(05-05-2023 10:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 09:57 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

Great now explain how the average American is going to afford these expensive vehicles with limited resources for the mining, the limited charging offered at our residence, the limited mileage offered by said vehicles, the cost to replace batteries when one drops a cell, oh and how are we going to fund the infrastructure to support two vehicles at a minimum per household that will need to charge their cars each night?

While this is a great idea, our government is extremely short sighted on how to implement this correctly, which isn't a surprise..

But hey the same group wanted us to buy their insurance via a crashing website.

Have you priced out a King Ranch or a Duramax lately?

That's not the lowest tier of these vehicles. Most normal Americans don't need a F-150 King Ranch, that's a luxury vehicle. Same for a Duramax, that's a vehicle where you need more power than what most gas burners will give you.

Your point is useless. You're comparing something an Average American won't drive because it's not in their means vs making them drive something that's not in their means.

(05-05-2023 10:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Maybe, maybe not. Probably not.

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.
The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

1. Not of it doesn't work. And there's no certainty that it will at this point.
2. Again, not if it doesn't work.
3. Maybe a good thing, maybe not.
4. Leadership in a true race to the bottom. When the rest of the world see what it does to the USA economy, how many are going to be willing to follow.
5. Maybe, maybe not.

You tout all these "advantages" as if they are certainties. They are not.

Environmentalism is a rich person's game. When you don't know where your next meal is coming from, the temperature of the planet 100 years from now is not going to concern you. If we don't get India and China and the developing world onboard, their increased demand is going to blow away any decreases we make.

To be clear, I am concerned about climate change and want to address it. But doing stupid things that harm the economy in the short run without making a meaningful dent in the problem do not constitute solutions. If you truly think that reducing carbon emissions is critical, then the only way to have meaningful impact with current technology is nukes. And expecting some magic technology to appear mystically is hope, not planning. You can like that or not, but you can't make it be untrue.

Leftist ideas are ALL theoretical, and they have ALL failed. Our government stated last week they want to have a fully EV military by such and such date. But the supplier of the batteries is our biggest foe. Brilliant!

Case and point:

A Ford Escape starts at it's lowest at $28k. A Tesla Model 3 starts at $41k.

The Escape as a hybrid starts at $37.9k.

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Why do we subsidize farmers, oil companies & and incentivize home ownership thru tax deductions?

Can you show this with actual results?

(05-05-2023 10:09 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Why do we subsidize farmers, oil companies & and incentivize home ownership thru tax deductions?

Can you show this with actual results?

No.. It's all theoretical.. Wait until people in colder climates are spending thousands upon thousands to replace batteries because of the harsh climate.

The problem is all the young people believe global warming is going to kill us all and that it is caused by CO2.

Everything stems from there. There is no cost too great to fight global warming because we are ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!

We were all going to run out of gas too. Three different times in my lifetime. We haven't.

The ocean rise was going to take away huge portions of the continents. It hasn't.

The Gulf Stream was going to move. It didn't.

How many wrong predictions will it take for the brainwashed generations of this country to wake up? I'm not sure they are intelligent enough to ever realize what they were taught has turned out to be wrong. I hope they do, but I have my doubts.

(05-05-2023 10:19 AM)Claw Wrote:  The problem is all the young people believe global warming is going to kill us all and that it is caused by CO2.

Everything stems from there. There is no cost too great to fight global warming because we are ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!

We were all going to run out of gas too. Three different times in my lifetime. We haven't.

The ocean rise was going to take away huge portions of the continents. It hasn't.

The Gulf Stream was going to move. It didn't.

How many wrong predictions will it take for the brainwashed generations of this country to wake up? I'm not sure they are intelligent enough to ever realize what they were taught has turned out to be wrong. I hope they do, but I have my doubts.

Its gone from fighting global warming to fighting climate change. The climate is always changing.

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

Actually it will not decrease the carbon footprint unless battery technology comes a long way from where it is now.

All you doing is diverting oil consumption from individuals to companies. BTW, surely you understand chemicals are used in the production of parts as well. Seems most liberal minded folks think oil will just go away once petro burning cars are no longer on the road.

Not only quickest, but also only.

