Sunday, April 8, 2012

Guilted into "green"

Nice car.  What's your other car?  A socialist Leaf?


It IS a socialist Leaf!



You think you're being "clean" driving that shiny EV around?  Hmmm... Obama probably didn't inform you about the factory emissions from generating all that electricity.  He thinks electricity grows on trees, you know, like money.


Leonardo Dicaprio, how I envy you.  You get to spend several hours shopping in Costco while your Karma's battery recharges, but I'm forced to spend a few minutes at the pump to refill my traditional gas-fueled sucker.  You lucky, socialist movie stars.

14 comments:

  1. How did we get from "electric car" to "socialist" again? Just because an electric car doesn't use gas and is more economical for some, does NOT make it socialist. Where's the link between the two? Really interested in your viewpoint on this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a socialist car because it's an "Obamamobile" that is directly subsidized by the federal government (and the state of California, but that's no surprise) at the expense of those who choose to drive other, more efficient models. Obama and his environmental extremist allies are set on regulating what kind of car you drive and how much you drive it; they want to decide which cars succeed and which ones expire, and they're using consumer tax credits to achieve that purpose. Capitalism is extinct in America: the current left-wing government has seized power in almost every sector of the market, including the automobile industry.
    The Leaf is economical for nobody. It costs a whopping $35,000, which is $17,000 more expensive than Nissan's most similar gas alternative, the Versa. Even after accepting the $7500 tax credit (paid for by other, supposedly less "green" taxpayers), a Leaf owner would have to drive his vehicle for at least 9 years to break even on the gas costs. Proof: http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2012/04/savings-come-slowly-for-hybrid.html
    Unless he's really passionate about saving the planet (which he's not, despite what the media tells him), he probably won't choose to own it for that long because the Leaf's mileage is horrible and causes a lot of unnecessary hassle when he has to first find a charging station and then wait there for at least an hour until his EV is ready to roll again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Woah, just because a car runs on something other than oil, you call it's owner a socialist? Watch yourself there....that's called jumping to exaggerated conclusions. God calls us to be good stewards of our earth. If we can find something that "doesn't pollute" as much, then what's wrong with it? No, I'm not saying that the earth is more important than anything else (it certainly isn't) but experimenting with different fuel ideas is in no way a direct link to socialism.

    I think you really need to ponder what you're saying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. First of all, I didn't dub EV drivers socialists anywhere in this post. I asserted that the Leaf was a socialist car because it is directly subsidized by the federal government through consumer tax credits which come from the pockets of other drivers who pay gas taxes for their "sin" of utilizing oil to travel. The Leaf inadvertently redistributes income from gas car drivers to electric car drivers; hence, it's socialist. Any program which forcefully takes from one man through taxation to give to another man is socialist. Any program which asks one man, or driver in this case, to pay more so another man can pay less is socialist.

    Secondly, if you want to be a good steward of the earth, electric cars are hardly the means to achieve that desire. Half of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal, which releases a harmful neurotoxin called mercury into the air. If you don't believe me, read this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-talk-the-coal-truth As for the argument that CO2 is bad, there's really been no evidence of this point - only baseless fears. Without CO2, nothing would be able to survive on Earth. Electric cars also produce about as much CO2 as normal vehicles, due to the emissions from the factories and the carbon dioxide which is produced in making the batteries. Even if you think that CO2 is bad, electric vehicles have the exact same problem as gas equivalents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Opal, you hit the nail on the head. Man was created and told to take care of the earth that God gave us. So why not create other means of transportation?
    Even if the Leaf is not "economical," there's still no link to socialism. Even when Bush was in office, electric cars were being made. Obama didn't mandate Nissan to make an electric car because he likes them. He just likes the effect it has on the environment. And "Left extremists are regulating the cars we drive."??? No way. Just because the president endorses electric cars and gives people much-needed tax credits for it doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it! If someone wants to drive their gas guzzling car, that's their choice.
    I personally don't believe in global warming or anything, but that doesn't mean that alternative fuels are a bad idea. It's like saying that someone trying to stop the Fukushima Nuclear Powerplant from leaking is socialist, simply because they want to save the environment, people, and animals around it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're totally missing the point of my argument. I'm saying that the Leaf is a socialist car because the government uses it to redistribute money from those who drive so-called "gas-guzzlers" to those "responsible" greenies who drive EVs. This is incredibly unjust, especially since all the scientific evidence shows that electric cars are worse for the earth than cars fueled by oil. My arguments which demonstrated why gas cars are completely harmless were conceded.

