Progressive Liberal Hypocrisy

Now let's see if she has the gonads to stick with what she said :rofl:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parley, Ssayer and bigredfish
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Wow
  • Sad
Reactions: Parley, mat200, Ssayer and 2 others
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parley, Ssayer, bigredfish and 2 others
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish, TonyR and JNDATHP
Sybertiger said:
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 to emit less CO2 than conventional cars though. Saying they are more polluting than ICE is not a good take. They aren't. 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish, Parley and sebastiantombs
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish, TonyR, JNDATHP and 5 others
redpoint5 said:
You wanna double down on this idiotic point?
Click to expand...
Please challange me with more than a liberal reply talking point with no facts that support your statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OICU2
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish, OICU2, Parley and 1 other person
Sybertiger didn't say anything...LOL

1661481839945.png
 
sebastiantombs said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's the biggie right there!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs
Don't forget about the big lie about E10. All that energy used to manufacture ethanol. Burning our food, good going tree huggers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs
redpoint5 said:
You must have missed it between your ad-hominem and the elementary argument strategy.
Click to expand...

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%
 
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs
sebastiantombs said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom