Will Republicans take climate change seriously if they win in 2024?lternative to gas vehicles

[Twilight Hue]

Personally I like compulsory policymaking when it comes to safe food, drinkable water, building codes and a boatload of other items.

Reasonable, well thought out and realistic policies should be put in place where they don't exist today.

I let the market and consumers decide for themselves which businesses are making / producing crap, and which ones are worthy of doing business with.

 

[F1fan]

I don’t know what Republicans will do, nor what the election results may be, but there are pros and cons to everything. EV have some definite cons...

“1. EVs are powered by fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), fossil fuel-based power plants — coal, oil, or natural gas — create about 60% of the nation’s electrical grid, while nuclear power accounts for nearly 20%.

It hasn't helped that republicans have slowed the progress of green power generation. Nuclear has gotten safer but it will take 10 years before a new facility will on the grid. So we are stuck with few options until then.

2. The batteries of EVs rely on cobalt. An estimated 70% of the global supply of cobalt emanates from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country with deplorable working conditions, especially for children.

Which is bad, but not as bad as the climate becoming too severe for humans to live in many parts. We need a next step in battery design soon.

3. A study released earlier this year by an environmental group showed that nearly one-third of San Francisco’s electric charging stations were non-functioning. The population of San Francisco represents roughly two percent of California.

They'd better fix them.

4. Supporters of the California law admit there will be a 40% increase in demand for electricity, adding further strain to the grid and requiring increased costs for power and infrastructure.

And what have republicans done to help meet demand OTHER than burning fossil fuels? Nothing. Democrats cannot fix our needs alone.

5. According to one researcher, the strain of adding an EV is similar to adding “1 or 2 air conditioners” to your home, except an EV requires power year-round.

Again, we need to make changes that will reduce carbon emissions, and unfortunately republicans have stood in the way over and over again. If republicans won't help then at some point they will lose voters, just as they seem to be losing voters over abortion rights.

6. Today, 20 million American families, or one in six, have fallen behind on their electric bills, the highest amount ever.

This is why the government should not be cutting taxes on billionaires and instead invest that revenue in green energy. This is the effect of the republican "every many for himself" attitude, and many on the fringe cannot make ends meet. Meanwhile the rich are accumulating more wealth. Is that sane?

7. Utility companies will need to add $5,800 in upgrades for every new EV for the next eight years in order to compensate for the demand for power. All customers will shoulder this cost.

No, this is what government should be investing in. This is the new wave of transportation. Just burning gas will cause more problems and dump more greenhouse emissions into our air. That will cost us all more in the future.

8. The average price for an electric vehicle is currently $66,000, up more than 13% in just the last year, costing an average of $18,000 more than the average combustible engine. Meanwhile, the median household income is $67,521. For African American families, the average is $45,870, and for Hispanic households, $55,321.

And the average cost of our racing bicycles is over $10,000, but we pay it. That is what happens when you have a small demand product. So as soon as EVs become more common and there's more demand the prices will come down. The government need to invest in infrastructure to help this process.

9. A 2022 study found that the majority of EV charging occurs at home, leaving those who live in multi-family dwellings (apartments) at a real disadvantage for charging.

Add that to the list of infrastructure investment.

10. The same study also noted that many drivers charge their EVs overnight when solar power is less available on the grid.

Then set up solar charging stations for day charging.

Or have solar charge batteries at home and then recharge the car at night.

Its easy to complain. But there are solutions if you just get past your habit of complaining about progress.

Oh, and by the way, guess who is laughing their keisters off as America heads into the Left’s EV future, knowing they control so much of the equipment, materials, and technology necessary for batteries, thus giving them a choke-hold on the U.S. economy?

Can you spell C-H-I-N-A?”

If the USA government would help businesses create new products then it would happen here. But as long as republicans are against this investment, and wishy washy about climate change and green energy, no business will risk it themselves. So, republicans, it's on you.

 

[Audie]

Everyone is an expert on green power,
corporations, sea level, "climate", who
to blame or praise for whatever.

Though nobody actually even knows if higher temperatures / more evaporation would
result in more, or less cloud cover and
whether that would mean more snowfall.

Or why the ice age glaciers advance or retreat.

Only thing known for sure is, the moral high ground is easily achieved by calling names
and pointing fingers.

