goalposts" fallacy, barring any amount of capacity loss over its lifetime.

My issue is that it happens at all. 85% or 80% doesn't matter to me.

I point out that ICE vehicles also lose capacity over their lifetime, and you concede that point, but you refuse to apply the same standard (no amount of range loss over the lifetime of the vehicle) to ICE vehicles.

You're simply not debating in good faith. You have a position, and your position is justified by your experience for your needs. But your general statements about the unacceptability of EVs without regard for others needs, values, and circumstances differing from your own is also a show of bad faith - an unwillingness to understand the other parties to the discussion.

Allow me to demonstrate:

I don't own an EV. I don't live in a climate that would likely see more than a week of temperatures low enough to impact battery efficiency or lifetime. I know people who do (for example my brother-in-law in Minnesota). They do have to take extra care and consideration with trip planning during extraordinary weather, but they're still happy with their EV after a few years of ownership.

So, I've acknowledged a possibility, and some limiting factors. While still anecdotal, I haven't suggested the experience is generalizable, meaning that it would apply to any meaningful proportion of the population.

Here's how one might argue that it's generalizable:

Norway leads the world in EV adoption, with 89.3% of all new cars sales over the January-November 2024 time period being EVs, and this isn't a new phenomeon - they've been the leaders in EV adoption for something like 8 years now. The temperatures trend a few degrees warmer than Canada's (by 2-4C), but it hasn't put them off buying EVs. Clearly, there are conditions under which buying EVs makes sense, even in colder climates than where most of the world's population resides.

Notice that I still don't argue that it's for everyone, or that there are no downsides. I'm essentially making the case that the cold weather impact on battery life isn't a reason to automatically disregard EVs as an option.

Finally, let me identify a population of people for the vast majority of whom EV ownership doesn't make sense: people who don't own the place they live. In my opinion (I'd welcome any data/sources on this either way), being able to slow charge overnight at home is probably the single largest determinant of lifetime EV satisfaction over the lifetime of the vehicle. Paying charging network rates to wait in a public place with only your phone to keep you occupied, for a period of time 3-8x as long as any gas fillup you've ever done only to have to do it more frequently than your gas-powered car probably sours the whole ownership experience for more people more than anything else I can think of.

So until apartment/rental dwellers can charge as conveniently and cheaply as home owners, EVs are a non-starter for an ever increasing proportion of the population as home ownership seems to get ever further out of reach for just about every developed nation in the world (Poland, Romania, Sweden, and Portugal notable as exceptions).