It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
Don’t fool yourself. Ford and other automakers are moving toward EVs out of political expediency, not out of a desire from the larger auto market. But time will tell. In a few short years we will see just how popular an EV version of the Ford F-150 is with its target market, which is kinda-sorta red state.
If anyone is fooling themselves it’s you. Again back up the political expediency statement. This is an evolutionary process. It doesn’t happen overnight. You’re right we’ll see.
What exactly is the issue here? Change? Change is constant. What’s wrong with this country creating new industries? The problem with arguments like yours is they are usually based on ideology & are not based on history or facts.
I have no sympathy for the fossil fuel industry. They have the resources to diversify their energy portfolio. They should have started that process years ago.
As far as government involvement in the private sector to move the country forward, how did interstate highways happen &why? There are many examples of this throughout our country’s history from both sides of the aisle. There are many examples of government investment in industry & inventions that have moved this country forward.
Very true....
A good example is electricity: 100 years ago it was only available in heavily populated areas. But then, partly as a make-work scheme and partly to advance the technology of the country, the government stepped in and pushed the electrification out to all of the nation instead of only those parts that were profitable to private enterprise.
Today we face a similar situation with broadband: vast swaths of the nation are not covered simply because it isn't profitable to cover them. So, government is now talking about using its power and resources to push broadband out to all of the nation.
The ideology that private enterprise is always superior is flawed
Likewise, the ideology that government is always superior is also flawed.
We need both, used and allocated wisely, to advance and to remain competitive in the global market place.
More relevant to this discussion: most agree that EVs are the way of the future. But, with few EVs it is not profitable to build numerous charging stations. But, without numerous charging stations EVs are not very practical. It's the old chicken or the egg question. Again, government is talking of stepping in and -- hopefully no pun intended -- laying that first egg of nationwide charging stations.
The current system of oil extraction and refinement and distribution of gasoline did not just crop up organically as a libertarian experiment. It’s been subsidized, supported and regulated all along the way, in both obvious and less obvious ways.
Funny how everyone wants renewable, clean energy, yet reject Nuclear power, the ONLY 100% clean and affordable energy source that last 50+ years.
Sort of weird to say "we'll take this clean energy but not that clean energy" when Nuclear power is 100% clean and affordable. But naw, no new Nuclear power plants in the last 60 years. Y'all would rather clear large swaths of land, bury oil in the ground, and rely on wind/solar that is only 20-30% effective and overall costs more.
The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric… (snip) Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. … You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
…and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat.
I guess “dirty energy” is not an oxymoron, and that’s alright with you. Funny how conservatives set the highest standards for renewable energy, happily nitpicking to kingdom come, without giving a second thought to the wholesale destruction—to our health and the environment—and the enormous costs being levied by fossil fuels.
Funny how everyone wants renewable, clean energy, yet reject Nuclear power, the ONLY 100% clean and affordable energy source that last 50+ years.
Sort of weird to say "we'll take this clean energy but not that clean energy" when Nuclear power is 100% clean and affordable. But naw, no new Nuclear power plants in the last 60 years. Y'all would rather clear large swaths of land, bury oil in the ground, and rely on wind/solar that is only 20-30% effective and overall costs more.
Nuclear does not emit greenhouse gases, but it is not “clean.” There is a waste product produced that is exceptionally difficult to manage and safely dispose. The United States has to this day failed to finalize nuclear waste disposal plans with permanent disposal locations.
Also, while there are newer reactor designs that are considerably more “fail safe” than others, Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrated that human arrogance can amplify the potential hazards. In the best-case scenarios, environmental and safety failures for production of nuclear energy can become very low probability, but will always remain extremely high risk.
Unfortunately, the blithe branding above of nuclear energy as “100% clean” is the exact type of human arrogance that led to the Chernobyl disaster. Nuclear energy is not 100% clean, and people trying to sell it as such are either lying or woefully uninformed and are therefore the last people you should want having any involvement in producing it.
The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.
Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.
Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
…and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat.
Also, “clean energy” is not an oxymoron. An oxymoron is the use of two contradictory terms in conjunction with one another. “Clean dirt” would be an oxymoron. Even if you don’t believe it’s a real thing (it is, though), “clean energy” is not an oxymoron.
Comments
Sort of weird to say "we'll take this clean energy but not that clean energy" when Nuclear power is 100% clean and affordable. But naw, no new Nuclear power plants in the last 60 years. Y'all would rather clear large swaths of land, bury oil in the ground, and rely on wind/solar that is only 20-30% effective and overall costs more.
I guess “dirty energy” is not an oxymoron, and that’s alright with you. Funny how conservatives set the highest standards for renewable energy, happily nitpicking to kingdom come, without giving a second thought to the wholesale destruction—to our health and the environment—and the enormous costs being levied by fossil fuels.