 

[sun rise]

I let the market and consumers decide for themselves which businesses are making / producing crap, and which ones are worthy of doing business with.

Nice theory. In practice companies lie/cover up the truth and it's only when many get sick that something might happen (lies about tobacco causing cancer for example).

Someone needs to protect consumers against corporate evil.

 

[fantome profane]

I let the market and consumers decide for themselves which businesses are making / producing crap, and which ones are worthy of doing business with.

So you prefer corporatocracy over democracy.

 

[InChrist]

It hasn't helped that republicans have slowed the progress of green power generation. Nuclear has gotten safer but it will take 10 years before a new facility will on the grid. So we are stuck with few options until then.


Which is bad, but not as bad as the climate becoming too severe for humans to live in many parts. We need a next step in battery design soon.


They'd better fix them.


And what have republicans done to help meet demand OTHER than burning fossil fuels? Nothing. Democrats cannot fix our needs alone.


Again, we need to make changes that will reduce carbon emissions, and unfortunately republicans have stood in the way over and over again. If republicans won't help then at some point they will lose voters, just as they seem to be losing voters over abortion rights.


This is why the government should not be cutting taxes on billionaires and instead invest that revenue in green energy. This is the effect of the republican "every many for himself" attitude, and many on the fringe cannot make ends meet. Meanwhile the rich are accumulating more wealth. Is that sane?


No, this is what government should be investing in. This is the new wave of transportation. Just burning gas will cause more problems and dump more greenhouse emissions into our air. That will cost us all more in the future.


And the average cost of our racing bicycles is over $10,000, but we pay it. That is what happens when you have a small demand product. So as soon as EVs become more common and there's more demand the prices will come down. The government need to invest in infrastructure to help this process.


Add that to the list of infrastructure investment.


Then set up solar charging stations for day charging.

Or have solar charge batteries at home and then recharge the car at night.

Its easy to complain. But there are solutions if you just get past your habit of complaining about progress.



If the USA government would help businesses create new products then it would happen here. But as long as republicans are against this investment, and wishy washy about climate change and green energy, no business will risk it themselves. So, republicans, it's on you.

Thank you for the in-depth response.

 

[Shaul]

The Republican Party is the true party for conservation and sound environmental policy. Excerpts from the Republican Party Platform make this clear.

“Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy’s success.”

“The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation.”

“Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.”

“We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.”

 

[fantome profane]

The Republican Party is the true party for conservation and sound environmental policy. Excerpts from the Republican Party Platform make this clear.

“Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy’s success.”

“The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation.”

“Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.”

“We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.”

A century ago the Republican Party was not a conservative party, quite the contrary. As you point out, pro-science, pro-environment, progressive.

If you think that is what the Republican Party is today, I disagree.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Republican Party is the true party for conservation and sound environmental policy. Excerpts from the Republican Party Platform make this clear.

“Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy’s success.”

“The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation.”

“Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.”

“We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.”

Of course. Republicans are not emotional immature alarmists (with some rare exceptions) stating the world will end because people use fossil fuels.

In fact, it's all but impossible for humans to create a runaway global effect according to Robinson and Goldblatt using fossil fuels. It's more likely to occur with water vapor however.

'Runaway greenhouse' easier to trigger on Earth than thought, study says

Of course fossil fuel is the arch enemy with the left.

 

[Audie]

Of course. Republicans are not emotional immature alarmists (with some rare exceptions) stating the world will end because people use fossil fuels.

In fact, it's all but impossible for humans to create a runaway global effect according to Robinson and Goldblatt using fossil fuels. It's more likely to occur with water vapor however.

'Runaway greenhouse' easier to trigger on Earth than thought, study says

Of course fossil fuel is the arch enemy with the left.

Nobody knows if heat /more evap would mean more or less cloud cover, more or less snow,
more heat reflected, or trapped.

 

[F1fan]

The Republican Party is the true party for conservation and sound environmental policy. Excerpts from the Republican Party Platform make this clear.

“Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy’s success.”

That was Teddy Roosevelt whose ideas and beliefs were more liberal than conservative, and definitely not anything like the MAGAs today.

“The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists.

