Progressive Liberal Hypocrisy
- Thread starter bigredfish
- Start date
sebastiantombs
Known around here
Now let's see if she has the gonads to stick with what she said 
Sybertiger
Known around here
The fascist are at it again.....let me guess, the politicians will still be driving their gas guzzling SUVs.
www.foxbusiness.com
California board moves to ban gas-powered cars by 2035 in favor of electric vehicles
California will require all new cars sold after 2035 to be powered by electricity in an effort to curb emissions and phase out gas-powered vehicles.
www.foxbusiness.com
Last edited:
sebastiantombs
Known around here
I think instead of Commiefornia we should call it Fantasylandia. These people are living in a total fantasy. To start with an EV is not pollution free. It's energy source is a based on burning carbon and there is literally no way to change that in the short term. That's defining "short term" as 100 years or so. I wonder if there will be an exception for trucks, heavy trucks especially. If not the entire population, other than the ruling class elites, will run out of food in short order.
I don't know why this is in the news again, as it's old news. As I keep saying, most cars in 2035 are going to be ICE, so I don't know why people are making promises they can't keep.
That said, I understand the strategy of setting a higher goal than you intend to achieve, but it requires that it at least be believable on the face of it. We're not even 100% horse-less. Anyone making a claim of 100% anything should be dismissed as profoundly ignorant or corrupt, both of which are disqualifying as a leader.
EVs do emit less CO2 than conventional cars though. Saying they are more polluting than ICE is not a good take. Let me provide all the ways EVs suck compared to ICE;
1. $10,000 for a "fuel" tank
2. Takes an eternity to "fill"
3. Battery takes up a lot of space
4. Battery weighs a ton
5. Degrades over time and use
6. Requires environmental regulation (heating and cooling)
7. Shorter range, less energy density
8. "Refueling" infrastructure less developed.
The argument that EVs pollute more isn't a good one mostly because it isn't true, but also because there's at least 8 other reasons why EVs aren't more popular. Don't pick the least credible take to dislike EVs, pick among the many credible ones.
That said, I understand the strategy of setting a higher goal than you intend to achieve, but it requires that it at least be believable on the face of it. We're not even 100% horse-less. Anyone making a claim of 100% anything should be dismissed as profoundly ignorant or corrupt, both of which are disqualifying as a leader.
EVs do emit less CO2 than conventional cars though. Saying they are more polluting than ICE is not a good take. Let me provide all the ways EVs suck compared to ICE;
1. $10,000 for a "fuel" tank
2. Takes an eternity to "fill"
3. Battery takes up a lot of space
4. Battery weighs a ton
5. Degrades over time and use
6. Requires environmental regulation (heating and cooling)
7. Shorter range, less energy density
8. "Refueling" infrastructure less developed.
The argument that EVs pollute more isn't a good one mostly because it isn't true, but also because there's at least 8 other reasons why EVs aren't more popular. Don't pick the least credible take to dislike EVs, pick among the many credible ones.
Last edited:
Gargoile
Getting comfortable
9. Unless the charging is by solar or thermal, most likely they are being recharged by COAL spewing large amounts of CO2 for their Zero Emission vehicle.
You wanna double down on this idiotic point?
I'm trying to help you be more effective, but just because I bring the horse to water doesn't mean I'm gonna make it drink.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
sebastiantombs
Known around here
My point was that calling them "zero emission" vehicles is a total lie. The power source for charging is carbon based. Then add in all the carbon based energy to mine the heavy metals needed for batteries and the carbon based energy needed to "dispose" of those batteries when they're depleted not to mention the pollution that happens with that "safe" disposal and they are certainly anything orther than "zero emission" vehicles and a "solution" to the "climate change" myth.
Gargoile
Getting comfortable
Please challange me with more than a liberal reply talking point with no facts that support your statement.
I did, and you brought nothin.
Gargoile
Getting comfortable
Gargoile
Getting comfortable
LOL, You still have no data
You must have missed it between your ad-hominem and the elementary argument strategy.
sebastiantombs
Known around here
The statistics in that link illustrate that EVs are receiving their power from carbon based generation which produces those greenhouse gasses that everyone is worried about. Note that "renewables account for about 1/3 of what carbon based produces, and that assumes during the day with full sunshine. Just producing enough batteries to store any excess from renewables will be a gargantuan project costing trillions and using an awful lot of heavy metals and carbon power to produce them. Another pipe dream.
Sybertiger
Known around here
Sybertiger didn't say anything...LOL
Sybertiger
Known around here
That's the biggie right there!
Sybertiger
Known around here
Don't forget about the big lie about E10. All that energy used to manufacture ethanol. Burning our food, good going tree huggers!
Gargoile
Getting comfortable
From the web link you provided. There is only 18.4% of the country what will support a Zero Emission statement, the rest not so much.
Natural gas, Coal, Petroleum liquids, Petroleum coke, Other gases, Wood, Landfill gas, Municipal solid waste, Other biomass waste. CO2 power producing emitters = 62.1%
Wind, Hydropower, Solar, Photovoltaic, Solar thermal, Geothermal: Non-CO2 power generation = 18.4%
Zero emissions IS a lie.
Less emissions is still less though. Personally, I don't care about emissions, I just care about cost. It costs me about 1/4 as much in "fuel" to run electric than gasoline. That said, I don't own an EV because it doesn't make sense for me to buy one yet. My company provides a car, gas, insurance, and maintenance, so I have no incentive to buy another car.
You're not going to convince a person who bought an EV that because it emits some CO2, they are dumb. You're also not going to convince someone who doesn't care about CO2 to get or not get an EV based on any CO2 argument.
I dislike smug, holier than thou people as much as anyone, but if someone likes a thing, I'll just let them enjoy it.