Why do staunch republicans hate electric vehicles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hydrogen is a pile dream. Literally. I would like to see more nuclear reactors though.

[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:
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.

Green power is not clean. It ignore the other issue for creation of the machinery to making of the powers.

Solar created power is clean, but making of the solar cell is VERY VERY dirty. Same with the disposal. Same story for the wind power. Hydro power also very disruptive to environmenal. EV car have many issue and killing secondary market for the car. poor people can not afford the used EV due to pricy battery replacement cost at the 10 year. EV have some good place, but not solution.

You ignoring this issue. Any engineer knowing of this sicence.

Let's trust sciences!

[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:
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.

Green power is not clean. It ignore the other issue for creation of the machinery to making of the powers.

Solar created power is clean, but making of the solar cell is VERY VERY dirty. Same with the disposal. Same story for the wind power. Hydro power also very disruptive to environmenal. EV car have many issue and killing secondary market for the car. poor people can not afford the used EV due to pricy battery replacement cost at the 10 year. EV have some good place, but not solution.

You ignoring this issue. Any engineer knowing of this sicence.

Let's trust sciences!

Even with their problems, they are a.) nowhere near as dirty and destructive as fossil fuel extraction and burning and b.) those are all solveable problems, whereas the fossil fuel industry is 150+ years old and anything that can be solved or made cleaner already has been, and yet it still remains one of the dirtiest and most destructive human activities on the planet.

[Anonymous]

Republican men think their penises will fall off if they drive an electric car or eat a vegetable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:
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.

Green power is not clean. It ignore the other issue for creation of the machinery to making of the powers.

Solar created power is clean, but making of the solar cell is VERY VERY dirty. Same with the disposal. Same story for the wind power. Hydro power also very disruptive to environmenal. EV car have many issue and killing secondary market for the car. poor people can not afford the used EV due to pricy battery replacement cost at the 10 year. EV have some good place, but not solution.

You ignoring this issue. Any engineer knowing of this sicence.

Let's trust sciences!

Even with their problems, they are a.) nowhere near as dirty and destructive as fossil fuel extraction and burning and b.) those are all solveable problems, whereas the fossil fuel industry is 150+ years old and anything that can be solved or made cleaner already has been, and yet it still remains one of the dirtiest and most destructive human activities on the planet.

WRONG.

Um, the pp is right. Your one word response is a fail.

[Anonymous]

They mocked the prius. And that's gas-powered! Turned prius owners as an object of ridicule.

It's not even a matter of gas vs. electricity. They reject the notion that someone should choose to conserve energy at all.

How did they get to this twisted point of view, where using less gas is bad and rolling coal is a way to stick it to the libs? It's simple: they are manipulated by the oil and gas industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They mocked the prius. And that's gas-powered! Turned prius owners as an object of ridicule.

It's not even a matter of gas vs. electricity. They reject the notion that someone should choose to conserve energy at all.

How did they get to this twisted point of view, where using less gas is bad and rolling coal is a way to stick it to the libs? It's simple: they are manipulated by the oil and gas industry.

I was only half kidding about the penis thing. They are convinced that electric cars (and vegetables) are unmanly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They mocked the prius. And that's gas-powered! Turned prius owners as an object of ridicule.

It's not even a matter of gas vs. electricity. They reject the notion that someone should choose to conserve energy at all.

How did they get to this twisted point of view, where using less gas is bad and rolling coal is a way to stick it to the libs? It's simple: they are manipulated by the oil and gas industry.

Prius is a funny looking vehicle. And that was the point, Prius owners wanted to wear their religion on their sleeve. I got a hybrid car, where you can't really tell it's a hybrid. I probably wouldn't have realized it except the dashboard has some displays of electric usage vs gas instead of RPM, that I don't really understand(I switch to EV mode and it keeps deactivating it).

