Toyota is literally selling hydrogen fuel cell cars in the USA, right now.
There have been politicians called “movement conservatives,” although I don’t know if that term has been current in several years.
I consider “movement conservatism” to be something other than literally conservative. I suppose I could call them the “Gingrich-like faction.”
Because pure hydrogen does not occur naturally on Earth in large quantities, it takes a substantial amount of energy in its industrial production. Unless the electricity is produced with a renewable, it is no better than gasoline. This is why nuclear energy should still be considered.
Conservatives are a loose knit confederation of smaller groups who tolerate each other in order to advance their own agendas. Corporate types play lip service to social issues if it gets them elected so they can cut taxes. Anti-abortion types will gladly tolerate Islamophobes if they can get draconian abortion laws passed. Bigots will vote against their own economic self-interest if they can go kill some Muslims and deport some Mexicans. And so on and on and on. The basket of deplorables has no common interest, they simply tolerate others they would normally find appalling but politics makes strange bedfellows.
Which particular “ramming” are you referring to? The government subsidizes fossil fuels in various ways, hugely so when you realize that the external cost of CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions is still not accounted.
Or are you referring to the “waste” of taxpayer funds on Solyndra? IIRC, the U.S. government’s venture into the “venture capitalist” business to support renewable energy has been profitable overall. Any venture capitalist will tell you that if none of your ventures fail, you’re not venturing enough! — but you’d never suspect this to listen to supposedly “business-knowledgeable” politicians prattle on and on about Solyndra.
Or by “ramming it down our threats” do you mean government standards to get gas guzzlers and emitters of noxious fumes off the roads? Please be specific.
Do you think that’s also true of liberals? That some folks, who support gay rights but not gun-control rhetoric, vote for a Democrat while thinking, hey, I agreed with the Republican on guns, but I’m not a single-issue voter, so whadyagonnado?
Well said.
Something illustrative to note recently, related again to the fact that “conservatism” is less “movement” than manipulation, can be seen in the rather bizarre actions of Dan Schneider, titular head of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). He arranged to throw out the leaders of the Alt Right, labeling them as antisemitic, racist and sexist. From that relatively nice beginning, he went on to claim that they were “garden variety LEFT WING fascists.” That rather nutty idea, that being a Nazi is a LEFT WING notion, makes it clear that his particular batch of “conservatives” cling to Anti-Liberalism so fanatically, that they have to lie to themselves about what is Left and what is Right, in order to try to keep some unity.
Well, there were Left Nazis, the Strassers and the old SA come to mind — and the massacre was not forgiven: had a miracle won Hitler the war, he was gonna get a resurgence of resentment from those who put the socialist in National Socialist — and Himmler and the SS ( Right ) might have ended up on the old apple tree once the senile ( which thanks to Dr. Morell was growing apace every day ) fuhrer had gone west.
And of course, the whole Nazi movement was fulfilling the strange dreams of the nationalist liberals of '48. [ Not to be confused with the Nationalist parties with whom the Nazis squabbled for power in the 1920s ]
Anyway, as far as American Conservatism is concerned — ever an unsightly group of dedicated loons — can there be anything less reactionary than Mountaintop Removal Mining ? A conservative dedicated to past values and the way things were would stroke out at the very idea: this lot… money excuses all.
Liberals are a loose knit confederation of smaller groups who tolerate each other in order to advance their own agendas. Big government types play lip service to economic issues if it gets them elected so they can raise taxes. Pro-choice types will gladly tolerate protectionists if they can get looser abortion laws passed. Limousine liberals will vote against their own economic self-interest if they can talk down to other people and shame people for not supporting open borders. And so on and on and on. The bleeding heart social justice warriors have no common interest beyond white knighting for the cause du jour. They simply tolerate others they would normally find appalling but politics makes strange bedfellows.*
Or maybe sweeping generalizations that are closer to cartoon caricatures aren’t really useful.
*It felt dirty even just typing that.
Good, so far–and equally true of liberals in many cases.
And here you drop down into boilerplate partisan politics, claiming evil intentions for every group with which you disagree.
meh
More partisan rhetoric that does nothing to promote an intelligent discussion of the topic.
Ever noticed the ‘mad swivel-eyed loons’, [ quoting a conservative ally of the late unlamented Tory David Cameron on British Tory activists ] who have informed the American Right since the days of handing out mimeographed pamphlets denouncing Kennedy, through the long march of the Dr. Ron Paul newsletters, pining for Ronnie, nattering on about shiftless inner city folk, and on to the bold new world of purest democracy in media comments-pages of the common man denouncing Obama for… everything.
I don’t even care for Obama, and JFK seems ‘mostly harmless’, but their foes can be classified on mental grounds rather than for their political beliefs. I have some sympathy for a few right-wing positions, say on immigration, and some for left-wing positions, say on universal health care, but I do know that attending a conference with these earnest bow-tied fanatics would be as pleasant as a holiday with the Taliban’s Social Committee.
