XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "R Kym Horsell"  wrote in message   
   news:uv115s$1n1d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...   
   > In sci.environment Scout    
   > wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "R Kym Horsell"  wrote in message   
   >> news:uuodpp$p5t$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...   
   >>> In sci.environment David LaRue  wrote:   
   >>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro"  wrote in   
   >>>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long   
   >>>> distance   
   >>>> travel.  Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up   
   >>>> overnight   
   >>> ...   
   >>>   
   >>> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the   
   >>> 1890s   
   >>> saying automobiles will never be a thing.   
   >>> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be   
   >>> successful because it was new.   
   >>> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)   
   >>   
   >> No, it would be as if governments were to seek banning horses before they   
   >> could be replaced, and fueling for those machines was virtually   
   >> non-existent.   
   > ...   
   >   
   > It would be as if the US govt built all those roads that were missing   
   > from 1900s America and pour trillions into supporting gas automobiles.   
   > Fortunately, that kind of thing never happens because the free market   
   > does it all in Dreamland.   
      
   Yep, as cars were adopted people demanded better roads. What was suitable   
   for horse and wagon was no longer good enough.   
      
   > On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation   
   > funding the construction of the U.S. Interstate Highway   
   > System (IHS)--something Americans had dreamed of since Detroit   
   > starting building cars.   
      
   Which was a natural extension given how much cars and trucking had been   
   adopted by then.   
      
   As it is 95% of the people see no use for cars, but government is spending   
   trillions and demanding people must buy these expensive replacements that   
   don't even offer any significant advantage over current technology other   
   than some mistaken belief of cutting CO2.. despite the fact we don't have   
   the means to really produce a lot of electricity without carbon or nuclear,   
   but we are certainly willing to export that pollution to China to make it   
   appear we're being 'green'..   
      
   Did you know that China's expansion of their dirty coal power plant's is   
   increasing CO2 emissions more than all reductions in such emissions being   
   made by the rest of the world?   
      
   Why should government be mandating this technology. When it's ready,   
   actually ready, people will be more than willing to make the switch. The   
   problem is, the tech isn't ready and what have is either too expensive or   
   too problematic for most people to accept.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)