(05-05-2023 09:34 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 09:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  You should be admitted to the looney bin if you think a country of our size can ever be "carbon neutral"

There is a great book out on this topic that lays it out so simply even morons like Mensa could grasp it. Ill post the title a bit later.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

If your reading comprehension skills matched your eagerness to display your lack thereof, then you could see my post never mentioned carbon neutrality but instead said

“3. Decreased carbon footprint”

But alas notsomensa... That's not the stated goal.

You're either being dumb on purpose or you're just dumb.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

It would also be interesting to know what is considered the optimum carbon level given that current levels are lower than at other times during the past.

(05-05-2023 12:32 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  It would also be interesting to know what is considered the optimum carbon level given that current levels are lower than at other times during the past.

nobody could possibly know unless it already happened or not...

the pomposity of the rhetorical knows no bounds...

to think our species has the 'majik switch' to control the motherland is past the point of tard...

(05-05-2023 12:37 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 12:32 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  It would also be interesting to know what is considered the optimum carbon level given that current levels are lower than at other times during the past.

nobody could possibly know unless it already happened or not...

the pomposity of the rhetorical knows no bounds...

to think our species has the 'majik switch' to control the motherland is past the point of tard...

Yep

But we know the real reason behind their goals. Notsomensa is obviously fooled easily or he won't admit the real reason.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Rising temps and CO2 would dramatically help with food security.

Electric vehicles are cool and all, but they solve nothing.

1. We do not have grid capacity to charge them if we all get one. We don’t have capacity if half or a quarter of people get them.

2. The current capacity of the grid is under attack because the same people pushing EVs are fighting what produces 70% of out current grid.

3. If you think of total energy use, that combines generated electric, burning gas, and every other manner, over 90% of total energy use in the United States comes from coal, natural gas and gasoline. If you eliminate gasoline from the numbers, you would either have to increase coal and natural gas use or increase “renewable” energy by over 900%.

4. Building an EV causes 4x the carbon footprint of a gas powered car. If you assume zero emissions from the EV, ignoring the carbon used to charge it, it takes between 60,000 to 80,000 miles for the two vehicles to have an equal lifetime carbon footprint. By the time you see net environmental impact the batteries are shot in your EV. What you have done is accelerated environmental impact by front loading the damage in the manufacturing process.

5. iC cars are nearly 100% recyclable, EVs are not. Every EV will be built with nearly 100% virgin materials. The steel, aluminum, etc. that makes IC cars was, in not an inconsequential amount, mined decades ago, has been melted and reused more than once.

6. The US does not have the mineral (rare earth) to build its own batteries in mass. You can produce all the electricity you want, but if you cant built the storage you have zero energy security.

The goal by the left isn’t EVs, it’s to lower the vehicle ownership rates by making their purchase and maintenance unattainable by the masses. They want you on electric buses. They want you to live clustered in cities. This is social engineering, not about climate.

(05-05-2023 01:52 PM)banker Wrote:  The goal by the left isn’t EVs, it’s to lower the vehicle ownership rates by making their purchase and maintenance unattainable by the masses. They want you on electric buses. They want you to live clustered in cities. This is social engineering, not about climate.

YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!

Or not ...
https://www.15minutecity.com/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-27/t.../102015446

Food for thought ... Why the push for 15 minute cities after we were sold "distancing" due to pandemic? They're saying the next pandemic is coming, so stack people in tighter clusters?

(05-05-2023 02:03 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 01:52 PM)banker Wrote:  The goal by the left isn’t EVs, it’s to lower the vehicle ownership rates by making their purchase and maintenance unattainable by the masses. They want you on electric buses. They want you to live clustered in cities. This is social engineering, not about climate.

YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!

Or not ... https://www.15minutecity.com/

Unfortunately, COVID backfired. Remote work has taken off like never before. Workers are leaving inner cities in droves. It's not easy to control the world. It doesn't behave.

Didn’t AOC say four years ago we were all going to die in 12 years

(05-05-2023 02:08 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Didn’t AOC say four years ago we were all going to die in 12 years

I have a countdown on my phone, im scared and don't know what to do.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

I don’t have a problem with people who want to live in a planned development. The work/live/shop concept has been around the last 20 years. The problem I have is when they take away choice. Like now they are forcing housing density into the suburbs. People moved there to avoid the density.