Do conservatives think there is something intrinsically good about gasoline/fossil fuel?

Something I’ve wondered is that I get the impression that even if there were a totally painless and hassle-free way to move America to, say, 100% hydrogen fueled vehicles that emit only water as the byproduct and have every bit the efficiency and capability of gas cars (or, more realistically, 100%-electric Teslas), that many conservatives would still veto such a move because…“It’s not gasoline.”

Is it because petroleum is vital to the economy of Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, etc.? I can understand that. But if it’s just because “Gasoline is the way we’ve always done things” - why?

At least for a significant portion of conservatives, the answer clearly seems to be “because it pisses off the libs”. That really does seem clearly to be the biggest driving motivation of a large portion (not sure exactly how much) of modern conservatives’ political preferences.

Not really; many of them feel that if Democrats and other non-conservative advocate it, they should oppose it.

I suspect most of them do not know that all of our energy comes from the sun, one way or another.

Why would you even think that conservatives think that way? Could it be that the news told you they did and even showed you a few " Good examples". Or possibly they realize that there are plenty of very smart people working on alternative energy sources and they are more concerned with how it affects them today. They can’t see the logic in shutting off an energy source before they have another one to replace it.

This all rides on what you mean by painless and hassle-free. As a self-identified conservative I am against change by default; principally I would want to know that the transition would be legal, practical, and on the balance is an improvement over the status quo.

If the hypothetical is that some alternative fuel proposal has major benefits and no drawbacks, so long as the process is legal, I would have no qualms.


Except nuclear, which comes from other suns, and geothermal, which partly comes from the gravitational collapse of earth and partly from the heat from nuclear decay which comes from other suns.

Well, they aren’t wrong in that fossil fuels do provide a significant benefit. Not just as fuels, but as ingredients for making plastic and all sorts of stuff civilization runs off of. In fact, I find it a bit unsettling how dependent we are on fossil fuels, given that they are finite.

To play devils advocate - I suppose there is a perception that Liberals are stifling fossil fuel production in order to prevent some theoretical future catastrophe. But those policies are having real negative consequences now, especially for people who don’t make a lot of money and/or are dependent on their automobile (which is most Americans). I guess it’s like being hungry and then told you can’t have any of this food because we are saving it for some future famine we predict will happen in 50 years. So what am I supposed to eat right now?

Also, as with Moscow Mitch and coal, they know where their interests lie.

I heartily agree. Since we have no really reliable way to heat our house it would be premature to do anything about the fact that the living-room is on fire.

If the living room was actually on fire, which it is not.

Yes, some of us are aware of your… let’s say, interesting ideas about Global Warming.

It’s about the money, mostly. But there is something to be said for gas over electric in terms of raw power. The average driver would be fine with an electric motor in their car. Drive here, park it. Drive there, park it. But if you’re hauling heavy freight through the mountains, fossil fuels are (at least for now) the way to go. (And after one phenomenally bad experience, I doubt that I’ll ever use an electric lawnmower again.)

And a '69 Dodge Charger sounds a hell of a lot cooler than any model of Tesla.

A lot of people want that potential power (or the perception of it), even if there’s no real chance that they’ll ever truly need it.

I have a rechargable electric lawnmower (EGO brand), and I absolutely love it. I don’t think I’ll ever have a gas mower again.

The intrinsic good is that they get lots of campaign donations from fossil fuel companies.

When we’re talking about changing from gasoline to hydrogen as fuel, there is very little argument against it being legal, practical, and an improvement over using gasoline for the same purpose. Is that alone enough for you to support a government-enforced transition?

Since gasoline is the status-quo, but the end result of transitioning to hydrogen is a net positive from all perspectives that I’m aware of (it’s more abundant, safer and cleaner than gasoline). Would that be enough to overcome your default opposition to change?

Such a change, of course, requires a massive investment in infrastructure to support distribution of hydrogen as fuel, and we all will need to buy a new car. The transition is a net benefit from all perspectives except for the hassle and expense required for meaningful results.

Now Max_S might be one who can see the greater good and be willing to go through the hassle and incur the expense that would be required, but how many other conservatives would do so?

I’ve already seen anti-hydrogen arguments saying it’s like putting the Hindenburg inside your car, even though gasoline fires can be said to be even more dangerous, but that’s still an easier argument to latch on to in order to justify opposing such a change, even if the hassle and expense are the only real obstacles.

Top Gear would like a word.

I believe CO2 can be looked at as an important contribution to the environment but I also believe it has to happen much slower over a longer period of time. I also believe that the bio-sphere is more manageable than is commonly accepted and it could become a much more viable source of mitigation. It would require a huge commitment from humanity to do this and the benefits would far exceed what it does for climate change. I believe a lot of things that I don’t hear on the news. .

Agree. And to acknowledge the need for alternatives is to give credence to the whole notion that humans may be a factor in climate change, and one of the primary positions of conservatives is to deny climate science. So, it’s no so much gasoline/fossil fuels are intrinsically good, other than inertia and resistance to change, but instead they’d rather not support anything that has tinges of that granola-eating, Birkenstock wearing, dirty hippy global warming hoax.

  1. Where their bread is buttered. Exxon is an ever-replenishable source of $$$$$, the only true value the GOP respects. Fuck all of us, and especially fuck our kids. Of which,

  2. You libtards want it? Then we don’t. If there’s anything we like as much as $$$$$ rolling in, it’s librul tears. We drink it up!!

  3. Hidebound kneejerk conservative values: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, And if it is broke, prove it. Then prove it again. Then listen to us railing against the egghead commies who proved it for a couple of decades by which time we can claim your proofs are out of date, so prove it again. Wash, lather, repeat.

3A) Nostalgia, If gasoline was good enough for grandpa, it’s good enough for me.
In fact I wish I wuz grandpa who grew up before all them colored conned their way onto the voting rolls and wrecked this country.

…describes conservatives in general, though the rest of us often have at least a tinge of those qualities.

There’s no special love of fossil fuels among conservatives, especially those that tout nuclear energy and want to build more nuclear plants. Reliability* and cost of alternative fuels are major concerns.

*not necessarily crucial in Texas.