Conservatives should be big fans of Tesla

[Skotty]

A major failing of the conservative Republican base in the United States is in trying to change or dismiss scientific findings as a means to fit the conservative ideology, instead of using scientific findings to help define policy that is consistent with the conservative ideology. This type of failing is what makes the more socialist Democratic base a "necessary evil", if you will, to keep the conservative Republican base in check. Where Republicans, capitalism, and the free market fail, Democrats must step in with government regulation.

If, as a conservative, you can trust in the findings of science, even when it is inconvenient, then you have to recognize the significant threat of climate change. The science is pretty solid, and the risks are extreme. If you can accept that something must be done, or at least that enough people will believe that something must be done, then what is the best a conservative could hope for? That companies could find a way within our free market to build products that people want, and that solve the problem.

What better than a company that is revolutionizing transport and energy with desirable products that solve the problem? What better than Tesla? Sure, Tesla takes advantage of some available government incentives; what company wouldn't? It's still doing most of it own it's own through the free market. Conservatives should be championing this company, what it has accomplished, and what it may accomplish in the future. You want this company to succeed. For if they fail, the eventual result will be exactly the types of socialist government regulation you wish to avoid. And believe it or not, those who would implement such regulation would rather not have to.

Cheer for Tesla. Buy Tesla if you can. It's in everyone's best interest.

 

[ecarfan]

What better than Tesla?

An American company, started by Americans, manufacturing its products in America with a very high percentage of American made parts, with a mission to address an existential threat to all of humanity that is based on valid, verified, scientific data.

But none of that matters to Telsa's political opponents because they are driven by a reality-free idealogy and are heavily funded by powerful economic interests that do not want sustainable transport to succeed because it would reduce their profits. Follow the money...

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I've said it many times, once Tesla is selling American made solar panels, cars and batteries all in one package...there's not going to be a more compelling option out there for true conservatives.

You don't like Saudi Arabia and Warren Buffett dictating our business? Nothing better you could do than buy that package.

 

[ecarfan]

I've said it many times, once Tesla is selling American made solar panels, cars and batteries all in one package...there's not going to be a more compelling option out there for true conservatives.

Or any reality-based rational individual. But such people are in short supply these days.

 

[gimmi80]

A major failing of the conservative Republican base in the United States is in trying to change or dismiss scientific findings as a means to fit the conservative ideology, instead of using scientific findings to help define policy that is consistent with the conservative ideology. This type of failing is what makes the more socialist Democratic base a "necessary evil", if you will, to keep the conservative Republican base in check. Where Republicans, capitalism, and the free market fail, Democrats must step in with government regulation.

If, as a conservative, you can trust in the findings of science, even when it is inconvenient, then you have to recognize the significant threat of climate change. The science is pretty solid, and the risks are extreme. If you can accept that something must be done, or at least that enough people will believe that something must be done, then what is the best a conservative could hope for? That companies could find a way within our free market to build products that people want, and that solve the problem.

What better than a company that is revolutionizing transport and energy with desirable products that solve the problem? What better than Tesla? Sure, Tesla takes advantage of some available government incentives; what company wouldn't? It's still doing most of it own it's own through the free market. Conservatives should be championing this company, what it has accomplished, and what it may accomplish in the future. You want this company to succeed. For if they fail, the eventual result will be exactly the types of socialist government regulation you wish to avoid. And believe it or not, those who would implement such regulation would rather not have to.

Cheer for Tesla. Buy Tesla if you can. It's in everyone's best interest.

It makes perfect sense, unfortunately several voters decide based on "emotional" or "economical" (read money in their pockets) reasons.

 

[cheztir]

Speaking as an unfortunate victim of living in the South/Bible Belt, the most common criticism I hear of Tesla is how much government subsidizing is involved. One of my extended family members is convinced the Supercharger network is run as a gov't assistance program and it directly costs him via taxes. (Let's just completely ignore oil subsidies).

Unfortunately too much of culture in the conservative south is based on the ideas of "Freedom™". Typically this is very closely tied with having large vehicles and a general disregard for the consequences of their behavior on the environment (not just in the air quality sense but also trash buildup, damage to public infrastructure, etc). This is compounded by an appreciation for ignorance and as a result it gets messily tangled with politics.

 

[abasile]

Speaking as an unfortunate victim of living in the South/Bible Belt ...

Of all people, conservative (and liberal) Christians should be working to combat climate change, which has a disproportionate effect on the poor and marginalized of the world. We are all called to be good stewards of everything that God has given us, including the earth. Part of the problem is that so many Christians already feel at odds with science, so when they perceive that their personal comfort may be threatened by efforts to address global warming, they have no trouble listening to anti-science politicians and others who are influenced by the fossil fuel industry. (FWIW, I personally believe that science and Christian faith are complementary, that the Big Bang was a creation event, that the universe is astoundingly fine tuned, and that God has used evolution.)

