And despite what denialists say, there are very clear mechanisms forcing extreme weather events this that we understand based upon direct measurements of the temperature and heat content in the ocean:
Of course, your point is that people are understandingly more concerned about the impact on their daily life and immediate concerns that they have control over rather than some larger, more abstract calamity over which they have no control, which is very much why we need concerted action at the national and global level…which are all things that self-described ‘conservatives’ fear because they equate it with communism and the abolition of personal rights. It isn’t as if they are wrong to be concerned about authoritarianism or a government with an overarching mandate bulldozing individual liberties but the workable solution isn’t just to stick ones head in the sand and ignore that there is any issue, which is largely the ‘conservative’ response to any widescale problem.
You mean how did we get into this terrible situation with uppity women and brown people, gay pride and trans acceptance?
You’re looking at the world (or society) from a lens where the end of slavery is considered an unalloyed good thing, for example. Not everyone does. It was the start of a slippery slope for some people that ends in the extinction of their anointed race. Similarly rights for women of ANY kind was the beginning of the destruction of “he created them male and female”
There’s a thread on this very board right now about SLAVERY being normal throughout history and societies and only verboten in modern times for some societies. That’s Conservatism, Out and Proud. If you think these people don’t believe that women being chattels is the good old days, you’re projecting your values onto them.
It’s all well and good to tell people to put the greater good ahead of their own needs. But people still need to put fuel in their cars so they can get to work. Most people can’t afford electric cars.
Like it or not, modern society was build around easy access to automobiles. So what are people supposed to do in the meantime while we transition to a new gasoline-free society?
Not vote for politicians who deny that there’s even going to be a problem in 50 to 100 years?
This thread isn’t about individuals choosing to put gas in their cars. We all, regrettably, need to do that at the moment. It’s about policy makers (and the people who support them) who refuse to acknowledge the need for change.
Here you’ve laid out the argument that you personally shouldn’t do anything because it’s too burdensome. I would then lay out the argument that you’re right, the government should use its resources to help people make that transition more comfortably. You would then complete the circle by explaining that you don’t think this is government’s role, and it would disproportionately affect ordinary Americans with a net worth over a billion dollars.
Which again reduces to the core of the conservative ethos: do nothing, someone else will probably take care of it, and if not, who cares.
Opposing change—especially if it’s sudden, significant, and/or irreversible—is built into human nature, the conservative side of human nature. It’s a lot stronger in some people than in others, but it’s something I recognize in myself to some extent. Maxims like “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “Be not the first by whom the new are tried, nor yet the last to lay the old aside” resonate with me.
Do you not see how conservatives or even most people might be concerned about forcing the greatest societal change in human history? Particularly when there is no clear destination for a replacement for fossil fuels?
I do. But also believe I don’t want to pay more money for fueling my car or heating my home. And a lot of people can’t afford to pay more and are a lot more dependent on the automobile than I am.
Conservatives have zero problem abiding incredibly risky social change. Climate change is going to be the biggest upheaval humanity has ever seen, and conservatives are just fine with that. When COVID hit, it was one of the most socially disruptive events ever, and the conservative response was “eh, herd immunity will probably take care of it. And ivermectin.”
Don’t even come in here with that silliness about how conservatives don’t like experiments or risks or uncertainty. They freaking love taking wild irresponsible gambles (as long as they are confident the consequences will fall on others).
Gasoline’s no good because it’s contributing to how we are wrecking the world, so we have to change to something else.
Hydrogen’s no good because you use more electricity making the hydrogen fuel than you would need to power an electric vehicle.
Electricity is great because centralized electricity production can be made much less harmful to the environment. It’s also great because fueling at home has to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I can’t even imagine how awesome that would be.
The big drawback for me are battery fires. Something like a 100x the water to put it out, as in 30,000 gallons versus 300. Just awful all around. Still clearly better than the drawbacks of gasoline and hydrogen, but not exactly ideal.
It sure would be nice if you could make the hood, roof and trunk all be solar panels with little windmills in the front grill to power the car, but I fear that would be an order of magnitude short of the energy required.
In a perfect world, in addition to an electric car you charge at home, all of your home electricity – including that used to charge your car at night – would come from solar panels on the roof. But I suppose that would lead directly to the environmental impact of producing those solar panels.
Stop re-posting obvious bullshit and lies about Electric Vehicles? They infiltrate every news story about new EV technologies, or better chargers with complete, utter garbage that they either made up on the spot, or read somewhere.
It’s also great because fueling at home has to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I can’t even imagine how awesome that would be.
It is awesome, I can tell you from personal experience. Even discounting the money savings, I have saved a LOT of time by having my car “full” every morning. I plug into a regular 110V 15 amp outlet in the driveway.
The big drawback for me are battery fires. Something like a 100x the water to put it out, as in 30,000 gallons versus 300. Just awful all around. Still clearly better than the drawbacks of gasoline and hydrogen, but not exactly ideal.
You’re correct that a battery fire is harder to put out than a gasoline car fire. This is offset by data that shows EV’s are approximately 100 times LESS LIKELY to have a fire. (As an aside, I laughed at the statistic in this article that shows that the average consumer thinks they need 500 miles of range to commute to their job 8 miles away)
You are correct , there is not enough roof area to provide enough energy for an EV, even if panels were 100% efficient. There’s just not enough solar energy impacting that area.
Think about your “little windmills” idea for a moment… It would be like if you set up a fan powered by a windmill to blow air at the windmill and therefore harvest “free energy”. It’s a perpetual motion machine, and physical laws of energy make it impossible.
Is that to me or are you speaking generally? Because I haven’t posted anything about EVs.
But yeah, EVs would help.
Obviously what would help is if conservatives recognized that this problem exists. Even if scientists are wrong about climate change, I don’t think they are wrong about petroleum being a finite resource. And yet I hear conservatives claiming that the Earth just magically creates more oil (on human time scales).
No, absolutely not to you. The reply was to “people”. And I get fed up the the bullshit that people frequently post online. (not usually here, at SDMB by anyone)