Why do staunch republicans hate electric vehicles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because EVs do not work well in cold weather environments. So if you want everyone to drive EVs you must be for global warming and not against it.

Come on people you can have it both ways.

Not practical in cold and hot weather environments. And if doing a long road trip in winter with reduced driving distance capacity exactly how many charging stations have to be installed? If it doesn't work driving from NJ to NOVA how would it work in less dense areas or longer range driving?

And the range estimates have variables like age of battery and use. It is a hassle so Id do hybrid before EV and I'm a D whose BIL/SIL can't use a new expensive EV for road trips https://www.cars.com/articles/your-guide-to-ev-batteries-premature-death-range-loss-and-preservation-446126/

Gasoline cars are also less efficient with climate extremes. You notice it less because your fuel tank doesn't give you an estimated range that changes, it just goes to empty faster.

It's really not hard charging an electric car. With the new charging speeds it's also pretty damn quick. Run into the sheetz and use the restroom, get a sandwich, your car's charged when you get back.

But the real reason Republicans hate electric cars is the same reason they hated people telling them to wear masks to protect other people, or not to bring guns to school: they're like entitled five year olds who just want to have their way about everything

"We fear change" pretty much sums up everything about conservatism. Their reaction to anything new is knee-jerk even if the new thing is good. They'll just dream up a million reasons why they think it isn't good and will dig their heels in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We really like EVs. Just say we hate them because it is a good way to get inside the heads of Democrats. One of many buttons we like to push.

What kind of nut would go around intentionally irritating others for no good reason, and debasing yourself in the process?

I mean, it seems to be epidemic among right wingers - like spending hundreds of dollars illegally modifying your diesel pickup truck so that it spews sooty, oily black smoke everywhere at the push of a button, wasting fuel and damaging your engine in the process. It makes no sense to any sane, rational person. But then again it just highlights that right wingers aren't sane, rational people.

Sarcasm

[Anonymous]

As with many issues, the conservative view on electric vehicles is often more nuanced than portrayed. The key arguments are:
1) Conservatives do not inherently oppose electric vehicle technology or innovation. They oppose government mandates, subsidies and incentives that favor EVs over consumer choice. The free market should decide which technologies succeed or fail based on their merits alone.
2) While EVs are touted as environmentally friendly, much of their electricity still comes from coal and natural gas. So until the power grid is green, EVs largely just shift emissions and still rely on fossil fuels. This undermines arguments for their superiority.
3) EVs currently have many downsides compared to gas-only or hybrid vehicles. They are often more expensive, have limited range, long recharging times, and rely on raw materials from foreign nations. So for most consumers, EVs do not yet match the practicality and affordability of other options. 4) Government policies pushing people into EVs before the technology is ready or the free market demands it are misguided. Mandates and subsidies for EVs distort the auto market and penalize those who prefer or need gas vehicles. A balanced policy approach is needed.
5) While increased adoption of EVs could benefit some parts of the energy industry like coal, it should not come through overregulation and government coercion. New technologies that are viable and cost-effective will be supported by the free market without interference.

So conservatives do not categorically oppose electric vehicles - they oppose the heavy-handed government policies designed to push people into EVs prematurely. Given improvements in cost, performance and charging infrastructure, the free market may demand more EVs over time.

But that should be determined by consumers and competition, not politicians and lobbyists. And EVs must be considered alongside other technologies like hybrids that may better balance environmental and economic needs. Conservatives want policy discussions on this issue to be driven by facts, not hype or ideology on either side.

A reasonable, balanced approach is needed to foster new technologies while protecting consumer choice and avoiding market distortions. Mandates and excessive subsidies for EVs fail that test and are thus opposed, even if the technologies themselves are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As with many issues, the conservative view on electric vehicles is often more nuanced than portrayed. The key arguments are:
1) Conservatives do not inherently oppose electric vehicle technology or innovation. They oppose government mandates, subsidies and incentives that favor EVs over consumer choice. The free market should decide which technologies succeed or fail based on their merits alone.

Do you honestly believe that currently there is anything approaching a free market in either the automotive or the energy sector?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As with many issues, the conservative view on electric vehicles is often more nuanced than portrayed. The key arguments are:
1) Conservatives do not inherently oppose electric vehicle technology or innovation. They oppose government mandates, subsidies and incentives that favor EVs over consumer choice. The free market should decide which technologies succeed or fail based on their merits alone.
2) While EVs are touted as environmentally friendly, much of their electricity still comes from coal and natural gas. So until the power grid is green, EVs largely just shift emissions and still rely on fossil fuels. This undermines arguments for their superiority.
3) EVs currently have many downsides compared to gas-only or hybrid vehicles. They are often more expensive, have limited range, long recharging times, and rely on raw materials from foreign nations. So for most consumers, EVs do not yet match the practicality and affordability of other options. 4) Government policies pushing people into EVs before the technology is ready or the free market demands it are misguided. Mandates and subsidies for EVs distort the auto market and penalize those who prefer or need gas vehicles. A balanced policy approach is needed.
5) While increased adoption of EVs could benefit some parts of the energy industry like coal, it should not come through overregulation and government coercion. New technologies that are viable and cost-effective will be supported by the free market without interference.