 

[brucet999]

A major failing of the conservative Republican base in the United States is in trying to change or dismiss scientific findings as a means to fit the conservative ideology, instead of using scientific findings to help define policy that is consistent with the conservative ideology. This type of failing is what makes the more socialist Democratic base a "necessary evil", if you will, to keep the conservative Republican base in check. Where Republicans, capitalism, and the free market fail, Democrats must step in with government regulation.

If, as a conservative, you can trust in the findings of science, even when it is inconvenient, then you have to recognize the significant threat of climate change. The science is pretty solid, and the risks are extreme. If you can accept that something must be done, or at least that enough people will believe that something must be done, then what is the best a conservative could hope for? That companies could find a way within our free market to build products that people want, and that solve the problem.

What better than a company that is revolutionizing transport and energy with desirable products that solve the problem? What better than Tesla? Sure, Tesla takes advantage of some available government incentives; what company wouldn't? It's still doing most of it own it's own through the free market. Conservatives should be championing this company, what it has accomplished, and what it may accomplish in the future. You want this company to succeed. For if they fail, the eventual result will be exactly the types of socialist government regulation you wish to avoid. And believe it or not, those who would implement such regulation would rather not have to.

Cheer for Tesla. Buy Tesla if you can. It's in everyone's best interest.

I am conservative and I am a fan of Tesla, as well as rooftop solar and not wasting resources.

I am skeptical of just how much effect fossil fuels emissions have on global warming, however.

I just got back from Glacier Bay where glaciers have been receding rapidly since 1630, a time when fossil fuels were little used. Something caused those glaciers to recede for 250 years before the industrial revolution got going. Add to that the fact that statistics experts have found that the "hockey stick" curve is overstated by at least 50% and the fact that Phil Jones to this day refuses to share his raw data with others to verify his conclusions, I remain skeptical about the assertion that anthropogenic warming is the main cause. Surely some global warming is from fossil fuels, but I just can't work out how much is natural and how much anthropogenic.

 

[abasile]

I just got back from Glacier Bay where glaciers have been receding rapidly since 1630, a time when fossil fuels were little used. Something caused those glaciers to recede for 250 years before the industrial revolution got going.

We are currently in a glacial minimum, between "ice ages", and thus it's been normal for glaciers to recede. It's the accelerating rate of warming and melting that's concerning (even if that "hockey stick" curve proves to be overstated).

Whatever one believes, however, the "conservative" thing to do, in my opinion, is play it safe. Even if we're not completely sure how much of the warming is anthropogenic, the potential downsides of excessive warming constitute too great a risk to ignore. It's "conservative" to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best.

 

[adiggs]

I am conservative and I am a fan of Tesla, as well as rooftop solar and not wasting resources.

I am skeptical of just how much effect fossil fuels emissions have on global warming, however.

I just got back from Glacier Bay where glaciers have been receding rapidly since 1630, a time when fossil fuels were little used. Something caused those glaciers to recede for 250 years before the industrial revolution got going. Add to that the fact that statistics experts have found that the "hockey stick" curve is overstated by at least 50% and the fact that Phil Jones to this day refuses to share his raw data with others to verify his conclusions, I remain skeptical about the assertion that anthropogenic warming is the main cause. Surely some global warming is from fossil fuels, but I just can't work out how much is natural and how much anthropogenic.

The important thing here is what do you do with your skepticism. Do you take your skepticism, and conclude that we should make a point of extracting and burning as much hydrocarbon as we can? From your opening comments, I think not. For some of those expressing skepticism, that is in effect what they are arguing for.

We know now what you're skeptical about. What do you argue for? What should we be doing? Are you arguing for business as usual, and that's what you believe is the best course of action for humanity and human economic activity?

Let's say that the hockey stick is overstated by 50%. That sounds like an argument against. That sounds like the effect is more muted than some claim, but that's definitely different from saying there is no effect.

What do you argue for? What's the right path forward from the information you've seen, and what you're seeing?


For my part, I see humanity conducting a gargantuan chemistry experiment, in which we see how much carbon our atmosphere can hold. The outcome of the experiment is effectively nothing - business as usual as we've experienced and we're all fine. The science and models all suggest though, with varying time periods, massive warming of the globe, possibly ending with Earth achieving a Venus like atmosphere.

From that point of view, I see no reason to conduct the experiment - no reason to find out if we're really right, or if there are additional factors we haven't identified yet that will offset. The outcomes are either disastrously bad, or bad-neutral; there's nowhere that I've seen somebody arguing for an upside to this experiment.