Look at a post above, someone talks about electrics being mandated, and says there will still be a used car market for gas vehicles. Replacing my current car, I won't be able to buy a new gas vehicle. Why shouldn't I hate electrics?

For that matter why don't Democrats hate electrics, given the drilling for rare earth minerals that is controlled by China and consists of slave child labor in Africa that is worse than sweatshops and on the order of blood diamonds, but doesn't have a movie with big Hollywood stars to explain it(hard to get a plot going, you can't have a story about hey you found a giant brick of neodymium).

[Anonymous]

Why we need a new administration to ensure there are no federal EV mandates. If states want to try and screw their citizens so be it. The redistribution of population to well run states will continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republican men think their penises will fall off if they drive an electric car or eat a vegetable.

Most farmers are Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republican men think their penises will fall off if they drive an electric car or eat a vegetable.

Most farmers are Republican.

No they aren’t. Most farm owners are Republican. They hire immigrants to do the farming.

[Anonymous]

For everyone saying that electric vehicles run on coal….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They mocked the prius. And that's gas-powered! Turned prius owners as an object of ridicule.

It's not even a matter of gas vs. electricity. They reject the notion that someone should choose to conserve energy at all.

How did they get to this twisted point of view, where using less gas is bad and rolling coal is a way to stick it to the libs? It's simple: they are manipulated by the oil and gas industry.

Prius is a funny looking vehicle. And that was the point, Prius owners wanted to wear their religion on their sleeve. I got a hybrid car, where you can't really tell it's a hybrid. I probably wouldn't have realized it except the dashboard has some displays of electric usage vs gas instead of RPM, that I don't really understand(I switch to EV mode and it keeps deactivating it).

Look at a post above, someone talks about electrics being mandated, and says there will still be a used car market for gas vehicles. Replacing my current car, I won't be able to buy a new gas vehicle. Why shouldn't I hate electrics?

For that matter why don't Democrats hate electrics, given the drilling for rare earth minerals that is controlled by China and consists of slave child labor in Africa that is worse than sweatshops and on the order of blood diamonds, but doesn't have a movie with big Hollywood stars to explain it(hard to get a plot going, you can't have a story about hey you found a giant brick of neodymium).

The idea that people purposely buy the Prius to be noticed is a fabrication of conservatives. In the early days, Prius outsold all competitors combined because it was the best hybrid. I've owned many Hondas and I can say that the Honda hybrid was a bad concept power-unit wise and that's why it failed and it has almost never been used since. The Ford Escape was lackluster. And back in the early 2000s, that was the whole market.

Now had conservatives merely disliked the Prius styling, they could have stuck it to the libs by making the Ford Escape hybrid the #1 hybrid vehicle sold in America. Of course they did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republican men think their penises will fall off if they drive an electric car or eat a vegetable.

Most farmers are Republican.

No they aren’t. Most farm owners are Republican. They hire immigrants to do the farming.

TY for correcting the record. Don't be fooled by Devin Nunes and Chuck Grassley. In re the latter, an Iowan once told me that Grassley's wife said she would divorce him if he ever dared retire.

[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:
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.

Green power is not clean. It ignore the other issue for creation of the machinery to making of the powers.

Solar created power is clean, but making of the solar cell is VERY VERY dirty. Same with the disposal. Same story for the wind power. Hydro power also very disruptive to environmenal. EV car have many issue and killing secondary market for the car. poor people can not afford the used EV due to pricy battery replacement cost at the 10 year. EV have some good place, but not solution.

You ignoring this issue. Any engineer knowing of this sicence.

Let's trust sciences!

I find it difficult to trust an engineer working on plans in English when they can't write in the language.

Car batteries don't have to be replaced after ten years. They last a lot longer. Electric cars are one of the best deals out there for the working poor.

And I apologize if I sound insensitive. Obviously, English isn't your first language. But when you're regurgitating a lot of gas company talking points in broken English it's hard to take you seriously. I'm sure you believe what you wrote... it's just all wrong.