TJ25487 said:

An interesting take on EV's:

When California asks people to buy electric vehicles, then tells them not to charge the cars, we witness more than fiscal stupidity. The middle class is being forced to shoulder the burden of a haphazard green agenda that squeezes regular Americans in the short term for the sake of achieving foolish long-term energy goals. California’s clumsy attempt to transition to renewable energy is mirrored nationally by the Biden administration.

Americans are paying higher prices now because of Biden’s regulatory war on fossil fuels. Senior Editor David Harsanyi put it well when he wrote, “Democrats are rigging the market to force you to buy a car that has a 200-mile reach and uses erratic and expensive energy when you already have increasingly efficient models in your driveway and tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore fossil fuels here at home — and much more around the world.”

“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added. “Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”

As David points out, a Berkeley study found over 90 percent of taxpayer subsidies for electric vehicles went to the top income quintile as of 2015. The numbers overall are striking. “Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other ‘clean energy’ investments,” wrote the authors. “We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%.”

Taxpayers have been funding subsidies for people who can already afford them. Money goes out of their paychecks and into their rich neighbors’ Chinese solar panels. Renewables in general will replace our dependence on OPEC with dependence on China. Alternatively, we could allow Americans to go about business as usual while eliminating excess emissions where it’s affordable (see: carbon capture), improving nuclear technology, and making other energy sources more efficient.

If countries like China and the quickly growing India don’t meet emission reduction goals, Americans will have suffered needlessly. China emits more greenhouse gases than every developed country combined.

Higher fuel prices don’t affect John Kerry like they affect the 58 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. For the laptop class, much of which resides in walkable cities, an extra few bucks in gas or taxes is annoying but fine. For others, it’s enormous stress, it’s a second job, it’s less time with their children, more debt, or fewer drives to see relatives.

Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving. That amounts to a war on American culture. It’s a political gift to Republicans and a moral imperative to fight. Not for the sake of cheap cuts of beef at Outback Steakhouse, but for the sake of communities and human flourishing.

When white-collar Republican politicians talk about “pain at the pump” this fall, what they’re really talking about is the consequence of a culture war on America’s middle class — one that burdens the unwashed masses with lifestyle sacrifices our elites can weather more easily or simply refuse to give up altogether.

Many wealthy policymakers and investors will profit majorly off the transition to “clean” energy while they force others to change their lives and fork over more of their paychecks. This is easy messaging for Republicans. Worried about culture warriors talking about Drag Queen Story Hours and abortion? First, don’t be. Second, consider “ESG” — environmental and social governance — as an all-encompassing corporate agenda to join forces with groups like Planned Parenthood to bulldoze our culture. The left sees these causes as intertwined, and the right must understand that.

As working-class voters shift away from the Democratic Party, the left’s agenda becomes increasingly entangled with the interests of elites, from environmentalism to student loan bailouts to marriage to policing. Republicans should be shrewd enough to recognize the opportunity and smart enough to understand the stakes are higher than partisan politics.

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

TJ25487 said:

An interesting take on EV's:

When California asks people to buy electric vehicles, then tells them not to charge the cars, we witness more than fiscal stupidity. The middle class is being forced to shoulder the burden of a haphazard green agenda that squeezes regular Americans in the short term for the sake of achieving foolish long-term energy goals. California’s clumsy attempt to transition to renewable energy is mirrored nationally by the Biden administration.

Americans are paying higher prices now because of Biden’s regulatory war on fossil fuels. Senior Editor David Harsanyi put it well when he wrote, “Democrats are rigging the market to force you to buy a car that has a 200-mile reach and uses erratic and expensive energy when you already have increasingly efficient models in your driveway and tens of billions of easily accessible barrels of offshore fossil fuels here at home — and much more around the world.”

“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added. “Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”

As David points out, a Berkeley study found over 90 percent of taxpayer subsidies for electric vehicles went to the top income quintile as of 2015. The numbers overall are striking. “Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other ‘clean energy’ investments,” wrote the authors. “We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%.”

Taxpayers have been funding subsidies for people who can already afford them. Money goes out of their paychecks and into their rich neighbors’ Chinese solar panels. Renewables in general will replace our dependence on OPEC with dependence on China. Alternatively, we could allow Americans to go about business as usual while eliminating excess emissions where it’s affordable (see: carbon capture), improving nuclear technology, and making other energy sources more efficient.