I see that at least one of the things you're 'arguing' for, or doing in your personal life, is that you've shifted some or all of your personal transportation to electric. Excellent! We've got different specifics in our points of view, but with a common outcome in our behavior. I believe in a big tent that can cover a wide range of points of view - not in a single right way to understand the world that must be toed by everybody.

 

[ecarfan]

I am skeptical of just how much effect fossil fuels emissions have on global warming, however.

As you may know, there is a 160 page thread about anthropogenic climate change at Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

But those aren't experts discussing the topic. Surely you must be aware that essentially all climate scientists agree that human activities have a major impact on the rapidly changing climate that we all live in and that if humanity collectively does not stop burning fossil fuels, in just a century or two the effects of a much warmer atmosphere are going to be catastrophic and may in fact become an existential thread to the future of human life on earth.

If you do not agree that anthropogenic climate change could be an existential threat and that the prudent thing to do would be to take significant action to mitigate it, then you are willfully ignoring the massive amount of evidence. The data is not "liberal" or "conservative", "left" or "right", it is simply the data and it clearly points to only one conclusion.

 

[voyager]

What better than a company that is revolutionizing transport and energy with desirable products that solve the problem? What better than Tesla? Sure, Tesla takes advantage of some available government incentives; what company wouldn't? It's still doing most of it own it's own through the free market. Conservatives should be championing this company, what it has accomplished, and what it may accomplish in the future. You want this company to succeed. For if they fail, the eventual result will be exactly the types of socialist government regulation you wish to avoid. And believe it or not, those who would implement such regulation would rather not have to.

Cheer for Tesla. Buy Tesla if you can. It's in everyone's best interest.

I agree, plus the fact that the way Musk wants to operate (no dealers needed) goes against the old ways of doing business. There's nothing socialist about Tesla. Got the ATVM loan, repaid it in full before the deadline, funded through issuing stock, "Made in America"... what more do you want? GM was kept alive by practically nationalizing it.

I only wish that Musk's approach would trickle down more quickly to less posh market segments....

 

[EarlyAdopter]

I am conservative and I am a fan of Tesla, as well as rooftop solar and not wasting resources.

I am skeptical of just how much effect fossil fuels emissions have on global warming, however.

I just got back from Glacier Bay where glaciers have been receding rapidly since 1630, a time when fossil fuels were little used. Something caused those glaciers to recede for 250 years before the industrial revolution got going. Add to that the fact that statistics experts have found that the "hockey stick" curve is overstated by at least 50% and the fact that Phil Jones to this day refuses to share his raw data with others to verify his conclusions, I remain skeptical about the assertion that anthropogenic warming is the main cause. Surely some global warming is from fossil fuels, but I just can't work out how much is natural and how much anthropogenic.

This is the thing I don't understand. Maybe you can help me understand your viewpoint on this one point: Regardless if the cause of the warming is man-made or not, the solution can only come from man, correct? Our planet is transforming before our eyes. Shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to combat that?

 

[brucet999]

This is the thing I don't understand. Maybe you can help me understand your viewpoint on this one point: Regardless if the cause of the warming is man-made or not, the solution can only come from man, correct? Our planet is transforming before our eyes. Shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to combat that?

Thank you for your inquisitive, rather than accusative response.

I think it is clear to every reasonable person that global warming is happening.

How fast and why are the questions that may fairly be posed. (except by the climate alarmists some of whom go so far as to threaten skeptics with financial and legal ruin for their "apostasy")
If the cause were entirely from humans burning fossil fuels, then stopping burning would stop the warming.
If the cause is not man-made at all, then how could humans possibly affect the change?

It appears clear to me that global warming is neither entirely caused by humans nor entirely unaffected by human activity. If human contribution is slight, then there is no point in changing our behavior because the results of our efforts would be negligible. If human contribution is great, then we should do all we can to reduce CO2 and methane emissions. It would be nice if we really had proof of the magnitude of our impact.

My best friend is of the opinion that it doesn't matter if Phil Jones' "hockey stick" calculations are grossly exaggerated and that he refuses to allow others to check his work. If any CO2 emissions at all can be eliminated, my friend believes, then they should be, notwithstanding the suffering that that would cause for third world countries entirely dependent on carbon-based fuels, and the financial ruin that would result to developed countries from the huge costs of compliance and losses of jobs from destroying industry.

My friend also uncritically cites the meme that 97% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, but that turns out not to be true. A survey of a selected sample of articles (not scientists) published by scientists found that 97% of those made some mention of global warming, but not necessarily attributing the cause to any human activity, much less the sole cause. In fact, most of the articles were about other topics, but only mentioned global warming. So, yes, not surprisingly, scientists noted climate change in their articles, a fact that no reasonable person would dispute, but that is not the same as 97% of scientists having been surveyed saying that they had studied global warming and concluded that it is caused entirely, or even mostly, by human activity.