    The credits are not "much-needed" because electric cars are always going to be secondary vehicles. Next to nobody owns a plug-in as his only car because EVs are toys. They look sporty, but their mileage is unsuitable for anyone who wants to travel outside of his own city. Additionally, the acceleration of EVs is slow and the cars cannot accommodate large families. Question: if the Nissan Leaf is such a piece of crap and is worse for the environment, why is the government begging you to buy one through tax credits? It's also false to argue that cars are a "right" which must be supplied by the federal government. Possession of a car is most certainly not a right, in the same way that sex without pregnancy is not a right. Rights are free, and if the government was to provide electric cars for everybody, it would bankrupt the nation. Therefore, cars are not a right, and the government is not responsible for giving you one. The government owes you nothing other than the freedom and the rights guaranteed you through the Constitution. The reason our society is in shambles is that many Americans of today believe they are entitled to a host of services, pleasures, and privileges free of charge from the government, including electric cars. This is not what our founding fathers envisioned, and the government's role is not to grant all of our desires.

    While you still technically have the choice to drive gas-fueled cars, that choice comes with a price. In the status quo, you must PAY taxes to drive gas vehicles, but you ARE PAID to drive fancy EVs like the Nissan Leaf. The government is making the choice for you, and if you don't respect their decision, you are punished. Liberal dictators like Obama would gladly ban oil-powered cars altogether; since they know that action would be unpopular, they instead make electric cars the only financially viable option. Even now, he's trying to raise the credit to $10,000 while simultaneously raising gas prices. The point of this fiasco: to inhibit your capacity to move and evade Big Brother's thought-police.

    I'm not claiming that looking into alternative fuel sources is a bad idea. I'm usually open to developing new technology, unless it tampers with life or tries to replicate it (e.g. nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and pretty much everything Michael Crichton explores). What I am arguing is that electric cars are unnecessary since current motor vehicles work just perfectly and are far more efficient; because electric cars pose no benefit, there's no reason for the government to subsidize them. Heck, even if there was some sort of economic or environmental benefit attached to electric cars, it's still not the government's role to subsidize them. A free market is free from government intervention.

    The damage caused by the Fukushima incident is not comparable to the CO2 that cars emit. The one poisoned the air and killed lots of Japanese people. I haven't heard a single story about a person being killed by tailpipe emissions.

    Anyway, thanks for all the comments, T.F. I'd love to debate this sometime in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay. I'm just going to go straight to the point because these comments just keep getting longer ;)
    1. We get tax credits for donating to the salvation army/charity/whatever. Is that socialist because the government is encouraging giving to the poor? Of course not. It's the same with electric cars. The government thinks they're good for the environment, and that's not a bad thing! Again, it's the people's choice, not the governments. And as you said before, the people that buy electric cars don't need the tax credits, so they're not buying cars specifically for that reason! So these people are making their OWN choice, not a choice that the government made for them.
    2. Obama is not a liberal dictator. No proof, no link, no brightline, no nothing. :P And thought police? Big brother? really? Again, no link or proof. And completely subjective to how paranoid someone is. :P :P
    3. Yes, oil prices have been raised (hey, there's a cost of electricity too, you know.), but I wouldn't just blame Obama for that. This started back when Bush was in office when he raised gas prices by 275%, fyi. And saying that Electric Cars are the only financially viable option? What happened to your argument of "Only the rich can buy them in the first place because they're so expensive."?
    4. @Fukushima, it's basicallly the difference of something killing you vs. something that's bad for you/the world around you. I think that any harm we can, should be avoided. I'm not claiming to believe in global warming, but if the government wants to give someone a tax break for doing what they think is right for the enviroment, so be it. It doesn't effect our mode of government from a democracy to socialism, as you're claiming however. ;)
    Kay i'm done now ;P

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why is the government subsidizing green cars which aren’t green?
    Why is the government trying to stop man-made global warming when it’s been proven to be a fraud and a myth?
    Why is the government giving tax credits to rich boys for their electric toys?
    Is this America?

