Is there any point to replying to this, or are you gone for six months?
I'm gone forever in the "who is the bigger offender" thread,...
You're leaving a lot of loose ends there in terms of things you said that weren't true.
Anyway, your questions go off in directions that no one's proposing. You and your fellow Republicans hear that Democrats want to reduce reliance of fossil fuels, and you immediately jump to the conclusion that they want to directly regulate it's use, like your proposal to create essential and nonessential categories. Where I *can* see regulation playing a role is things like high-sulfur/low-heat content coal such as lignite, and so forth.
Essential versus non-essential seems perfectly logical to me,...
It may seem perfectly logical to you, but it's your view, not the Democrats. Quit claiming that Democrats want to implement your ideas.
...and it's also perfectly logical why that discussion will never see the light of day. Because it wouldn't work politically, and it's not corruptable. Climate change is about finger pointing, few people are going to hold still for government curtailing of their recreational activities.
And so it goes. Before responding adequately to your previous untruth that Democrats would try to regulate fuels by dividing them into essential and non-essential categories, you march onwards to make yet another untrue claim. There are no Democrat proposals for curtailing recreational vehicle use.
You might try looking stuff up instead of going with your gut, else you'll just continue making more false claims, like that no one's trying to create new car companies in the US.
Do you think the auto makers might be engaging in some talks right now with the EPA and politicians, looking for ideas on how to increase their sales and keep them afloat? Maybe increasing regulations on the free use of older cars and trucks? Some new auto emissions testing maybe? With some suggestions on percentages of how many will flunk?
Your suspicion meter is pegged. I have no special knowledge about lobbying by automakers, but neither do you. Your speculations are unlikely to be true.
This is what me and my fellow Republicans are concerned about.
Like most of the things you and your fellow Republicans are concerned about, they're made up.
A country that's 28 trillion in debt can't logically afford to throw away useful products,...
US GDP is about $21 trillion, so our debt is only about a third greater than our income. Many people have mortgages and total debt that are far greater than that, like 2, 3 or even 4 times income. Why do you think the US debt is at a difficult point?
I remember the circus of emissions testing in my area 17 years ago, it wasn't fun.
You remember lots of things that never happened. What are you imagining happened with emissions testing 17 years ago?
But why love oil, Marc? What is it about oil that turned you into its big defender? Why do you seem to care so passionately where your power comes from, preferring that it come from the worst possible source for the environment. If tomorrow all your power suddenly started coming from wind and solar instead of gas and oil (which is possible, since power is fungible), why would you care?
I care about costs and efficiency.
Here's some Tesla info. The Tesla Model 3 base model is $37,000, and the Model 3 Extended Range Dual Motor is $50,000. It can go around 300 miles on a single change, and it takes around a half hour to charge at a Tesla Supercharging station. The Tesla home charger takes about five hours for a full charge. It costs about half as much per mile to drive as a gas-powered car. It requires very little maintenance, allowing Tesla to use a different model where most of their income comes from vehicle sales, while only part of the income from gas-powered vehicles comes from sales, the rest coming from service. A Tesla has no radiator, no radiator fluid, no thermostat, no water pump, no spark plugs, no ignition system, no fuel injectors, no fuel pump, no fuel filter, no crankcase oil, no oil filter, no oil pump, no transmission, no exhaust pipe, no muffler, no crankshaft, no pistons, no valves, no pushrods. The drivetrain has 17 moving parts, 34 for the dual motor, and there's a battery along the bottom of the car that runs from front to rear. Tesla has no recommended maintenance period but suggests coming in for a checkover once every couple years. It has excellent power (0-60 in 4.2 seconds for the Extended Range) and handling (the position of the batteries gives it a very low center of gravity).
But I'm not concerned about electric power, that will evolve however it will, the public won't be involved or informed, and I actually think it will work out for the best.
There are federal subsidies for electric cars, but only so much for each manufacturer. The Tesla subsidy used to be $7500 but the funds ran out and it is now $0.
I worry about government involvement in private property.
You mean like the way the federal government become involved in automotive safety and cut the automobile fatality rate to a miniscule level? Deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled used to be 250 a century ago and now its about 10. Thank God there's no amendment sayng, "Transportation being essential to the economy of a free State, the right of the people to own and drive transport shall not be infringed."
Older vehicles are seldom used near as much as newer ones, obviously restricting them will have little or no impact on the climate.
Marc, you are making things up again. No one has proposed restricting older vehicles. Older vehicles are always grandfathered in by whatever the standards were at the time. To get older vehicles off the road the government has in the past provided incentives for people to purchase new cars.
But it's a feel good measure, one that will satisfy a big enough segment of the population so that no political damage is done. But the kind of damage that government meddling can do often can't be undone.
What's a feel good measure? Restricting older vehicles? That's just something you made up.