I look at the charts of Glacier Bay, showing rapid recession of glaciers since 1750, long before the industrial revolution got going, and the rate of recession seems to have been remarkably constant for 200 years. Add to that the fact that Jones' predictions of rapid atmospheric warming and seal level rise that, for 17 years now have not borne out, suggests to me that the science is not "settled". If it were, then Jones and his cohorts would not have had to abandon tree ring measurements of atmospheric warming (that they had been using to establish historic temperatures before scientific measurements were available) after 1950 when they perversely refused to track with observed temperatures. Oddly, it did not occur to them that if tree-ring measurements were understating temperatures in recent history, that they might have been understating pre-historic temperatures as well, thus putting observed increases in doubt.

No mention is made of the fact (established by actual observations) that 89% of North American weather stations no longer meet official standards for their siting (instead of open ground, added development has surrounded them with pavement, nearby buildings whose walls reflect and re-radiate heat, and in worst cases, active heat sources like air conditioning equipment or other machinery). Such stations' readings range from 0.5º to 2.0º higher than they should be, but never lower and NOAA's protocol for correcting readings for stations that are moved or whose readings for other reasons suddenly become higher than they should, is to average their readings with other nearby stations instead of correcting the underlying conditions. With a huge dataset producing ever more falsely high readings for the past 50 years, how accurate can the hockey stick basic data be? They have to be skewed, but Phil Jones won't disclose how he might have corrected for them, if indeed he did, in light of the fact that the survey that proved the stations unreliable came after Jones' work was published.

So, I practice reduction of CO2 production out of a conviction that my bit may help in some tiny way, but not convinced that drastic measures are merited.

 

[CarlitoDoc]

In 2015 we imported 2.7 million barrels of oil/day from OPEC member countries (source is U.S. Crude Oil Imports), which roughly rounds up to $100M per day. At least HALF of these countries actively sponsor/support terrorists. This needs to stop, period!

 

[ggr]

When I was a kid, I was very proud of knowing that CO2 was 0.03% of the atmosphere. Now, it's 0.04%. That might not sound like much, but it was stable for thousands of years, and now suddenly has grown by 33% in my lifetime. These numbers can be measured in a high school chemistry lab. How can you believe that humans didn't primarily cause this quite large change? We keep burning stuff that represents millions of years of sequestered carbon. What is the other source for this CO2? (Don't try to blame volcanos.)

 

[Saghost]

If the cause were entirely from humans burning fossil fuels, then stopping burning would stop the warming.

We're dealing with a system with a whole lot of inertia. Stopping the CO2 input today would presumably eventually stop the warming, assuming the system doesn't cross some sort of tipping point - but it won't stop warming for years (decades?) and won't stop at today's climate but at something significantly warmer.

And that's if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, which is well beyond the most aggressive proposals I've seen.

We have the technology to do better without huge sacrifices, and if we continue ramping up the wind and solar industries, it should soon become cheaper to build third world infrastructure that way than it is to build it dirty - and certainly will require less maintenance and ongoing investment.

 

[McRat]

The Republicans LOVE Tesla. It's not a union shop.

You need to fear the Socialist Democratic Worker's Party, if Tesla goes UAW, bad things will happen. One strike away from disaster.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

CO2 concentration are measured @ Mauna Loa and are quite easily compared to very accurate global estimates taken from ice samples reaching back hundreds of thousands of years.

I hate posting this off topic stuff when we have a "global warming" thread, but come on. Yes, I was around when everyone said we were doomed due to the hole in the ozone layer. These ultra-liberal types are a tad alarmist to say the least.

But we're at at 400.91ppm today and have never been above something like 300pm in the 400k or so years that we can reliably track CO2 concentration. Does that mean the world is going to end? Not necessarily. But it's one hell of a gamble considering CO2, temperature and sea level are quite obviously linked.

You shouldn't need to get too much deeper than that to see there is clearly a man-made issue here. Unless of course NOAA is just fabricating all these data points to make Elon rich.

 

[nwdiver]

I hate posting this off topic stuff when we have a "global warming" thread, but come on. Yes, I was around when everyone said we were doomed due to the hole in the ozone layer. These ultra-liberal types are a tad alarmist to say the least.

Well... we had the Montreal Protocol that mostly solved the CFC problem. So we'll never really know if that would have been as bad as some people were claiming. Calling them alarmist is a bit like saying that if you don't get a measles vaccine you'll get measles; Getting the vaccine; Then calling all the calls to vaccinate 'alarmist' because you never got measles.... yeah... maybe the fact you never got measles has something to do with the vaccine. Maybe the fact that the ozone issues never happened has something to do with the Montreal Protocol....