So conservatives do not categorically oppose electric vehicles - they oppose the heavy-handed government policies designed to push people into EVs prematurely. Given improvements in cost, performance and charging infrastructure, the free market may demand more EVs over time.

But that should be determined by consumers and competition, not politicians and lobbyists. And EVs must be considered alongside other technologies like hybrids that may better balance environmental and economic needs. Conservatives want policy discussions on this issue to be driven by facts, not hype or ideology on either side.

A reasonable, balanced approach is needed to foster new technologies while protecting consumer choice and avoiding market distortions. Mandates and excessive subsidies for EVs fail that test and are thus opposed, even if the technologies themselves are not.

Oh Good Lord. Too late. Planet is already burning because you a-holes are and always have been in the back pocket of the fossil fuel industry. You have lied about the effects of fossil fuels and delayed the switch to renewables for decades so a small group of people could continue to make money hand-over-fist and the fate of the world be damned. Not hyperbole.

The free market will burn this planet to the ground. My children say F U.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As with many issues, the conservative view on electric vehicles is often more nuanced than portrayed. The key arguments are:

...

So conservatives do not categorically oppose electric vehicles - they oppose the heavy-handed government policies designed to push people into EVs prematurely. Given improvements in cost, performance and charging infrastructure, the free market may demand more EVs over time.

But that should be determined by consumers and competition, not politicians and lobbyists. And EVs must be considered alongside other technologies like hybrids that may better balance environmental and economic needs. Conservatives want policy discussions on this issue to be driven by facts, not hype or ideology on either side.

A reasonable, balanced approach is needed to foster new technologies while protecting consumer choice and avoiding market distortions. Mandates and excessive subsidies for EVs fail that test and are thus opposed, even if the technologies themselves are not.

The conservative "nuance" about policy discussions and reasonable and balanced approaches (assuming this means govt programs) has been a prelude to cutting programs as wasteful to give tax cuts to the wealthy. That's consistently been the final goal.

If you are sincere about nuance, do you give liberal viewpoints similar consideration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As with many issues, the conservative view on electric vehicles is often more nuanced than portrayed. The key arguments are:
1) Conservatives do not inherently oppose electric vehicle technology or innovation. They oppose government mandates, subsidies and incentives that favor EVs over consumer choice. The free market should decide which technologies succeed or fail based on their merits alone.
2) While EVs are touted as environmentally friendly, much of their electricity still comes from coal and natural gas. So until the power grid is green, EVs largely just shift emissions and still rely on fossil fuels. This undermines arguments for their superiority.
3) EVs currently have many downsides compared to gas-only or hybrid vehicles. They are often more expensive, have limited range, long recharging times, and rely on raw materials from foreign nations. So for most consumers, EVs do not yet match the practicality and affordability of other options. 4) Government policies pushing people into EVs before the technology is ready or the free market demands it are misguided. Mandates and subsidies for EVs distort the auto market and penalize those who prefer or need gas vehicles. A balanced policy approach is needed.
5) While increased adoption of EVs could benefit some parts of the energy industry like coal, it should not come through overregulation and government coercion. New technologies that are viable and cost-effective will be supported by the free market without interference.

So conservatives do not categorically oppose electric vehicles - they oppose the heavy-handed government policies designed to push people into EVs prematurely. Given improvements in cost, performance and charging infrastructure, the free market may demand more EVs over time.

But that should be determined by consumers and competition, not politicians and lobbyists. And EVs must be considered alongside other technologies like hybrids that may better balance environmental and economic needs. Conservatives want policy discussions on this issue to be driven by facts, not hype or ideology on either side.

A reasonable, balanced approach is needed to foster new technologies while protecting consumer choice and avoiding market distortions. Mandates and excessive subsidies for EVs fail that test and are thus opposed, even if the technologies themselves are not.

1) Conservatives do not inherently oppose electric vehicle technology or innovation. They oppose government mandates, subsidies and incentives that favor EVs over consumer choice. The free market should decide which technologies succeed or fail based on their merits alone.

This is hypocritical nonsense. The US has been propping up the fossil fuel industry with subsidies, favorable policies and other mechanisms for almost 150 years.

2) While EVs are touted as environmentally friendly, much of their electricity still comes from coal and natural gas. So until the power grid is green, EVs largely just shift emissions and still rely on fossil fuels. This undermines arguments for their superiority.

This is also a bunk argument. There's no "until" - it's not linear. Both can and should happen. We can transition to EVs even as we transition the grid to becoming greener. Not to mention that the shift to greener energy is actually solveable, whereas conventional cars already plateaued decades ago and are never going to get any greener.

3) EVs currently have many downsides compared to gas-only or hybrid vehicles. They are often more expensive, have limited range, long recharging times, and rely on raw materials from foreign nations. So for most consumers, EVs do not yet match the practicality and affordability of other options.

These are all technologically solveable problems, most of which already have seen meaningful research breakthroughs, and all of which will get solved even faster by the market through increased adoption.

4) Government policies pushing people into EVs before the technology is ready or the free market demands it are misguided. Mandates and subsidies for EVs distort the auto market and penalize those who prefer or need gas vehicles. A balanced policy approach is needed.