    @ Volt tax credits same as charitable giving deduction
    This comparison doesn’t work for several reasons. For one, deductions aren’t the same as credits. Deductions reduce your taxable income, while credits reduce the income tax you owe. Secondly, charities actually pose some benefit to society, while electric cars do not. That’s why the government doesn’t tax revenue to charitable organizations, and that’s also why the government lets you deduct any portion of your income that you donate to charity. That money which used to be your own income essentially becomes the income of whichever charity receives it, and since the government can’t tax said charity, they can’t tax you for the dollars you generously bestowed on it. However, converting your income into a fancy EV in no way resembles an honorable, selfless action which the federal government should subsidize. The electric car credit isn’t universal either, as only EV buyers qualify for it; the charitable giving deduction applies to all taxpayers. The former is a discriminatory socialistic credit; the latter can be claimed by any working man.

    @ People make their own choice
    I’m not arguing that drivers cannot make their own choice. My point is that they are either punished or rewarded depending on whether they make the “wrong choice” or the "right choice" respectively. This is indisputable.

    @ Obama isn’t a dictator
    Let’s see. Obama wants to control what I eat (a government agent confiscated a North Carolina preschooler’s lunch and gave her chicken nuggets because her mommy’s meal didn’t meet federal health standards), when I start working (child labor laws, minimum wage, recent attempt to outlaw farm chores), how much money I can earn (forced redistribution of wealth through “progressive” programs, a.k.a. socialism), how I run my business (crushing regulations), and what gun I can own, if any. Obama suppresses the freedom of religious organizations (The Catholic hospital contraceptive incident, which should have completely backfired), denies property rights, opposes one’s inherent right to self-defense (the stupid Tr@yvon M@rtin story), stomps on personal privacy (strip machines and pat-downs at airports), threatens the Supreme Court (“Judicial activism”, “I think the justices should understand…”), ignores the separation of powers, and commands Americans, under threat of penalties, to buy worthless government health insurance they don’t want. On top of all this, he doesn’t hesitate to seize your hard-earned wealth without due process of law in a little procedure called civil asset forfeiture, which ought to appall YOU especially. All of these are distinguishing attributes of a true dictator.

    @ Paranoid to believe in thought police
    We’re already seeing this today. Examples: free speech is often considered “bullying” in public schools, and those who are convicted of such rhetoric can be “reeducated” in the doctrine of peace and tolerance. When one speaks out in protest against a liberal administration, the Secret Service must investigate. This happened recently to rocker Ted Nugent, who harshly criticized Obama at an NRA convention. Those who hate liberal policies, i.e. those who work for a living, are taxed at higher rates for the political mentalities they hold. If they do not comply, the IRS hunts them down and confiscates even more of their property. I'd argue that Obama wants you to drive electric cars so you’re easier for the IRS and his other inner party minions to track. Call me paranoid, but I think it's wise to regard 1984 as more than just a work of science-fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Bush to blame for oil prices
    Please don’t blame Bush for current gas prices. The guy left the oval office almost 3 and half YEARS ago. It’s absurd and irresponsible to blame Obama’s failures on Bush. Bush’s problems ended when Obama took his place. At that moment, all of this nation’s problems became Obama’s; it was his duty to solve them, and he didn’t. In fact, with gas prices approaching $5 a gallon, it’s clear that he’s done nothing but magnify America’s troubles. This moron should take responsibility for his own actions like an adult and stop whining about the bad economy he “inherited from the previous administration”. To quote Rush, when is this going to be Obamaville?

    @ Financially viable option
    Nowhere did I say that electric cars were the only economical vehicles available. I did say that this country’s dictator is trying to make them the only “financially viable option”. So far he has not succeeded, which is why he’s trying to raise the credit and why he’s vetoing projects like the Keystone Pipeline which would lower gas prices. In the status quo, most citizens cannot afford cars like the Leaf and don’t want them anyway, because they’re small, have poor mileage, and catch fire erratically.

