because it always means someone else’s capital and suffering. No advocate of the Green New Deal ever considers how it will affect those who do not live in urban settings.
Eliminating gasoline and diesel vehicles in 10 years means very little to urban voters where public transportation is practical and their leisure activities are practiced indoors. But for those in rural areas who hunt and fish, that would be catastrophic.
An electric compact car with a 80 mile range costs, without subsidies, and with the home charging station is about$70,000. In much of the west, that won’t even get you to town and back. An electric equivalent of a Ford F-150 pickup with charging station would be easily $100K.There is no ‘used’ market, so everyone would have to buy new, and because of the life of the battery, resale value would be very low.
How many rural families do you think can afford that?
And then, consider the impact of tripling the cost of electricity.
Anyone who does not live within walking distance of mass transit who votes Democrat is an idiot.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
It is because of the live, work, play development movement where everyone lives in a box and can flush the toilet from bed. They don’t consider that someone has to farm and, Oh, those batteries require finite metal resources that China mostly owns for starters. “Costs” to them is not a word in the OED much less the concept of opportunity cost.
LikeLike
If you are going to rant try to at least be factual. This statement, for example, is nonsense . . .
“An electric compact car with a 80 mile range costs, without subsidies, and with the home charging station is about$70,000.”
Uh, no.
The MSRP for the Tesla Model 3 with a range of over 200 miles is $35,000.
The MSRP for the Hyundai Kona Electric is less than $40,000 and its range is 258 miles.
So, the “evidence” on which your Luddite opinions are based is off by a factor of 2. Time to rethink your opinions? Of course, that will never happen no matter the evidence.
And who are these “statists” and “idiots” of which you speak? Do you have no other rhetorical abilities besides spreading falsehoods and name calling?
LikeLiked by 1 person
After several recent price cuts, the MSRP for the base Model S is $35,000 but you can’t order the base model. The cheapest model you can order is $41,000, after a subsidy of about $8000, then add the sales tax and other charges, like delivery, and the charging station, and the real cost is very close to $60,000 and was about $70,000 when introduced..
The standard sized Model S is $81,000 even with the subsidy, less tax and charger.
https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3
But that misses the point.
Even at $60,000, it is inadequate as an only car anyplace but in a city. It might be nice to have one for routine errands but here in Chesapeake the range is too short for long trips and it will never pull a boat to the launch. TO drive home to LA for a family event, I would have to drive for about 5 hours then stay overnight at a charging station, drive another 5 hours the next day and then finish the trip on t third day.
You’d still need a traditional fueled truck or SUV. for anything but city life.
Thank goodness for the Electoral College and the Senate. Otherwise we would have no defense from domination by urban voters.
LikeLike
BTW, I have an EV. A golf cart for getting around here at the compound.
LikeLike
Your argument goes something like this . . .
“Gasoline cars will never catch on because, gee, the base price of a top of the line Cadillac is over $90,000 and only rich urban people can pay that!
Sure, there are some very expensive electric vehicles but the fact remains, there are already electric vehicle options priced below half the price of the straw man you want to beat up. And, with new players entering this market every day that price is only going to come down.
Then you argument goes . . .
Gasoline cars will never catch on, there are no gas stations so they will never be able to go as far as your horse and buggy.”
As for range, it is a temporary issue. The navigation system of the Tesla pinpoints the location of charging stations where for about $5 and a 20 minute wait for a break and a quick charge, 80% of the battery can be recharged. Today there are plenty but you need to know where to look. In a year or two they will be everywhere.
I happened to have entertained a proud owner of a Tesla Model 3 yesterday. Asking about the range issue he told me that it was as described above – not really an issue.
As for pulling your boat, the horsepower and torque of the these cars is plenty. In due course they will be offered with towing packages.
https://electrek.co/2018/07/31/tesla-model-3-towing-capacity/
Finally, this poor country boy victim card is kind of laughable. Looks, at best, like another attempt by “conservatives” to find yet another “wedge issue” since you can’t sell your “can’t do” view of the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When gasoline cars became available, no one said “In 10 years we’re going to kill all the horses.”
People transitioned to internal combustion engines voluntarily because they were cheaper and less trouble to operate. (and also less polluting)
When electric cars become more desirable than gas or diesel, people will choose them voluntarily. If they are a better choice, force should not be necessary.
Further, while they may be a better choice for some people, for others they are not. That’s why we are free to choose, The GND takes that choice away, forcing everyone to make a choice suitable for urban residents but not so for rural people.
LikeLike
Kill all the horses? Yet another frankly dishonest straw man. The Green New Deal does NOT call for the banning of gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles or the use of any kind of “force.” You are parroting a complete falsehood as if it were the truth.
The goal of replacing fossil fueled vehicles “by expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all . . .” is NOT banning. In fact, the program is explicitly intended to make “electric cars become more desirable than gas or diesel, [so that] people will choose them voluntarily.
There is canon of what the GND would and would not do. It is the resolution entered into the House and Senate by AOC and Senator Markie. It has been lied about constantly ever since.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/
LikeLiked by 2 people
The GND does not give any specifics, but reaching net-zero emissions is not possible if the private sector is allowed internal combustion engines. The military alone will use up all possible offsets.
So yes, the GND will require the use of force to deny people internal combustion engines, or it is simply a lie that there is no real intent to implement.
LikeLike
Your fearful imagining of logically possible but highly improbable future policies does not turn falsehoods into truths. The GND does not call for banning anything nor call for any kind of force.
