141

I’m good with pushing mass transit.

But isn’t that the same, ideologically, as pushing EVs?

142

Come on man…this is semantics right?

If you are okay with oil companies getting massive “tax preferences” and tax breaks, are you also okay with EV companies and purchasers getting massive tax preferences and tax breaks? (i.e. government intervention).

143

That’s some high quality projection right there.

Andvit doesn’t mean anything of the sort

144

That’s what they all say, fully entrenched. :wink:

145

Your last wiki link claims green energy gets over 2x as much subsidy as oil.

Question: are the green subsidies just tax breaks, or are they actually given money that wasn’t previously their own?

146

Before looking tho- do you really see a difference between the government giving money for something, or not taking a previous amount of money from a tax even if it amounts to the same money?

147

For example-

is there a difference in your mind between a rebate where the government sends a 500 dollar check, and a tax cut where a family saves 500 dollars on their taxes?

148

My point is that any law to reduce carbon should be as neutral as possible
It should just target carbon and not have Washington micro-managing the one and only correct method of doing it.

Take the CAFE standard for example:
DC wanted less gas used.
So it passed a special law that punished the Chevy Yukon
but rewarded the Toyota Tundra. “Corporate Average Fuel Economy.” (CAFE) even though they have the same fuel efficiency. (Dumb, dumb, stupid dumb)

Their rational?

  • Because the Yukon is made by an American company that makes a lot of trucks. it was subject to penalties and taxes.
    -Because the Tundra is made by Japanese company that makes a to of smaller cars it was subject to subsidies and tax breaks.
    It is an insanely stupid way to go about it. But it came from DC insiders (they are smarter than the rest of us you know) so it became the top down one-and-only-way of reducing fuel consumption.

Still in effect today I think.
Likewise here. If we want to reduce carbon there are many ways to do it. but DC insiders have decided they should decide the one-an-only top-down one-size-fits-all method of doing that.

What’s the definition of insanity?

149

How should we promote mass transit?

150

I would not.
That would be picking winners and losers.
That is the wrong approach.

I would place a neutral-as-possible tax or incentive to reduce carbon and let the same people who voted me into office exercise that same intelligent and make the best choice for them, (knowing that many of them will switch to mass transit, some will simply move into the cities. some will get rid or one family car or make one electric and one ICE etc.)

I would never stand above them all and say “You must all make the same decision on this matter. You will make the one I command you to make and you will make it in precisely the year I command.”

That would be arrogant of me wouldn’t it?

151

I don’t know how they can the states are so big. I mean I wouldn’t be against having bullet trains everywhere, but seeing the problems California has had doing it in their backyard doesn’t seem reassuring. I am assuming everyone is talking about commercial trains which ours is a joke. I put Amtrack on the scale with greyhound bus.

152

Buses are the way to go in the us. We have a great highway system.

California screwed that train up with petty local politics. ■■■■■■■■■

153

Why does the left push blood batteries and toxic waste which only make the rich richer?

Oh, because the TV tells them too…

154

Actually you made a point…even thou it’s unintentionally.

Refining oil does take energy, but oil is use for many other products that we need…products that electric can’t be used.

Until we find alternative for those products we will still be using oil. Gasoline is by-product from oil.

Until you have electric trucks…long haulers, electric planes, lubricants, chemicals etc.

In one single heating of crude oil all those products are produced.

Here’s simple image of process.

image
image950×697 103 KB

Now it doesn’t show amount of chemicals that oil is used.

The major oil-derived petrochemical feedstocks are ethane, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), and naphtha. These are primarily used in the production of polymers for plastics, synthetic fibers, and other petrochemical intermediates. Demand for these products will continue to grow with rising global wealth.

So we aren’t just replacing gasoline…we have to replace all other moving parts.

2 Likes
155

So are you going to admit banning gas powered vehicles is bad idea?

1 Like
156

The carbon offset market does not function now (no demand)

image
image743×550 115 KB

.
.

A carbon neutral law would give people the option of

  • planting trees to offset carbon or
  • buying an EV to reduce carbon.

What happens if we force everyone to buy an EV?
How many of those people will then also voluntarily, just because they have extra money lying around, also buy carbon offset credits, (planting trees to sequester carbon)?

The EV mandate says “You have no choice. I am wiser than thou and I will make all choices for all people.” Dumb. Arrogant and dumb.

157

Diesel fuel…not gasoline.

158

When an electric power plant uses gasoline that gasoline also has transportation costs. apples-to-apples we should not pretend it magically shows up at the electric power plant but requires transporting to the gas station

159

We have busses it sucks so bad. Having to ride greyhound feels like a punishment. No one who has the ability wants to ride city busses as well. I wouldn’t be against better subways but there are so much violence I rarely use it.

160

There it is…authoritarianism.