Nonsense. Nobody is having their gas cars confiscate and given any current proposals your current gas car will be in the junkyard long before you have no choice but to buy electric one. Also, you need to separate need-based preference versus want-based preference. Conservatives seem to have a hard time doing this. Needs will get exceptions and exemptions.

5) While increased adoption of EVs could benefit some parts of the energy industry like coal, it should not come through overregulation and government coercion. New technologies that are viable and cost-effective will be supported by the free market without interference.

Again, see point 1 - the whole reason the fossil fuel sector is as big and entrenched as it is, is because the government has heavily propped them up, subsidized, advocated for them and so on for 150 years.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Hertz found that people using their rideshare service were damaging their cars-- teslas are more expensive to repair although they are cheaper to maintain. Not sure what point that proves.

[Anonymous]

Hertz had two problems, both specific to Tesla:

1. Teslas are very expensive to repair. Other eVs cost about the same as gas powered cars to repair. https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-apart-from-tesla-evs-repairs-not-much-more-costly/ "On average, a damaged Tesla costs $1,347 more to repair than a damaged gas-powered car, but a damaged EV from another automaker costs just $269 more."


2 The 30% drop in sticker price has caused the resale value of used Teslas to drop equally. And they had to write down that value on their books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As with many issues, the conservative view on electric vehicles is often more nuanced than portrayed. The key arguments are:

...

So conservatives do not categorically oppose electric vehicles - they oppose the heavy-handed government policies designed to push people into EVs prematurely. Given improvements in cost, performance and charging infrastructure, the free market may demand more EVs over time.

But that should be determined by consumers and competition, not politicians and lobbyists. And EVs must be considered alongside other technologies like hybrids that may better balance environmental and economic needs. Conservatives want policy discussions on this issue to be driven by facts, not hype or ideology on either side.

A reasonable, balanced approach is needed to foster new technologies while protecting consumer choice and avoiding market distortions. Mandates and excessive subsidies for EVs fail that test and are thus opposed, even if the technologies themselves are not.

The conservative "nuance" about policy discussions and reasonable and balanced approaches (assuming this means govt programs) has been a prelude to cutting programs as wasteful to give tax cuts to the wealthy. That's consistently been the final goal.

If you are sincere about nuance, do you give liberal viewpoints similar consideration?

"Drill Baby Drill" and "rolling coal" are emotional responses and not nuanced whatsoever. Hating on wind energy, hating on solar energy. It's just ridiculous to suggest that they treat it as anything other than tribalism.

[Anonymous]

Because hydrogen is the answer, it will take a while to get there and internal combustion is phased out. Building out EV charging infrastructure is a waste of time and money.

Nuclear, via molten salt reactors, solves other energy needs. Consistent, safe and reliable. We can virtue signal and have solar and wind play minor roles.

[Anonymous]

It is Democrats that hate. They are pushing out regular cars with their mandates and subsidies.
Take a look at how many non-electric sedan models have disappeared lately Even the expensive Charger and Challenger models are ending. The obsession with electric cars has taken choices away from people, and pushed prices higher. The exceptions appear to be the Japanese companies which have worked with electric the longest, though Mazda has gotten rid of the 5 and 6 and only offers the 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As with many issues, the conservative view on electric vehicles is often more nuanced than portrayed. The key arguments are:

...

So conservatives do not categorically oppose electric vehicles - they oppose the heavy-handed government policies designed to push people into EVs prematurely. Given improvements in cost, performance and charging infrastructure, the free market may demand more EVs over time.

But that should be determined by consumers and competition, not politicians and lobbyists. And EVs must be considered alongside other technologies like hybrids that may better balance environmental and economic needs. Conservatives want policy discussions on this issue to be driven by facts, not hype or ideology on either side.

A reasonable, balanced approach is needed to foster new technologies while protecting consumer choice and avoiding market distortions. Mandates and excessive subsidies for EVs fail that test and are thus opposed, even if the technologies themselves are not.

The conservative "nuance" about policy discussions and reasonable and balanced approaches (assuming this means govt programs) has been a prelude to cutting programs as wasteful to give tax cuts to the wealthy. That's consistently been the final goal.

If you are sincere about nuance, do you give liberal viewpoints similar consideration?

"Drill Baby Drill" and "rolling coal" are emotional responses and not nuanced whatsoever. Hating on wind energy, hating on solar energy. It's just ridiculous to suggest that they treat it as anything other than tribalism.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is Democrats that hate. They are pushing out regular cars with their mandates and subsidies.
Take a look at how many non-electric sedan models have disappeared lately Even the expensive Charger and Challenger models are ending. The obsession with electric cars has taken choices away from people, and pushed prices higher. The exceptions appear to be the Japanese companies which have worked with electric the longest, though Mazda has gotten rid of the 5 and 6 and only offers the 3.

This is hyperbolic. Nobody is going to confiscate your gas car. Mandates on car sales won't be in effect til 2030, which is a long ways away. And even then, gas powered cars will continue to be bought and sold in the used car market. And to call it some kind of "hate" misses the mark wildly.