Hahaha, right, don't leave protecting the environment to those who actually are passionate about the environment. Leave it to the party who wants to drill for oil in national parks, and put pipelines through farmland and protected natural resources, and want to frack in places where people live and rely on well water to survive? The party that fights against green energy and climate change?

They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend.

Oh the irony.

The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation.”

The 70's was when the USA, including republicans, understood that we are dumping too much pollution into the air and water. Remember "Give a hoot, don't pollute"? We set regulations and our air and water quality improved, along with the health of many citizens.

“Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.”

Yet republicans aren't doing this, quite the opposite.

“We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.”

Well, this doesn't work. Corporations will pollute as much as they want to improve profits. Governments are hired by the people to act as proxies and advocates FOR the people in regards to what businesses can do to harm our environment. Republicans have a record of selling out to big business.

 

[Shaul]

A century ago the Republican Party was not a conservative party, quite the contrary. As you point out, pro-science, pro-environment, progressive.

If you think that is what the Republican Party is today, I disagree.

I posted the excerpts from the actual GOP platform. Feel free to point out which parts you disagree with.

 

[Shaul]

That was Teddy Roosevelt whose ideas and beliefs were more liberal than conservative, and definitely not anything like the MAGAs today.


Hahaha, right, don't leave protecting the environment to those who actually are passionate about the environment. Leave it to the party who wants to drill for oil in national parks, and put pipelines through farmland and protected natural resources, and want to frack in places where people live and rely on well water to survive? The party that fights against green energy and climate change?



Oh the irony.


The 70's was when the USA, including republicans, understood that we are dumping too much pollution into the air and water. Remember "Give a hoot, don't pollute"? We set regulations and our air and water quality improved, along with the health of many citizens.


Yet republicans aren't doing this, quite the opposite.


Well, this doesn't work. Corporations will pollute as much as they want to improve profits. Governments are hired by the people to act as proxies and advocates FOR the people in regards to what businesses can do to harm our environment. Republicans have a record of selling out to big business.

The GOP platform on the environment is sound. It is you that is the one who is truly anti-environmental.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted the excerpts from the actual GOP platform. Feel free to point out which parts you disagree with.

Have you ever heard of "lip service"? Parties often claim that they support certain things in their platform but when they get in office there are some parts of the platform that they work against. The Republicans have lately been far from "conservative" when it comes to the ecology.

 

[Heyo]

Nobody knows if heat /more evap would mean more or less cloud cover, more or less snow,
more heat reflected, or trapped.

But we do know that increased CO2 will trap heat and the records show that that is what's happening. Global temperatures have risen - and it is reasonable to assume they will do so in the future.

 

[Audie]

But we do know that increased CO2 will trap heat and the records show that that is what's happening. Global temperatures have risen - and it is reasonable to assume they will do so in the future.

Here's some records
Explainer: How the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the ice ages

 

[F1fan]

The GOP platform on the environment is sound.

Not according to the behavior and attitudes of the reupblicans over the last few decades. So re you claiming the republicans have changed their minds about climate change, and we need to reduce greenhouse gases?

Of the votes on my poll only 1 of 23 people think the republicans will take climate change seriously. Was that your one vote?

It is you that is the one who is truly anti-environmental.

Really? this is your claim, where is your evidence and a coherent explanation? Or are you making a false accusation, which is a violation of one of the 10 Commandments?

 

[Truth in love]

Given the rise in extreme weather in the USA and around the world will the Republicans acknowledge that climate change is real and causing serious problems and effects? If so, will they have the will to set policies that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions to further protect the planet, or will they fear a backlash from their base after decades of being told climate change is a hoax? We still see conservatives post anti-renewable energy production, or pushback on EVs as a viable alternative to gas vehicles.

So if the Republicans take back the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2024 will they set policies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or not?

Per the first amendment the government has no business imposing this personal belief on those who don't believe in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Per the first amendment the government has no business imposing this personal belief on those who don't believe in it.

You are a bit confused. The first amendment only protects political speech and religion. Even if one believes that according to their religion that he can drive at 100 mph on the freeways that is not a protected right. AGW has massive scientific evidence for it, so they can use it as a basis for laws. They can place taxes on people, they can ultimately limit what sort of cars are made etc..

 

[Heyo]

Per the first amendment the government has no business imposing this personal belief on those who don't believe in it.

You have a right to your own opinion - not to your own facts.