Furthermore, getting to net zero emissions is a goal to strive for not a regulation. There are other ways besides cutting output of emissions to get there. Specifically, removing carbon from the air . . .
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/09/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Simple solution… Ride the Tide.
We live in the land of skyscrapers. Sure, we could all buy personal lifts, some form of wall climbing device that attaches to the outside wall and rides you to an opening on each floor, but hey, we have elevators in the buildings.
LikeLike
The TIDE does not go to the places I need to go to, and never will.
If you are a city dweller and your activities are all in reach of mass transit, that might be workable, but not everyone lives in cities or goes to places where population density supports transit.
There is no bus stop near my duck blind, and transit will not tow my boat to the launch.
LikeLike
“The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution that lays out a grand plan for tackling climate change.
Introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, the proposal calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels and curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. It also aims to guarantee new high-paying jobs in clean energy industries.
The resolution is nonbinding, so even if Congress approves it, nothing in the proposal would become law.”
NYT 2/21/19
The fear mongering among conservatives blows this resolution totally out of proportion. And of course they have their favorite “Godzilla”, AOC, a member of the “squad”, to add some fuel to the fire.
We have some serious issues to contend with over the next decades. Climate change is one. The massive migrations caused by shifts in weather patterns is another. Even the Chinese are concerned enough to pour billions into alternative energy. (Maybe they were not in on the Trumpian “hoax” after all.)
As usual, the liberals are coming up with ideas, some better than others, and the conservatives are yelling “get off my lawn”.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 3 people
What’s the point of laying out a grand plan other than to implement it? Yes, additional legislation is required, but either the GND is a hoax they don’t really intend to implement and they are just trolling the gullible for votes. or it is a real plan for creating a disaster for our way of life.
You can;’t have it both ways, is it a lie or a real, but stupid, plan?
And why would I give them the power to do it to find out?
LikeLike
Why would you propose something you did not intend to implement? That statement in itself is hogwash right along with AOC. So when AOC “proposes” creating an electric grid run off of lemons, she is a thinker? Your hero is a loudmothed race baiting dolt along with the entire squad who have no concept of reality. Republicans are calling a spade a spade with GND, nothing out of proportion at all, especially the true costs that the squad can’t seem to get straight.
LikeLike
They plan to pay for it by printing money.
LikeLike
Isn’t that how the tax cut is being paid for? The Trillion dollar deficit needs to come from somewhere.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Your hero is a loudmothed race baiting dolt along with the entire squad who have no concept of reality.”
My hero?
Lemons for power no less? Hmmm, might work. All the GOP sourpusses must have gotten their energy from somewhere.
I missed your engaging wit and wisdom, BTW.
The chance of implementing a total ban on birth control via personhood of an egg is not realistic either. But the anti-abortion folks keep pushing. It focuses the debate, may get some converts, and allow a lot of wiggle room.
Ralph Nader was a pariah because he recommended safer cars. Well, not only do we have safer cars, but they last longer and are much more efficient. Along with the much previously maligned Japanese cars forcing competition, of course.
The point is obvious. But in case not, progressive ideas are not going to be ignored because you don’t like them. Even the car manufacturers are telling Trump to take a hike because they know the future is demanding cleaner running cars. And they don’t want to be stuck making cars that they can’t sell in Europe and elsewhere just to please the regime . Yet when Obama put forth the timelines, the squawking from the right was a cacophonous.
So if insults and rants make you and Don feel better, fine. Even that is a plus. People pay dearly for drugs to accomplish the same results.
Oh, this is all IMHO of course.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Insults and rants smattered with weird claims of “progressive” achievements seems to be your feel good moment. There is a huge difference in between engineering advances and progressive thought. The latter lacking a understanding of consequences.
LikeLike
@Bobrsmith
Weird claims of progressive achievements? Our entire way of life is based on progressive achievements built over the same kind of mindless opposition to change frequently on display by today’s “conservatives.”
You can thank these people for many of the blessings of liberty that you and your posterity enjoy . . .
https://www.thenation.com/article/fifty-most-influential-progressives-twentieth-century/
LikeLiked by 2 people
In a sense we can draw an analogy, imperfect yes, but telling nonetheless.
If we look at a nation as a very large automobile with progressives in charge of the accelerator and conservatives the brake pedal.
You need both to navigate safely. But we would never more forward on the brake alone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your analogy is incomplete.
You have to put the car facing down a steep slope with a fiery pit of lava at the bottom.
LikeLike
I take it you have never worked in development. You almost had it right but your fallacy was thinking brakes only keep you from going forward. No, they are so you don’t crash and burn. In development, you must have Opts to discuss readability and risk. The current risk is we are not anywhere close to there. When we are people will migrate to another solution. GND takes that away.
LikeLike
This does work well from a phone and auto correct. IPTs and feasibility.
LikeLike
I would love to see your (Don) head explode if Charles Koch and the Paul Team got behind the GND. If Trump came up with the ideas in the GND, Bob and Don would be TRUMPeting from the tops of the tress what a great idea it is.
With naysayers like you, the moon would have a Soviet era flag on it. What is wrong with putting taxpayer funding into R & D to move forward and get closer to zero emissions? The market would get onboard and we would all end up better off. Economically and health wise.
LikeLike
The GND is meaningless posturing no matter who backs it,
Putting taxpayer funding onto wind and solar is as useless as putting it into unicorn breeding, and forcing the private sector to do so with mandates is even worse.
LikeLike