Did Obama just give Tesla a huge bump?

[Mycroft]

Exactly chrono. I consider myself conservative. I believe global warming is likely a fact and that it really doesn't matter if it's being helped along by human activities, because the amount of change that would be required of human activities to cause even a minuscule amount of reduction in warming would be cataclysmic! On top of that, we are a single volcanic eruption from a new global ice age.

That said, I love EV technology because it reduces our dependence on foreign oil, it extends the life of all oil sources that we need to make products, and unlike ICE technology, EVs can be powered from a wide variety of sources.

 

[NigelM]

I believe global warming is likely a fact and that it really doesn't matter if it's being helped along by human activities...

The world is getting warmer, that's an undisputed fact. The question is whether the human population is causing it. I really liked Elon's point that he made in the Charlie Rose interview (thread here) when he said (and I paraphrase!) that even if global warming is 99% natural why would we even want to help it along that extra 1%? It makes no sense to deliberately accelerate global warming and fossil fuels are a limited resource anyway.

Like most Americans I agree with both political parties on some issues. Obama is right when he pushes the point that this country needs to reduce its dependency on oil. There's plenty of other threads around here where the members have highlighted the lunacy of subsidizing our use of a limited resource.

 

[Iamthecaliflower]

I'm a moderate (leaning towards conservative) and I agree that the only way America can get out of the mess it is in, is to do some of the things Obama mentioned. The Government needs to make money available, in the form of long term loans (not bailout/free money), for the purpose of pushing the development of infrastructure. I disagree with his plan to push for better education, while I agree that reform is needed. I think reform of teachers unions will have to play a big role in education reform, but that' snot really relevant (even though it sort of is, since we need more capable "American" engineers that can build the technology). Requiring mandatory schooling through age 18 may not be constitutional, since it may impose an "unreasonable burden" on certain families. Building factories/ facilities that can facilitate the transition over to EV requires billions of dollars in R&D. Tesla is not along in doing this. They just happen to be at the head of the game. Regardless of if it can be proven that we are speeding up the process of climate change, there is no question that the Precautionary Principle should be applied to something this significant. To ignore Climate change is to doom our species, or to produce a world where 4-5 generations down the road, the cost of "ALL THINGS", becomes more than anyone that manage. Oil will eventually reach $150-200 a barrel. What then? Not saying what Obama is proposing is going to save the world, but this is definitely something that needs to be discussed now, especially when you consider that any policies/bills signed into law will not see a "SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" for 5-10 years.

 

[dpeilow]

"EVs are good because they move us toward energy independence. Less foreign oil means a safer America." Say that to your right-leaning friends, and they will be on your side in a heartbeat. Stop talking about global warming; they aren't listening.

You're assuming that MIC wants that scenario.

 

[Uncle Ron]

EDIT,,

 

[AnOutsider]

Dang, can't believe I feel asleep and missed it.

 

[Dave EV]

The world is getting warmer, that's an undisputed fact. The question is whether the human population is causing it.

There really is very little doubt that human activities are behind global warming in the scientific community. Most of the doubt is related to how much warmer the globe will get and the effects from said warming.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

There really is very little doubt that human activities are behind global warming in the scientific community. Most of the doubt is related to how much warmer the globe will get and the effects from said warming.

Enough to delay the next ice age apparently!
BBC News - Carbon emissions

 

[dmckinstry]

Judge Obama by his actions, not by what he says. They are not by any means the same!

Much of what he said was "Send me the bill and I will sign it." That's irrelevant, since they'll never send him a bill that he's asked for, even if they happen to agree with it.

 

[Norbert]

He had to be circumspect about doing that after Solyndra though. And, whatever we all might say, the Model S is still not a car for the masses so, the President should not be seen to be touting a company that makes cars for the relatively well off (atleast as of now).

We should look at Model S as a demonstration of what is technically possible, not as a car for the wealthy. As soon as it is being delivered, of course. The only reason to be hesitant is that we need the proof to be on the road, in fact that will be the point of it, so better wait for that before making too big words.

 

[Norbert]

Plug-ins are a huge environmental win, but according to studies of buyers, the environment plays by far the smallest role in influencing buying decisions. Saving money over a comparably cool car is #1, and national security & economy is a big #2.

Or it has come to the point where we use "saving money" as an excuse for "being environmental". Saving money still pretty much requires the tax credit(s), and isn't a good justification for political support which is more or less necessary if we want to go faster than slow motion.

Some recognize and appreciate the environmental aspect of solar power before it reaches grid parity, and some will do so only afterwards. Eventually more or less everyone will. The combination of (locally generated) renewable power and electric cars will be efficient in many ways (including cost-efficient and security-efficient). This is fortunately where technology, innovation is heading in the coming years. However it won't happen automatically.

Partisan issues distract from how obvious this would otherwise be, from how it makes sense. We'll either "save money" and "be environmental", or loose both. However we need to invest first.