Liberals can’t even recognize what an amazing substance oil is. How it is the very foundation of modern society. I think if the liberals thought that the Democrats controlled the oil industry they wouldn’t have any problem with it. If Warren Buffet or Soros heavily invested in it, liberals would completely change their tune.
Meh, clearly you missed what I posted in a different thread. You are in reality anthropomorphizing oil.
Like I said, things that were beneficial to all, democrat or republican alike like the horses and stage coaches were dropped unceremoniously when cars with combustion engines appeared, they are bound to be also in turn to be unceremoniously dumped (and yet, this should not be needed to be remarked about but for many conservatives it is: dumping technology that benefited many in the past does not mean that you are ignoring the contribution they did offer) when electrical cars enter the mainstream.
What you and many conservatives that were misled by the big fossil fuel companies and their propaganda you are also missing is how this issue was/is not really a partisan one, but it was made so by powerful interest groups. Please check the Frontline documentary “Climate of Doubt”.
So your defense of posting partisan gibberish is to post more partisan gibberish?
Your claims are as silly and pointless as the equally partisan and equally pointless drek that Pearl Clutching Provocateur posted just after your reply.
Nope.
I believe you misunderstand the conservative position which is that we embrace new technologies that are genuinely better. Look at a what disaster ethanol is. Now that it is an entrenched special interest we can’t get rid of it. We’ll be subsidizing ethanol long after electric cars become commonplace.Thanks liberals for meddling with the free market.
I would love to own an electric car. If I move to Los Angeles, I would seriously consider it as I see an availability of charging stations when I visit. I have a friend who owns a Volt and he loves it.
I already looked at, I did remark before that it was a bad idea.
So, nope back to you.
As pointed also before: Most of the jobs Trump claimed to bring back, from Ford, Fiat/Chrysler are for making cars that are of the electrical and hybrid varieties. Meaning that if Trump removes all the EPA and car regulations that the car companies planed for when preparing those new auto making factories will not be there; it will mean that those jobs are in danger for the simple reason that then other gas guzzlers and emitters of CO2 will remain cheaper.
Both are true. These industries spend a great deal of money to influence and manipulate politicians. One of the consulting firms I used to work for had an entire “strategic communications” practice dedicated to doing this.
These industries are also huge and very profitable. And they provide a lot of high paying jobs to tens of thousands of regular work-a-day people.
I’m pretty sure that most people understand that. That doesn’t change the fact that a) oil pollutes, b) emissions from fossil fuels are changing the planet’s environment for the worse and c) there is a finite amount of oil and they ain’t making any more of it. It has nothing to do with Republicans.
However, I think you’re correct in that Liberals don’t understand the ramifications of their proposals. Particularly to working people whose income is tied to those industries and who can’t afford the additional costs their policies would entail. I mean why on Earth would regular working class Americans vote in favor of increasing their fuel costs or having their jobs regulated away now to prevent some vague future catastrophe later.
But big oil interests recognize this and they have deep pockets. So they spend a lot of money to cast reasonable doubt. And that’s all people really need to just keep doing business as usual.
Please. We know the history of fossil fuels. At the time they were developed, they were the natural choice. But we have learned about the negative effects they have on the environment. We know that they are finite. There are other energy choices that may not be cheaper, but they are greener. To say that oil is the foundation of society is quite an overstatement, society functioned quite well before oil and will function quite well after we are weaned off of it.
Mmm, one has to take into account the work of historian Naomi Oreskes mentioned in the book and documentary Merchants of Doubt to realize that this follows:
While people losing their jobs in a big change is a concern, this is an argument that tobacco Companies also used. You are correct that many could suffer in a particular industry, but the reality is that many other industries suffer or will suffer loses because of the climate change and degradation of the oceans. (And even the ones the right wing talks about protecting are “protected” with not much thought about safety nets when they are lost anyhow)
What it really makes that jobs argument a bit misleading is that like the tobacco companies*, recognizing that regulation becomes a reality does not mean that the whole industry dies. Greed is really a big reason they seed FUD and have politicians in their pocket. And in reality the tobacco companies are still a big economic power and jobs are still there. As in the case of coal, other factors are also making the jobs disappear like cheap natural gas (in the case of coal).
As even politically conservative scientists like Richard Alley, Barry.R. Bickmore and Richard Muller, can tell you; No, the doubts they push are not reasonable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTk8Dhr15Kw
- Going a bit away from regular jobs, the case of the tobacco industry is relevant also as a lesson on how many other industries suffer for the irresponsibility of another, one example is the incalculable loss to the Walt Disney company when Walt died of lung cancer just at 65 because of his smoking. On that note one should look at how climate change is and will affect the bottom line of many companies and corporations that are not fossil fuel ones and yes, many of the jobs they allow to exist will also be affected.
Is it your claim that it was “liberals” specifically who pushed a pro-ethanol program? I subscribe to #RealFacts, where I learn that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was the key pro-ethanol Senator.
And guess who’s come out in favor of increasing the ethanol mandate? (I’ll spoiler the answer by writing it upside-down.)
[INDENT]dɯnɹʇ pןɐuop[/INDENT]