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

[F1fan]

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?

 

[Suave]

I find many Republicans to be climate change deniers, so I doubt they would propose significant public funding for clean renewable energy infrastructure.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Republicans shouldn't attack people's freedoms so I'd say no to compulsory policymaking.

However I do think they should support education on the subject and help promote r and d so that green technology can improve with the goal of becoming on par with fossil energy or even surpass it so it replaces fossil energy.

Achieve that and it's a win for green ambition and goals.

 

[Heyo]

or will they fear a backlash from their base

Nope. Their "base" would just repeat the talking points they give them, even if it's the opposite of last year.
They fear a backlash from their donors.

 

[F1fan]

Republicans shouldn't attack people's freedoms so I'd say no to compulsory policymaking.

You mean the freedom to be greedy corporations versus the freedom from severe climate change for young people? The greedy have plenty, but the future?

Where's the virtue in excessive greed especially when it comes to the cost of future generations?

Could you see lawsuits in the future against companies that COULD have changed their policies of polluting the planet but did not? How does that work with your "freedom to be greedy" model?

So we are not talking about idealism about freedoms, we are talking about setting policies that help protect human life and the planet.

However I do think they should support education on the subject and help promote r and d so that green technology can improve with the goal of becoming on par with fossil energy or even surpass it so it replaces fossil energy.

Achieve that and it's a win for green ambition and goals.

How is this consistent with what you say above?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You mean the freedom to be greedy corporations versus the freedom from severe climate change for young people? The greedy have plenty, but the future?

Where's the virtue in excessive greed especially when it comes to the cost of future generations?

Could you see lawsuits in the future against companies that COULD have changed their policies of polluting the planet but did not? How does that work with your "freedom to be greedy" model?

So we are not talking about idealism about freedoms, we are talking about setting policies that help protect human life and the planet.


How is this consistent with what you say above?

I'm not authoritarian minded unlike a number of people.

If change is required, it's better served as an incentive rather than various Democrats who have wet dreams of becoming totalitarian communists.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not authoritarian minded unlike a number of people.

You want your cake and to eat it, too. We know you well enough that we understand the code speak. When you say freedoms we understand this means excuses from social accountability by big business. Screw the people, protect big business. This right wing attitude is dangerous. Short term gains, let the future deal with the consequences.

You might fool some newbies with your vague language, but we experienced members know what you are saying.

If change is required, it's better served as an incentive rather than various

IF??? It's too late for the changes we need. At this point the planet is trying to figure out how to minimize the damage. Excessive heat, drought, flooding, crops under normal yields, and all this leads to higher costs for water, for insurance, for electricity, and then we have to scramble how to meet demands, and since the republicans have been the party of "burn, baby, burn" we don't have adequate green energy production and have to resort to more fossil fuels. We see this in Europe too.

Democrats who have wet dreams of becoming totalitarian communists.

More irony. You certainly follow the Trump model of fear reactance in how you post content. Get afraid, then post irrational and unfactual, extreme content.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You want your cake and to eat it, too. We know you well enough that we understand the code speak. When you say freedoms we understand this means excuses from social accountability by big business. Screw the people, protect big business. This right wing attitude is dangerous. Short term gains, let the future deal with the consequences.

You might fool some newbies with your vague language, but we experienced members know what you are saying.


IF??? It's too late for the changes we need. At this point the planet is trying to figure out how to minimize the damage. Excessive heat, drought, flooding, crops under normal yields, and all this leads to higher costs for water, for insurance, for electricity, and then we have to scramble how to meet demands, and since the republicans have been the party of "burn, baby, burn" we don't have adequate green energy production and have to resort to more fossil fuels. We see this in Europe too.


More irony. You certainly follow the Trump model of fear reactance in how you post content. Get afraid, then post irrational and unfactual, extreme content.

Lol...
You have an impressive and creative imagination, and I can't help but to think if you perhaps bought that amazing mind reader machine from the back pages of a DC comic book advertised for only $3.50?

 

[F1fan]

Lol...
You have an impressive and creative imagination, and I can't help but to think if you perhaps bought that amazing mind reader machine from the back pages of a DC comic book advertised for only $3.50?

Not taking this topic seriously, I see.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm not authoritarian minded unlike a number of people.

If change is required, it's better served as an incentive rather than various Democrats who have wet dreams of becoming totalitarian communists.

Do you believe that your neighbour should have the freedom to dump their garbage on your property? Do you believe your neighbour should have the freedom to dump their garbage on public property (public roads, public parks etc)?

If your neighbour insists on doing things like this, what kind of “incentive” would you suggest?

 

[InChrist]

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?

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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


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?”

10 Facts Electric Vehicle Advocates Don't Want You to Know

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is rather amazing that everyone so far has the same low opinion of Republicans. That is people on both sides o the aisle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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


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?”

10 Facts Electric Vehicle Advocates Don't Want You to Know

If your claims are accurate why use a dishonest site?

 

[InChrist]

If your claims are accurate why use a dishonest site?

I don’t consider your opinion on what constitutes an honest or dishonest site to be reliable or accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t consider your opinion on what constitutes an honest or dishonest site to be reliable or accurate.

That is only because you are rather uneducated in such matters. There are ways to vet your sources but you never do that. When you use such sites you are telling any rational thinker that you are wrong ahead of time.

So why do you use dishonest sites?

 

[PureX]

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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


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?”

10 Facts Electric Vehicle Advocates Don't Want You to Know

How do we know a single one of those "facts" is accurate? Who is paying for that website? Who is writing it's content?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do we know a single one of those "facts" is accurate? Who is paying for that website? Who is writing it's content?

And some of them were "so what?" facts. EV's use some fossil fuels. That makes the first claim inaccurate. And of course the electrical grid is continually becoming more and more green. That "fact" is based upon a silly belief that things do not change. The rest could probably be refuted just as easiily.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you believe that your neighbour should have the freedom to dump their garbage on your property? Do you believe your neighbour should have the freedom to dump their garbage on public property (public roads, public parks etc)?

If your neighbour insists on doing things like this, what kind of “incentive” would you suggest?

Actually they do. It's a symbiotic thing as the authoritarian Democrats forced a garbage bag limit on top of mandating a ridiculous garbage fee and we work together a system where we can fill out the gaps to maximize garbage disposal so it dosent fill up each other yards due to this nanny state mandate.

I think throwing out garbage on the street is stellar. I dunno how you see it but I see it as garbage collection day.

Plus garbage is thrown everywhere anyways, by just about everybody, but it keeps the street dept funded and employed helping the economy and gives prison inmates some fresh air.

 

[sun rise]

Republicans shouldn't attack people's freedoms so I'd say no to compulsory policymaking.

However I do think they should support education on the subject and help promote r and d so that green technology can improve with the goal of becoming on par with fossil energy or even surpass it so it replaces fossil energy.

Achieve that and it's a win for green ambition and goals.

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are ways to vet your sources but you never do that.

I was able to evaluate the site before reading the article. Any discussion of a serious subject that includes "what they don't want you to know" should be viewed with great suspicion. Legitimate journalism doesn't look like that.

Also, two other articles it linked to were:

• Garland Doubles Down on Cover-up of FBI Misconduct in Mar-a-Lago Raid
• Democrats Are Lying and Everyone Knows It

What else does one need to see to reject this site and this article as reliable sources of information? This is rightest indoctrination (propaganda) media. It's tone, demeanor, and language are distinct from news and sincere editorial, because its agenda is as well. It doesn't exist to educate, but rather, to persuade uncritical thinkers.