    @ Government should save the Earth
    First of all, it’s not the government’s responsibility to protect the planet. That cannot be found in the Constitution. It IS the government’s responsibility to protect us, our rights, and the free market, which is not affected by tax credits, special rules, or regulations. Secondly, you have given no boundaries to limit the government’s authority in its mission to “save the planet”. If the government can do anything it wants to protect Earth, then it can just ban cars outright. We would become like that community in The Giver: all of us would ride bikes because the temperature of the environment would be deemed more important than our freedom. Thirdly, normal cars do not place our planet in peril, so tax credits for crappy EVs are not necessary and only serve to produce larger deficits. Fourthly, it’s been proven many times that EVs pollute more than gas-powered cars, so it’s not only unconstitutional but also illogical for the government to subsidize them. Finally, the government should never stoop to socialism in order to protect the earth, because such a motion elevates the planet above the human rights of certain individuals.

    I have three requests of my fellow Americans: pull your own weight, buy your own car, and stop whining about the icebergs.

    Damn, I wish I had more time with this case. : \

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's my quirky take on all this if anyone cares: :P

    I feel that the President should be respected as a fellow American and especially as the leader of our country. Although we may not understand his every decision, let's avoid unfair criticism. To be fair, the President relies on overwhelming consensus of the scientific community about man's contribution to climate change. Also, I feel that calling the President a radical, authoritarian conspirator is a VERY quick and stretched judgement. If we were Presidents, I'm sure we'd appreciate more care and understanding from the people before they characterize and condemn. People who do not see eye to eye with you have intelligent and benevolent ideas.

    I often take my political views too seriously, but this quote always emphasizes what's truly important in all of it. "In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    The closer to that mindset I am, the more insight I find, and I've found a lot of value in political opinions I used to think were worthless. Maybe you can find a reason to appreciate and encourage the President instead of just trying to tear him down?

    That said, here's how I feel about this. Maybe, I'm a little biased since my dream car is a Chevy Volt or a Prius right now. :P But I don't feel that there's anything evil with subsidizing certain cars.

    I can see why you might want think it's socialism. I've always understood socialism as more of a no-private-company kind of economy, but if I'm hearing you correctly, you think that socialism is any government transferring of wealth or regulation. And if that's the case, is socialism really always a bad thing? I understand that extreme socialism wasn't so hot in the USSR. But that doesn't mean that every action that has a philosophical link is evil, right?

    You mentioned that government's role isn't to save the earth. How come? We face new environmental challenges and live in a different world than Enlightenment philosophers. Shouldn't the role of government be allowed to change to accommodate a changing world? The government you speak of was a result of change too. In the context of world history, the American, French, Haitian, etc. revolutions came when their people decided to reject the traditional in favor of a new way of trying things that promised better results. I think we still have the right to progress when we feel we should. Even our constitution allows the flexibility to enact environmental law.

    Greener cars, might not be ideal, but their development and acceptance is a good investment for our country as a whole.

    Environmental concerns as a whole should remain a priority for American and the world, and I'd like to see America lead a global environmental movement. Even if you completely reject the scientific consensus, imagine the potential for global cooperation! :) Remember how the European states HATED each other, but temporarily unified when they were all threatened by the Vikings? We should see the massive potential with these issues.

    Freedom is awesome, yes. But it should be tempered by reality. We really can't live with totally absolute freedom that removes all accountability from people harming each other and their world. Otherwise, we'd return to industrial revolution conditions where earth and health were unacceptably compromised. Balance is the key here. :)

    Anyway, that's my take. If you took the time to read all my thoughts, I'd love to hear what you think. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let's start with Obama. You say I ought to respect him because he's the country's "leader". That's completely illogical. Did the Romans bow down in terrified submission to their final king, Tarquinius Superbus, out of respect? No. They drove him out the country. Did the Libyans "respect" Moammar Gaddafi because he led their country? No. They shot Gaddafi to pieces for his crimes. Did our Founding Fathers "respect" King George iii because he was their leader? No. They took the right action and rebelled against tyranny. If our ancestors had respected George, then America would not exist today, and we would be subjected to huge taxes, strict laws, and socialism. Oh wait... it's also absurd to call Obama a leader. He has done nothing but divide the country by race, gender, orientation, faith, and especially wealth. He has split us all into different social "classes" and incited unrest between us. Occupiers are consumed by their hatred, inspired by Obama, for the upper class, who have "cheated the system" and who "don't pay their fair share". They carry signs displaying hateful rhetoric, like "eat the rich" and "tax the 1%". If Obama has truly "led" America, then there would be no talk of the 99% or the 1%. A true leader would unite Americans and aim to help the 100%. A true leader does not tolerate mindsets like the ones the Occupiers hold. Nor does a true leader try to sever black people from white people. Nor does a true leader try to exploit women exclusively as a reelection tool. Nor does a true leader try to plant resentment between people of different sexual appetites. Obama has done all of these things, and he is anything but a leader.

