XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "NoBody"  wrote in message   
   news:818a1j9eq47ja15s23vhmi92jnrpv0lc4c@4ax.com...   
   > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:29:53 -0400, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > You make too much sense.  Don't expect to find too much in the way of   
   > intelligent responses because libs aren't capable of actual thought.   
      
   Well, to do that would require they actually have facts to work with.. and   
   if they had the facts they probably wouldn't be so liberal.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)