If countries like China and the quickly growing India don’t meet emission reduction goals, Americans will have suffered needlessly. China emits more greenhouse gases than every developed country combined.

Higher fuel prices don’t affect John Kerry like they affect the 58 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. For the laptop class, much of which resides in walkable cities, an extra few bucks in gas or taxes is annoying but fine. For others, it’s enormous stress, it’s a second job, it’s less time with their children, more debt, or fewer drives to see relatives.

Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving. That amounts to a war on American culture. It’s a political gift to Republicans and a moral imperative to fight. Not for the sake of cheap cuts of beef at Outback Steakhouse, but for the sake of communities and human flourishing.

When white-collar Republican politicians talk about “pain at the pump” this fall, what they’re really talking about is the consequence of a culture war on America’s middle class — one that burdens the unwashed masses with lifestyle sacrifices our elites can weather more easily or simply refuse to give up altogether.

Many wealthy policymakers and investors will profit majorly off the transition to “clean” energy while they force others to change their lives and fork over more of their paychecks. This is easy messaging for Republicans. Worried about culture warriors talking about Drag Queen Story Hours and abortion? First, don’t be. Second, consider “ESG” — environmental and social governance — as an all-encompassing corporate agenda to join forces with groups like Planned Parenthood to bulldoze our culture. The left sees these causes as intertwined, and the right must understand that.

As working-class voters shift away from the Democratic Party, the left’s agenda becomes increasingly entangled with the interests of elites, from environmentalism to student loan bailouts to marriage to policing. Republicans should be shrewd enough to recognize the opportunity and smart enough to understand the stakes are higher than partisan politics.

I'm curious as to where you sourced this from.

I agree that electric vehicles are not the end-all some make them out to be.  But they are an slight improvement on gas powered vehicles, so before we dismiss them out right, that might be considered.  Also, it is obvious to all but the most stubborn climate change deniers that something has to be done to get us off of using so much petroleum.  There is no viable argument against that. 

“We have centuries worth of the stuff waiting in the ground,” he added. “Which gives us enough time to come up with some better ideas.”

That's highly debatable.  I'd like to know who came up with that idea and where.

Agree other highly populated countries need to do their share to reduce emissions.  No argument there!

"Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."

Can we change that to "Overall, to put it sensibly, intelligent, aware, clear thinking individuals want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."  Absolutely!   To think otherwise is... well... but then you either get it or you don't.

That’s a good take Bri, EVs are not there yet, but once the solid state battery is ready, and we generate electricity with more renewables, it will be a big improvement for the climate. Until that occurs, we need to end coal immediately. I wonder if TJ agrees?

Zod said:

brianlux said:

"Overall, to put it bluntly, high-profile environmentalists want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."

Can we change that to "Overall, to put it sensibly, intelligent, aware, clear thinking individuals want to normalize a world with fewer children, less steak, and less driving."  Absolutely!   To think otherwise is... well... but then you either get it or you don't.

Yah, that's an interesting statement.   It seems the goal is not to make any sacrifices, and be able to keep doing what we're doing, and the problem will fix itself.

I don't generally agree with that.  The more people there are, the more people are out there polluting and consuming resources.   The earth has a finite supply of resources, so that's less resources for everyone (or we speed up to the point the earth can't sustain it's population).

but yah burning less fuel, eating less steak, and having fewer kids would result in less pollution lol.

So far the best idea anyone's got is EV's, but I don't think we're avoiding the trainwreck if that's all we come up with.

tempo_n_groove said:

It's an article that is right leaning for sure, but it does show how you can easily divide people.  "Dems don't care about the middle class and only their agenda!"  

What I do get from it and it does make you wonder why is Cali's elec grid sucks.  We have known that for years, so why the push for something that uses more electric burden on the system?

Lerxst1992 said:

...Or, perhaps a band could announce a full 30 stop US tour, performed over multiple legs, maximizing chances fans won't drive 1300 miles to catch two shows (like this idiot), because the only show 30 miles from his home, first in 6 years, in a metropolitan area of 25 million, features fans traveling from all over the world to see them at this alleged "iconic" arena, and tickets were out of control.

And the singer of this band actually was publicly happy about all this needless travel. Talk about abundent use of fuel.

It all could start here. But it won't.