    Additionally, your assumption that Obama is an American is questionable at best. It's been proven in a Georgia court that Obama is not a citizen of the United States. Since our "leader" deliberately refused to show up and explain himself, the evidence and arguments presented in the court have gone uncontested and we must presume we have an illegal in the White House. http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138 Whatever you believe about Obama’s current status as a citizen, it’s clear that he’s ineligible to serve as President, as he was born outside of America. His own wife has stated in a speech that his home country is Kenya. Particularly damning is a miniature biography, just released, by his literary agent which explicitly claims he was born in Kenya. If this was an error, like the morons at ABC "News" say it is, then it would have been corrected long before Obama decided to run in 2007, when this evidence was conveniently covered. http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/shocker-obama-was-still-kenyan-born-in-2003/

    There is no scientific consensus that man-made global warming is real. The only people who genuinely believe that driving cars makes the world warm up are idiots in Hollywood or gullible liberals who believe whatever they're told. I highly recommend you read State of Fear by the highly intelligent Michael Crichton. In this novel he not only explodes the global warming myth but also points out how eco-terrorists frequently uses fake science like this to control people and seize more power for themselves. Whether or not man-made global warming is real, Obama is using it to pass laws which severely restrict our freedom, all for the sake of saving a couple snowballs.

    I'm not making a hasty judgment on Obama. I've had 3 stinking years - 3 years too many - to determine that this president is an anti-America communist. I and the majority of America have had three years of record-high deficits, class warfare, government control, expensive gas, and towering unemployment numbers, and believe me when I say we've had enough.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “Maybe you can find a reason to appreciate and encourage the President instead of just trying to tear him down?” I don’t appreciate Obama because he’s done nothing which deserves my praise. Respect is earned, and there’s not one element of Obama’s record which merits my respect. On the contrary, Obama’s record is a disaster and is set to magnify if he becomes more “flexible”. I like to quote Rush Limbaugh, who said laconically, “I hope he fails.” If Obama does succeed and achieve his utopia, then our country will be transformed into a totalitarian, socialist state. We’ll all live in a state of misery and subjugation, except for those in the Inner Party. Obama’s mission is a terrible one, which is why I refuse to support him in it.

    You, as an American, ought to hate all the left-wing ism’s with burning intensity. Our Founding Fathers considered wealth redistribution to be a grave offense against a person’s natural right to property.


    Thomas Jefferson once said, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

    James Madison argued, "That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

    Samuel Adams proclaimed, "The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional."


    Anyone who argues for redistribution of wealth argues against the very people who fought for our liberty and secured our universal, human rights. Anyone who argues for socialism is waging a civil war against his predecessors and superiors in wisdom. Anyone who argues for forced equality and “sameness” in wealth distribution is siding with Russia instead of America.

    Our country is broken now because so many people fail to comprehend that socialism is equivalent to burglary. Stealing from the successful and giving to the slothful is still stealing. The intention does not mitigate the effect on the working man, and the ends do not justify the means. If I steal your wallet and give its contents to a homeless guy, I still have stolen from you. Socialism by definition prohibits private ownership of property and it allows the government to steal from you at any time in order to satisfy its utopian desires. That’s what makes socialism so damnable: it defends actions which aren’t morally justifiable. To quote Griffith Vertican, it calls “evil good and good evil”. Work is viewed as a sin, success a crime. Independence and self-reliance are vilified, while big government is upheld as the solution to all problems. The individual is made subservient to the community; slavery is disguised as “teamwork” and “doing your part”. Even George Orwell, an adamant leftist, realized the dangers of terminology like this: in 1984, residents of Oceania are encouraged to reproduce not because families are a God-given blessing but because they have a debt to the rest of society, a debt to be fulfilled through the creation of new slaves to Big Brother. Sex is strictly outlawed for any other purpose than this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Incredibles, Pixar’s only conservative movie, uses fictional settings and characters to expose the fallacy of socialism. The villain of this movie, Syndrome, wants to reduce everyone to a state of mediocrity under the guise of granting them superhuman abilities. He goes about this diabolical plan by stealing the glory of the true “supers”, who are symbolic of America’s workers and achievers, and sharing it with the masses, so everybody becomes super. As Syndrome knows, this whole gift he promises is nothing but a fraud, because “when everyone’s super, no one will be.” Likewise, when you redistribute property from the “supers” of society so that everyone has money, no one is prosperous. Everyone is mediocre, everyone is poor, and nobody is super.