 

[Larry Chanin]

We (as a group) do ourselves a disservice by selling EV technology primarily as an environment issue. I always sell it as a national security issue first, with environmental impact a side benefit.

I completely agree.

Plug-ins are a huge environmental win, but according to studies of buyers, the environment plays by far the smallest role in influencing buying decisions. Saving money over a comparably cool car is #1, and national security & economy is a big #2.

Or it has come to the point where we use "saving money" as an excuse for "being environmental". Saving money still pretty much requires the tax credit(s), and isn't a good justification for political support which is more or less necessary if we want to go faster than slow motion.

Some recognize and appreciate the environmental aspect of solar power before it reaches grid parity, and some will do so only afterwards. Eventually more or less everyone will. The combination of (locally generated) renewable power and electric cars will be efficient in many ways (including cost-efficient and security-efficient). This is fortunately where technology, innovation is heading in the coming years. However it won't happen automatically.

Partisan issues distract from how obvious this would otherwise be, from how it makes sense. We'll either "save money" and "be environmental", or loose both. However we need to invest first.

These are all excellent points.

It's ironic that the one thing that both conservatives and liberals share is that they breath the same air. One would think that knowing we are polluting the atmosphere and effecting our health would be a common and compelling argument to pursue these sustainable energy approaches. Apparently, it isn't.

We know that in the long run these sustainable technologies will eventually overtake fossil fuels on an economic basis. And it seems that the almighty dollar is the only way to alter the behavior of the majority regardless of political leanings. Then, it follows that there are good reasons for governments to intervene with carbon taxes, etc., to get us where we need to be a bit faster, and in doing so perhaps improve the quality of life for our children as a "side benefit".

Larry

 

[NigelM]

It's ironic that the one thing that both conservatives and liberals share is that they breath the same air. One would think that knowing we are polluting the atmosphere and effecting our health would be a common and compelling argument to pursue these sustainable energy approaches.

Agree 100%. One thing I've never understood about the U.S. is this insistence on labeling ourselves/others, particularly when it gets back to front. In this case "Conservatives" are ready to drill, baby, drill while "Liberals" want to protect and save. In other words Conservatives want to be liberal with the environment and Liberals want to be conservative with it.

We know that in the long run these sustainable technologies will eventually overtake fossil fuels on an economic basis. And it seems that the almighty dollar is the only way to alter the behavior of the majority regardless of political leanings.

That's human nature in the modern developed world. We're living on credit and not worrying enough about tomorrow or about future generations.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Many things caught my ear in the SOTU, including:

I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising.

End all subsidies to the oil companies? That would help balance the budget.

I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -– with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

Here's unilateral action by the president that will create demand for renewable energy technologies and demand for renewable energy. btw, those numbers are 3,000MW on federal lands, 250MW of energy purchases from the Navy. Unclear why the Army is exempted!

 

[WhiteKnight]

It's ironic that the one thing that both conservatives and liberals share is that they breath the same air. One would think that knowing we are polluting the atmosphere and effecting our health would be a common and compelling argument to pursue these sustainable energy approaches. Apparently, it isn't.

The reason we have a $5,000 tax credit in Georgia, has little to do with the legislature's liberal leanings (this just in - Georgia is a red state) and everything to do with the really bad smog problem we have.

I'm getting two custom bumper stickers made for my Tesla. One will say "SMOG-FREE" and the other will say "OPEC-FREE." There is no one with an IQ above 85 that does not want the elimination of SMOG and OPEC.

 

[zack]

It's easy to promote EVs without ever mentioning green or environment. EVs are national security machines. They will eliminate our need for foreign oil from non-friendlies for good. No matter what your political view, anything that makes Americans energy-independent is obviously a reasonable goal.

Plus they're so fun to drive that a single test ride will give most people a permanent case of the wants.

 

[NigelM]

I'm getting two custom bumper stickers made for my Tesla. One will say "SMOG-FREE" and the other will say "OPEC-FREE." There is no one with an IQ above 85 that does not want the elimination of SMOG and OPEC.

We only get about 18% of our oil from OPEC, we get about 20% from Canada and Mexico and about 16% from other countries, the rest we produce ourselves.

Notes: I rounded all the numbers and the best source is the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

 

[ElSupreme]

The reason we have a $5,000 tax credit in Georgia, has little to do with the legislature's liberal leanings (this just in - Georgia is a red state) and everything to do with the really bad smog problem we have.

Yeah used to live in Vinings near 285. And running at 6:30pm in the summer felt like you were running at 10,000 feet.

 

[Doug_G]

We only get about 18% of our oil from OPEC, we get about 20% from Canada and Mexico and about 16% from other countries, the rest we produce ourselves.

Don't worry, now that they've stopped the XL pipeline, we're going to sell our Canadian oil to China instead.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know about Obama, but the stock is up about 10% this week!