    You argue that America should be allowed to “progress” with the times, to abandon tradition for something more mainstream. First of all, you speak not of progress but regress. Instead of moving us towards a more free society, environmental laws and regulations stomp on our liberties to solve for non-existent harms greenies say the earth currently faces. Expansion of environmentalist programs only causes the sea levels of despotism to rise, swallowing our free island in the ocean tides of tyranny. As the OC Register rightly contends, government should always place mankind above Earth, not the other way around. http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/earth-350322-environmental-government.html God did not make man a slave to the planet. Secondly, it is perilous to ever suggest adapting to a new world by tossing tradition. Without a strong religious core, you will fall prey to the influence of worldviews like atheism, humanism, and environmentalism. Likewise, a country which sacrifices its founding principles will inevitably be vanquished by tyranny or any of the ism’s. Thirdly, the world doesn’t change, and neither do men. Despite what the global warming alarmists have told you, the earth has not changed dramatically in the past decades, due to human behavior or any other factors. Similarly, the basic traits of men have remained the same throughout all time. There are still tyrants, there are still dictators, and there are still radical power-hungry liberals who would gladly lie to you about the polar bears in order to impose more rules and laws to govern your behavior. We know that the earth is not in peril and we also know that evil men would use deceit in order to bolster their own authority and control over our lives.

    If the so-called “green” cars are unwanted, not ideal and, in fact, vastly inferior to gas automobiles, how are they a good investment for the country? Hundreds of millions of us are struggling to pay for gas, yet the government reserves all tax relief for EV drivers. This is how you build a backwards society.

    ReplyDelete
  14. “Environmental concerns” should not be a “priority” for America and the world. "People concerns" should be. Earth has survived and even thrived for tens of thousands of years, but the course of history has seen dozens of civilizations die: democracies or republics like Greece, Rome, and China have all passed away due to oppressive governments or external threats that weren’t given due attention. America is next on the chopping block, and the axe will fall unless we start to place human liberty over the planet’s wellbeing. Global cooperation is pointless unless you’re working towards rectifying some harm. Global warming isn’t a bad thing and it can’t be controlled by mankind anyway. The Vikings posed a real, physical threat to all civilized countries; global warming doesn’t threaten anything.

    Personal freedom should never be tempered except when it directly violates the life and freedom of other individuals. To say otherwise is to contradict the American Dream. No one’s safety is going to be compromised if the planet gets a few degrees Fahrenheit warmer. It’s also arrogant to believe that humans can do ANYTHING to alter the temperature of Earth. We can’t. To say so is naïve and assumes we are far more powerful than we actually are. If you take a plane ride over the country, you will realize that we are literally specks of dust on this planet, dust waiting to be scattered and obliterated by tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural forces. The Norse were right in seeing that Earth was the predator. Modern humans are so proud and self-inflated that they think nature fears them, when it is they who should fear nature. This is the message of Jurassic Park: whoever tries to manipulate Nature’s course ends up disemboweled and eaten. That’s my paraphrase.

    You assert that health was terribly compromised during the era of the Industrial Revolution. You might be reading too much romantic poetry. Anyway, if you’re really concerned about smokestacks, the last thing you want do is subsidize electric vehicles. Coal is burned in factories so that these electric suckers can run.

    I thank you for your comment, wish you good luck at NITOC, and hope you have fun with your EV. Just don’t ask me to pay for it.

    ReplyDelete

Please be aware that Google/Blogger has a regrettable habit of crashing before you hit the Preview or Publish button, so writing out longer comments separately before entering them into the browser is well advised.